Teaching this bullshit to children is child abuse, plain and simple. They gotta get ‘em while they’re young and impressionable, make that fear stick…even as SHOULD become clear to an adult that it’s an absurdity. It’s the fear that overrides the reason.

It’s brainwashing, without question — and it should be illegal…to burn into a child’s brain that either it does this or that or it will BURN IN HELL…over and over and over. It should be illegal to teach (brainwash) a child that she/he is NOTHING (“wretches” “sinners”) without some fairytale being that they dont’ even understand — but they do understand being NOTHING or innately bad.

And the consequences of teaching this to our children? Look at our self-destructive, self-loathing world…even trashing the very planet we live on. Religion is the ultimate and most insidious CULT. Damn right, it should be a crime to do this to children.

I find the above quote funny. Though I am not Christian, a scripture that suits my personality, actually promotes questioning.

l Thessalonians 5:21

“Test everything, hold on to the good.”

Sidharth….. who? Kindly provide the story. Then you can tell us why we would believe in a story about someone we don’t know at all.

If you think that a cure for cancer or any other disease will be released to the public, you are sadly mistaken.

Oh. Are you a conspiracy nut? …. Somewhere, in a secret government lab, they have a cure for cancer. But they won’t let us have it. Because they invented cancer in the first place to control the population levels……. Makes fair movie copy I guess.

That depends on whether we’re deciding that, “barring evidence to the contrary, it’s not there”, or “I can definitively state that it’s not there”.

Besides, you said you are looking for evidence to support what you want to be true. That is what they call bad science. You draw the conclusion from the available evidence, rather than look for the evidence to match the desired conclusion.

I’ll concede that.

Having said that, happy hunting and good luck with those unicorns.

*grin* Thanks.

Maybe I’m missing some subtle nuance, but those two statements appear to mean the same thing to me. Exist = is.

I can’t say that I’ve personally undertaken any serious archaeological work on or research into unicorns, but everything I’ve heard about them indicates they never existed in anything but myths. How long and far do we keep searching for something before we decide that it’s just not there. Forever?

Besides, you said you are looking for evidence to support what you want to be true. That is what they call bad science. You draw the conclusion from the available evidence, rather than look for the evidence to match the desired conclusion.

Having said that, happy hunting and good luck with those unicorns.

I understand the argument about burden of proof, but isn’t there a difference between not believing God exists, and believing there is no God?

To refer to the popular unicorn argument, the person claiming a unicorn exists would carry the burden of proof. But for me to authoritatively state that there are no unicorns, anywhere, and never were, I would feel a need to have searched for evidence for and against before making such a claim.

Personally, I am looking for evidence God does exist. I want to remain a theist. I am also open to the possibility of unicorns.

I like the image of the useless/non-existent sword being waved around. But I dsagree about atheists and agnostics having to prove the non-existence of god. That concedes the believers’ assertion that god is the default position. IT IS NOT.

God is a theory, and the onus is on the proponents of that theory to prove it, using scientific method. They have never done so. Being unable to do so, their favourite response is to turn the tables and say “prove there is no god”. Don’t let them away with it or encourage them.

You asked, So, would it make any sense for me, a Christian, to lay down my choice sword when it is my only defense?

Of course it wouldn’t. But if your sword has neither point nor edge and indeed is missing both blade and hilt, no one is obliged to pretend to be injured simply because you believe you have a sword in your waving hand.

If the bible is your only defence, it may be time to consider why you have no defence for your beliefs outside of the bible.

You further went on to say, In the case of the existence of God, the agnostic or atheist must first have investigated all possible means for determining that outcome.

I agree, if you define God as a being with no interest in humanity and no impact on reality. If, on the other hand, you define God as one who loves humanity and intervenes in human history, all one needs to investigate is human history and look for evidence of God at work in our world today. You are right in saying that the authoritative claim “There is no God” needs to be the result of extraordinary study. But to say, “If there is a God, that God is not working in the world today and makes so little impact on our lives that there would be no difference if there was no God” is a much smaller claim more easily made by looking at the world we live in and our lives here. This claim can be made by the person investigating.