Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

Muslims and Buddhists do not want to impose their religion on us. They don’t ask us for their prayers in schools. I guess you don’t realize your bigotry when you say that you never see atheists who are respectful of other peoples believes in the media. But I do see good Christians who are respectful of other people’s beliefs like in Charlottesville

 

Or that nothing times nobody equals everything.

 

If that we're proof, it would be proof of Islam as well.

 

Nonsense, Islam is about imposing their beliefs. Go to a Muslim nation and preach atheism and see what happens. Buddhists also persecute Christians.

 

Cite? Allah is rather remote, and not a personal God.

 

Obviously you don’t follow Bill Maher because he did a movie all about satirizing religion. He is very outspoken on the subject

 

We are not a Muslim nation, we are not a nation of religion.I think it is terrible what they do in Muslim nations
Christians murdered 9,000,000 so don’t hold yourself morally superior.

 

Keep in mind that accepting and worshiping are two different things.

I am Christian, in that I accept and believe that the Christ is the final door by which we get home. That said, I don't hold that any Denomination nor Christianity as a whole has it completely right, nor is the only way. I cannot concept a loving spiritual parent that has only one basis by which we can come home.

As to other gods, I do hold to a single creator deity. What exactly these other gods are is still up for debate. I would not be surprised if they were the Creator presenting as multiple individuals. I already hold that the Creator is neither male nor female, or both. Had they chosen to create Eve first, then we'd be a majority matriarchal race worshiping Goddess.

 

How do you know it is anything more material than just feelings and emotions though?

 

Well, color me interested. I see shades of the Greek philosopher Xenophanes.

 

No more remote than Yahweh. Both are presented as "remote" (which is what "holy" means, roughly) and personal.

 

The question is whether science should be the standard by which to judge all belief.

 

What if it can be observed in ways that are convincing to the individual, but not to other people based on pure logic?

 

your right, I should of said Monotheism

 

It is not a question for ME and many others.

 

Er...
WUT??!?

I get the Buddhist part, but the Muslim part? Really?

What alternate reality are you transmitting from?

P.S. The Charlotte reference is absurd. You're making yourself look ridiculous. Just a friendly tip.

 

To be quite honest I took it as monotheism. I threw the point about not be limited to Christians more for the larger audience.

 

Then it’s a feeling. Nothing more.

 

No, I don't see ANY justification for that.

The difference has to do with the question being asked.

If you want to know why we are here, what the purpose of having humans might be, or anything related to the supernatural (hell, miricles, etc.) then you are in the realm of religion and science has nothing to say.

If you want to know how something in this universe works, how did earth come about, how does our immune system work, how do insects work, how does photosynthesis work, how does reproduction work, etc., you are in the realm of science and religion doesn't have anything to say.

There is no reason for seeing the two to be in conflict. You should be able to hold your religion regardless of science. And, you as a religious person should be able to accept what science discovers concerning how this universe woks.

And when conducting science, when figuring out how something works, scientists put aside their religion. Many of our most famous scientists have held religious beliefs - it's just that their lasting work of science didn't depend on religious principles.

It's just a matter of what question you're asking and picking the right tools for the job.

 

Science is just a collection of methods that work pretty well for making discoveries about the natural world. There is no reason to believe these methods are completely applicable outside of this domain. But I do think we need a rigorous evidence-based method for determining truth in other areas.

Good point. For example, If I saw an alien but wasn't able to get any documented evidence, then its going to be convincing to me, but not very convincing to you since you didn't experience it first-hand with me. But at least I as the witness should be very sure I saw an alien and am not misinterpreting what I saw.

 

In the case of religion, that evidence is most likely to be personal.

If there is a God, it seems apparent that he must be hiding his obvious existence from all of human society, for some reason, or several reasons.

 

I wouldn't define Jesus as very personal. Anyone who requires one-sided conversations (prayers) isn't personal. Its like the thousands of emails I keep sending Katy Petty, and she never sends one back. But I think she's communicating with me with my feeling and random things that happen in my life! When Jesus finally accepts one of my invitations to dinner or responds to all my phone calls and text messages, then my relationship with him will be personal.

 

I agree that the evidence must me personal if God exists. If he is trying as hard as he can to hide from us, then he obviously isn't going to be offended if we don't believe he exists, and won't have a lake of fire ready for those nice peaceful Buddhists.

 

Well that's not exactly what I said.​

He might be offended if we don't try to search for him.

Certainly, even if we can't be expected to believe that God exists with certainty, we could still be expected to exercise certain ethical conduct.

If you look at the history of prophets in the OT, their primary message was to try to get people to stop doing evil, not convince them that there was an all-powerful God.