Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

Oh, stop. You know what I mean. You will ask me what the evidence shows, and I will be unable to prove that anything spiritual can be anything but speculative and that all of the evidence shows that humans are the only common denominator that can bring about change...and thus by conclusion, *we will create the world that we want.*I am beginning to foresee your probable arguments. See, I even framed the issue for you.

Oh, of course not. One doesn't need to "believe" in reality.Do I believe in the goodness of humanity? In its evil? In the intellect and the stupidity, the drive and the apathy of humanity?Same answer. Agreed. Without.Not that much would change. We would just acknowledge more realistic reasons for our hate instead of the superstitious bs we so often use today. We don't know if your Jesus was real or a conglomerate or a fantasy. I happen to suspect that he was real but wasn't anything even close to who was portrayed. I suspect he was just another run-of-the-mill religious megalomaniac who didn't do/say any of the things his zealous followers allege. Like David Koresh, Abraham and Joel Osteen.Yes, it is alway harmful to let fantasies control your life. It has its place in the discussion. Heavy on the "worse" side. Stupidstition is like toothpaste, you can't put it back into the tube and throw it away. Religion has dug its poisoned claws into the human psyche and I fear you may be right. The best we can hope to do is belittle its adherents in hopes of limiting its reach.

That's false. You stop at red lights because you've seen the evidence that going through red lights causes collisions.

OK, but your analogy is weak. You claim that I offer special status only to matters concerning God. Guilty. So what? God is worthy of exemption to critical thought...precisely because I will argue that humans don't create Him...so stop acting as if you do.

I welcome honest criticism. If I only hung out at Christian Forums my faith and apologetic arguments would be very weak. As is, they are still weaker than I want them to be, but I will take reality as it is and commune with you guys as long as I feel that this is my place on the internet. Keep disagreeing or we will have nothing to talk about.

Why?Why is your favorite God character different from the ones you think are made up? You keep asserting that. Where's the actual argument?

I think that many here would agree with you. My only objection to that argument is that I believe that GOD used Jesus as His human character to commune with humanity. Critics will say it only represents human attempts at anthropomorphizing a Deity. But how else would humans be able to even know God? I do believe that the premise is logical, given that God exists.

One must stand for something or they will fall for anything. The main difference between you and I is that you became an eternal skeptic, satisfied only through objective evidence. You simply went to the voting booth and refused to push any of the levers, awaiting further evidence. I chose to push a lever. Perhaps I will argue that God found me. You will again and forever ask how I could justify making a decision....citing the idea that many candidates remain and that even the option of choosing none of them seems more logical for you.

Silly bumper sticker. It's better to stand for nothing than the wrong thing. I'm not asking you to justify making "a" decision. I'm asking you why you made the decision you made.

The New Yorker Magazine published this column recently:
Are Things Getting Better Or Worse?

quote:

---

Most historical and statistical evidence shows that life used to be shorter, sicker, poorer, more dangerous, and less free. Yet many people, like Milanovi, have fond memories of bygone years and wonder if reports of their awfulness have been exaggerated. Others concede that life used to be worse in some ways, but wonder if it wasn’t also better in otherssimpler, more predictable, more spiritual. It’s common to appreciate modernity while fearing its destructive potential. (Life expectancy may be higher today, but it will be shorter after the nuclear-climate-bioterror apocalypse.) If being alive now doesn’t feel particularly great, perhaps living in the past might not have felt particularly bad.

---

It started because of that one day in church when I suddenly felt different than I ever had felt before. Im under no delusion that believers are better people than unbelievers. My jury is still out whether God saves only a select group. All that I can say is that I felt like choosing God represented that day and I chose. Is there any reason why I should question that decision? Is there any reason you think that I made the wrong decision? I have questioned myself also, and so far have found no compelling reasons to change. I don't see any better candidates out there, and I honestly feel that if I were to consciously unchoose God that I would be any better off. Personally I think it would expose my deep-seated fears relevant to my own life and would force me to rely on humanistic psychotherapy...at great cost...to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I think I'm better off choosing to trust that God is alive and real in my heart, soul, and mind.At the risk of exposing confirmation bias, which I certainly don't want as an accusation, is that I have seen countless times when I felt better after prayer and communion with other believers...a phenomenon that I simply don't feel with any random group of people.It has been my observation that some people feel this rush at a football game, but I am not so shallow to believe that a Broncos victory makes life in Denver better for a week. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

There's the bias right there. If you were in the habit of going to mosques or Buddhist temples or synagogues or Mormon churches, your interpretation would have been quite different. Of course there is. You should question every decision if you have the slightest interest in making the right decision.

Note my football analogy in my edited post.

So again, you look at the objective evidence in that context. Why do you scoff at evidence in the context of God?

It is not objective. We all never agree. What may be evident to me is not evident for everyone. Do you think that it has to be evident for everyone or is this even realistic? After all, even the Bible says that many are called and few are chosen. Perhaps in that scenario evidence was only evident for some and not all. But then again, wouldn't that make God biased?

Why is God worthy of of critical thought?Humans didn't create pond scum so is that exempt from critical thought?Humans did not create stars so are stars exempt from critical thought?Humans did not create milaria so is malaria exempt from critical thought?