In order to intelligently discuss a topic, one must have some level of understanding. So if I want to talk about nuclear science with someone within the profession, I wouldn't be able to because I lack the knowledge to follow what they may be saying. So if you want to propose a new definition that is acceptable about something, you have to understand its major elements, current definition, and why it is so improperly defined that you must add or subtract to its definition. "Ordinary atheists" are unable to provide a better definition of God because they lack the understanding of who God is. If I don't believe in thirst, and I've never experienced it, how in the world would I be able to define it?
Ok, just to be clear, I don't believe in "God" per se, I just think that there is a higher power. There's just too many unexplained phenomena out there for me to not even contemplate the possibility of something beyond our understanding or science. The human race has always debated the truth about their existence and religion is always saying "My god/s are better than your god/s" or "Your god/s are false" when they themselves cannot provide solid proof for the validity of their belief system. So it's pointless, really, to make the argument "God doesn't exist" or "God does exist" because the fact is that WE DON'T KNOW. People want science to prove everything, but science is limited to what resources, creativity, and mindset we have available. Just decades ago, science "proved" that every race and ethnicity except European whites was an inferior population. Now, we understand that was an extremely false belief. Science has proved and disproved itself over and over again throughout history, so trying to use a flawed system to disprove another flawed system is incredibly stupid. I believe that we misunderstand what is supernatural, because we constantly try to shape it to the limits of what we can understand. Isn't the whole characteristic of "God" the fact that he is beyond human comprehension? So a summary: If you can't prove something without it being disproven, then you obviously misunderstand it.
Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, as well as something one believes in and follows devotedly. So one could make the case that we all follow a religion, it's just that we might label it as that. Religion can't simply be done away with (currently) because as human beings, it is ingrained in our nature to explain the phenomena we don't understand. From the very beginning man created religion to explain why the wind blows, why the sea foams and swells, and why we have seasons. But through the study of science, we have answered these questions, and because the "pagan" religions of the old world couldn't adapt to the proven theories, they became extremely unpopular. The God Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship is considered to be able to do anything, so that's why they've lasted so long, including the fact that they do have some level of truth in them (Jesus and Muhammad existed, wars did occur, etc.). I think that religion can improve, deteriorate, and can be done away with, but the latter will not take place until we're far in the future.
Some people believed that the world would end because of the Mayan calendar and people like Nostradamus saying it would end. They considered that as evidence, so they believed it. People use things like alleged demon possession, so-called miracles, and hearing "God" speak to them as evidence for the existence of God and the correctness of Christianity. All religions had documents that recorded "spectacular" events that become the root of their beliefs. Even Mormonism has a root of belief (Joseph Smith, I think that's his name, and received some golden plates from God, and apparently some other people were there to witness it). As it said in the debate info, what you may believe to be acceptable as evidence may not be the same for others.
Some people find it comforting to believe in an entity who will protect them from harm, who will forgive them for all their faults, whatever they may be. I love when Im being patronized by Christians and they tell that the reason I would be in a bad mood is because I feel empty inside. And if I accept God in my life, that void will be filled. But they dont realize that it is themselves who feel empty.
Actually, it says that holding on to it LEADS to you getting hurt; that bit about throwing a hot coal was just a simile, a comparison to what holding on to anger is like. You obviously haven't gotten over your insecurities, whatever the may be, and that is why you hold on to anger so tightly. Its become the driving force in your life. Plus, anger is never a lonely emotion; with it comes hate, vengeance, envy, sadness, or even fear. Why would you want to hold on to something that invites such negativity, when it obviously shows that that person still has a hold on your life?
And as a result you let the people who bring you down control who you are and maybe who you will become. There is a difference between striving to prove other people wrong by achieving success, and just holding on to a emotion that will utterly cause you to feel hate towards a person, eventually leading to a vengence state of mind that could be described as juvenile. Everyone experiences the things you have described; it's called being a teenager who's high on increased amounts of hormones (and its a stage I can't wait to get over with). But you should try to get rid of the rage you feel, because it won't ever help in the long run, and the bullies will just win. The goal of bullying is to make someone feel bad, to make them worthless, and it seems to me that they've succeeded.
So, what you're asking is if we should kill someone who has no health problems whatsoever, and harvest their organs in order to POSSIBLY save other people's lives. Because there is always that chance of malpractice, the patient's body rejecting the organs, etc. Why should we kill a person who has less of a chance of passing on a bad gene or a virus to his or her children to save someone who is already "damaged"?
1. the Bible says "thou shalt not kill" Clearly you must have skipped the books of Exodus and Leviticus.
2. That "mob" only consisted of 26 children, if I remember correctly. They were mauled to death by two she-bears
3. Elijah, not Elisha. Two different people in the Bible. Elisha was the student of Elijah, and Elijah ascended into heaven on a chariot of fire... ALLEGEDLY.
So I challenge you to actually use your Bible if you're going to refer to it.
What happened to "thou shalt not kill"? There are many instances in the Bible that show God killing people just because they didn't do what he wanted, even though they weren't necessarily harming others. And that's just considering the possibility of him being real. What about the kids who were killed by God just because they were teasing Elijah? They were KIDS, dude. Every child teases someone at one time or another. And don't you think that if he would kill kids over this, he would kill all the people who commit incest, mass murders, and etc? You're "God" must be pretty biased, and if he is, doesn't that go against treating everyone with equal amounts of love and fairness?
