10 Questions for an Intelligent Christian

[♥Mark]

He presupposes that every Christian has those set of beliefs, as well as extends his pseudo-interpretation of those even further, almost in a straw-man sort of way. Some of it doesn't even seem applicable to the people he's targeting, yet it's forced on, point upon point in the same smothering fashion. I think you misinterpreted me. No, I haven't misinterpreted you. I understand what you are saying, but you have not said why you think this. That's what I'm calling you out on. You've made your belief fairly clear but I'm challenging you to explain it. Can you provide examples of what you mean in the video in terms of your accusations of straw-man arguments, psuedo-interpretations and how "some of it doesn't even seem applicable to the people he's targeting"? I.e. make a constructive comment with some kind of content.

[ClouD]

No, I haven't misinterpreted you. I understand what you are saying, but you have not said why you think this. That's what I'm calling you out on. You've made your belief fairly clear but I'm challenging you to explain it. Can you provide examples of what you mean in the video in terms of your accusations of straw-man arguments, psuedo-interpretations and how "some of it doesn't even seem applicable to the people he's targeting"? I.e. make a constructive comment with some kind of content. It was a comment of the general attitude throughout most of the video. To be nitpicky and specific, for your entertainment Mark, I will explain then. The title itself is an example. Saying that someone must do something is not only demeaning, but in the context it is in a 'greater than thou' attitude. Next, the college degree crap. Unnecessary, almost as if to fill up space and lay on the intelligence of Christians in a dramatic, almost satirical sense (in the context). It creates the expected atmosphere, he is setting up any Christians for the utmost contradiction, regardless of whether they actually have a college degree or the other crap he drills in on. You are a smart person. That's more drilled supposition. You know how the world works. More. You know how to think critically. More. The stupid pictures to the side enhance the effect. Next, he suddenly seems to be addressing intelligent, educated Christians. Which of course you are because you have an ego, and he's just drilled into you that you are. 'Simple' questions, are they really also so simple? Setupsetupsetupalert. As a Christian, you do not necessarily believe in the power of prayer. There are more gray-zone Christians than fanatics or people who would even define Christianity with any definite requisite beliefs. Next. As "Christians" we do NOT know that amputated legs don't regenerate in a spontaneous manner. In fact, the consideration of it most likely never crossed our minds until this statement. After certain analysis, you might possibly arrive at that opinion, but there's many other ideas you could get to instead, NOT BACKTRACKING to create an excuse for God, but as an initial thinking about the possibilities in a logical-to-you manner. Mark, I can't find almost anything that isn't like this through the entire video. I'm not going to continue when I've pointed out some stuff already. The rest is just as obvious without the need for extended analysis solely to justify my initial opinion. It's also 4:20am, goodnight.

[♥Mark]

The title itself is an example. Saying that someone must do something is not only demeaning, but in the context it is in a 'greater than thou' attitude. I'd guess it's probably more about getting their attention. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if this is the kind of reaction he was trying to create. People see it and think "Oh, yeah, that's dumb. What questions are those that this cocky little man thinks are so important?" Relevant to the arguments? No. Next, the college degree crap. Unnecessary, almost as if to fill up space and lay on the intelligence of Christians in a dramatic, almost satirical sense (in the context). It creates the expected atmosphere, he is setting up any Christians for the utmost contradiction, regardless of whether they actually have a college degree or the other crap he drills in on. What? How is he setting up anyone for a contradiction? Are you sure he's building a straw man and not just actually talking about a specific case of Christians? Are you suggesting that the subsequent points made are not at all applicable to anyone's beliefs? You are a smart person. That's more drilled supposition. You know how the world works. More. You know how to think critically. More. The stupid pictures to the side enhance the effect. Either that or he was being clear on who the video was aimed at. Personally I didn't feel insulted by the assumptions he made about me in the video because he wasn't actually talking about me. He was talking about an apparently common set of beliefs that specific types of Christians hold. Next, he suddenly seems to be addressing intelligent, educated Christians. Which of course you are because you have an ego, and he's just drilled into you that you are. 'Simple' questions, are they really also so simple? Setupsetupsetupalert. derp As a Christian, you do not necessarily believe in the power of prayer. Duh. Obviously what he said doesn't apply to every possible person. Again, this is a specific argument against specific beliefs. Next. As "Christians" we do NOT know that amputated legs don't regenerate in a spontaneous manner. In fact, the consideration of it most likely never crossed our minds until this statement. Fair enough. But I think that's the point; That he's trying to get people to ask themselves questions they hadn't thought of before to get them to think about these kind of things. After certain analysis, you might possibly arrive at that opinion, but there's many other ideas you could get to instead, NOT BACKTRACKING to create an excuse for God, but as an initial thinking about the possibilities in a logical-to-you manner. The simple truth is that a lot of people do create excuses to deal with the incompatibilities of their idea of god. If that offends you, that's something you'll have to deal with. So that's it? That's your problem with the video? You just don't like that he sounds cocky and that he uses the word Christian to refer to a specific set of beliefs that aren't necessarily representative of all Christians? Okay, I do agree, but I think that's entirely beside the point and really not relevant to the arguments he makes. Isn't it asking a bit much for someone to make an all-encompassing argument that disproves every notion of every possible god/gods in every conceivable religion? I'd say so. Probably makes a little more sense to go case by case and make specific arguments against specific ideas.

[mini0991]

From the deist's viewpoint, I will answer Marshall Brain's questions. 1. Why won't God heal amputees? Because God is not there to grant people favors. "God" is merely the concept used to describe the architect(s) of the universe: there is no one intelligent being "God" who is currently present in people's lives any more than there is a Santa Claus who brings children their toys on Christmas. Anyone who asks "God" for a favor will not be given what they want as the result of God; if they recieve what they want, it is mere coincidence or the work of a good-hearted man. To suggest that "God" has some "plan" for a person is absurd. Tell that to someone who's dying of a glioblastoma multiforme and see what they have to say. I'd be like, "Fuck God's will and fuck your God, I'm gonna fight this damn brain tumor and if I lose, I'm gonna give him a big honkin' loogey to the face when I get up there." If cancer is God's will, I suppose we should just let the person die because satiating God's arbitrary plans is more important than people's lives. 2. Why are there so many starving people in our world? Because dictators of third-world regimes like to stop aid trucks at the border and sell the goods for drugs and guns they use to terrorize citizens even further into impoverished submission to their oppressive state. This has nothing to do with God, this is the lack of democracy and westernization in other parts of the world. 3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Because the authors of the Bible, who were simply mere men, wished to push their interpretation of God onto the citizenry through fear out of ignorance. Lack of knowledge about diseases such as scizophrenia and epilepsy would lead people to believe delusions and hallucinations were divine signs from above and would record what their mind made up on paper. If anything, the Bible is the result of a mentally ill man's writings. Picture: you're an individual living in medieval-era England. Someone comes up to you and tells you they have the "true word of God" and that this God will kill you and make you suffer for eternity if you don't give in. Being the poorly-educated peasant in the impovershed times you live in, what else are you going to believe? 4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? Because it was written by ordinary men in a pre-industrial era. 5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? 'Cause it's easier to push your agenda when you write something in a book and tell people it's what God said. 6. Why do bad things happen to good people? Because there is nothing there to stop that from happening. 7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence? Because there are no such things as miracles, and that the Bible is an erroneous interpretation of God written by mentally ill people. I can repeat this point ad nauseum. 8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus never appeared to you? Assuming that Jesus was an actual person, it is impossible to appear to someone after one has perished. 9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? In all fairness, these were most likely written as symbols by the person(s) who authored these parts of the Bible. 10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Because religion has little to do with the success of marriage. As i said, the Architect(s) of the Universe no longer intervene in our daily life. Therefore, there is no reason that marriage is sanctimonious in any way, shape, or form. Marriage is merely the profession that you love someone and will do so until the day you die. Sometimes people don't realize what they're getting into when they make these professions. I'll be frank. What drove me away from mainstream interpretations of God was the unfairness. Why would someone be born with a better set of traits than another? What makes me so great that I get to be born into an upper-middle-class American household while someone else gets born straight into the sex trade? The one thing that sent me off the edge though, was this idea that somehow we had to love God even if he struck our entire family dead and ourselves severely ill. This convoluted logic where somehow loving God was more important than the welfare of your fellow man. The only conclusion I could come to was that "God", whoever he/she/it/they are, wouldn't interfere in the interest of fairness, and that the Bible was merely one man's interpretation of this higher power due to its endless errors. Thus went my belief in miracles/magic/soul/afterlife, etc. If I die and there actually is a KIND and LOVING God afterwards, he should take me in because I had the audacity to call him out in the name of my brothers and sisters. And if Hell is merely the absence of God, is it any different than the fairly good life I live now? Who's to say there won't be anyone who would think Hell is alright? There's people on earth who enjoy eating shit on camera, for fuck's sake.

[Dream scientist]

From the deist's viewpoint, I will answer Marshall Brain's questions. 1. Why won't God heal amputees? Because God is not there to grant people favors. "God" is merely the concept used to describe the architect(s) of the universe: there is no one intelligent being "God" who is currently present in people's lives any more than there is a Santa Claus who brings children their toys on Christmas. Anyone who asks "God" for a favor will not be given what they want as the result of God; if they recieve what they want, it is mere coincidence or the work of a good-hearted man. To suggest that "God" has some "plan" for a person is absurd. Tell that to someone who's dying of a glioblastoma multiforme and see what they have to say. I'd be like, "Fuck God's will and fuck your God, I'm gonna fight this damn brain tumor and if I lose, I'm gonna give him a big honkin' loogey to the face when I get up there." If cancer is God's will, I suppose we should just let the person die because satiating God's arbitrary plans is more important than people's lives. 2. Why are there so many starving people in our world? Because dictators of third-world regimes like to stop aid trucks at the border and sell the goods for drugs and guns they use to terrorize citizens even further into impoverished submission to their oppressive state. This has nothing to do with God, this is the lack of democracy and westernization in other parts of the world. 3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Because the authors of the Bible, who were simply mere men, wished to push their interpretation of God onto the citizenry through fear out of ignorance. Lack of knowledge about diseases such as scizophrenia and epilepsy would lead people to believe delusions and hallucinations were divine signs from above and would record what their mind made up on paper. If anything, the Bible is the result of a mentally ill man's writings. Picture: you're an individual living in medieval-era England. Someone comes up to you and tells you they have the "true word of God" and that this God will kill you and make you suffer for eternity if you don't give in. Being the poorly-educated peasant in the impovershed times you live in, what else are you going to believe? 4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? Because it was written by ordinary men in a pre-industrial era. 5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? 'Cause it's easier to push your agenda when you write something in a book and tell people it's what God said. 6. Why do bad things happen to good people? Because there is nothing there to stop that from happening. 7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence? Because there are no such things as miracles, and that the Bible is an erroneous interpretation of God written by mentally ill people. I can repeat this point ad nauseum. 8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus never appeared to you? Assuming that Jesus was an actual person, it is impossible to appear to someone after one has perished. 9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? In all fairness, these were most likely written as symbols by the person(s) who authored these parts of the Bible. 10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Because religion has little to do with the success of marriage. As i said, the Architect(s) of the Universe no longer intervene in our daily life. Therefore, there is no reason that marriage is sanctimonious in any way, shape, or form. Marriage is merely the profession that you love someone and will do so until the day you die. Sometimes people don't realize what they're getting into when they make these professions. I'll be frank. What drove me away from mainstream interpretations of God was the unfairness. Why would someone be born with a better set of traits than another? What makes me so great that I get to be born into an upper-middle-class American household while someone else gets born straight into the sex trade? The one thing that sent me off the edge though, was this idea that somehow we had to love God even if he struck our entire family dead and ourselves severely ill. This convoluted logic where somehow loving God was more important than the welfare of your fellow man. The only conclusion I could come to was that "God", whoever he/she/it/they are, wouldn't interfere in the interest of fairness, and that the Bible was merely one man's interpretation of this higher power due to its endless errors. Thus went my belief in miracles/magic/soul/afterlife, etc. If I die and there actually is a KIND and LOVING God afterwards, he should take me in because I had the audacity to call him out in the name of my brothers and sisters. And if Hell is merely the absence of God, is it any different than the fairly good life I live now? Who's to say there won't be anyone who would think Hell is alright? There's people on earth who enjoy eating shit on camera, for fuck's sake. So basically, you're saying god does absolutely nothing? You believe in god, despite not accepting any part of the bible? So by extention, you're saying that god doesn't exist? Talk about hypocracy.

[mini0991]

I don't believe in "God" as many people refer to him. I believe in intelligent design of some sort; this is the extent of my theology. Whether or not there is a God became irrelevant one second after the big bang.

[O'nus]

The problem is of paradigm. Your first statement in the quote implies that you think spirituality is transitory or vulnerable. Contrary to your "agreement", that which is Absolute, universal and impersonal is not subject to change, nor is it subject to science or such proof, and by essential definition, this is not a relative or personal matter! This is because of the nature of Truth and subjectivity, not because of bias or that which is "supernatural" or magical. Radical subjectivity reveals that the entirety of Reality is subjective, and objects (thus objectivity) merely lies within that context, along with science and its jargon; those of themselves have no power and no intrinsic requirement to prove that which provides the capacity for their own existence. The paradigm difference is where the truth manifests; internally or externally. I suspect that, in your paradigm, the truth manifests in all things (both internal and external). But, in my paradigm, the truth only manifests in the internal but within all of us. I do not make the leap to say it has an externally existing manifestation. Correct me if I am wrong. So you should take into account there is no room here for anyone to be deluded, mislead or especially given up to that which is false, because of the nature of this Infinite Reality. Hence "God's promise(s)" and Divine safety is intrinsic to this. There is no room in the infinite context for any change or proving of "concepts." This is not a science as even thoughts themselves are redundant! There is no way for this to be proven wrong or right, because it concerns context! Skepticism and science are both naive here, but skepticism may be seen as more reasonable. This skepticism is ultimately, from your perspective "I must prove the existence of 'I' as Reality." It is an illusory problem that inevitably fails by its own limitations, redundancy and naivete. The search for the real "I" is the core of spirituality. It is easy to say that you are delusional about a concept that you cannot believe unless you need to have a hallucination to convince you of it. You cannot prove it to me, thus, you are delusional. Do you see how silly that reasoning is? The above bolded text is what I have to point out as ridiculous. The spiritual context is what gives the entire meaning, significance and devotion to it all in the first place! You also need to take into account that Self-Realization is quite profound and is not something you just categorize as a general epiphany. Enlightenment is extremely uncommon, and I have yet to hear of an "enlightened being" who was transformed and yet had neither a religious nor a spiritual orientation. This is because of the nature of spiritual understanding, inclination, maturity and devotion. Also, I'm not sure what it means to you (because you don't seem to answer my questions) but spontaneous healings are not supernatural, hence spiritual healings are also natural. You see, you presume that I do not believe in a self-realization. However, you fail to see the next step after the spiritual realization. The existentialist ought to tell you that there is no spiritual side to you and that it is just yourself realizing yourself - not a spiritual side. I am trying to integrate existentialism into this because that is what I abide to and to give terminology for you to work with against me (or with me). As for your "yoga" stance, you need to stop generalizing. Yoga can be practiced in the form of meditation and its comparative healthiness and effectiveness depends on the type of meditation/prayer and its integrity of purpose. I do not see how I am generalizing; meditation and prayer are all the same. The context is of course different, but that is just the psychological aspect that can still be ascribed with psychology. You give too much credit to spiritual things and not enough to the power of your self alone. Let us put this to rest; "Hypothesized that meditation (in particular, "transcendental meditation" [TM]) is an integrated response with peripheral circulatory and metabolic changes subserving increased CNS activity. Consistent with the subjective description of meditation as a very relaxed but, at the same time, very alert state, it is likely that such findings during meditation as increased cardiac output, increased cerebral blood flow, findings reminiscent of the "extraordinary" character of classical reports, apparent cessation of CO2 generation by muscle, 5-fold plasma AVP elevation, increased 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) levels, decreased TSH levels, and EEG synchrony play roles in this response. Similarity of physiological responses during TM with those reported in earlier research on meditation supports a degree of congruence between the goals of various practices known as "meditation."" + http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...1993-04715-001 And what do you know... [i] "Both prayer and mantra caused striking, powerful, and synchronous increases in existing cardiovascular rhythms when recited six times a minute. Baroreflex sensitivity also increased significantly, from 9.5 (SD 4.6) to 11.5 (4.9) ms/mm Hg, P<0.05. ... Rhythm formulas that involve breathing at six breaths per minute induce favourable psychological and possibly physiological effects. " + http://cardiocare.cn/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1446 I said "if he/she does" meditate for the purpose of God. If a self-proclaimed "Atheist" meditates for Absolute peace and forgiveness but disbelieves in, hates or greatly doubts God, they are simply naive. If they understand Divinity, the essential negation of the name "God" may be acceptable in some cases, but typically that negation is unusual. Of course, I'm not talking the difference in languages (through culture), but the actual meaning of Divine Reality. Now you are being ridiculous here. How is it that I am naive if I simply meditate over how I can help others? What is making me naive about this? Are you really that arrogant that you think only spiritualists can do such a thing? I didn't ignore Attachment theory directly as such, I simply didn't think it was worth arguing about and hence, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you form an attachment to God in this case, although it may affect the degree to which God is surrendered to (power given to God instead of personal will or logical thinking). It is of value/attachment and may govern one's life, but that does not invalidate its integrity or purpose. The point of it was that you said nothing can describe the psychological affects of prayer or meditation; but attachment theory does. It also explains prayer and it's psychological functions. Lee A Kirkpatrick has done a great amount of research on this and has even won a Nobel Prize for it. + http://lakirk.people.wm.edu/ Let me ask again, how is motivation from Love as equally potent as motivation out of selfishness? The propensities of each are in the context of praying and prayer, and they're actually quite predictable and different. The faith and belief is sufficient and strong enough, and that shapes our lives and our perception as such. Love is self-fulfilling. How is the love that intends to nurture and protect no more potent than what intends to be satisfied out of self-interest? How does not one's prayer of love not positively influence the external world by virtue of its existence? You think God is not Love, right? I would say Divine Love is not personal/emotional love, but I guess you may not be happy with that answer. So tell me, in what way is Love distinguishable from the Divine Reality as I explained in my first and second paragraph? Love is a human psychological emotion. Nothing more than that. Robert Sternberg has done extensive work in outlining the psychology human and manages to do so without the implementation of any supernatural, divine, or non-empirical concept. + http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...20love&f=false + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love One reason is due to "C) Infatuation and romance/glamor", which you didn't provide. Nevertheless, "Romeo and Juliet" is completely irrelevant to the argument anyway. That would be B). Pay attention. You made it sound as though God manages all things, including love, which takes away the majesty of loving each other alone - without the implementation of anything else. Yes, you could definitely say that! It helps one question real knowledge. Humility is the key. Tell me then.. what is it that you think you could be wrong on then? First of all, what is the relevance of Existential Humanism? Simply my personal doctrine that I am exercising in my debate with you. Thus, I think it's completely relevant as it is what I debating you with. Existentialism is not something I am frightened of, it simply does not work with or contribute to my belief set, etc. Secondly, if you can't already tell the difference between generic spirituality and the associated awakenings, it seems you have not been paying close attention. I'd ask you, is the state and the purposes of Divine Revelation/Enlightenment held within "Existential Humanism?" Does "Existential Humanism" essentially contribute to (or follow from) the greatest of world religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism? Is it characterized by meditation and devoted lifestyles as held my those seeking the Self - and does that term even apply to anything as it is capitalized? There is a step of spiritual enlightenment in existentialism. And it is followed by the realization that it is a facade/delusion/lie/etc. All those things you hold dear about spirituality are easily applicable without the implementation of God, truth, or spirituality. Tell me one good thing a spiritualist or theist can do that an atheist or existentialist cannot do. I don't see the need to explain this, if you understand these definitions/qualities: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Divine, Subjective, Non-conceptual, Non-dual, Infinite. And, as I said: Through revelation and teachings/scriptures (etc.), the Self-Realized throughout history, to this day, all tell us that this is essentially the Divine Reality. Call it Bliss, God, Cosmos, Buddha, Mind, No-Mind, Self, Heaven, Enlightenment, Pure Consciousness or Reality. Love. Peace. I see God as all these things and has all these qualities at once, and that is simple. I really hope it is that easy for you. You have done a lot of rambling but no defining. It was an easy request. Do not try and blame me for your incapability to define something central to your life. ~

[ClouD]

So that's it? That's your problem with the video? You just don't like that he sounds cocky and that he uses the word Christian to refer to a specific set of beliefs that aren't necessarily representative of all Christians? Okay, I do agree, but I think that's entirely beside the point and really not relevant to the arguments he makes. Isn't it asking a bit much for someone to make an all-encompassing argument that disproves every notion of every possible god/gods in every conceivable religion? I'd say so. Probably makes a little more sense to go case by case and make specific arguments against specific ideas. I think some of the points he makes are very valid, just that the way he approaches it is manipulative. The video is aimed at Christians, then assumes beliefs and attitudes which don't all apply (some not at all) to the target audience. I don't believe it's directed at intelligent/educated Christians only, and I'd say that's quite obvious. Maybe I am expecting too much, but that doesn't mean the video is not manipulative in broadly arguing against many Christians (even if it's just the intelligent/educated ones) and applying a strict belief set. If it's arguing solely against the belief set, fine, whatever. Still the answers in saying "God is imaginary", half don't make sense and some aren't even directly applicable to the questions. So that is why I don't like the video. Not that I don't like some of the points, it's the video in general.

[Unelias]

Tell me one good thing a spiritualist or theist can do that an atheist or existentialist cannot do. No matter how I think of it, I cannot find one. It is quite opposite, since atheist or existentialist are not bound by any external authority, so they are able to do what they want. Not what someone else wants.

[really]

O'nus you've got to stop ignoring my questions. I put the effort into answering yours, yet you seem to keep dodging mine. Stop responding with more trailing questions and at least consider the point. The paradigm difference is where the truth manifests; internally or externally. I suspect that, in your paradigm, the truth manifests in all things (both internal and external). But, in my paradigm, the truth only manifests in the internal but within all of us. I do not make the leap to say it has an externally existing manifestation. Truth doesn't manifest. Explain how Truth can manifest; was it not present at some point or rather, do you mean that it was not recognized? Considering what I explained; Truth is neither external nor internal yet it is both, thus it is defined as non-dual. It is undefinable and improvable. Non-conceptulizable is probably a better adjective. But, in my paradigm, the truth only manifests in the internal but within all of us. I do not make the leap to say it has an externally existing manifestation. May I ask if "all of us" is therefore describing what is only within? So there would be nobody outside, and therefore there is actually no "outside", and it follows that there is neither an inside, and therefore (if you agree,) your belief set in this concept is indifferent to mine. However, the difference is, in your view, existence precedes essence, in mine; essence is intrinsic to existence. I am talking about subjective awareness; consciousness, whereas you're probably talking about constructed meaning and personal motivations. It is easy to say that you are delusional about a concept that you cannot believe unless you need to have a hallucination to convince you of it. You cannot prove it to me, thus, you are delusional. Do you see how silly that reasoning is? You're just going off on a tangent now. My post already answers your question. That you need to have a "hallucination" to realize this, is your opinion. I don't need a hallucination; a hallucination is not a greater awareness. You see, you presume that I do not believe in a self-realization. However, you fail to see the next step after the spiritual realization. The existentialist ought to tell you that there is no spiritual side to you and that it is just yourself realizing yourself - not a spiritual side. I didn't presume that, but I see that you don't understand its importance or way of transformation. I don't even know what you mean by "spiritual side", especially if I have already pointed out that it is nothing supernatural. And please let me ask again what you mean by supernatural for a third time, because it's important. I consider it as characteristic of something independent or separate from "natural" phenomena or Reality, but the spiritual Truth is not separate from anything, hence it is innate, natural and ever-present. Hence again, there's nothing to negate about pure spiritually or God because of what they represent. I do not see how I am generalizing; meditation and prayer are all the same. The context is of course different, but that is just the psychological aspect that can still be ascribed with psychology. You give too much credit to spiritual things and not enough to the power of your self alone. That is a generalization; open your eyes! You seem to miss the articulation that a context is what brings the significance in the first place, so your argument of what is the same while ignoring contexts is obviously irrelevant. You may as well say: "There is no difference between water skiing and boating, because both involve water resistance..." But that's very narrow, even considering your specification of similarities. I've already made other distinctions as well but you don't make any effort to respond to most of them. See the "Problems" spoiler below. E.g. How can they have different contexts while sharing the same "fundamental purpose", which you haven't defined? Spoiler for Problems: A1) This is superficial and isn't specific enough to what is being examined. I can have low breathing and heart rate while watching TV, but it has no where near the same psychological or physiological effects as prayer; especially meditation. There are many other variables that are not considered, such as psychological effects on others who are the object/subject of one's prayer and the prevailing conditions of awareness, which may or may not persist. This is not provable, but it is verifiable by experience - hence the authority of those Avatars and spiritual masters/teachers. A2) Define the fundamental purpose. B/C) These are also superficial because they're limited to the externalized definition of the prayer's object/subject and not the intention that follows. Nevertheless, how exactly is the proof of indifference justified? It is not suitable proof if it is derived from categories of outcomes or apparent characteristics alone. Also consider that "spiritual things" are directly related, if not identical, to the discovery of inner power, and more importantly, the real Self. Again, nothing supernatural; nothing to negate - not a shred (within the scope of this argument). Spoiler for Extracts: Let us put this to rest; "Hypothesized that meditation (in particular, "transcendental meditation" [TM]) is an integrated response with peripheral circulatory and metabolic changes subserving increased CNS activity. Consistent with the subjective description of meditation as a very relaxed but, at the same time, very alert state, it is likely that such findings during meditation as increased cardiac output, increased cerebral blood flow, findings reminiscent of the "extraordinary" character of classical reports, apparent cessation of CO2 generation by muscle, 5-fold plasma AVP elevation, increased 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) levels, decreased TSH levels, and EEG synchrony play roles in this response. Similarity of physiological responses during TM with those reported in earlier research on meditation supports a degree of congruence between the goals of various practices known as "meditation."" + http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...1993-04715-001 And what do you know... [i] "Both prayer and mantra caused striking, powerful, and synchronous increases in existing cardiovascular rhythms when recited six times a minute. Baroreflex sensitivity also increased significantly, from 9.5 (SD 4.6) to 11.5 (4.9) ms/mm Hg, P<0.05. ... Rhythm formulas that involve breathing at six breaths per minute induce favourable psychological and possibly physiological effects. " + http://cardiocare.cn/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1446 I'm not understanding this or your point, are you just trying to look smart? Don't expect that everybody understands this right away, so any elaboration on your part would be great. Now you are being ridiculous here. How is it that I am naive if I simply meditate over how I can help others? What is making me naive about this? The naivete is concerning the understanding of God. I didn't say that you're naive about the purpose of meditating on helping others. However, you don't seem to grasp the point that this isn't what traditional meditation concerns, hence it is more likely classified as a prayer. Are you really that arrogant that you think only spiritualists can do such a thing? It's not arrogance, it's common sense. Spiritual people meditate spiritually. Pilots fly planes. Truck drivers drive trucks. If an atheist meditates spiritually he I think he is naive to its core meaning and structure. The likelihoods of not recognizing this include science - in attempt to disprove the sovereignty and power of true devotion as "opposed" to praying to milk jugs and rocks, for example. The point of it was that you said nothing can describe the psychological affects of prayer or meditation; but attachment theory does. It also explains prayer and it's psychological functions. Lee A Kirkpatrick has done a great amount of research on this and has even won a Nobel Prize for it. + http://lakirk.people.wm.edu/ Then explain! I didn't say "nothing can describe the psychological affects" - what? I said there are many OTHER variables/factors that are not provable or detectable, such as prevailing awareness and the power of the intentions. I'd add that many of these actually provide the initial importance. Love is a human psychological emotion. Nothing more than that. Obviously not; you can't seem to answer my questions. Is it true that all "feelings" are emotions? What about those feelings that never change, that are unlimited and independent from all harm and force? The Love I'm talking about is not an emotional love that you can study, but it exists as a quality of existence itself. unfortunately there is confusion due to the ambiguity of the term, as "God." Robert Sternberg has done extensive work in outlining the psychology human and manages to do so without the implementation of any supernatural, divine, or non-empirical concept. + http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...20love&f=false + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love That's great, but I remember you've brought this up once before, in a similar situation. I don't think it quite grasps it. There's no triangle in the game here. That would be B). Pay attention. You made it sound as though God manages all things, including love, which takes away the majesty of loving each other alone - without the implementation of anything else. I'm not going to explain more about how "R&J" is a childish argument. You get the idea? I already explained about Love in the above paragraph, which you didn't completely address in detail. Tell me then.. what is it that you think you could be wrong on then? What are you asking? You could be "wrong" about everything until you come to the complete revelation of what Socrates said. It is really about what is real/true knowledge and what is false. Simply my personal doctrine that I am exercising in my debate with you. Thus, I think it's completely relevant as it is what I debating you with. Sure, ok. I guess you will explain more soon. There is a step of spiritual enlightenment in existentialism. And it is followed by the realization that it is a facade/delusion/lie/etc. All those things you hold dear about spirituality are easily applicable without the implementation of God, truth, or spirituality. Well that doesn't make sense. You always seem to want to negate the concept of Divinity/God. You need to be more specific now. Answer my previous questions and tell me what the "facade/delusion/lie/etc." is about. You may find similarities in these systems, as you've done with prayer and meditation, but the two arise from different backgrounds. Tell me one good thing a spiritualist or theist can do that an atheist or existentialist cannot do. You're missing the point; you need to look into these things yourself. "One good thing" relatively varies between each person, in this case. If you're trying to believe in God without believing in God, you're just playing conceptual, intellectual games. You're wasting your time. Furthermore, this is not about being "better than" something else, but that you seek "the good" for its own sake, as I've already said, and even you as well. You have done a lot of rambling but no defining. It was an easy request. Do not try and blame me for your incapability to define something central to your life. ~ I'm sure you can reach a conclusion with all those terms. Nevertheless, I guess I can repeat myself in different words, as that can help. In my faith, God is known as the Divine Reality; I'd define it as the Absolute subjective context through which all Reality arises. To discover this Reality is to therefore discover the Source of all that exists, for the True source must be identical to our nature of Self. As the Creator, Context and Truth that unifies all existence by its nature; all is God and thus is there only one Self. The conclusion and definition rests on the undefinable and timeless. It is not provable or conceptualizable, because it is transcendental to concepts and proof; a priori to all thinking and acting, moving, perceiving and argument, because it is within both existing and not existing; it is Reality as it is; Divine.

[O'nus]

O'nus you've got to stop ignoring my questions. I put the effort into answering yours, yet you seem to keep dodging mine. Stop responding with more trailing questions and at least consider the point. Tell you what; I won't even try to make a point anymore. It does not seem you are considering it, so I will just respond directly to yours. You ought to notice a difference. Truth doesn't manifest. Explain how Truth can manifest; was it not present at some point or rather, do you mean that it was not recognized? Considering what I explained; Truth is neither external nor internal yet it is both, thus it is defined as non-dual. It is undefinable and improvable. Non-conceptulizable is probably a better adjective. You see, I have already considered the idea that the truth is the non-dualistic "manifestation of everything" etc. in all its vague glory. However, I have found that there is much more exuberance in the internal. Something I do not think I can explain to you anymore because you seem to be engrossed in the non-dualistic fantasy. If you think I have dodged your question, it is because I have actually already answered it and simply have no desire to repeat it. I do not have any confidence that you really want to read it anymore. May I ask if "all of us" is therefore describing what is only within? So there would be nobody outside, and therefore there is actually no "outside", and it follows that there is neither an inside, and therefore (if you agree,) your belief set in this concept is indifferent to mine. However, the difference is, in your view, existence precedes essence, in mine; essence is intrinsic to existence. I am talking about subjective awareness; consciousness, whereas you're probably talking about constructed meaning and personal motivations. I actually think we completely agree here. I could not word it better, really. You're just going off on a tangent now. My post already answers your question. That you need to have a "hallucination" to realize this, is your opinion. I don't need a hallucination; a hallucination is not a greater awareness. Of course it is not. But we have been over this before. I will try to simplify this, as I have not before; Think of the reasons why you believe what you believe. They are subjective. Think of others who wish to believe what you believe. Think of others who you wish would believe what you believe. They cannot, for they must experience it subjectively. Thus, There is no reason to have confidence you can actually convince someone yourself of your beliefs. It is a subjective matter. All you can do is present the idea. However, this is also a stepping stone into something else. My approach is what I would call humanist existentialist. Although, I do not have the confidence in many people in ever attaining a knowledge in it. I wonder how you do. I didn't presume that, but I see that you don't understand its importance or way of transformation. I don't even know what you mean by "spiritual side", especially if I have already pointed out that it is nothing supernatural. And please let me ask again what you mean by supernatural for a third time, because it's important. I consider it as characteristic of something independent or separate from "natural" phenomena or Reality, but the spiritual Truth is not separate from anything, hence it is innate, natural and ever-present. Hence again, there's nothing to negate about pure spiritually or God because of what they represent. You have to realize that others who do not comprehend what you are talking about will categorize it as "supernatural". You may think it is a misunderstanding, but I am trying to point out to you what Derrik Parfit would call "the further fact". The further fact is simply that contextual thinking that is beyond our tangible knowledge and perception. It is the concepts that are out of context of what we normally speak of or can know empirically. Anything that we are usually unsure can be categorized into this. For the very reason that spirits/truth/etc. are not factual is a reason why everything you speak of is a further fact. Because of that, we cannot speak of it beyond anything but subjectivity, even though it may represent more than that. That is a generalization; open your eyes! You seem to miss the articulation that a context is what brings the significance in the first place, so your argument of what is the same while ignoring contexts is obviously irrelevant. You may as well say: "There is no difference between water skiing and boating, because both involve water resistance..." But that's very narrow, even considering your specification of similarities. I've already made other distinctions as well but you don't make any effort to respond to most of them. See the "Problems" spoiler below. E.g. How can they have different contexts while sharing the same "fundamental purpose", which you haven't defined? The naivete is concerning the understanding of God. I didn't say that you're naive about the purpose of meditating on helping others. However, you don't seem to grasp the point that this isn't what traditional meditation concerns, hence it is more likely classified as a prayer. It's not arrogance, it's common sense. Spiritual people meditate spiritually. Pilots fly planes. Truck drivers drive trucks. If an atheist meditates spiritually he I think he is naive to its core meaning and structure. The likelihoods of not recognizing this include science - in attempt to disprove the sovereignty and power of true devotion as "opposed" to praying to milk jugs and rocks, for example. It is not a generalization. I have already shown you how, even the context, is accounted for in the similarity. Do not try to grasp so tightly on something already accounted for. The difference is null and void. I am not refuting the benefits of either, but I am certainly saying that the further facts involved are completely unnecessary for either to work. Where you would say that an atheists prayer/meditation is no different than a theists because he unknowingly prays/mediates to God, I say there is no difference because there is no God. However, the problem here is that you make a preclusion on something that has the onus to prove itself. I am not making any presumptuous premise. You are the one now, in fact, that must prove the difference if you are going to make that presumption. In addition, it seems that you quoted yourself saying something which I have already quelled, not only with my own words, but with scientific journals. The fundamental purpose of both prayer and meditation is the same; internalized thoughts. In order to really prove that there is a difference between the two, you would have to prove God. Otherwise, the physiology is undeniably the same (and no, it is not the same as watching TV, don't be coy). Also, the psychological responses are the same; attachment psychology both explains the difference in the relational meditation and individual meditation. If you have the desire to learn, you can look it up. But to quote it warrants an entirely new thread due its profound content. We are talking about a lot of research and thinking here. I hope you consider it. Also consider that "spiritual things" are directly related, if not identical, to the discovery of inner power, and more importantly, the real Self. Again, nothing supernatural; nothing to negate - not a shred (within the scope of this argument). Yes but when you say "real self" you are using a very vague definition that, most likely, only you can really understand. Because of that, how can you really expect to represent it in a discussion? Furthermore, you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that I agree that spiritual things are the path to the self realization. In my efforts, I try to show that spirituality is actually the stepping stone to existentialism. When one begins to realize that spirituality is actually a facade and meaningless dribble to glorify your existence, then you begin to enter existentialism. However, it is the most depressing step to take and many would never dare to even think of it for their entire life. I'm not understanding this or your point, are you just trying to look smart? Don't expect that everybody understands this right away, so any elaboration on your part would be great. As I said above, I was giving evidence for my claims. If you need attachment psychology explored, simply ask. And I am not trying to be pretentious; that does nothing for me and especially nothing for you (which I am more concerned with). Then explain! I didn't say "nothing can describe the psychological affects" - what? I said there are many OTHER variables/factors that are not provable or detectable, such as prevailing awareness and the power of the intentions. I'd add that many of these actually provide the initial importance. Either you are trying to rely too hard on variables that are unfalsifiable to save your argument, or you are unwilling to accept how psychology explains and de-mystifies meditation and prayer. I will make a thread on attachment psychology on your request, but to put it simply in how it would relate; - Would it not be better for a human being to be able to reap all the rewards of meditation or prayer by simply thinking individually? Obviously not; you can't seem to answer my questions. Is it true that all "feelings" are emotions? What about those feelings that never change, that are unlimited and independent from all harm and force? The Love I'm talking about is not an emotional love that you can study, but it exists as a quality of existence itself. unfortunately there is confusion due to the ambiguity of the term, as "God." Looks like I cannot speak to you about this. You are locked away in a world of unfalsifiable thinking and "no labels" and "no categorizations" in a world where "not everything is proved before your eyes". It seems I can only make a sarcastic remark because there is nothing I can say to demonstrate the flaws in this argument to you. You do not comprehend the problems of falsifiability and you also ignore the majesty of psychology. I have already answered the idea of "God" and its ambiguous state around us, all encompassing. You think I am not answering but it seems you just want me to say, "Oh yeah, God is everything, I agree. Non-dual thinking is the best. I was wrong." What else could I say? It is like speaking to someone who has their eyes glazed over while on LSD and enjoying the spiritual "trip". There is no way to convince them otherwise. That's great, but I remember you've brought this up once before, in a similar situation. I don't think it quite grasps it. There's no triangle in the game here. I'm not going to explain more about how "R&J" is a childish argument. You get the idea? I already explained about Love in the above paragraph, which you didn't completely address in detail. *Facepalm* What are you asking? You could be "wrong" about everything until you come to the complete revelation of what Socrates said. It is really about what is real/true knowledge and what is false. You do realize that what Socrates said includes the idea of GOD?! Sure, ok. I guess you will explain more soon. Sigh.. I already have.. but you just reply with unfalsifiable arguments. It is like debating with a Freudian. Well that doesn't make sense. You always seem to want to negate the concept of Divinity/God. You need to be more specific now. Answer my previous questions and tell me what the "facade/delusion/lie/etc." is about. You may find similarities in these systems, as you've done with prayer and meditation, but the two arise from different backgrounds. Yes, you are right - the two have their ideals from different things. This is also like saying love and hate are two different things. No, you are wrong - I am not necessarily trying to negate the divinity/God, but show how they are not necessary to believe in what you are speaking of. If a God or Truth is necessary to accept unyieldingly, then you have made a premise on a leap of bounds of truth. You accept that there is an onus to prove it but ignore that and just accept it. However, I do not do this. Following that, all the benefits and rewards, all the good things, I can still somehow manage to do. How do you think that is? Humanist Existentialism is what I utilize. Atheists are completely capable to do all the good and feel all the feelings that any spiritualist does. Tell me one good thing that a spiritualist can do that an atheist cannot. You're missing the point; you need to look into these things yourself. "One good thing" relatively varies between each person, in this case. If you're trying to believe in God without believing in God, you're just playing conceptual, intellectual games. You're wasting your time. Furthermore, this is not about being "better than" something else, but that you seek "the good" for its own sake, as I've already said, and even you as well. This paragraph is quite ironic. It seems you are convinced that I have not explored these ideas very well. However, here I am trying to show you how these beliefs I see as a facade into another step of self-transcendence; existentialism. You make the presumption that spirits and God existence based on no reason or justification at all; just explanation. Explanation is all that the desperate have ("I know it!" "It simply is!" "God is non-dual!" "God is unexplainable!"). In my faith, God is known as the Divine Reality; I'd define it as the Absolute subjective context through which all Reality arises. To discover this Reality is to therefore discover the Source of all that exists, for the True source must be identical to our nature of Self. As the Creator, Context and Truth that unifies all existence by its nature; all is God and thus is there only one Self. The conclusion and definition rests on the undefinable and timeless. It is not provable or conceptualizable, because it is transcendental to concepts and proof; a priori to all thinking and acting, moving, perceiving and argument, because it is within both existing and not existing; it is Reality as it is; Divine. All things non-dualistic and unimaginably beyond our world can be conceptualized within our thinking. You have just used your own mortal thinking and pathetic mortal words to describe something that is apparently immortal, non-dual, and completely profound. It seems that it ought to be something you ought to be Agnostic about; this divinity is far too superior to us and our sciences and observation can never attest for it. You take the stance that, in its unfalsifiable beauty, is where it is proven. It is a non-dual entity that can never be justified and that is how it is exists! However, the vital grave mistake you are making is negligence. You neglect that it was your own mind that created all this context. It was your self that created and perceived this. It was your self that invents the context of non-duality. It is your desire for self-transcendence that motivated you to be passionate about it. It is your mind that reasoned the existence of the idea of this God. And it is your body that warranted your capability to think of this God. However, the actual truth is, there is no God. There is no supernaturally divine non-dualistic entity. The actual divine supernatural non-dual entity is YOUR SELF. Your perceptual mind is what you are describing, not a collective unconscious or collective super-unconscious. You make the step to say that there is a consciousness in all of us as there is energy. That there is a beauty in the idea that we are all a dancing symphony of minds. However, you neglect the majesty of the idea that we are all a symphony of independent thinking manifestations of that non-dual mind. We work on a chaotic system which streams into manifestations beyond a layman's world of thinking. The chaotic system in which all these independent minds respond and co-exists is what deludes us into thinking it is an independent consciousness existing non-dually. This video is not going to set any arguments or try to prove anything, I just want you to see the power of working in sync with each other and how it does not require any God or divinity. We work in sync with each other because of our independent and autonomous decisions to do so. Also, it is not just humans that do this! All this do this! It is a majesty that is far too ignored! The majority of humans fail to see the beauty in the power of being lonely! It is our loneliness and drive to be with others, our instinct to survive, and our autonomous thinking that leads us to behave in the most beautiful symphony we could ever see; life! (YouTube is down at the time of this post, so I am linking directly to the video) http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/st...z_on_sync.html ~

[davej]

I have one question for that guy doing the video... why does he think only smart people went to college LOL my uncle never went to college, i don't think he even got through high school but he can ring off about every answer on jepordy LOL he can think logically and hold a conversation with the best of them. he is the smartest uneducated person i know LOL

[davej]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F8zEC4L2fs

[Bonsay]

That video is sad. He thinks he's being objective and logical, but all he does is spew bias.

[davej]

Could say the same thing about the first video posted Bonsay

[Bonsay]

Yes, but that video is on my side.

[davej]

HAHAHAHA good answer Bonsay

[Dream scientist]

I have one question for that guy doing the video... why does he think only smart people went to college LOL my uncle never went to college, i don't think he even got through high school but he can ring off about every answer on jepordy LOL he can think logically and hold a conversation with the best of them. he is the smartest uneducated person i know LOL He is not assuming only smart people go to college. He is assuming that you are an intelligent, educated person and so are able to draw intelligent, rational conclusions. Knowledge does not equal intelligence. Television is a wealth of useless information. Therefore... No offence, but anyone who hasn't gone to college or even finished high school is not the most witful person, game shows or not.

[Noogah]

I do have to compliment the guy who made this video, though. He speaks pretty kindly, and doesn't personally attack Christians. He aknowledges that you can be an educated person with a degree, and still be a Christian. Then, he calmly gives his questions. Good example for how all debaters should be.

[Dream scientist]

Very true, Noogah. Debate has dwindled in the shadow of the new form of argument: sensless insults.

[really]

O'nus, I think I'm going to bring these issues into a new thread - one which covers the seemingly fundamental problems. You can debate there if you want. So to conclude, I still disagree with your prayer/meditation argument and you may understand my point better from the new thread. Until then, I don't think we need to be any further off-topic than we have already been. Thanks for your persistence though. Edit: Plus, these posts are growing ridiculously large, like some sort of bacteria out of control... In future I'm going to make summaries (provided that I get asked too many similar questions). It's good to see other members are still posting here. Keep it up! I'm out, lol.

[O'nus]

O'nus, I think I'm going to bring these issues into a new thread - one which covers the seemingly fundamental problems. You can debate there if you want. So to conclude, I still disagree with your prayer/meditation argument and you may understand my point better from the new thread. Until then, I don't think we need to be any further off-topic than we have already been. Thanks for your persistence though. Edit: Plus, these posts are growing ridiculously large, like some sort of bacteria out of control... In future I'm going to make summaries (provided that I get asked too many similar questions). It's good to see other members are still posting here. Keep it up! I'm out, lol. Fair enough - I will keep an eye out for the thread. ~

[Idolfan]

AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa God is Imaginary Videos is like VENOMFANGX for atheists! Have you seen the rest of his videos?

[ninja pirate]

Interesting video. Here are my answers: 1) Why doesn't God heal amputees? Amputees may receive prosthetic limbs, as a person with less than perfect vision may receive glasses to modify the ailment. Technology was created by intelligent beings who received their abilities from God. Therefore, God provides mitigating measures for people, through people, which act to accommodate physical mishaps. 2) Something along the lines of, "why does God ignore prayers from the poor?" God does not ignore prayers to help the poor--churches provide for the poor every day, including those in 3rd world countries. God acts through the church. The church is driven and fired up by God's will. 3) A question which criticizes the Bible: The Bible was written by humans, who often misinterpret & misrepresent God. One person's view of God certainly does not dictate my own. 4) A similar question, though with some reference to science and the Bible: I suppose the same response justifies the question, but with regard to Adam spawning from dust: Technically, all creatures came from elements of the Earth, call it "dust" if you will. We did not appear out of nothing. 5) Another similar question: Just a comment--these questions really challenge the validity of the Bible, not God. 6) Why do bad things happen to good people? Bad things happen to all people. So do good things. This is an imperfect world because we are an imperfect people. Bad things too happen to God (He was tortured and crucified in the flesh). He knows a deeper spiritual suffering than we do (similar to a parent loving a child unconditionally, a child who has gone completely astray--imagine the suffering that parent might experience--only amplify that love for the child times infinity, and too amplify the suffering times infinity). God's suffering is epitomized through Jesus' crucifixion. 7) Why isn't there evidence for Jesus' miracles? What evidence do you seek? The only way that events might be documented 2,000 years ago is through script, hence the chapters of the New Testament. Are you looking for audio & video? 8) Why doesn't Jesus appear to humans? Jesus appears to humans every day. The word "appearance" is associated with visual appearance, which is not the only means to communicate with God. I don't have to see my mother to communicate with her. 9) Why does Jesus want you do eat his body and drink his blood? Look up the word "metaphor." 10) Why do Christians get divorced? Christians are just as imperfect as the rest of the world, & many of us are the first to admit it, perhaps even moreso than the rest of the world. "Convoluted, strange, bizarre rationalizations/excuses" is what the narrator calls any response to the questions. They also "make believers uncomfortable." At no point was I in discomfort. There are logical responses to these questions. "Every answered prayer is actually a coincidence." Suddenly, you are omniscient? "Religious beliefs hurt you personally & hurt us as a species because they are delusional." I would like to get to know you so you can see how Christ has worked through my life and made me a better person. I would like you to tell the people who have been served by Christians all over the world that religion hurts the human species. I fit your description. I am a college graduate. I am a teacher. I am a believer.

[Bonsay]

Amputees may receive prosthetic limbs, as a person with less than perfect vision may receive glasses to modify the ailment. Technology was created by intelligent beings who received their abilities from God.Therefore, God provides mitigating measures for people, through people, which act to accommodate physical mishaps. If we changed that a bit, we can also say that God provides ways for people to torture and kill other people. If we're going to thank god for our intelligence to create prosthetic limbs, we might as well thank him for making that psycho with a machete cut our legs off. God does not ignore prayers to help the poor He just answers some with "no". Leaving it all to interpretation of events. The ones who prayed and survived get to thank God for his miracles, the ones that die aren't given the chance..., so in the end it generally just looks as the good old "some live and some die". Not really verifiable. Bad things happen to all people. So do good things. This is an imperfect world because we are an imperfect people. Bad things too happen to God (He was tortured and crucified in the flesh). He knows a deeper spiritual suffering than we do (similar to a parent loving a child unconditionally, a child who has gone completely astray--imagine the suffering that parent might experience--only amplify that love for the child times infinity, and too amplify the suffering times infinity). God's suffering is epitomized through Jesus' crucifixion. I don't see why we should see it as suffering since it's he (the omnipotent one) who decided to torture himself. Is he God or is he not? Also, I'm not an expert on pain or suffering, but I think there could be worse ways to suffer and die than crucifixion. Jesus appears to humans every day. The word "appearance" is associated with visual appearance, which is not the only means to communicate with God. I don't have to see my mother to communicate with her. I think he was asking why Jesus doesn't appear or communicate with "other" humans. As in, those who don't believe as well. Christians are just as imperfect as the rest of the world, & many of us are the first to admit it, perhaps even moreso than the rest of the world. It might just seem so because people only judge through their specific world view. Of course a Christian who believes in sin and declares his sinful imperfection will think he's one of the few to admit it, if he compares himself to people with different beliefs. I don't believe in sin, but ask any atheist etc. if they are animals... in the light of the abstract ideas of perfection how more imperfect can you get than to ground yourself in objective reality.