What I found out about God...

[and-justice-for-all]

Following his acclaimed radio series on faith, John Humphrys remains astounded by the huge response. As our thoughts turn to the Nativity, he re-examines his own beliefs

There seem to be so many devout Christians out there, it makes you wonder why there are so many empty pews on Sunday mornings. I have always been puzzled by the prayer thing... God is either interventionist or he is not.

more.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/23/ngod23.xml

[Erika]

1. Or God is only a myth for the weak. n/t

[zeemike]

2. Why would a devout Christian

Go to a church and listen to the preacher preach the opposite of what Jesus taught and justify it with Paul's writings?
The churches have been striped of all there spirituality and replaced it with a dogma that is against the teachings of Jesus.

[RC]

3. BINGO! We have a winner!

Religion is about power and control, not souls and any afterlife.

[peanutbrittle]

6. The adulterated and abused version of Christianity

or other religions is the problem. Christianity and religion does have a positive impact on mankind when taught and utilized properly.

[Oleladylib]

7. Thank you..DU has begun to lose all credibility with most of the

idiot postings regarding Christianity.. I appreciate your post. If these idiots are supposedly Democrats for Democracy..theirs is a boat with a huge hole in it...We don't push our Christianity on others but neither do we expect to be defiled. Merry Christmas!

[beam me up scottie]

8. Were you always a hypocrite or did you learn that in Sunday school?

Calling your fellow DUers "idiots" because you don't like their opinion about christianity is decidedly freeperesque.

So is expecting others to revere your god when it has no more credibility than any other mythical entity.

No one on DU "defiled" you or any other christian, they commented on religion in the RELIGION AND THEOLOGY forum.

Believers who feel compelled to pitch a hissy fit whenever someone disses their religion should either suck it up or learn to utilize the ignore button.

[zeemike]

9. Who is Charles Bradlaugh

Not familiar with him but amazes at his comment that "I do not deny "God", because that word conveys to me no idea"
And then there is a strange link to a sight that seems to be for the intellectual thinker...Am I the only one that sees the irony of that?
If one cannot put aside his own bias and prejudice to take the time to develop a concept that he may or may not believe in then it seems the exact opposite of intellectual.
It is like saying that I am too stupid to grasp a concept that I don't already understand.

[beam me up scottie]

10. Google is your friend.

But judging from the amount of non sequiturs in your post, you're going to need a lot more help than what you'll find there.

Not familiar with him but amazes at his comment that "I do not deny "God", because that word conveys to me no idea"

It's pretty simple, define your god and I'll let you know whether or not I deny him/her/it.

And then there is a strange link to a sight that seems to be for the intellectual thinker...Am I the only one that sees the irony of that?

Actually, it's a site for free thinkers. You probably wouldn't like it if you don't understand the quote in my signature.

If one cannot put aside his own bias and prejudice to take the time to develop a concept that he may or may not believe in then it seems the exact opposite of intellectual.

So, I should develop a belief in god so that I can decide whether or not I believe in him/her/it? :crazy:

It is like saying that I am too stupid to grasp a concept that I don't already understand.

No, it's like saying you can't deny something when you don't even know what "it" is.

Admitting that you don't understand a concept doesn't make you stupid, it makes you honest.

[zeemike]

14. Well thanks for your honesty

And no I don't hold it against someone that does not understand, but really have you never heard a definition of God in your life?
And if not what sources have you sought out? they could not have been much because they number in the hundreds of books some of which are thousands of years old.
But for my definition of God please se my above post so that I do not repeat myself.
No you do not need to develop a belief in God to understand the word, just as you do not need to understand gravity to know what it is or electromagnetic force, or any of the other concepts in our language.
Is a free thinker one that does not recognize the unexplainable?

[beam me up scottie]

18. Do you think my absence of faith means I'm somehow deficient?

Why should I seek out someone else's deity?

Has it ever occurred to you that I was born this way and have no desire to change?

[zeemike]

24. Not at all

Your lack of faith only shows me you are on a certain path to consciousness, one that I would never change, because you are closer to enlightenment than the true christian believer. I know that may sound strange but it is never the less the truth.
I was an atheist until i was about 30 and I know the path well.

[beam me up scottie]

26. I'm closer to enlightenment than true christians?

Fascinating.

[zeemike]

67. I must correct myself

I should have said most christian believers, primarily the fundies who have a low level of understanding of the spiritual.
You have a higher level of understanding because you understand science which is a part of the spiritual.

[beam me up scottie]

22. And your Edgar Caycian "definition" of God is as clear as mud.

The description of god is universal consciousness.

WTF does "universal consciousness" mean?

Now that may at first be hard to wrap ones mind around the concept but never the less that what God is.

Yeah, it is, but it's because the term is meaningless, not because it's hard to "wrap one's mind around" it.

You and i are single cells of consciousness whereas God is the body of it, the whole of many parts, much like we are the whole of cellular life and the cell is the individual.

"single cells of consciousness"?

As far as evidence that the universal consciousness exist, it is beyond proof, but if you look at nature itself you could ask the question how could it not be so.

Don't you mean beyond explanation?

[zeemike]

27. Glad you ask

Universal consciousness is the sum total of consciousness.
We as individuals have a consciousness and through it we experience the world. And the sum total of all of our individual experiences is God consciousness. Again difficult for us to conceive of but no more so than something like gravity.
It is not beyond explanation but it is beyond proof.

[beam me up scottie]

29. No, it's definitely beyond explanation.

Most nonsense is.

Unlike gravity, which can be explained and understood.

Phrases like "beyond proof" always trigger my Baloney Detection Kit.

[zeemike]

32. If it is baloney you want then it is baloney you get.

And yet you have not explained gravity or the other things I have brought up.
So much easier to blow it off as baloney than to get into that.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Actually, what I wanted was the definition and/or explanation of God you claimed to have.

What I got was a bunch of psycho-babble would make the time cube guy green envious.

[zeemike]

40. Well I gave it in the above post titled :"glad you asked"

And I could explain it in much greater detail if you want.
But if you are convinced it is all psycho babble there is not much reason to devote my time to doing so.

[beam me up scottie]

41. No, you didn't.

The term "universal consciousness" when used as a definition of God is meaningless.

You said yourself it was beyond proof.

Get back to me when you can define "God" and/or provide evidence that it exists.

[zeemike]

44. Well universal consciousness is the definition of god

Whether you understand it or not.

[trotsky]

46. "Universal consciousness"

You explain that term by saying it's the sum total of all the consciousnesses of the universe. Okey dokey. That's your god. Can your god act or create or DO anything? Does it have an existence apart from all the living animals that generate consciousness? Can consciousness be created or destroyed? Do you have any physical formulae that discuss conservation of consciousness? Can it be measured?

[zeemike]

52. First let me explain that this is not my theory

Although I believe it is truth and have faith in it.
It is a very old idea that goes back as far as written history and maybe beyond, and it has been explained far better than I can by people much more talented in writing than me.
As you say Goggle is your friend, and if you are serious about wanting to know you can find all you want without me trying to explain it all near my bedtime.
But dream time is calling me now so Happy holidays to your and yours for now.

[beam me up scottie]

55. So, you believe in it but can't explain it or prove it exists.

We're right back to where we started.

Why should I look for your deity when you admit it has no more credibility than any other?

[trotsky]

56. Sorry, not going to do your research for you.

If you decide to explain it IN YOUR TERMS, indicating to me that you actually understand it, send me a PM. Otherwise, I'll assume you just latched onto the words because they sounded good.

[zeemike]

59. Trotsky I should have know you would be here.

Too tired to do more tonight but will PM you if you like.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Ah, the Peewee Herman belief system.

I know you are but what am I?

:rofl:

[cosmik debris]

11. Yep, I think you are the only one who sees irony in that.

You also seem to see some inherent meaning in the word "god". Most atheists see the word god as a null concept, without definition or meaning other than the meanings made up for the occasion.

I don't deny god either. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "god". So please feel free to define god and provide evidence that I might consider. And if you want others to "take the time to develop a concept" you should first show that the concept has some real impact in this world.

[zeemike]

12. I would be glad to

The description of god is universal consciousness.
Now that may at first be hard to wrap ones mind around the concept but never the less that what God is.
You and i are single cells of consciousness whereas God is the body of it, the whole of many parts, much like we are the whole of cellular life and the cell is the individual.
As far as evidence that the universal consciousness exist, it is beyond proof, but if you look at nature itself you could ask the question how could it not be so.

[and-justice-for-all]

17. The term "G-d" used in a...

..Metaphorical sence, as it has been used by Einstein and Hawkings, is acceptable. But to use the wrod "G-d" in a dogmatic and mystical sence to describe the universe and all of its workings is not justifiable or even realistic.

Since one can not prove or show any evidence that there is/was a devine presents that created everything as we know, it is only reasonable to say that it does not exist. The lack of evidence does not prove its existence at all, faith in something with a lack of proof is blind faith and wishful thinking.
You can not ask me to disprove your invisiable friend when you can not give me anything tangable to observe for a conclusive answer to the question of "porve me wrong", you have not given me anything to prove you wrong with other then an idea. There first has to be evidence of its existence, the universe as we know it and everything in it is not proof of that devive deities existence. There is more (meaning ZERO) evidence against the existence of "G-d" then there is for supporting its existence, just because a mass amount of people share the same delusion does not make it true.

When evaluating the question of G-d, you must also ask "well then, who created G-d?" Something can not come from nothing and Natural Selection is by no stretch of the word, CHANCE.

[zeemike]

21. "well then, who created G-d?"

Now that raises a interesting question.
Why do you suppose that god was created?
Is there any such thing as time? Can you show me a beginning and an end to it? What proof do you have of time? It is after all only our perception of it that makes it real to us. We have faith that time exists and so it does.
And should we list everything that we cannot prove exists but accept on faith? Like gravity, like matter? What is a proton made up of? is it a little chunk of nickel or iron? no we know it cannot be that so what is it? And if matter exists then how can an entire universe be drawn into a black hole and be squashed into a tiny ball. (or that is what we think happens)
And how can gravity be felt throughout the universe instantaneously?
Now is the time to bring up string theory and when you do I will show you how a mystical world of spirit can exist right along side of us and we not know it is there.

[cosmik debris]

25. Your failure to grasp physics is astounding n/t

[zeemike]

28. Are you trying to tell me that string theory is also a myth? n/t

[cosmik debris]

31. String theory is a theory

Is your universal consciousness god a theory too?

[zeemike]

36. Well it could be considered that

To serve the same purpose as a theory serves, to explain something that cannot be proved with present tools and facts.
String theory tries to make sense of the universe that is way beyond our understanding and that contains facts the blow the mind.

[cosmik debris]

38. We need to agree on some terms.

Here is the definition of "Theory" I pulled off of wikipedia. Is this what you mean by theory?

"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

[zeemike]

42. you could still call it a theory

But to test it requires first a knowledge of a spiritual dimension (or one could think of it as a fifth dimension) to do the testing in.
String theory is in that same predicament in that other dimensions must be found and proven to give the theory a test.

[cosmik debris]

53. What natural phenomena

Does it explain? What future occurrences does it predict? What observations of the same kind are predicted? How can it be falsified? What empirical observations can be made?

[zeemike]

68. It explains all natural phenomenon

Gravity is that force which holds the universe together and so is a force of the creator.
And it explains miracles the sudden healing of the sick, the virgin birth, the kingdom of Christ that was promised us and all supernatural things.
I know now that you believe none of them ever happened and it is all just a ruse to get your money and some of it is, but not all of it.
The stories of the miracles that Jesus preformed are true despite how hard you find them to believe. But you lack the information of the spiritual worlds existence and an understanding of how it applies to the natural world of our 4 dimensional existence.

[cosmik debris]

75. You are missing a few things

Gravity is not the force that holds nuclei together. Gravity is not the force that holds electrons in orbit. You shouldn't have cut so many science classes.

Nothing you say has any relevance because it is all opinion . And it is based on some of the worst high school science I have seen in a long time.

So, back to the original question and the my original answer. You have given me no reason to waste any time thinking about your universal consciousness god. There is no verifiable evidence of existence or impact on me or my world. I see no reason why any reasonable or intellectual person would spend time to construct a concept of something that has no verifiable existence or influence on the real world. It is not an intellectual pursuit. It is an emotional quest for "feeling good". It has nothing to do with intellect, evidence, or constructing a concept.

[zeemike]

79. Gravity is not the force that holds things together? prove it?

That is if you can in a manner that is not insulting but informative.
And if things are so clear to you then why does science need string theory to try to explain some things that they struggle with?
So I am all ears tell me what force holds the electron in orbit Around it's nucleus. And explain the difference between gravity and a particle charge, and while you are at it tell us what thous particles are made of? Other particles or strings of energy with different vibrations levels?

Now be honest you do not know and that is what Quantum Physics is all about, trying to explain the unexplainable.

[cosmik debris]

80. When you have mastered this, get back to me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_nuclear_force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forces#Types_of_force

edited to add third link

[zeemike]

83. I am aware of the strong and weak nuclear force theory

Still it doesn't prove anything and cannot explain many of the mysteries of this universe whether it is in the Macro or the Micro.
There are no definitive answers in that theory and it is just as well an explanation as string theory.
There has yet to be a unified theory of the universe.

[cosmik debris]

84. It is true that not all things are explained

But there is evidence to support the strong and weak forces. And that is better than what you have provided. (i.e. no evidence at all)

And it destroys your idea that gravity controls everything. If you are going to make up stuff that lame, you need to do it in a forum where there are no scientist.

[zeemike]

86. Later then...gota go to work n/t

[Evoman]

61. Ha. string theory is barely even a hypothesis.

but at least its got some sort of mathematical support.

[cosmik debris]

64. I stand corrected. n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

37. NO...

.Its a scientific theory that has yet to be confirmed, but it is a work in progress. Will it hatch fact? thats yet to be determined. but if it is not plausable, Scientist will admit it, unlike that of religion.

[and-justice-for-all]

45. LOL....Physics isnt for everyone...nt

[cosmik debris]

48. That speed of gravity thing really gets me laughing!

It sure shows the level of understanding you might expect.

[and-justice-for-all]

35. Lets see....

"I dont suppose g-d was created" at all..
Yes, time, is measureable and very proveable. It takes light "Time" to cross "Distance" and that light is measurable. Point of origin would be the "begining" and these is no end, other then when it crosses with matter. But, Time is inffinent. I think light is proof of Time, from point A to point B takes TIME. Time is a unit of measure.
I dont have "Faith" in time, thats absurd. "Faith" is believeing what you know isnt so, it is not so because there is no evidence supporting "Faith", notta-nothing-zero. Time is measurable, Faith is blind.

Gravity = PROVABLE/Measurable
MATTER = PROVABLE/Tangable and measurable
PORTONS = PROVABLE/Tangable and measureable
Faith = Make-believe and wishful thinking. Not tangable and only measurable by head count of the delusionalmasses who follow things which can not be measured or proven to exist.

Blackholes are measurable and provable, you can even tell through observation that there is a massive blackhole in the center of our galaxy. Because of the light that crosses space and time that comes into contact with the blackhole, bends and that can been seen. The black hole also effects time itself.

Gravity is determined by mass, mass can be measured and its gravitational effect calculated based on observations and proven theories that support it.

String Theory has not been proven, but continues to be debated about.

[zeemike]

39. So in some other universe

Where the planet takes 50 of our years to go around the planet is that only a year to them that reside there?
And so if time is a measurement then what is the distance across the whole universe, from the beginning of one side to the other?

And what is the speed of gravity sense it seems to be instantaneous across the entire universe?
And if time is real it must have a beginning and an end. Where would that be? if it is a measurement it must be finite, you cannot have a yard stick with no beginning or end or measurement is not real.

[and-justice-for-all]

43. .....Oh my...

"The Planet" or "a Planet"?? "Other" universe as in Andromeda? or "Alternate" universe which is only theoretical??

A Planets trip around its Star can can measured, of course. What its in habitents may call is not known, but to us it is measured as it is here. Why? Because we can make those observations.

The distance from one side of the Milky Way to the other is 150,000au and the thinkness from top to bottom is 200,000au.

Gravity does not have any speed, gravity is only determined by the mass against it. It is a push pull relationship between Gravity and mass.

We can see, with out instruments and current tech, all the way back to what is suspected to being the begining og the universe. Time has always existed and always will, we are just a speaking, self aware and conscious beings capable of calling it TIME/Space/Gravity whatever. Again, all of which is measurable and provable...Time is real, it takes time for the Earth to travel it route around the Sun. We use that orbit to determine our time, seasons and such. We measure our time based on the Sun and our relationship to it.

You know that the Yard Stick is real, without a doubt. Now, you can move forward and investigate further because you have evidence that it exist. I know the yard stick is real and tangable, so I will agree with you, no faith required. G-d on the other hand, is not measurable and can only be said to exist, not on evidence but on FAITH. Faith, is not proof.

[cosmik debris]

23. You've given me nothing

What evidence do you have that universal consciousness god exists.

And what evidence do you have that universal consciousness god has any impact on any part of my life.

Without evidence, I have no reason to consider universal consciousness god at all.

Tell me what gives your universal consciousness god more credibility or more influence than any other myth.

[zeemike]

30. You will have to get your own evidence

Because it is your consciousness of the world that matters to you, and nothing of a spiritual nature can be transfered to another person.
I could tell you of my experiences till I am blue in the face but until you experience it for yourself in your own time and in your own way it is futile.
But the answers are there if you really want them.

[cosmik debris]

34. So you have no evidence

That your god exists, and you have no evidence that it makes any difference.

You started this sub-thread with the question about why an intellectual person would not "take the time to develop a concept".

You have provided your own answer. There is no evidence to indicate existence or relevance of this universal consciousness god. It would be a waste of time to give that enough thought to develop a concept.

[zeemike]

49. No I said I have no evidence for you

I have all the evidence for myself to believe and it is tangible but only to me because it is my life experience and you would not accept my word for something like that now would you?
And I guess you would not wast your time thinking about it when you can think about what is acceptable and material to you.
And I would think that would include string theory as well as other deep scientific or philosophical subjects right?

[cosmik debris]

50. So your evidence is entirely subjective.

And that is good enough for you?

[zeemike]

57. No it is entirely personal

It is just that it was proved to me in a way that I could not discount, that there was a spiritual world...noting else...and from that I studied and learned what others knew about the spiritual world and god.
And that was only evidence for me because you could not benefit from anything I told you on the subject unless you have the same experience.
I am not trying to convert you to anything, just trying to show that an open mind is a hard thing to waste.

[Evoman]

62. can I ask what your personal evidence is?

edited for clearity

[zeemike]

69. I can only say that it convinced me as an atheist

That there was more to the universe than the physical world. and once knowing that I turned to ancient wisdom to give me an explanation. and that included eventually the bible.
But you must know that none of it would have made sense to me if I had not first accepted the reality that something existed that I knew noting about.

[cosmik debris]

63. That's what I said, subjective evidence

You can call it personal, but there is no difference. There is no objective evidence. None at all. And that is exactly the same evidence for unicorns, Thor, and Bullwinkle.

So let's get past the idea that there is no objective evidence for your universal consciousness god and get down to the heart of the matter. What difference does your god make. Can he cure disease, bring world peace, make the Cubs win the World Series? What does your god do that would make any difference to me?

[zeemike]

70. Objective...subjective...

Tell me what kind of evidence this would be...
You are walking through the woods alone and a unicorn comes up to you and you are allowed to touch his single horn to see it is real and maybe take a little ride on his back.
But when you tell someone about it they say you were hallucinating because EVERYONE KNOWS there are no unicorns and never have been.
Is it or not objective evidence, or does one have to kill a unicorn and bring it back to make sure there is no hoax. Can objective evidence ever be the observation of one person?

And you know that even God could not make the Cubs win the world series, although we can always hope that some day they will.

But it not even right to say the God does anything and is responsible fore anything beyond creation. It is we the inhabitants of this universe that can heal the sick and bring about world peace. And someday this will happen when the level of enlightenment is high enough for it to take place.
The miracles that Jesus preformed are real because Jesus understood how to live in the spiritual world as well as the physical.

[cosmik debris]

73. Of course that's not objective, don't be silly.

Objective evidence requires two or more observers seeing the SAME thing under the same conditions at different times. Objective evidence must be reproducible.

Personal experience or perception is never objective evidence.

If you told me that you had seen and touched a unicorn I would not use your "Everybody knows" rebuttal. I would just say "show me". When you made up infinite excuses, I would assume that there was no point in continuing to listen to you. It is far more probable that you were hallucinating than that a unicorn allowed you to touch it. That is a much more reasonable explanation for your behavior. And that is the explanation that would satisfy any curiosity on my part.

When a person tells me that they had an improbable experience, I figure that there is a probable explanation. There is an old saying in the (North American) scientific community: When you hear hoof beats, don't look for zebras.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

[zeemike]

76. Then by your definition it was objective

I was not the only one to experience it, my wife did also. But of course that was at the same time, but it is also reproducible and every day someone in the world reproduces it and is frustrated by not having there experiences taken seriously.
But despite the millions that have experienced it and the numbers of books and other written testimony to it it is still a hallucination because that is more reasonable, and one could look silly if found by his peers to believe in anything not already approved by the board of reason.

But wouldn't it be funny if one was in the planes and heard hoof beats and looked and saw a Zebra. You would not dare tell anyone about it because they know that Zebras do not live in North America. Well except for in the zoos from one a zebra could have escaped.

[cosmik debris]

78. You say it is reproducible -- so reproduce it.

Or show me how to reproduce it. It is that simple. When an objective observer (i.e. one without a preconceived bias)verifies the existence or impact of your universal consciousness god then I will have reason to investigate further.

Are you familiar with the $1 million challenge? It is a reward to anyone who can prove a supernatural event. Are you up to it? From what you are saying it should be easy to win the $1 million.

[zeemike]

81. Oh yes the Amazing Randy challenge

Have no interest in proving it to him. because no matter how high you jump the bar will always be set higher. A professional gambler once told me he never makes a bet that he doesn't know the outcome of.

Or you for that matter because you do not yet have the desire it takes and would not take the time or put forth the effort to learn the ancient art of meditation necessary to prove the existence of the spiritual world.
But no worry in death we prove it to ourselves if we have at least a little knowledge of the astral world.

[cosmik debris]

82. In other words, you can't reproduce it

Just like the unicorn example, you provide excuses not evidence. You provide opinion, not fact. You provide bogus "science" not verifiable experimental results.

So, back to the original question. Why would any intellectual person waste time on such a concept?

[zeemike]

85. Could it be that they want to know the truth?

And are willing to wade through a haystack to find the ring?
But if you want comfortable intellectual pursuit then study what has already been approved and think about that only. No one will ever accuse you of being stupid or ignorant.

[cosmik debris]

87. You metaphor is defective

There is no indication that there is a ring in the haystack. I won't go all over the countryside looking for haystacks to sift through on the speculation that PERHAPS one of them contains something of value.

It is not "comfortable intellectual pursuit" I want, it is productive intellectual pursuit. Searches for rings in haystacks are not usually productive.

[beam me up scottie]

51. God is the Borg?

Oh, look!

There's cosmik!



HI COSMIK!!! :hi:

[cosmik debris]

54. I'm traveling at the speed of gravity!!! n/t

:rofl:

[zeemike]

58. No you are travailing at a speed because of gravity n/t

[cosmik debris]

60. You're joking, right?

It helps when you use a smilie when you are joking so people don't think that you are just nuckin futz.:)

[zeemike]

71. No joke

No gravity no speed for anything. The universe would be motionless and that includes light which could not be created without gravity and motion.

[cosmik debris]

72. WOW! Not only did you fail to grasp physics

but you failed to understand electronics too. You are a treasury of misinformation.

[zeemike]

74. What in your world the properties of gravity are different?

Where if you want to go faster you just step on the gravity peddle and zoom away...that would be sooo cool.
And Ohms law does not apply instead you just fill your tank with electrons and go.
What a great world you have there Cosmik...

[cosmik debris]

77. In my world

Photons can be created without gravity i.e. LEDs or nuclear disintegration.

In my world F=MA (high school physics) where force (F) may be a number of things other than gravity such as chemical reactions or nuclear disintegration.

I admit that I have only one degree in Physics, so you may be able to stump me. But not with you faulty high school science fiction.

[and-justice-for-all]

65. Borg , Star Trek Borg thats, are pretty killer...

..Hope they bring them back in the next Star Trek movie.

Speaking of assemilation, do you see any similiarities between the Borg and Religion???

[and-justice-for-all]

13. You rock!!! nt

[beam me up scottie]

15. What is it with people who don't read the articles in here?

That was an incredibly well written and completely inoffensive op-ed. Thank you for posting it.

I guess for some christians, it's easier to snark and run than to try to understand people who aren't like them.

[and-justice-for-all]

20. This is perhaps why...

..Deep down they all know that there is no omnipresent being in the sky who knows everything about everything, all the way to the nano-second. People give up their life savings, not to people who need it, but to Church Corperations that would other wise fold over night if people stopped handing over incomes for empty promises.

If they were all to stay home a just believe and contribute to society in a productive manner for the betterment of all, this would not be an issue. I wouldnt give 2 shits about what they believe, but their ideology has overflown into several aspects of everyone elses lives that it was not welcome into. Holding up vaccines and lying to push ahead an agenda that is globally destuctive is something that needs to put a stop to, these Church/Religious Corperations are the reason why the world is in the state that it is currently in.

Religion is a social illness.

[Oleladylib]

16. Theiropinion about Christianity as you put it...yes, portrays

them as idiots..they obviously are entitled to their opinion but here at DU I would think allowing others the right to worship God would be right up there with other personal freedoms which we dems so proudly defend. People who don't appreciate Christianity's positivity can either "suck it up or learn to utilize the ignore button. I love the haters of religion the peruse the Religion and Theology forums..Always tempting isn't it fellas..By the way..didn't go to SS.

[beam me up scottie]

19. See, that's the thing, the op isn't his opinion. It's the title of the article, oh-enlightened-one.

But do go on, I love to see members of the Iwannabeoffended Club dig themselves in deeper as they wave their arms and knash their teeth at imagined slights. ;)

[Evoman]

66. Your not a very nice person...calling people idiots.

I mean...I really don't think anyone here is saying that other people have no right to worship god. Maybe I have it wrong though...maybe this post really is an example of christian positivity though. Maybe by calling people who disagree with you idiots, you are showing us what its really like...really like to be Christian.

Meh.

Suck it.

Evoman

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed

It's about the green foldin' money goin' into the collection plate.

[xchrom]

5. woooops! there it is!