Grateful what gives your religion the right to kill people if they are not of your Religion, refuse to accept your Religion or don't have a Religion at all?

I had noted that, grateful.

<<Firstly, you've simply ignored the point that the argument about free will was not about proving god.>>

But I ignored it because it’s irrelevant. You made the claim and suggested multiple times that you could substantiate it. Here’s one example:

“The evidence for [why free will requires a spiritual realm] lies elsewhere.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324527)

<<secondly, I have in fact offered evidence. This was in the context of the omnipotence paradox.>>

Your example of my misunderstanding of what you were saying is not evidence of free will requiring a soul.

<<Your response convinced me that you are very weak when it comes to critical thinking:>>

This is just an ad hominem attack. Another fallacy. It’s also a bit rich coming from someone who only applies scientific inquiry and scepticism when they think it’ll suit their beliefs.

If my critical thinking skills are so weak, then why are you so reluctant to give me what you think is a compelling argument from this Bucaille character? What are you afraid of?

<<A rock that God cannot lift implies a force other than God.>>

No, it only addresses the force of the said god.

<<It cannot be created because God is truthful and he has informed us it shall not occur.>>

Two assertions based on faith. You’re essentially magic-ing the dilemma away with an assertion based on faith. And you mock my critical thinking skills?

<<AJ Phillips has never read the Qur’an…>>

And I’ve explained why I don’t need to have. This is the Courtier’s Reply fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply)

<<…and defers to Jayb for the interpretation of the Qur’an.>>

Jayb didn’t interpret the Qur’an. He quoted it.

<<I then offer Maurice Bucaille’s [books]...>>

Yet you are apparently not confident enough in his arguments to provide me with a specific one.

You may expose your beliefs to scrutiny, grateful, but that is of no use if you duck, weave, and employ fallacy after fallacy to avoid addressing any of it.

Like I said, faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something.

Clearly you don’t.

Dear Rhian,

<<Jesus did indeed call on disciples to be like children, but I don’t think he meant us to be naïve or literalist.>>

Yes, reading Jesus' statement in the context it was said, Matthew 18, I agree that he referred to humility and lowliness. This at least was his main meaning, though it does not exclude the possibility of additional multiple-layered meanings.

I do see a legitimate and positive place for naïvety and literalist belief, but it's certainly not suitable for everyone, only for some - while for others, this can spell fanaticism and disaster.

It is saddening to notice how due to the onslaught of scientific thinking in the last few centuries, it became ever more difficult for those to which this path suits, to follow it. I am even saddened to watch how discussions like this hinder the simplicity of literal belief from those who should benefit from it. Paradoxically, much sophistication is now usually required before one can resume the innocence of a child.

---

Dear Dan,

(Yusutsu take note, we weren't always "stuck in the mud of the origins of our bodies", but our bodies were created gloriously in God's image.)

I must have made myself unclear, so sorry:

The mud that I referred to was the mud of the mind, the mud of wasting our time and spoiling our innocence in intellectual gymnastics while attempting to find the origin of our bodies.

I said nothing whatsoever about the actual origin of our bodies, which I believe that we should not be bothered with. Love God, Love thy neighbour, Pray, Worship, Forgive, Serve - what else is there to know?

Yuyutsu,
'Love God, love thy neighbour, pray, worship, forgive, serve.' I wouldn't argue with any of these. Sounds pretty good. What else could we add to the list? Maybe, be a witness to the truth. St Paul looked to mature believers to be 'speaking the truth in love'. St Peter said to be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to those asking of you a reason for your hope.

So, defending the gospel with truth and reason is a natural part of the Christian faith. If we all here weren't keen on reason and investigation, then I'm not sure why we'd bother taking interest in discussions like this one. This topic might not interest you, but it obviously does some.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: "What else could we add to the list? Maybe, be a witness to the truth."

Of course what Dan S de Merengue presumably means: "Be steadfast in one's religious belief and possibly seek to promulgate it." Religious belief is often equated with truth by religious believers. Religious belief is not truth, and it is a misuse of language to call it truth. Truth can be demonstrated as supported by reason or facts. Religious belief is merely the opinion of a believer and not truth. It is a form of superstition.

david f writes: “Of course what Dan S de Merengue presumably means: "Be steadfast in one's religious belief and possibly seek to promulgate it."”

Very much so.

This reminds me of a time when, unbeknownst to myself, I was transitioning out of Christianity. I still thought of myself as a Christian and would refer to myself as a Christian to others. I had stopped attending church, but hadn’t quite gotten to the stage yet where people start referring to themselves as “agnostic”, as though it were a third mutually exclusive category.

I was in the lunch room talking to a colleague of mine, who was an outspoken fundamentalist Christian, just happily chatting away about the usual nonsense Christians talk about, when he said to me something along the lines of, “We’re lost souls just searching for the truth.” I remember immediately thinking to myself, “How dishonest. You’re not searching for any truth. You think you’ve already found it.”

We saw a similar situation with grateful. One can investigate reality or expose their beliefs to criticism all they like, but if entertaining the possibility that one’s religious beliefs are false can never be an option, then there is no point.

"["What Would It Take to Change Your Mind?" is] a question that atheists are frequently asked, and they almost invariably answer with “evidence”. In the debate between Nye and Ham, they were both asked this question, and Ham answered “nothing” and Nye said “evidence”…" (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marginoferr/2014/03/06/what-would-it-take-to-change-your-mind)