Why I believe in God? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

laidbackperson

10-24-2008, 08:06 AM

I begin with why I think certain people do not believe in God. Then I will write about why I still believe in God.

One main reason why some people do not believe in God is that they do not find a direct proof of God. Today science has changed the way people live and think. People have tremendous faith in science and science shows concrete results, often magic like. Science goes by pure logical evidence and God does not seem to fit there as a loving father capable of performing any miracle. The idea that someone is controlling everything in the universe does not seem to ring true to these people.

Secondly, God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and omni-powerful, but the control of real world seems to be in hand of other people. Injustice, cruelty, corruption and poverty are often evident in social life and many times wrong people seem to be controlling affairs or enjoying life. At the same time, some good people undergo great sufferings without any fault from their side. However, the all-powerful and just God who is also said to be a benevolent father seems to pay no heed and appears completely passive and indifferent.

Now, why I begin believe in God.

When I was young, my parents believed in God and so we followed those religious practices and I thought that a God is there. As we grew up and gain experiences, we begin to reason and apply logic to God. I think believing in God provides a comfort. Believers, have something to fall back upon - something to cling to in case of adversity or after we die. However, is this comfort feeling has a basis in fear for unknown? Alternatively, can we apply some logic to it?

If we consider things from scientific point of view, we find that everything in nature, right from a simple leaf to a blue whale or to just whatsoever else we can think of has a beautifully planned system. You can take an atom or nucleus of an atom or Sun or other stars or the galaxies in our universe, there seems intricate planning in everything. Science only has discovered this beauty of nature and scientists marvel at it. Here we have to choose: Whether it is God or some higher Power, or everything just evolved slowly with time by itself starting with a big bang, as whoever has heard about it keep saying. Choosing God as I did, many questions are still left unanswered but that is where the faith comes i.e. just going by what your heart says.

Coming to the second aspect, yes, I agree the real world is not exactly like we desire. But why does not God intervene then. Well, I think, if God starts intervening directly, smacking all the wrong persons, then world may improve very quickly but world would become very automated, dull and without spice. Second, if you believe your are eternal beings or in the reincarnation theory as I do, then eventually everything is going to fit- at its own pace. The world is a learning playground for us and God with his wild humor has His own plan for each one of us.

Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe or do not believe in God.

I just hope that we do not go for one-another’s throat and keep our humor intact. :D

RG57

10-29-2008, 11:52 AM

I believe in God because 'I do', I am unable to explain why it is something that I have done for the most of my life even as a child. Have you ever tried to deny that belief? It is harder than you think! Modern science and the Darwin theories (of which I accept within reason) prove the solid, but they can't answer the big question of what was before the 'big bang' and where did the atoms arise, no more than we can say how God became to exhist! This I think all would agree this is a stalemate situation.

erikwithAk

10-29-2008, 02:15 PM

even then it still depends on your point of view even darwin himself said "with the detail and complexity of the human eye how can anyman say 'there is no God'" there is plenty of information that is evident in this world but i find it impossible to think that molecules, plants, animals, and human beings, the very things that make this world so amazing to look at and explore just came from some slime that "evolved" into a plankton like creature that turned into a fish that grew legs, etc. it just doesnt add up but thats when the beliefs and discernment of the human factor comes in we can all choose to believe whatever we want, becuase God gave us all free will to do so, he also said to never disrespect another mans opinion, and to love people as you would your-self. so you dont have to agree with a person and to agree with sombody on absolutly everything is kind of impossible to do so, becuase yet again were all uniqe in our own bodies, hearts, spirts, and minds and thats what i believe.

please forgive me for jumping around, its a habbit i just cant seem to break but i want you to know that i respect you and what you have to say and hope to converse with you all soon :)

~erik~

Ohmyscience

10-29-2008, 03:12 PM

laidbackperson

11-01-2008, 02:06 PM

Hi, RG57. thanks for your post and following remark:
I believe in God because 'I do', I am unable to explain why it is something that I have done for the most of my life even as a child. Have you ever tried to deny that belief? It is harder than you think!

Yes I understand that for some the belief in God comes easily.

Hi, erikwithAK.
I liked your following para:
"I find it impossible to think that molecules, plants, animals, and human beings, the very things that make this world so amazing to look at and explore just came from some slime that "evolved" into a plankton like creature that turned into a fish that grew legs, etc. it just doesnt add up but thats when the beliefs and discernment of the human factor comes in we can all choose to believe whatever we want, becuase God gave us all free will to do so, he also said to never disrespect another mans opinion, and to love people as you would your-self. so you dont have to agree with a person and to agree with sombody on absolutly everything is kind of impossible to do so, becuase yet again were all uniqe in our own bodies."

Although, I tend to believe that we evolved more or less as you have said, but i too find it amazing.

Hi, Ohmyscience, I pondered carefully what to reply to your following remarks:
"How can a benevolent God find humour in the suffering of his creations? To me if there is an all powerful God the he is sadistic. Any sensible being with the power to ease the suffering of others would chose to do so especially if it within their means".
This is what I would like to say. Many points I borrow from articles/books I have read but I try to present what I also think could have been.:

Taking God is there, let us say initially, God was alone - the all powerful, all knower, omnipresent. So God decides to let us say, indulge in creative play. A universe is created, life forms keep springing in earth- unicellular life, vegetation, animal life, dinoausors, and ultimately stopping at human beings. If we see it in relam of time, all this probably took millions of years or may be more. But human being were endowed with more intelligence- from stone age when they moved unclothed, they learnt to make fire, invented wheel, made weapons, started agriculture and kept on moving forward. The kingdoms were formed and destroyed and emperors ruled the world and then died. Then Science started paving the way. In mere, shall we say one hundred and fifty years, the progress accelerated exponentially and see where we have reached. We have electric light in place of lanterns, planes and cars in place of horses, we have today so easy means of communications with internet, TV, cell phones etc. Longevity has increased, life as such have become more comfortable, we have more means of entertainment then we ever had before.
Taking God as master controller, we could owe it all to God though I know some people will scoff at it. But if we consider God is there, then we have also to consider that not a single leaf anywhere would move without His consent. Each ant and all ants, all birds/ animals in your houses and jungles, bacteria seen through microscope all are God’s creation and total universe and all that is contained in it is sustained by God. All-good as well as bad is God’s will and He knows us inside out completely. If we consider the totality and consider the entire time period that seemed to have elapsed by now, then in this in this mind boggling imagination, in this passing show, we may get a glance of humor in all this. We can’t consider God like a big boss. Anyone who is sustaining all this has to be benevolent.
Then why bad things happen. One reason I could think is they test us and make us become better persons. Unnatural deaths of innocents I can not explain but may only guess it as a part of longer plan of God for us. There is also a talk of free will. God as such do not interfere dramatically every now and then but works in a subtle way. As you sow, so you will reap. As taught in self help book, if we could actually apply it our lives, we can improve its quality.

mayneverhave

11-01-2008, 07:12 PM

I believe in God because 'I do', I am unable to explain why it is something that I have done for the most of my life even as a child.

The simple reason that you were brought up with the belief in God does not justify that belief. The belief is not innate - children are born atheists - you acquire the belief from your role models, or whoever instilled that belief in you.

Modern science and the Darwin theories (of which I accept within reason) prove the solid, but they can't answer the big question of what was before the 'big bang' and where did the atoms arise, no more than we can say how God became to exhist! This I think all would agree this is a stalemate situation.

Yes but we have tangible, empirical reasoning for scientific theory. The universe exists, given that we live in it, and the effects of atoms can be seen chemically. God, on the other hand, has no real tangible manifestation. There is no reason why we should belief such a thing exists. Scientists did not come up with the big bang theory for kicks, they are trying to explain the creation of the universe. There would be no reason to come up with a theory if the universe did not exist.

What empirical data do we have that would require the existence of a god?

JBI

11-08-2008, 02:43 AM

laidbackperson

11-08-2008, 06:06 AM

Yes but we have tangible, empirical reasoning for scientific theory. The universe exists, given that we live in it, and the effects of atoms can be seen chemically. God, on the other hand, has no real tangible manifestation. There is no reason why we should belief such a thing exists. Scientists did not come up with the big bang theory for kicks, they are trying to explain the creation of the universe. There would be no reason to come up with a theory if the universe did not exist.

What empirical data do we have that would require the existence of a god?
As you rightly say that, the effects of atoms can be seen chemically. We can not see oxygen but by burning a candle in a closed transparent flask, we can make out that the candle burns for sometimes and extinguishes when the flask oxygen is used up. But with regards to God what type of tangible evidence we are seeking.

First, we have to define God:
I have not seen God myself, but then I am nowhere near a purest soul, which I feel should be one of the conditions to be face to face with God. With this admission, I first tell what I think God is:

As I see it, God is a benevolent power running the entire universe from time immemorial, in play with his creation, may be continuously evolving Himself. I also believe that there is only one God for all humanity though humankind keeps fighting for their different Gods. God is good, but ugly and evil (shall we say devil) too is His manifestation as part of this eternal play- as duality, or may be as a reason for testing a person or making of a better person. God controls absolutely everything, nothing moves without his will, be it any atom, or electrons, protons or neutrons inside the atom or anything else not discovered so far. In this regards, some say everything that we can see is God or all is God. So all of us are also God but living with a veil presently. God is our best friend and a permanent well-wisher. He has given human beings a free will to believe or not to believe on Him. We curse him or insult him, He is not affected. But He is subtly guiding all of us towards Him, through our numerous births and deaths. So good news is that all are going to be saved ultimately.

Does such a God needs to announce openly, 'Hey look, I am here'. Does He need to put Eiffel Tower of France in America in a split second and bring it back to its original position in half an hour or transform a dog into man and vice versa. Jokes apart, I don’t think human being is ever going to find a tangible manifestation or a scientific proof that a thing like God exists, if God himself does not will it. It also seems God prefer to remain mum and in background from beginning to world at large rather than revealing Himself openly.

Still if we observe, we can see is that everything in nature is so beautifully planned. If we take a normal human body, then we have some 60 billion cells living in harmony, each minding its own business and efficiently performing its own task. Our heart is a pump that keeps pumping blood ceaselessly to all part of our body from the day we are born to the day we live, our eyes are sensors which automatically focuses for near and far distances and has an iris which shrinks or expands depending upon the ambient light conditions. We have a brain, which is like a super computer and has ability for analytical thinking and not like a computer which works as per logic or data stored on it beforehand. Examples of such marvels that scientists have discovered can just go on and on. But why nature is so logical, so marvelous. Is it just a random phenomenon or slowly evolved through long time periods available we can only guess. Or should we infer that there may be a God after all.

More importantly, we have also to ask believers for day to day examples in their lives or the blessings that they have come across or miracles in rare cases. Why without a scientific theory, they still believe in God.

With all this, it is still our choice whether to believe or not to believe in God.

laidbackperson

11-08-2008, 06:11 AM

What's your point? All I understood was you believe in god because you were brought up believing in god, and it seems to be a decent enough fall back plan. Good for you, I solute you, but what does this have to do with religious texts, or even the question of religion in comparison to science?

Most of the world believes in god - what does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to get a debate going on the validity in belief in god? If so, you kind of didn't offer much of an argument.

Honestly, I am more afraid of god existing, which I don't think he does, then he not existing. I am more comforted that when I die nothing exists than with the notion that I'm going to burn in hell for all of eternity.

God is above religion or religious texts, but I found this the only appropriate place to start the thread.

Ok, what I am trying to get through the thread is this:

I want believers to come out with reasons with what makes them believe in God even when there is no clear cut scientific basis.

I want non-believers to come out with reasons why they don’t believe in God and counter the believers.

I may be presumptuous in thinking that there is going to be stalemate because believers cannot explain God scientifically as non-believers desire.

I like to indulge myself with a wish that at least a non-believer may end up becoming believer after reading the reasoning of believers in this thread.

As for my believing in God, I said I believe in God primarily because I find nature so beautifully planned that I think a God has to be involved somewhere. Sitting outside in a harsh sunlight troubled by world and personal affairs, the faith about a benevolent God is shaken at times. But I tell myself I can not comprehend the ways of God and if I take everything as a will of God and just do the work as I can do best, that is probably the right way of living.

Also, personally I don’t believe that there is a hell and if it is there then man is condemned to be there till eternity. A God that condemns a man to hell for eternity can not be God.

Lastly, my replies will come slow in the thread but they will come nevertheless.

Nathster

11-08-2008, 10:48 AM

I do not believe in God, however I do believe what God and Religion itself has stood for since the Birth of Religion itself.
I find the Bible to be one big Parable, a story to keep the masses in line. What I personally believe is Religion to be a 'social security' mechanism.

Before I go on, I just want to say, I do not aim to talk anyone out of their faith. If they wish to believe, they may. I may be wrong, you may be right. There is no concrete evidence for this, but this is what belief is all about.
This is simply my story, with my views.

Biological families, for the most record have been tight-knit which each other, protecting each other, loving each other. What if that was applied to the global scale, were we are all One family under one God? This is what I think is the idea with Religion, to unite people together, to help people love each other. However I do not find religion to be as clear-cut loving as it seems.

Religion has been commercialised in some senses which just disgusts me, an example of this can be some evangelical TV stars. Taking advantage of the unwell to gain money off them. However when I watched a TV programme on this once, I could sense that the disabled child's family only had faith left. It was what they clung onto. And I could feel for them, it made me feel upset.
So I do see both sides of the field here.

I haven't always been an agonostic, I was a practising Catholic at one point. But what got rid of that belief was 9/11, the castrophe that befell America, seemed so tragic and I felt so strongly against it towards God, to which I questioned "Are you real? If so, why let this happen?" That day forward, I stopped believing in the power of prayer, and began beleving in the power of action.

JBI

11-08-2008, 01:21 PM

NikolaiI

11-08-2008, 02:07 PM

Hi I just wanted to say bravo and great posts, laidbackperson. I would be more than happy to share my reasons for believing in God.

As I see it, God is a benevolent power running the entire universe from time immemorial, in play with his creation, may be continuously evolving Himself. I also believe that there is only one God for all humanity though humankind keeps fighting for their different Gods. God is good, but ugly and evil (shall we say devil) too is His manifestation as part of this eternal play- as duality, or may be as a reason for testing a person or making of a better person. God controls absolutely everything, nothing moves without his will, be it any atom, or electrons, protons or neutrons inside the atom or anything else not discovered so far. In this regards, some say everything that we can see is God or all is God. So all of us are also God but living with a veil presently. God is our best friend and a permanent well-wisher. He has given human beings a free will to believe or not to believe on Him. We curse him or insult him, He is not affected. But He is subtly guiding all of us towards Him, through our numerous births and deaths. So good news is that all are going to be saved ultimately.

First I would say that I have had a solid and growing faith in God for about three years now, although I've learned the most about Him in the last year. I agree with you that God is the Supreme Lord, maintaining all of the universe through His different potencies. He is our best well-wisher and loves us more than we could imagine. I would not say that we are God- we are like God in qualitiy but not as powerful as He- all is not God, all is God's energy. This world is mostly material energy. There's nothing spiritual if it isn't from and connected to God. For instance, if you were out on a mountain top, all alone, you would still be surrounded by the material energy? Why? Nature, the rocks and wind and sky and sun, all of this is the material energy. Human beings-- all living beings, for that matter-- are transcendental to this, because they have a soul. However, we are conditioned to accept material bodies due to our unfulfilled desires. For this reason we suffer birth, old age, sickness and death. Before we came to the material world, and if, as you say, we can become pure, we were and will be in the spiritual world.

Now what of God's love for us? Well, as I am trying to say, we are not actually God, but if we became God-conscious, then our problems would cease. God-consciousness is the highest consciousness that a soul can attain. God-consciousness is divine consciousness. Every soul is potentially divine, not in power but in nature. Our natural state is full of bliss, knowledge, and eternal. This can be realized but only through God's mercy. God is always with us, and He is sort of the "Way Out" of this material universe. We can always accept this highest way. It's necessary to acknowledge God. God created everything, all is His energy; and so it all belongs to Him.

It's a good thing you say that we have to be pure to see God, I believe that's true.

For why I believe in God, I will simply say this, and it's the most important statement I'll ever make. I, as a limited, living entity, can recognize the existence of the infinite in my life. I can recognize that I am limited, and I exist between two poles, which I call the infinite, and nothingness. Now I know with everything in me that I am part of this infinite. I can turn towards it and become like it; yet even if I did not, I could not escape it, since it is my source. Thus, no one can or will ever die. Not that we will necessarily have memory of our past lives, so don't worry aobut perpetual torment. But in fact, everything dissolves into this infinite. It makes sense according to reason. There is reason, but reason exists in the same way. All things are forms, which have their Ideal and Perfection in the Infinite.

This is the only tenable philosophy. And it's a joyous one. For when you truly understand this, then you'll get any philosophy that people can write about. There's nothing higher than this, simply recognizing the infinite in one's life, and turning toward it to try to understand it. We experience deja vu and coincidence, but there's no such thing as either; they are merely indications or clues to a higher plan. But we can turn toward the infinite and discover it within ourselves, discover that we are eternal; and this is basically the basis of all metaphysics or mysticism.

An individual cannot have divine consciousness, because divine consciousness is conscious of all individuals. But an individual can dovetail their actions to the divine consciousnes, and that is, without peer, the imperative issue for humanity.

dzebra

11-10-2008, 04:29 AM

planet earth

11-21-2008, 01:03 PM

I believe and love and witness His presence, and His light in my sight, hearing, all his blessings , all his tests and what appear to be hardships but are nothing but a grant from Him to me to bring me closer to Him. He teaches me the more I a dragged out of His Presence, the more I will sense the gravity of earth, and the more I incline to Him, I will transcend.

Human Beings are the true cause of catastrophe's. I do not know if I should say this, but now I know how the sky, earth and mountains feel. In the Holy Quran, He Says:
Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son, (Mariam Chapter verses 90 and 91). I know the agony I feel, when I find that just because there are some troubles in this day or part of a day ( the mortal life), some of us don't believe He is here and now. In a cup of tea including sugar we do not see the sugar, but we know that there is sugar in the cup, and that is why its sweetened. If someone denies there is sugar in the cup because they don't see the sugar, or because they don't like the colour of tea, then it is not because the tea does not contain sugar, it is just that they can't feel the taste. Allah gives the taste to everything

And because He is just, the source of happiness to everyone is the same; in reverting to Him. Who look for others cannot find it.

Imagine if we assume there is not software propgrammer behind this forum, and we believe that the forum was just there, with all the smiles, the features, and so on. How would the programmer that took so much effort to allow us use this forum feel?

Allah is just and He cares and Loves, and His Mercy is everywhere in whichever form it looks like, we are here in a guest house upon the road, if we forget that Home, is there with Him, we would never rest in the guest House, but will rest within Him, His Power, His Love and His Mercy.

I really wish this makes sense.

laidbackperson

11-24-2008, 03:58 AM

It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically. It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god. In other words, believers argue (and here I am talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian tradition note, not eastern or world religions) that their belief is a product of faith, which is virtuous. That's rhetoric for they are too afraid to change their minds, when faced with overwhelming evidence against god.

I can respect religion to an extent, but this "I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," is pure rhetoric. That isn't a reason to believe in something, it just shows the inner cowardice of the believer.

Hi, JBI. I think I am understanding what you are trying to get at.. People of certain regions say that they are only correct and that their faith is only right. When these people say about God, ‘I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," you find it ridiculous. I guess you see cowardice there. The sentence as it is, smells of a shaky belief. A good believer would say,’ I believe because that is how I feel it should be. And let the grace of God be with us in all hard and smooth situations.’ And when this person is put in tough spot, he/she takes it as his/her fate or fight with whatever best way. He may grumble, curse, even his faith get shaken sometimes, but he/she keep going back to God.

or
probably you are talking about people who loud mouth their religions, use sugar coated words but in reality are phony type.

When we talk about God, we have to go beyond religious texts.
We should also understand that religious texts, whatever they are , they must have been written by someone in the beginning, may be persons with great wisdom. These books always preach about love for humanity, compassion, justice, selflessness, peace and other good ideas. But these books also may contain texts which you feel are unconvincing- may be a narrow minded attitude somewhere, or God directly intervening, or lots of miracles occurring etc.

I think we have to try to look at everything from our own angle. For e.g. I too find it unconvincing to believe in the Adam-and-Eve and Earth-was-built-in-5-days story of Bible and tend to believe more in evolution theory. But then I really don’t know. I tell myself that may be this story is only symbolic wherein 1 day is equal to say 10 million years. But there is not much point many times in arguing in matter of one’s beliefs or faith.

The important point is, we have not to mix religion with God and can we still believe that there is a God or supreme Power in background controlling everything occurring in universe and our earth from the beginning of time or we are all just a product of chance.
One more reason , why I think people don’t believe in God ( the first reason being that they don’t find a scientific proof of God) is that we do not know what happens after we die. A good believer I suppose should have a tranquility of mind during his/her last days and should not feel rattled by his/her impending death. Surely, one day both of us as also all those who are reading these words are also going to die. You may like to think that we will merge into nothingness, like all the earlier caveman, ape man, dinosaurs, kings, queens, sinners, saints etc.etc who perished before us. You may think our bodies are only a chemical composition and once we die, our body will decay or get burned or fed to vultures, and thus merge with the elements of earth.

We think so because dead people don’t come back to tell their tales. But not knowing does not mean that there is definitely nothing after death
There are only few stray cases wherein people die and come back to tell a God’s story (Dr Raymond Moody’s book on near death experience.) Then there are rare cases of children recounting their lives in previous birth very accurately. There are also books by Dr Brian Weiss telling about past life experiences of his patients.

But again we have to analyze things from our own angle. We have to argue, we only hear or read these things, but never experience such cases ourselves. There must be money involved or fame, when such books become a best seller Or is the person really telling truth.
If we assume that a God is there, and He decides to control everything from backstage, how life would have been if he had granted human beings eternal youth. The way human beings have been living over the ages; I think it would have been a worst curse. Human beings would have stopped thinking about God at all. Even today, person in power struts with an ego as if they own the world. At least now after their death they are completely forgotten but what power games they would have indulged in if they were not to die ever. So personally, I find that death is a gem of God’s master plan. The slate is wiped clean and all are brought to the same level. I go one step further as I believe in reincarnation theory, and like to think that we come again in earth as a new person-man or woman with no memory of past. What you carry forward from your previous birth is your good or bad karma., may be good or bad habits, your attitude and such things. By taking birth and rebirths, through hundreds and thousands of times and repeatedly indulging in same play, a human being start getting purified, real knowledgeable and become desireless towards worldly pleasures. Person is now ready for God consciousness, as Nikolai say in his post in this thread. I live with a belief that some day in some life, I am going to know all secrets, How exactly things happened and and everything that happened so far. Such theory is proposed in some books and it looks logical to me, though it has no scientific base. If you try to observe you may find that some kids don’t take on their parents at all. Intelligent people may have dull child and vice versa, Bold may have timid child and vice versa and other such contrasts. Here no amount of the environment conditioning or genetics seems to have any effect. Of course, scientists may attribute this to a certain changed chemical composition of brain or some genetic anomaly or things like that. But I put it as a part of God’s plan for us, a sort of normalization. Likewise, assuming a God is there, we may start to see some logic or reasoning behind day-to-day events. When we fail, we have to tell ourselves: Well, God is too great, too wise and we can’t comprehend His ways. However, God sees everything in long term whereas we see everything in terms of few years or a hundred years. Therefore, God must have a better plan for us. Believeing God, I don't see it as cowardice but I see it as a type of reasoning- yes, that is how it should be.

Yes, Believers simply cannot give a proof of existence of God in the manner scientists’ want. All I can say that there are clues all around in nature. Science knows that everything around is so logical, precise, so meticulously planned. However, why it is really like this, can science really answer this?

I don’t know if I could satisfy your doubts but that is all I have to say. Still I would like to know what you meant when you wrote there are plenty of proofs against God

P.S: When I wrote your answer I asked myself whether I am being hypocrite for many a times I accuse myself of being hypocrite in such serious matters. However, I think that realization of one’s being hypocrite, is still a step towards becoming less hypocrite.

laidbackperson

11-24-2008, 04:08 AM

I haven't always been an agonostic, I was a practising Catholic at one point. But what got rid of that belief was 9/11, the castrophe that befell America, seemed so tragic and I felt so strongly against it towards God, to which I questioned "Are you real? If so, why let this happen?" That day forward, I stopped believing in the power of prayer, and began beleving in the power of action.

Hi! Nathster.
Well, 9/11 was really a bad thing and a monumental event in the history of mankind. But if we look back clinically, then there have been worse happenings in terms of numbers of deaths for e.g. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atom bombs, world war I and II to just name the few. Also these are events actually caused by human beings and OK, I concede God remained passive. His reasons for this I really do not know but guess it for greater goodness.

Just to loose faith in God because of 9/11, I don’t know how far it is correct. I just wonder whether all those families who were directly affected by the event have lost faith in God or some still continue to have faith. It will make for an interesting survey.
I remember reading a true story ‘Alive’ wherein a plane carrying sportspersons of a nation crashed in snow capped mountains. Many died but there were survivors also who remained alive for a period of over a month. On what food does these surviors live on. Well, they ate from the bodies of their friends because that is all what was there for them to survive. These survivors believed in God and were also close to their dead pals. I recall reading something like.’ When we get up in the morning in midst of these huge mountains, everything was so quiet so beautiful, so still that you could feel the presence of God’. The sentence sent a current through my whole body.

I think when first human beings came on earth with nobody to tell them about God, then in the magnificence of nature, their own smallness, their helplessness, or gratefulness for small miracles, they must have felt the urge to look upwards for a superior power. Sometimes I think God has conditioned our minds to believe that there has to be a God.

Still, it is very good thing for you say you believe more in power of action than in God. If you also remain a decent sort of guy, God may again approach you through His strange ways and make you believe in Him.

laidbackperson

11-24-2008, 04:10 AM

Hi, NikolaiI.
Thanks for a nice solid reply. I read what you write in other threads and found it very impressive from a young person like you. I just hope that with passing of years, your faith remain rock solid and help others around you. I believe God in the same sense as you do. Even when I wrote we are also God, I also wrote about a veil separating us and yes, our realizing a God consciousness state is a more appropriate expression.

laidbackperson

11-24-2008, 04:14 AM

In my experience, the most important thing in life is Love. The most wonderful thing in the world is Love. The worst thing to be without is Love. The most sought-after commodity is Love. Nothing can change a person like Love can. When a person has Love, he will tell you he needs nothing more.

A God whose entire teachings can be summed up as "Love everyone" has clearly recognized this. A God who is the embodiment of Love must, by nature, be worthy of worship.

I believe God is Love. Love is an easy God to believe in.

Well, dzebra. I think you have hit the bull’s eye. It is said that realizing God is being in eternal bliss state – free of hate, anger, jealousy, ego, fear, ignorance, sadness etc.etc. What should be left after filtering all this has to be love and joy.

laidbackperson

11-24-2008, 04:17 AM

Thanks, planet earth for the beautiful reply for your believing in God. I just wish there are more readers telling why they believe or don't believe in God.

JBI

11-24-2008, 05:07 AM

Honestly, if you believe in a supreme being controlling everything, then you believe that supreme being wanted everyone who is suffering to suffer, everyone who is hurting to hurt, everyone who is killed pointlessly to be killed.

Religious people like to attribute all the good things in the world to god, but why not atribute the bad ones? If someone you know contracts HIV, according to the believer, god wanted it. If someone gets hit by a car and dies, according to the believer, god wanted it. According to the believer, if a child gets kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and brutally murdered, god wanted it.

Alright, have it your way, god wanted it. All the bad in the world, if god exists, is a reflection of god. All the bad things in human kind are reflections of god, as he is the creator. Marry Shelley didn't get her Frankenstein from nowhere. She stole it right out of the Bible.

For all the preaching of the good of Jesus and Christ, I have seen no preaching of the bad. The only consultation given is that in Job, which tells us that god can do whatever he wants, make us suffer whatever he wants, and despite that, we are not aloud to question them. I say **** that, I'd rather keep my money than toss it into that idiotic coffer the church calls charity (and by church I mean synagogue too).

planet earth

11-28-2008, 12:32 PM

JBI

I think you are actually looking for perfection, and that is why you want everything in this world to be perfect, but why don't you look a little bit further, the perfect world is present, and had been prepared even before we ever existed. That is the simple reason why this very short limited world is non-perfect. If we seek perfection, we must seek The PERFECT. He has actually intentionally made of this world a place that is not perfect to make us strive for him who is Perfect. If we find him we will find perfection even in this world and will sure meet with THE PERFECT, in His Mansion, The Mansion of Peace, soon as he allows this to happen

NikolaiI

11-28-2008, 12:53 PM

I believe in God but I believe we have the power to make this earth a place of suffering or not. We are completely responsible for our actions. I think we should keep in mind, however, that the earth is a very small percent of the whole universe, much less God. Beyond the earth is infinite worlds. We have the power to take earth to anywhere in that system.

laidbackperson

12-06-2008, 04:38 AM

Hi, JBI I have been thinking what to reply to your post.

You say.” Religious people like to attribute all the good things in the world to god, but why not atribute the bad ones? If someone you know contracts HIV, according to the believer, god wanted it. If someone gets hit by a car and dies, according to the believer, god wanted it. According to the believer, if a child gets kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and brutally murdered, god wanted it.”

I am not sure whether’ God, wanted it’ is a right phrase but yes God was definitely aware of all this and He did not intervene. Why? I guess it as a long-term plan, and not as a ten, twenty or hundred years plans, we human being are conditioned to think. But yes, if a fallen person tries to get up, shake off his dust and move on in life, then he may find God’s help coming.
While thinking out your answer, I tried to find out, what famous Helen Keller who was deaf, dumb and blind person thought about God? She could be more authentic representative than us who lead easier life. I just pray that all this is correct and hope that you find some answer here.
The link is as given:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4536329

NPR.org, April 4, 2005 · This essay aired circa 1951.
It is Helen Keller who salutes you. You are not familiar with my voice, but my friend Polly Thomson will interpret the belief I have written from my soul.

I choose for my subject faith wrought into life apart from creed or dogma. By faith, I mean a vision of good one cherishes and the enthusiasm that pushes one to seek its fulfillment, regardless of obstacles. Faith is a dynamic power that breaks the chain of routine, and gives a new, fine turn to old commonplaces. Faith reinvigorates the will, enriches the affections, and awakens a sense of creativeness. Active faith knows no fear, and it is a safeguard to me against cynicism and despair.
After all, faith is not one thing or two or three things. It is an indivisible totality of beliefs that inspire me: Belief in God as infinite goodwill and all-seeing Wisdom, whose everlasting arms sustain me walking on the sea of life. Trust in my fellow men, wonder at their fundamental goodness, and confidence that after this night of sorrow and oppression, they will rise up strong and beautiful in the glory of morning. Reverence for the beauty and preciousness of the earth, and a sense of responsibility to do what I can to make it a habitation of health and plenty for all men. Faith in immortality because it renders less bitter the separation from those I have loved and lost, and because it will free me from unnatural limitations, and unfold still more faculties I have in joyous activity.
Even if my vital spark should be blown out, I believe that I should behave with courageous dignity in the presence of fate, and strive to be a worthy companion of the beautiful, the good, and the true. But fate has its master in the faith of those who surmount it, and limitation has its limits for those who, though disillusioned, live greatly.
It was a terrible blow to my faith when I learned that millions of my fellow creatures must labor all their days for food and shelter, bear the most crushing burdens, and die without having known the joy of living. My security vanished forever, and I have never regained the radiant belief of my young years that earth is a happy home and hearth for the majority of mankind. But faith is a state of mind. The believer is not soon disheartened. If he is turned out of his shelter, he builds up a house that the winds of the earth cannot destroy.
When I think of the suffering and famine, and the continued slaughter of men, my spirit bleeds. But the thought comes to me that, like the little deaf, dumb and blind child I once was, mankind is growing out of the darkness of ignorance and hate into the light of a brighter day.

Related NPR Stories
Aug. 10, 2004
Playwright Reflects on 'The Miracle Worker'

Sonofjohn

12-06-2008, 04:11 PM

What I am about to say is next to word for word from a book of which I treasure, All the Kings Men, written by Robert Penn Warren. Rather than read everyone's post here and smash my face through a wall, I will produce a post of why I don't believe in god.

"God cannot be fullness of being. For life is motion. [] For life is Motion towards Knowledge. If God is Complete Knowledge then He is Complete Non-Motion, which is Non-Life, which is Death. Therefore if there is such a God of Fullness of Being, we would worship Death. [] For Life is a fire burning along a piece of string---or is it a fuse to a powder-keg which we call god?---and the string is what we don't know, our Ignorance, and the trail of ash, which, if a gust of wind does not come, keeps the structure of the string, is History, man's Knowledge, but it is dead, and when the fire has burned up all the string, then man's knowledge will be equal to god's knowledge and there won't be any fire, which is Life. Or if the string leads to a power-keg, then there will be a terrific blast of fire, and even the trail of ash will be blown completely away. [] If the object which a man looks at changes constantly so that knowledge of it is constantly untrue and therefore is non-knowledge, then motion is possible. And Eternal Life. Therefore we can believe in Eternal Life only if we deny god, who is complete knowledge"(Robert Penn Warren, All the Kings Men).

This is quoted from a conversation in the book. The "[]" are to show where I jumped around on the page in the conversation.

NikolaiI

12-06-2008, 06:23 PM

Dr. Hill

12-07-2008, 12:16 AM

I personally think anyone with religious thoughts or feelings is delusional. Not an insult, as the majority of the world is this way. The human mind is VERY subject to delusions, and when someone experiences a feeling or delusion they can't explain, it's very easy to credit it to something that bases its whole philosophy on figures being too great to be explained. It makes sense, but it is a delusion.

Riesa

12-07-2008, 12:29 AM

"magic like.."

ugh.

blazeofglory

12-07-2008, 10:03 AM

This question merits a lot of reckoning and in point of fact God is not something we can fully understand. From time memorial so many questions have been asked and but sadly we never had the answer of this. All answers about God's existence well up in man's mind. It is really exciting to ask questions with respect to God.
It is really romantic to ask questions about God and more romantic to try to answer out of the fabrics of your imaginations. You can weave beautiful supernatural stories out of imagination and can tag answers to them, and this will be followed by posterity.

In fact if I argue for or against the existence of God I will tell lies to myself. For I have nothing to substantiate this fact other than back up it thru what I have heard from others, thru my conditioned mind.

Let everyone have his or her idea about God. Theism or atheism everyone can have his or her independent idea.

chasestalling

12-07-2008, 12:19 PM

NikolaiI

12-07-2008, 12:41 PM

if i may, where precisely is this place beyond earth?

Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.

Dr. Hill

12-07-2008, 01:44 PM

You sound like a brainwashed cultist, I don't think I'd like to meet you.

Taliesin

12-07-2008, 04:48 PM

Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.

I truly wonder, from where did you obtain those numbers?

Guinivere

12-07-2008, 06:47 PM

I was brought up without religion. I didn't know who this Jesus fella was until I found him in a story book in Kindergarten. I felt sorry for him but didn't actually have a concept of him and what he supposedly did for me. And I guess he didn't seem that interesting to me because I didn't plague my parents with questions about him.

Today in my early twentys I believe in God. I can honestly say I really do. Of course believing doesn't mean knowing. But I'm willing to wait and see. And after that's why the whole thing is called "faith" of "belief" and not "knowledge". And in a way this feeling I have, when I pray to God or yell at him depending on what's currently happening in this mad world of ours, is one I know I couldn't live without. It's like never being alone.

And as a memebr of the RCC no matter what my church is up to and how much I disagree with their actions I still feel that I can take all that anger to Him and just tell Him to deal with it. And it doesn't feel wrong to hate what is happening around me. After all how could I not. After all I don't know why it is happening. And I have to live with the hope that in someway it makes sense to him as my only consolation.

I guess all this rambling means that I have a concept of hope. Hope for a better place and better times. Being a Christian for me it's not about righteousness or pride or moral highground. It's about hope.

And I see how people find meaning through other ways. Science or otherwhise. Don't matter to me.
As long as we can all find some meaning in life and our purpose in life.

NikolaiI

12-07-2008, 09:38 PM

I truly wonder, from where did you obtain those numbers?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Vedic-Cosmology---The-Planets-of-the-Material-Universe&id=759892

chasestalling

12-07-2008, 09:50 PM

Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.

if i ever get there, i'm gonna kick his *** for giving us such a hard time.

planet earth

12-09-2008, 05:30 AM

if i ever get there, i'm gonna kick his *** for giving us such a hard time.

There is there, and if you believe that there is only 0.1 percent of having a there, then please hope to meet Him. He is God, who created you.

Let me tell you something. The great theories of human development and coping with change that everyone learns in order to change their lives. The principle in these theories that in order to change your life, is that you must see something you cannot.

If you are aware with who moved my cheese for example. Hem and Haw were two examples of someone that could not see there and someone that searched for there, and found it. The cheese store they knew ran out of cheese. It was only then that they had to choose whether to suffer and complain that there is no more cheese, or to search for something else in a different place. During his Quest he found clues; different types of cheese. Finally he found the cheese. It is this idea of coping with change that I mean.

First, if the world is not a good place, search for what is good within yourself and others who were created in this world only to love you and care for you.

Look at the sky which serves us a preserved ceiling. Imagine if we do not happened. Don't you ever think what is beyond these skies, there has to be something. Suffering, how bad it is , is very short, do not give it longer than it should take by choosing not to look at anything but suffering.

The positive energy you will possess through meditation and contemplation will lead you. God deserves to be worshipped. Any so called suffering in this very short world, diminishes when you Love Him, Mention His Names and visualize his blessings. Isn't there anything at all sweet in your life. If there is it is from Him and if there is not then it because you are blindfolding yourself.

Don't be like Hem, be like Haw
Search like Him until you see what he saw.

I am addressing myself before you. We are all undergoing sufferings, but when you are in love, you endure for your beloved until you meet him, and receive eternal ecstasy.

Please think before you reply. Believe I am not trying by any means to preach, because who am I to preach you. I am sure you and everyone else is better than me but it was only thinking and discussing with you, and trying to earn faith.

planet earth

12-09-2008, 05:40 AM

I meant to post this yesterday but my internet blinked out right before I could... anyway

"Trust in my fellow men, wonder at their fundamental goodness, and confidence that after this night of sorrow and oppression, they will rise up strong and beautiful in the glory of morning."

This is very beautiful! I believe the same thing. Morning always follows night...

I think the sharpest suffering we can experience is simply being separated from God, or turning against Him. I think surrendering to God is the only way to grow, to begin the progress of awakening our divine nature. Since God is unlimited, life in Him is unlimited.

Great Nikolai, You know one of the greatest punishments in the next life is to be veiled from God. In a beautiful verse in the Quran this is mentioned clearly.

I want to add something as well. Not only morning follows night but even night has the stars and the moons, which are sufficient light to those who wish to be guided. Even dark has light, and will lead to light. The Quran says " wa alamaat wa binnajmi hom yahtatdoon" meaning " And signs and by stars the become guided".

Dr. Hill

12-09-2008, 10:31 PM

I'm baffled that anyone could believe such nonsense.

Virgil

12-09-2008, 10:58 PM

I'm baffled that anyone could believe such nonsense.

and earlier you said:

You sound like a brainwashed cultist, I don't think I'd like to meet you.

I thought you said you didn't insult people.

Dr. Hill

12-09-2008, 11:11 PM

NikolaiI

12-10-2008, 12:41 AM

It's not insulting. I'm telling the truth. I think it's absolute nonsense and dangerous to believe in these sorts of fantasies and to credit your life to becoming closer to an imaginary friend of yours. It's genuine concern!

I don't know if you are interested in philosophy or religion -- you may have some conditioned aversion to religion; you called me brainwashed when I said "God-consciousness." Hopefully you'll keep searching... I am not brainwashed, that's actually a really mean thing to say...

You're more than welcome to put forth ideas, but actually calling someone brainwashed doesn't comply with the forum rules here. In response to your post, I would urge you to study philosophy. Read Plato. It's very illuminating. Read Nietzsche, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Ken Wilber, Alan Watts, Abraham Maslow, study Buddhism, Hinduism, Christainty, Sufiism... read atheists and theists. Read whatever seems like it's really great writing. Then come back to me and tell me your opinions.

My philosophy is rather simple. I believe in the soul, which is what we are. It's not very penetrating to call this nonsense, or call it... dangerous???-- and then leave without a thought. Because I said I believe in the spirit soul, the living spark which is in the heart??? You have lost me completely at this point. I won't ask you to retract this but if you wish to insult people on here, they're not likely to respond to you.

Anyway I'd more than willing to discuss the soul, God, atheism, or anything else, but again not if you say things like that. And please don't think that because I wrote this post, I would like to meet you. Trust me, I would not.

adwara1

12-10-2008, 02:45 AM

The concept of god was necessary for primitive human beings. It was helpful in making them human and helped the progress of human civilisations all over the world. Right now in the world I dont think many people believe in god as much as they used to, I am not talking about the atheists but the hypocrites are the ones that worry me. How can a person who truly believes in god do bad things. Mankind needs to learn live and let live. We should learn to respect and help each other as humans not because we wont go to heaven after death.

Guinivere

12-10-2008, 03:48 AM

Right now in the world I dont think many people believe in god as much as they used to, I am not talking about the atheists but the hypocrites are the ones that worry me.

You do know that non-believers are a minority. Most people on this planet are spiritual and believe in a God or Gods. And I'm not talking about the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists alone. Only in the Western World has atheism had such an uprising in the last decades.

Redzeppelin

12-10-2008, 10:32 AM

It's not insulting. I'm telling the truth. I think it's absolute nonsense and dangerous to believe in these sorts of fantasies and to credit your life to becoming closer to an imaginary friend of yours. It's genuine concern!

A few clarifications:
1. You believe you're telling the truth; in reality you're simply giving opinions about the things other people here have said - opinions based upon your vision of the world (which may be no more correct than the view of those whom you criticize).

2. Calling an insult "truth" makes the assumption that what you say is objective in nature - it's not. Your assessment of people as "brainwashed cultists" and that certain spiritual beliefs are "nonsense" are far from objective "truths" - they are (once again) merely your opinion - and you substantiated your opinion with great amounts of nothing as far as I can see.

3. If by "imaginary friend" you mean God, He may only seem "imaginary" to YOU because you don't know Him; if you did, you might not feel as you do. Don't make the mistake that children do of "if I can't see it it's not real." Much of what we believe in this world cannot be seen.

4. The only real concern I see are people like yourself who wish to see threats where none exist, to raise a semi-hysterical alarm-call in response to someone believeing in a higher spiritual power, to imply that there is some sort of mental deficiency involved in spiritual belief. Trust me when I say the most violent and anti-life movements on earth have always been athiestic in nature (Stalin, Pol Pot, et al).

Your case will be made stronger (and less shrill) if established by evidence, rather than vitriol. Good luck.

Petronius

12-10-2008, 12:15 PM

Although I believe Dr. Hill is capable of defending himself, I'm bringing my own counter to your attacks out of respect for his right to call something rotten rotten.

1. You believe you're telling the truth; in reality you're simply giving opinions about the things other people here have said - opinions based upon your vision of the world (which may be no more correct than the view of those whom you criticize).

I don't know if I should laugh or cringe at the believer's numerous attepts to put faith and knowledge on the same pedestal by branding them both as opinions. You're basically forcing us in a statistic worldview, where even the most absurd notion has an infinitessimal chance of being true, with the purpose of making your beliefs stand firm.
You do understand, of course, that statistics isn't a true science, as it does not measure actual chances, but the observer's lack of knowledge in a certain field. Your lack of knowledge in secular sciences may be what makes you think the existence of God is actually probable.

2. Calling an insult "truth" makes the assumption that what you say is objective in nature - it's not. Your assessment of people as "brainwashed cultists" and that certain spiritual beliefs are "nonsense" are far from objective "truths" - they are (once again) merely your opinion - and you substantiated your opinion with great amounts of nothing as far as I can see.

Any opinion, acknowledge as such, is an objective statement. You must deal with the fact that rational people regard certain world-views and stupefied spiritual nonsense in a certain manner, and wonder why they consistently think that.

3. If by "imaginary friend" you mean God, He may only seem "imaginary" to YOU because you don't know Him; if you did, you might not feel as you do. Don't make the mistake that children do of "if I can't see it it's not real." Much of what we believe in this world cannot be seen.

There's a diference between visible and actually interacting with the world. God, as seen in the Bible (where he vividly interacts with his subjects) does not manifest in the world, and has not been manifesting for long enough to assimilate the original stories with other mythological beliefs and place it where it belongs, in fiction. This may or may not affect certain parts of Christian philosophy and individual practitioners.

4. The only real concern I see are people like yourself who wish to see threats where none exist, to raise a semi-hysterical alarm-call in response to someone believeing in a higher spiritual power, to imply that there is some sort of mental deficiency involved in spiritual belief. Trust me when I say the most violent and anti-life movements on earth have always been athiestic in nature (Stalin, Pol Pot, et al).

I, for one, am not concerned about your belief just as I'm not concerned about the choices of a die-hard Star Wars fan. However, permit me to worry if widespread religiousness leads to deeming acceptable some social habits that threaten my values and my right to live by them.

And no, I don't "trust" that claim. You casually forget the Inquisition, the Jihads, the Crusades, aztec blood sacrifices (also religious in nature) and other evils born of narrow-minded mass psichologies. Stalin was no more a true atheist than he was a true comunist.
Besides, you don't see any atheists around here being fanatical extremist, and since atheism isn't an organised cult but rather a title meaning "without religion", I don't see how un-religiousness particularly develops anti-life inclinations.

NikolaiI

12-10-2008, 12:36 PM

Any opinion, acknowledge as such, is an objective statement. You must deal with the fact that rational people regard certain world-views and stupefied spiritual nonsense in a certain manner, and wonder why they consistently think that.

Are you serious? I don't think you realize how long or respected the list that completely invalidates that is.

Plato, Descartes, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Fichte, Karl Jaspers, Ken Wilber, Alan Watts, Thomas Cleary, Sri Aurobindo, Srila Prabhupada, Einstein...

Redzeppelin

12-10-2008, 12:51 PM

Although I believe Dr. Hill is capable of defending himself, I'm bringing my own counter to your attacks out of respect for his right to call something rotten rotten.

No one challeneged his "right" - what was being challenged was the nature of his claims. Mine was not an attack - it was a clarification of some of the points his claims suggest.

I don't know if I should laugh or cringe at the believer's numerous attepts to put faith and knowledge on the same pedestal by branding them both as opinions.

Stop. Hill's claim that someone is a "brainwashed cultist" and that spiritual things are "nonsense" do not belong to the realm of faith or knowledge - they are simply his glib dismissals of things that carry powerful meanings to others. That's all I was pointing out. You seem intent on making this some sort of "faith vs knowledge" debate (but the two terms aren't in conflict, by the way - surely that it clear?).

You're basically forcing us in a statistic worldview, where even the most absurd notion has an infinitessimal chance of being true, with the purpose of making your beliefs stand firm.

My good man/woman/person: I'm forcing nothing of the sort. I challenged Hill's misuse of the word "truth." I don't know what you're doing right now.

You do understand, of course, that statistics isn't a true science, as it does not measure actual chances, but the observer's lack of knowledge in a certain field. Your lack of knowledge in secular sciences may be what makes you think the existence of God is actually probable.

What are you talking about? Why are you bringing up statistics? Huh?

You know nothing of my knowledge of so-called "secular science" (which, by your usage, correctly suggests that science takes a "secular world view" [ie naturalism] as its basis, and by doing so, automatically limits itself in its ability to understand the world) - so your assumption is unfounded. You do not know what I lack in terms of science because I've said nothing in reference to it - how can you judge my proficiency in something I've not demonstrated? Do you possess God-like powers of clairvoyance? Wait until I talk about science and then decide if I'm ignorant. Thanks.

Any opinion, acknowledge as such, is an objective statement. You must deal with the fact that rational people regard certain world-views and stupefied spiritual nonsense in a certain manner, and wonder why they consistently think that.

Your use of the word "rational" to describe non-believers is laughable at best. It reveals the silly assumption that many nonbelievers carry that they are more intelligent and rational than those who believe in the spiritual. What you really mean is "I've limited my world to the things that I can see and measure" - which is fine, but there's more to life than that. There are many aspects of athiestic belief that defy logic and rationality even more than the idea of a divine being (like the odds of abiogenesis - ever seen those?). Your use of "stupefied" reveals that any discussion with you on the matter will be fruitless because - like Hill - you think it justifiable to insult that which you choose not to believe, do not understand, or both.

There's a diference between visible and actually interacting with the world. God, as seen in the Bible (where he vividly interacts with his subjects) does not manifest in the world, and has not been manifesting for long enough to assimilate the original stories with other mythological beliefs and place it where it belongs, in fiction. This may or may not affect certain parts of Christian philosophy and individual practitioners.

God did not manifest Himself in the Bible to the entire world - He did so to certain people during certain events. Don't be sure He still doesn't do so today.

I, for one, am not concerned about your belief just as I'm not concerned about the choices of a die-hard Star Wars fan. However, permit me to worry if widespread religiousness leads to deeming acceptable some social habits that threaten my values and my right to live by them.

Your comparison of a fictional movie to a belief system that has profoundly changed lives is absurd and shows not only your lack of respect, but your almost complete ignorance of the contents of the Bible. Nobody who reads it with an open mind (and the guidance of the Holy Spirit) would come to such ridiculous conclusions. Your comparison is an insult to those who find great meaning and inspiration from holy writings. Your arrogance is stunning. How interesting that you are not required to be at least tolerant or minimally respectful of those who believe differently than you.

Which of your rights are being affected by believers? How has your freedom been limited in a way that has degraded your quality of life?

And no, I don't "trust" that claim. You casually forget the Inquisition, the Jihads, the Crusades, aztec blood sacrifices (also religious in nature) and other evils born of narrow-minded mass psichologies. Stalin was no more a true atheist than he was a true comunist.

If you count up the numbers of people killed, you will find that the athiestic regimes of the 20th century alone have amassed larger numbers than all the misguided religious wars of history. Stalin was athiest enough.

Besides, you don't see any atheists around here being fanatical extremist, and since atheism isn't an organised cult but rather a title meaning "without religion", I don't see how un-religiousness particularly develops anti-life inclinations.

I hear plenty of athiests who - rather than tolerate religious people and their views - advocate religious belief as a dangerous sort of mental illness (cf. Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) as well as a number of posters in these threads. Christians don't post things about how athiesm is some sort of dangerous mental illness - Christians don't tell athiests they're stupid, ignorant, etc... (those Christians who do ought not wear the name).

I didn't equate athiesm as a belief system with anti-life - I simply indicated that historically, the most anti-life movements have been athiestic in nature.

Petronius

12-10-2008, 12:51 PM

Are you serious? I don't think you realize how long or respected the list that completely invalidates that is.

Plato, Descartes, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Fichte, Karl Jaspers, Ken Wilber, Alan Watts, Thomas Cleary, Sri Aurobindo, Srila Prabhupada, Einstein...

So I presume you have studied and understand each of them, yet you can not understand my simple statement?

When a person says about proposition A "I think proposition A has characteristic X", this is not an objective remark on proposition A. It is, however, implicitly, an objective remark on the person's mental response to proposition A, self-observed and comunicated. Now, this can either say something relevant about the person, or the proposition - granted that we have enough information about the other in order to work through the ecuation defined by the remark.
In our case, if we know that many rationalists have a reaction to religion similar to Dr. Hill's, we can conclude, though for now through simplistic and general relationing, that religiousness is irrational.

Am I more clear and less offensive to your list of names now?

Red, apparently we posted at the same time.

You bring up respect of other's beliefs. I don't value such pleasentries in a serious debate, because to me they are nothing more than pretense. Don't think that I don't find your dismissal of my rational conclusion to abandon religion, or your association of atheism with Stalin and anti-life movements as implicitly offensive. Just as well, never for a moment think that my considering religion to be a narrow-minded world-view makes me disregard the believer's person and intelligence in its entirety. But I don't see why, having some honest opinion, I need to feel humiliated to share it.

Just as much, my intentionally cheap irony is meant to mirror the contempt and frustration a genuine non-beliver finds in overly spiritual and unfocused rethorics. To me, it's the most appropriate, playful, and meaningful tone. ;) I simpathized with Dr. Hill because I presumed his motives for word-choosing to be similar.

Why I bring up statistics? Because even inadvertently you rely on chances, odds and posibilities... you do so by bringing up abiogenesis in this very post, as a stochastic process rather than a deterministic one. Again, counting up people killed is only relevant when put in context to the mass-murderer's possibilities - not that counting villains is a good way of ascertaining truth.

I'm sorry if I've offended you by making assumptions about your scientific knowledge. Still, you failed to say anything more than I may be wrong. We still don't know if I was or not. ;)

billyjack

12-10-2008, 01:11 PM

Petronius

12-10-2008, 01:31 PM

a good rationalist would have to admit that his reasoning is irrational at root, in that reason always leaves out more variables in its formulation than it includes.
making the good rationalist's conclusions irrational indeed.

Wouldn't that be undermining the whole basis of reason, since it is based on an irrational decision? Rather than thinking his reasoning irrational, a good rationalist should take his blank spots of knowledge into consideration before reaching a conclusion.

In any case, here I was not talking about the rationalist's reasoning against religion, but rather his primary aversion to it, which would lead a neutral observer to conclude an incompatibility of basic premises in the two worldviews.

NikolaiI

12-10-2008, 01:45 PM

So I presume you have studied and understand each of them, yet you can not understand my simple statement?

When a person says about proposition A "I think proposition A has characteristic X", this is not an objective remark on proposition A. It is, however, implicitly, an objective remark on the person's mental response to proposition A, self-observed and comunicated. Now, this can either say something relevant about the person, or the proposition - granted that we have enough information about the other in order to work through the ecuation defined by the remark.
In our case, if we know that many rationalists have a reaction to religion similar to Dr. Hill's, we can conclude, though for now through simplistic and general relationing, that religiousness is irrational.

Am I more clear and less offensive to your list of names now?

Yes, some from all of them.

You haven't said much in your statement, just that since some people claim atheism is rational, therefore religion is irrational. This doesn't mean anything, except that it's what you believe.

It's moot to argue; but then I am not saying anything against atheism. I'm here to discuss ideas, not to argue really.

My philosophy is basd on the fact that we are not this body. Everything you say is based on the idea that we are this body. Therefore your philosophy seems like nonsense to me and mine seems like nonsense to you. The difference is I am not trying to convince you your philosophy is nonsense, nor in a rude way.

I mentioned those writers although I have read more than them; I am trying to bring some of the energy spent on this thread to go into discussion; at least some. We can easily discuss the issues as they relate to any one of those persons philosophy. Or others, but I don't know all of them.

When a person says about proposition A "I think proposition A has characteristic X", this is not an objective remark on proposition A.

No one said it was. Redzeppelin said that it wasn't-- isn't this what you are trying to tell him? This is so absurd, Red was simply saying that an opinion about someone like the one given was not absolute truth; and you are telling him the same thing, accusing him of this error, which he warned about!

Redzeppelin

12-10-2008, 02:57 PM

You bring up respect of other's beliefs. I don't value such pleasentries in a serious debate, because to me they are nothing more than pretense.

Some people come to discuss a position; others come just to attempt to slam their opponent. Those who come to discuss are aware of the truth that people - when insulted - pull into a defensive position and shift their concerns from hearing the opposing position to simply defending their own against attack. The rudimentary laws of debate and discussion suggest that a hostile attack on an opponent pretty much reduces the ability to persuade the opponent to see the error in his/her position because now the ego is involved. What you dismiss as "pleasantries" are actually key characteristics of being persuasive. So, clearly, rather than try to convince others that your position is strong and theirs is weak, you instead simply attack and assume that your insults speak for themselves - they do, but not to the use you intend.

Don't think that I don't find your dismissal of my rational conclusion to abandon religion, or your association of atheism with Stalin and anti-life movements as implicitly offensive.

First, your make the assumption that your conclusion about religion is "rational." That's debatable. Second, I did not "dismiss" your conclusion so much as challenge its validity. Surely you can see that (perhaps on a second read)? Thirdly, Stalin is associated with atheism (not simply by me). From WikiAnswers:
Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940

Once again, I simply made the point that the largest collective killings in history were undertaken by ostensibly atheist regimes. No more, no less. If you wish to be offended by facts, do so.

Just as well, never for a moment think that my considering religion to be a narrow-minded world-view makes me disregard the believer's person and intelligence in its entirety. But I don't see why, having some honest opinion, I need to feel humiliated to share it.

Irony alert: classsifying someone's adherance to religion as "narrow-minded" absolutely questions the individual's intelligence by implying that it is inappropriately limited - but the obverse of that coin is the atheist - the truly narrow-minded because - without having any empirical proof as to the non-existence of God - has decided that his view of the world/universe will be LIMITED only to that which can be measured, observed, quantified, seen, etc (i.e. naturalism); all world-views - whether religious or naturalistic - exclude - so why is your exclusion not narrow-minded, but the religious person's exclusion is?

Just as much, my intentionally cheap irony is meant to mirror the contempt and frustration a genuine non-beliver finds in overly spiritual and unfocused rethorics. To me, it's the most appropriate, playful, and meaningful tone. ;) I simpathized with Dr. Hill because I presumed his motives for word-choosing to be similar.

Presumed.

Why I bring up statistics? Because even inadvertently you rely on chances, odds and posibilities... you do so by bringing up abiogenesis in this very post, as a stochastic process rather than a deterministic one. Again, counting up people killed is only relevant when put in context to the mass-murderer's possibilities - not that counting villains is a good way of ascertaining truth.

A pointless red herring. What is at debate here is not the numbers (but I can quote them later if you like), but Hill's inaccurate (read: wrong) use of the word truth to defend his insulting language.

I'm sorry if I've offended you by making assumptions about your scientific knowledge. Still, you failed to say anything more than I may be wrong. We still don't know if I was or not. ;)

You've not offended me - you've simply revealed that you draw conclusions without any empirical evidence that would establish the truth of your conclusions - and yet you accuse the religious of being non-rational? What I did was simply point out the faulty nature of your assumptions - you may be right, you may be wrong; what I take issue with is your assumption of the quality and contents of my knowledge without a shred of evidence (evidence: the holy grail of the atheist in determining the nature of what is real, what exists, what isn't real, what does not exist) upon which to base your conclusion.

Petronius

12-10-2008, 03:04 PM

Nikolai, if I came a bit on the offensive, it is because, even spiritually, I consider the idea of God as redundant, and somewhat perverted if you will allow. I too like to discuss, but I wonder how that can be done constructively if we accept from the start that both our worldviews are relatively true unchalengeable, although they would seem to exclude eachother. Cease interaction and live in these separate worlds maybe?
You've made the following statements:

Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.

There is no causality here, no reasoning, just claims. What were they meant to demonstrate? Where do they come from? (I presume a compilation of ideas from philosophers you've read, but sending me to retrace your path of knowledge negates my own and may very well prove a wild goose chase) How are they linked to our knowledge of this realm if there is no evident bilateral correlation between them? I know some will say that God reveals himself to chosen ones or believers (am I allowed to laugh?), but really, the history of mythos has had all too many boys who cried wolf, and all too many strutting naked emperors.
More questions I will want answered, if I am to not be derrisive:
What do you understand by material? Is it anything more than wave particles, light, quarks (all of which I would classify as material myself), perhaps something entirely unknown? Then how can you measure it, and if measuring is irrelevant by what laws or in what form do you relate to it and how would an outsde observer describe the transition between these phases? Your notion of "material sky" suggest there is such a definable boundry.
How is our natural state service to God, when we are obviously either not doing it or doing it unwittingly, and too insignifiant to even matter as such? Why isn't God in our service the way a government is?
Is it something wrong with me if I do not feel imprisoned by mortality? Why would we have wished separation if we are so revulsed by it?
What if our transition into our current form was in truth the natural course of our evolution, and we are meant to be stirred in the cauldron of life and leave the spirit realm behind as a preferable option?
Finally, what makes your mythos better than any other, small scale or universal? Is lack of imagination and pop triteness the only thing that makes the ideas of reincarnation in a Start Wars universe or having our bodies replaced, stolen and revived by an underground Hobbit race after burial, to live an eternity of heraldry as either orcs or elves, offensive when compared to christian/buddhist spirituality of ascension? What if we still need human sacrifices to be made by a remote and hidden cast of south-american natives for the Earth to keep spinning and the Sun to rise?

No one said it was. Redzeppelin said that it wasn't-- isn't this what you are trying to tell him? This is so absurd, Red was simply saying that an opinion about someone like the one given was not absolute truth; and you are telling him the same thing, accusing him of this error, which he warned about!

Perhaps I'm not so good at nuancing my speech in english, but what Red seemed to be doing was dismissing the opinion etirely on said basis, while I consider one's expressed opinion quite relevant, because it has both internal and external reasons for being voiced in that form. Thinking something is "stupid" is entirely different than thinking something is "unconvincing". Dismissing rude statements is to claim that starkly negative reaction are ever unfounded in relation to the subject and this is not an honest way at gaining credibility. ;)

NikolaiI

12-10-2008, 03:24 PM

...

No, that got too long.

Notice how I write a couple or more lines and you write these long paragraphs -- saying nothing except that you do not believe in God.

For a moment ignore the 1/4th to 3/4ths number. I trust you a number is not perverted, nor am I. And I won't tolerate -- that is, respond -- if you keep writing like this. There's nothing to be benefitted from this and I will not be insulted.

Now, what is material you ask? The material universe is the one science knows about. It is energy, as well as matter. It's temporary and it's based on the laws of birth and death, cause and effect.

Redzeppelin

12-10-2008, 03:32 PM

Perhaps I'm not so good at nuancing my speech in english, but what Red seemed to be doing was dismissing the opinion etirely on said basis, while I consider one's expressed opinion quite relevant, because it has both internal and external reasons for being voiced in that form. Thinking something is "stupid" is entirely different than thinking something is "unconvincing". Dismissing rude statements is to claim that starkly negative reaction are ever unfounded in relation to the subject and this is not an honest way at gaining credibility. ;)

But that's part of the problem, Pet: opinions are relevant - in argument they are often what we must use to make our case - but Hill's defense of his opinons as truth is the heart of the matter. Secondly, I did not dismiss insulting language: I questioned its appropriateness; as well, I question the validity of such language in reference to a group to which I belong (since the insulting language suggests something about the unsoundness of the position being attacked). I get to do that - when people insult me, I get to take issue with that. If you or Hill would like to present an argument in your favor, do so - an argument will speak far stronger than tactless, insulting language; good debaters make their case not through antagonism, but through well-wrought arguments. "Starkley negative reactions" are neither valid nor invalid by nature - but they are not condusive to real discussion; they merely antagonize one's opponent, which results in egos coming out on both sides, and the intellectual issue at hand disappears amongst the sparring (this sequence of postings being evidence enough of that).

Petronius

12-10-2008, 03:33 PM

Some people come to discuss a position; others come just to attempt to slam their opponent. Those who come to discuss are aware of the truth that people - when insulted - pull into a defensive position and shift their concerns from hearing the opposing position to simply defending their own against attack. The rudimentary laws of debate and discussion suggest that a hostile attack on an opponent pretty much reduces the ability to persuade the opponent to see the error in his/her position because now the ego is involved. What you dismiss as "pleasantries" are actually key characteristics of being persuasive. So, clearly, rather than try to convince others that your position is strong and theirs is weak, you instead simply attack and assume that your insults speak for themselves - they do, but not to the use you intend.

Oh, but since this is so obvious, I expect people to shield their egos in a serious debate, enjoy the irony or even the self-irony in flamboyant strikes, or simply ignore them (as you will see me ignore your Stalin rethoric), and lunge into equally intelligent and rewarding replies.
I do not mean to persuade you, so I will not try to get under your skin or even earn unwarranted respect from you. I'm indulging myself in a clash of ideas. If we're lucky, something worthy will arise, if not, it was all in good fun.

Irony alert: classsifying someone's adherance to religion as "narrow-minded" absolutely questions the individual's intelligence by implying that it is inappropriately limited - but the obverse of that coin is the atheist - the truly narrow-minded because - without having any empirical proof as to the non-existence of God - has decided that his view of the world/universe will be LIMITED only to that which can be measured, observed, quantified, seen, etc (i.e. naturalism); all world-views - whether religious or naturalistic - exclude - so why is your exclusion not narrow-minded, but the religious person's exclusion is?

Hats off to irony! We drink to it.

As you may have been told countless times before, it is impossible to come up with empirical evidence against the existance of anything. Find me empirical evidence against a flying pink elephant from space (who must also be from earth since it's called an elephant)!
My existance is not at all limited, since I have been christian at a time and gradually let it disperse into oblivion. My life experience does include dashing through this popular superstition, and since I now view it from outside a box, and am still aware of some principles and symbolic refferences, I don't feel limited at all... nor would I feel if I hadn't heard about the Bible until this very day.
I don't live solely in the world of measurable things, since economy is a growing science with lots to philosophise about, especially right now, and writing's an exrecise in originality... very spiritual-a whole, I'd say.

A pointless red herring. What is at debate here is not the numbers (but I can quote them later if you like), but Hill's inaccurate (read: wrong) use of the word truth to defend his insulting language.

Now that's a shame... Bashing statistic's a favourite occupation of mine. :( It's even sillier than religion!

You've not offended me - you've simply revealed that you draw conclusions without any empirical evidence that would establish the truth of your conclusions - and yet you accuse the religious of being non-rational? What I did was simply point out the faulty nature of your assumptions - you may be right, you may be wrong; what I take issue with is your assumption of the quality and contents of my knowledge without a shred of evidence (evidence: the holy grail of the atheist in determining the nature of what is real, what exists, what isn't real, what does not exist) upon which to base your conclusion.

You're pretty obsessed aboult proofs for a religious person. Did I ever claim you need a plethora of refference for everything you say? :rolleyes: They're even more pointless if they come from religious sources. What happened to free thinking? All I ask is for claims to make sense. "X said so" isn't even evidence, not even with scientists, let alone philosophers. :lol:

Redzeppelin

12-10-2008, 04:21 PM

Oh, but since this is so obvious, I expect people to shield their egos in a serious debate, enjoy the irony or even the self-irony in flamboyant strikes, or simply ignore them (as you will see me ignore your Stalin rethoric), and lunge into equally intelligent and rewarding replies.
I do not mean to persuade you, so I will not try to get under your skin or even earn unwarranted respect from you. I'm indulging myself in a clash of ideas. If we're lucky, something worthy will arise, if not, it was all in good fun.

Defend your lack of tact if you will. It's difficult to enter into discussion with someone whose diction is geared to belittle your position. You can excuse yourself and trivialize my objections if you want - but good debators are called so by the arguments - not by their insults. I'll assume from your constant defense that you do not intend to raise the level of your game. So be it.

My existance is not at all limited, since I have been christian at a time and gradually let it disperse into oblivion. My life experience does include dashing through this popular superstition, and since I now view it from outside a box, and am still aware of some principles and symbolic refferences, I don't feel limited at all... nor would I feel if I hadn't heard about the Bible until this very day.

If you have chosen to see the world only through the lens of naturalism, you have limited the possiblities of understanding the world. That's pretty simple, I think.

I don't live solely in the world of measurable things, since economy is a growing science with lots to philosophise about, especially right now, and writing's an exrecise in originality... very spiritual-a whole, I'd say.

Then what makes the spiritual world invalid, if you acknowledge that not all that is real is measurable or possesses empirical proof for its existence?

You're pretty obsessed aboult proofs for a religious person. Did I ever claim you need a plethora of refference for everything you say? :rolleyes: They're even more pointless if they come from religious sources. What happened to free thinking? All I ask is for claims to make sense. "X said so" isn't even evidence, not even with scientists, let alone philosophers. :lol:

Not obsessed - simply asking empiricists to be something resembling consistent in their position. Atheists/naturalists/empricists insist that there is no evidence for God, therefore He cannot possibly exist. I'm just asking for consistency, that's all.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about and why we're still going on. Hill made an error in logic in his claim, I criticized it, you charged in and defended it and here we still are - why? What's left to discuss?

You've made it clear that you think being rude is a legitimate debating tactic and I acknowledge that you can do so if you wish. You are perfectly within your rights to argue in an obnoxious, disrespectful way - but understand that to belittle people's religious beliefs is to ridicule what is -for many - something deep, profound, and personal. If I spoke as you have about something for which you felt similarly, you would probably come roaring out of the gate as well. The inability to at least understand that what you insult is very special and profound to others suggests nothing flattering about your character.

Petronius

12-11-2008, 04:46 AM

...defense of his opinons as truth is the heart of the matter

Isn't belief in God also and opinion called absolute truth?

Then what makes the spiritual world invalid, if you acknowledge that not all that is real is measurable or possesses empirical proof for its existence?

"It is not measurable by our means" is more what I meant. Either because it is too complex, or we are part of the system and such unreliable observers.

What makes the spiritual world invalid isn't actual lack of proof... intelligent theories can be extrapolated without the means of producing any tangible result. It is the misuse of observation that challenges spirituality. It's usually games of shadows, leaps of faith and generalization that lead to claims of deep complexity and claimed accuracy, which when traced back don't cast logically at all back on the real world.

Similar things can be said about social sciences, which classify, simplify and build around themselves their own quaint universe. You try to throw poor squirming me into the empiricist jar, or the naturalist jar, up there on the Atheist shelf (and I admit, I call myself atheist, but am I reduced to it? - no) inside my box so to speak, with you looking down and prompting whenever I skirt outside these imaginary boundries.
If you feel you have to be ofended by my attitude, then I apologize and will have nothing against ending this argument. But I would mention society is always irreverent and offensive toward's one's individuality. Your religion is no more personal and profound than undefined worldviews we may attack inadvertently.

Redzeppelin

12-11-2008, 11:38 AM

Isn't belief in God also and opinion called absolute truth?

"It is not measurable by our means" is more what I meant. Either because it is too complex, or we are part of the system and such unreliable observers.

What makes the spiritual world invalid isn't actual lack of proof... intelligent theories can be extrapolated without the means of producing any tangible result. It is the misuse of observation that challenges spirituality. It's usually games of shadows, leaps of faith and generalization that lead to claims of deep complexity and claimed accuracy, which when traced back don't cast logically at all back on the real world.

Similar things can be said about social sciences, which classify, simplify and build around themselves their own quaint universe. You try to throw poor squirming me into the empiricist jar, or the naturalist jar, up there on the Atheist shelf (and I admit, I call myself atheist, but am I reduced to it? - no) inside my box so to speak, with you looking down and prompting whenever I skirt outside these imaginary boundries.
If you feel you have to be ofended by my attitude, then I apologize and will have nothing against ending this argument. But I would mention society is always irreverent and offensive toward's one's individuality. Your religion is no more personal and profound than undefined worldviews we may attack inadvertently.

Look, I already said you're entitled to argue in whatever way you want. I do not need a lecture about what the real world is like. I do not expect all of reality to speak respectfully or deal with issues in a mature matter; however, in intellectual debate, I do challenge what I perceive to be immature, hostile, and disrespectful language because debate is supposed to be a forum where parties present their ideas and challenge other ideas; those who decide that their respect only need be extended to ideas that they support reveal a distrubing lack of sophistication.

If I - as an American - go to a foreign country and dismiss or mock the traditions of the people (traditions they take seriously and I see no point in), how will I be perceived by that country? A response of "Who cares what they feel? Their customs are stupid, life isn't always nice, f___k 'em" may be how you feel, but is always the best response? Or, out of respect for the people there, should I choose to respect their customs because respecting others' beliefs (or at least tolerating them) shows respect for people? So that's probably my primary point: mocking and insulting what people deeply believe in is essentially an attack upon an aspect of that person. You may not see it this way - but again, it's easy to defend your position until someone steps on something for which you hold high esteem or reverence. Our beliefs are a part of us; insult them and you have insulted us. Is that your goal? To insult people?

I'm done with this conversation - it's not really going anywhere. If Hill would like to defend his use of langugage, fine; but you've made it clear that you think you're entitled to yours. I'll assume that he's cut from pretty much the same cloth.

Good luck to you -

weltanschauung

12-11-2008, 12:18 PM

You sound like a brainwashed cultist, I don't think I'd like to meet you.

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/21.gif
next thing they'll be dancing!!!

NikolaiI

12-11-2008, 12:23 PM

Isn't belief in God also and opinion called absolute truth?

No, the opinion is not called absolute truth. God might be called absolute truth, but not the opinion that he exists. Our opinion can never be anything more than what we are, and actually it has to be less. And what are we? We are simply parts of the whole. Every one of us interconnected. Dependent on others' observation, just as others are dependent on ours. That is, if one existed alone, he would not even really exist. But realizing one is a part of the whole, one is part of the absolute, that opinion itself is not infinite or supreme. Nothing like that. The living entity is fallible, prone to mistakes, etc.

Dr. Hill

12-11-2008, 04:35 PM

I hadn't realized I had started such a fuss. I was being honest in my beliefs, I feel that religion is a danger to the world. I didn't call THAT fact, I called the fact that I believe it fact, which is true, I can attest.

And I don't believe it was right to attack (which you did) Petronius like you did, Redzeppelin and Nikolai to a lesser extent. He was arguing for arguments sake, debating on a forum is not a crime. The fact is, science has proof, religion has zeal. The proof is disregarded by the religious and the zeal is seen as silly by the rationalists, so nothing gets accomplished. I felt that Nikolai's post made him sound as if he didn't come up with that himself, but was merely repeating it as absolute truth because others had told him (hence, brainwashed) and he sounded like he belonged to a cult (which, in my opinion, differs only slightly from a religion). It was not an insult, and my intention is all that matters in distinguishing it from an insult and a statement; the fact that he got offended and that others got offended reflects on their nature, and how easily they are offended, which is something that only causes more problems.

Redzeppelin

12-11-2008, 06:46 PM

And I don't believe it was right to attack (which you did) Petronius like you did, Redzeppelin and Nikolai to a lesser extent. He was arguing for arguments sake, debating on a forum is not a crime. The fact is, science has proof, religion has zeal. The proof is disregarded by the religious and the zeal is seen as silly by the rationalists, so nothing gets accomplished.

Science has "proof" of what, exactly? And what kind of "proof" does it have? You make tremendously vague and general claims. Religion, for one, does not try to "prove" anything. Religion is not a counterpart of science - it deals with en entirely different aspect of life than does science. The two are not in competition. You oversimplify the believer's position - a typical attitude of the non-believer.

Pet got called out because he - like you - lack basic courtesy in referring to other peoples' beliefs; it's one thing if you don't like the way the people present it - that's fair - but mocking the beliefs shows a lack of maturity in intellectual discussion. It is less that I'm "offended" and more that your language is disrespectful. Your assent on that point, by the way, is not required.

I felt that Nikolai's post made him sound as if he didn't come up with that himself, but was merely repeating it as absolute truth because others had told him (hence, brainwashed) and he sounded like he belonged to a cult (which, in my opinion, differs only slightly from a religion).

You "felt" that his words indicated something about the depth (or lack thereof) of his religious experience? That doesn't sound very empirical or rational or scientific to me - it sounds a lot like the rationaliztion given by religious people for what they believe: "I feel like God is directing me to.." Your "feelings," sir, are not reliable indicators of reality. Most empiricists rely upon facts.

Judging the sincerity of someone's belief systems off of a bulletin-board forum post is highly presumptive - what it speaks of is YOUR attitude towards religion more than the sincerity or depth of Nilolai's spiritual experience. You have no way of knowing the truth, so you use your misunderstanding of religion to categorize him.

It was not an insult, and my intention is all that matters in distinguishing it from an insult and a statement; the fact that he got offended and that others got offended reflects on their nature, and how easily they are offended, which is something that only causes more problems.

You need not agree with my assessment of your words in order for your words to have a certain effect. Your attitude - like many who disbelieve - is insulting and attempts to degrade into psychosis or wishful thinking something that is profound, meaningful, and life-affirming to a great many people in this world. Your defense of such an attitude speaks badly in your favor.

Virgil

12-11-2008, 08:06 PM

JBI

12-11-2008, 08:49 PM

People throw the word proof around. If God doesn't exist, you cannot prove a negative. One can say there is no evidence of God, and then one can agree or disagree. But one cannot say that there is proof that God doesn't exist.

To some extent, though I think it is safe to say that the sun didn't stop moving, or that one can disprove things within the text. Either way though, that is no "proof of god" Agnosticism of that sort allows only for one option - if God cannot be proven or disproved, than he cannot be used for any argument in regards to morality, or the law, since the validation of the "divine morality" is faulty. That Protagorian Sophism, and I mean that in the denotative form, leads essentially to the conclusion that anyone who says that God does exist, is merely a rhetorician, a liar, as the proof is non-existent, whereas anyone who denies God cannot be 100% sure, and therefore is relying on rhetoric to prove the non-existence.

By that reckoning, those who believe have naturally been duped by the rhetoric of the Church, and of scripture, whereas those who haven't have been duped by perhaps another sophist. Either way, the agnosticism that this equates to, assuming one doesn't go either way, and believe either sophist, leads to a conflict with in many times, the religion itself, as scripture and the tradition dictate punishment for infidels or apostates. It then becomes impossible to fence sit, as you either, for instance, burn in hell, or say your Hail Marys.

That being said, I don't doubt you can disprove some facets of religion, or disprove a majority of theological work, or interpretation of scripture. The fact that there is debate on these things shows us that there is no "one truth" even within religious dogma. I'm just pointing out that the agnostic approach is rather conflicting with various religions, and will lead nowhere for someone who really isn't sure.

Joreads

12-11-2008, 09:54 PM

Do you need a reason to believe on God? I don't know why I believe in God but I do. Some would cal that faith I guess.

Dr. Hill

12-11-2008, 11:05 PM

Riesa

12-11-2008, 11:19 PM

"Do you need a reason to believe on God? I don't know why I believe in God but I do. Some would cal that faith I guess."

growl.

Virgil

12-11-2008, 11:46 PM

Petronius

12-12-2008, 04:29 AM

No, the opinion is not called absolute truth. God might be called absolute truth, but not the opinion that he exists. Our opinion can never be anything more than what we are, and actually it has to be less. And what are we? We are simply parts of the whole. Every one of us interconnected. Dependent on others' observation, just as others are dependent on ours. That is, if one existed alone, he would not even really exist. But realizing one is a part of the whole, one is part of the absolute, that opinion itself is not infinite or supreme. Nothing like that. The living entity is fallible, prone to mistakes, etc.

God can be called absolute truth, or you decided to call absolute truth God? Important difference. When I say God, I refer to a mythological entity described in the bible, that may be synonymous to Allah. If you refer to something else entirely, then you deny that which introduced the term.
Of course we are part of a whole, we can never escape it, but this applies very well to the material world. We feed, we burn energy. Different elements of matter pass through us in a changing flux. In the end, be it still a part of us or not, everything transforms.
How do you link this to the idea of a unitary soul?

I don't subscribe to the idea that we don't exist in solitude. That's the "tree falling in the forest" rethoric. The world spins by the same rules, and we are not important enough for it to trick us or to perish without our perception.

All in all, what you say sounds paradoxal to me, as I believe universal laws to be etirely deterministic, yet I do not believe in God.

Red, you sound like a lawyer. You also sound like you think it's wrong for people to have impressions, especially negative ones, and that intuitive thinking is reprehensible. I'd like it more if we didn't make debates into a didactic competition of form, or a collective pat on the back for our variety.
There were ideas I considered relevant to the subject at hand in my posts, but you chose to focus on my defense of form and tell me what I aim at with my choice of words. You were quite presumptive yourself.

In truth, as I am more often an observer here than a participant, I have seen many sensible arguments (such as JBI's in this very thread) dismissed in unsatisfactory ways by believers. When reason doesn't work, some are only naturally tempted at humour. ;)

Redzeppelin

12-12-2008, 10:49 AM

Science is based solely on trying to prove things, and succeeding or failing. Evolution is proven through fossils and observing the evolution of bacteria and viruses, which evolve very quickly in comparison to multi-cellular organisms. Science IS proof, what do you mean what proof? They use actual, tangible experiments to prove things. Evolution may just be a "theory", but so is gravity, and I don't see anyone denying that.

Science can prove certain things; some things are evident by themselves and can be retested (gravity, for example); other things are not so - they require that the "evidence" be interpreted (especially if the actual event - the beginning of life - cannot be observed); in order to interpret something, we must apply an interpretive scheme of some sort. The intelligent design theorist applies a different interpretive device to the same "evidence" a secular scientist does (who is applying a different interpretive device - namely, naturalism) and they wind up with two different interpretations of the "evidence." Lots of evidence doesn't necessarily speak for itself.

Red, you sound like a lawyer.

Far from it. I do this for fun.

You also sound like you think it's wrong for people to have impressions, especially negative ones, and that intuitive thinking is reprehensible.

Nope - impressions and assumptions are very normal - they are impossible to avoid. But - since many empiricists/atheists/evolutionists like to dismiss creation or God because of a "lack of evidence," I simply like to point out that their logic, applied rigorously to all of life, makes almost all claims of "what is" into nonsense because much of what we believe to be true is based upon feelings, assumptions, impressions, etc. I simply point out the contradiction in the empiricist's position. You can't disslove God out of existence due to a "lack of evidence" and then talk about the "truth" of something you believe when that "truth" (Hill's idea that Nikolai is a "brainwashed cultist" for example) is based upon a subjective impression. Consistency is what I'm asking for.

I'd like it more if we didn't make debates into a didactic competition of form, or a collective pat on the back for our variety.
There were ideas I considered relevant to the subject at hand in my posts, but you chose to focus on my defense of form and tell me what I aim at with my choice of words. You were quite presumptive yourself.

My friend - you chose to take up a cause that wasn't yours - namely Hill's unseemly disrespect pointed towards believers by his silly (and very subjective) terminology. His langugage opened himself up for attack; you stepped in; don't blame me that you stepped into a discussion with me - I didn't twist your arm and challenge you. You took up my argument about terminology. I presumed nothing: I took your language to task. Make it clear what I presumed and I'll gladly retract if my presumption is in error.

In truth, as I am more often an observer here than a participant, I have seen many sensible arguments (such as JBI's in this very thread) dismissed in unsatisfactory ways by believers. When reason doesn't work, some are only naturally tempted at humour. ;)

But humor that degrades what people feel deeply about isn't funny; name-calling ("brainwashed cultist") isn't funny either.

NikolaiI

12-12-2008, 11:01 AM

To some extent, though I think it is safe to say that the sun didn't stop moving, or that one can disprove things within the text. Either way though, that is no "proof of god" Agnosticism of that sort allows only for one option - if God cannot be proven or disproved, than he cannot be used for any argument in regards to morality, or the law, since the validation of the "divine morality" is faulty. That Protagorian Sophism, and I mean that in the denotative form, leads essentially to the conclusion that anyone who says that God does exist, is merely a rhetorician, a liar, as the proof is non-existent, whereas anyone who denies God cannot be 100% sure, and therefore is relying on rhetoric to prove the non-existence.

By that reckoning, those who believe have naturally been duped by the rhetoric of the Church, and of scripture, whereas those who haven't have been duped by perhaps another sophist. Either way, the agnosticism that this equates to, assuming one doesn't go either way, and believe either sophist, leads to a conflict with in many times, the religion itself, as scripture and the tradition dictate punishment for infidels or apostates. It then becomes impossible to fence sit, as you either, for instance, burn in hell, or say your Hail Marys.

That being said, I don't doubt you can disprove some facets of religion, or disprove a majority of theological work, or interpretation of scripture. The fact that there is debate on these things shows us that there is no "one truth" even within religious dogma. I'm just pointing out that the agnostic approach is rather conflicting with various religions, and will lead nowhere for someone who really isn't sure.

Why can nothing be said for God? Because nothing needs to be said for God. There mere name of God includes everything He symbolizes. Eternal time, Absolute Truth, the source of beauty, love, strength, truth, in fact the source of everything. Nothing exists separate from His will, yet the majority of the matter is completely involved and it acts only inanimately. This isn't dogma, it's simply an idea about God. All are, fortunately, welcome to come upw it and share their ideas, thanks to Lit-net, without fear of being insulted for them. (I hope.)

God can be called absolute truth, or you decided to call absolute truth God? Important difference. When I say God, I refer to a mythological entity described in the bible, that may be synonymous to Allah. If you refer to something else entirely, then you deny that which introduced the term.
Of course we are part of a whole, we can never escape it, but this applies very well to the material world. We feed, we burn energy. Different elements of matter pass through us in a changing flux. In the end, be it still a part of us or not, everything transforms.
How do you link this to the idea of a unitary soul?

I don't subscribe to the idea that we don't exist in solitude. That's the "tree falling in the forest" rethoric. The world spins by the same rules, and we are not important enough for it to trick us or to perish without our perception.

All in all, what you say sounds paradoxal to me, as I believe universal laws to be etirely deterministic, yet I do not believe in God.

Red, you sound like a lawyer. You also sound like you think it's wrong for people to have impressions, especially negative ones, and that intuitive thinking is reprehensible. I'd like it more if we didn't make debates into a didactic competition of form, or a collective pat on the back for our variety.
There were ideas I considered relevant to the subject at hand in my posts, but you chose to focus on my defense of form and tell me what I aim at with my choice of words. You were quite presumptive yourself.

In truth, as I am more often an observer here than a participant, I have seen many sensible arguments (such as JBI's in this very thread) dismissed in unsatisfactory ways by believers. When reason doesn't work, some are only naturally tempted at humour.

I wanted to answer this on another thread recently. My understanding of God is similar to my understanding of the soul. The soul is more than a little mysterious since we cannot see the soul, yet it has been a fascinating subject for writers, poets, and philosophers since the beginning of written thought. Why believe in the soul, when we cannot see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it? The people who have ideas about it, are they just liars, or can anything really be known about it? They are not liars. The soul is mysterious, and we'll never know it completely, written down in a few paragraphs or something like this; first and mainly because we will never have consensus about it.

Now first of all, is it illogical to believe in the soul? Is it not rational to believe in the soul? I would like to answer "no" to each of these questions. The soul is more sublime than reason. The soul cannot go against reason, because reason cannot go against the soul; the soul being more appealing to us in terms of beauty, which cannot go against terms of truth. I am not saying anything against reason; in fact reason is very important. If it were not for reason, we would never come to the soul. The reason for this is that since the soul is pure, sublime, it also means it is very rare. By first knowing about the soul, it makes things like reason, morality more important because otherwise, the glimpse of the soul is lost.

Petronius

12-12-2008, 12:04 PM

Red, what I did was find myself a way into the conversation, hoping it will eventually evolve. You claim Dr. Hill's remark was rude, I thought it witty. This thread after all is partially targeted at "opening the minds" of non-believers, as it looks from the original post (he does begin with why he thinks people don't believe and moves on to saying why he still does), so a non-believer is entitled to honest commentary. How is it fair to me if you call me out as narrow-minded for not feeling spiritually enlightened by something I viscerally percieve as trite, yet I have to give it response worthy of great wisdom - otherwise I'm a jerk? Is engaging the conversation not respect enough? I don't think claiming something important on a personal level would get you any attention on academic level.

This is a debate. I consider people who participate mature enough to deal with stark oposition. I have no doubt you and Nikolai are educated and you seem to have firm beliefs. Same here. I think this thing you said sounded crazy... Move on or ignore the idiotic troll that I am, but don't use subjective moral arguments to divagate on my behaviour and what it says about my arguments. If you still want to continue, and I don't blame you if you don't, I told you that for me, the lack of proof you insist about is secondary.
What is your stand on misuse of evidence in the consolidation of the believer's interpretation?

I wanted to answer this on another thread recently. My understanding of God is similar to my understanding of the soul. The soul is more than a little mysterious since we cannot see the soul, yet it has been a fascinating subject for writers, poets, and philosophers since the beginning of written thought. Why believe in the soul, when we cannot see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it? The people who have ideas about it, are they just liars, or can anything really be known about it? They are not liars. The soul is mysterious, and we'll never know it completely, written down in a few paragraphs or something like this; first and mainly because we will never have consensus about it.

Now first of all, is it illogical to believe in the soul? Is it not rational to believe in the soul? I would like to answer "no" to each of these questions. The soul is more sublime than reason. The soul cannot go against reason, because reason cannot go against the soul; the soul being more appealing to us in terms of beauty, which cannot go against terms of truth. I am not saying anything against reason; in fact reason is very important. If it were not for reason, we would never come to the soul. The reason for this is that since the soul is pure, sublime, it also means it is very rare. By first knowing about the soul, it makes things like reason, morality more important because otherwise, the glimpse of the soul is lost.

But if we assign souls to human beings, then a soul is created or forced into the material world each time a person is born or concieved. If that person's life decides the future path of the soul (ascension, damnation), then souls are bound to the material world and in theory their flux can even be controlled by mortals. So why argue that the soul is not part of this body?
Can't the soul be merely an expression of identity? I don't believe in morality as something preternatural either, but as choices given the imperative of survival in the context of social cooperation. It makes sense without the implication of deities and additional realms.

billyjack

12-12-2008, 12:29 PM

The intelligent design theorist applies a different interpretive device to the same "evidence" a secular scientist does (who is applying a different interpretive device - namely, naturalism) and they wind up with two different interpretations of the "evidence." Lots of evidence doesn't necessarily speak for itself.

sounds like you're saying evolution is god's way of creation, a bit pantheistic i'd say.

But humor that degrades what people feel deeply about isn't funny; name-calling ("brainwashed cultist") isn't funny either.

i take it you dont watch south park. if you can't laugh at your views, you betray them

Dr. Hill

12-12-2008, 04:04 PM

I thought I had explained that I genuinely believe the overzealous to be brainwashed cultists, and was not poking fun at anything.

JBI

12-12-2008, 04:10 PM

Virgil

12-12-2008, 04:34 PM

One cannot say there is no direct proof against God without acknowledging that the same can be applied towards God. I'm sorry Virgil, but you can't simply reject that argument. There is no way a logical assumption can be created in the sense that "because there isn't proof against, there is". That's pure fallacy.

No, no I'm not say because there is no proof there has to be. All I'm saying is that one can't use the word proof for God's non-existence. If one goes through all the possiblities and comes to a conclusion that there is no God, fine. I accept that and that can be perfectly logical. But it's still not a proof.

The point is, since a total proof cannot be found, the use of a God in any argument becomes fallacious. One cannot say God created the world, without saying "I believe God created the world".
I agree if one is having a philosophic discussion. If one is having a theological discussion then it's a matter of what the two parties agree on.

One cannot say "it is wrong to do this" when the grounds for the "wrong" are all scripture based. One cannot use religion as a justification of anything, without acknowledging that those opinions are a faith-based belief, without any actual conclusive evidence, or concrete justification.
I guess that would also recieve the same answer as above with the only qualification that morality is not only interlinked with religion but with cultural norms and traditions. Of course they can be in flux and traditions get challenged and evolve. we've never had such a mixture of cultures come together as in the present day, so there is a readjustment going on.

With that notion, Religion becomes personal only, and isn't logically allowed to pass beyond the person, without entering the grounds of fallacy. All arguments that rely on god simply become fallacious, and crumble, since there is no proof or disproof of God, and naturally one must be skeptical, or conservative enough to not grant them any say.
I don't advocate a theocracy, if that's what you're thinking. But in a democracy the number of people with a particular set of values matters. Given of course certain civil rights.

In that sense, if someone is engaged in a holy war, they are using God, fallaciously, as a justification of a human war. If one is engaged in God's duty, one is engaged in a fallacy, and is really engaged in one man's duty.
The individual has a right to pursue his beliefs as long as they follow the social laws. Would you agree?

JBI

12-12-2008, 04:44 PM

Redzeppelin

12-12-2008, 06:51 PM

I thought I had explained that I genuinely believe the overzealous to be brainwashed cultists, and was not poking fun at anything.

If I told you that I "genuinely believed" that you were a styrofoam cup, a child molester, or a sub-human life form, would that make my views valid? Would that make them less offensive to you? Would you accept my views as reasonable or acceptable simply because I "genuinely believed" them to be true?

And since when is "genuine belief" a basis for empirical truth?

Dr. Hill

12-12-2008, 06:57 PM

Redzeppelin

12-12-2008, 07:18 PM

Yes, I would not be offended. I don't need proof that he is a brainwashed cultist for my concern to be valid, as concern is a part of my interior thoughts, thus opinion. I would not be offended at anything you could formulate about me, because I have confidence that I am not that, or, if I am that, then I admit it.

I guess I'm bothered because what you've done is the equivalent of "racial profiling" or, worse, sheer stereotyping. In other words, if you drew such conculsions about someone based upon their ethnicity or gender, you would be severly attacked for your judgmental and bigoted attitude - primarily because you decided who someone based upon a limited (and unfair) idea as to who certain kinds of people are. In this case, you decide upon very limited information (a post or two in a discussion forum) that someone's religious beliefs equal "brainwashing" - as opposed to other legitimate options. You could never get away with such generalizations about someone based upon their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation - so why is it OK for you to do so based upon religious belief? How are you any different from the racist, sexist, homophobe in that you have - without bothering to even consider other options (i.e. deep religious belief could be due to study, profound experience or other means than "brainswahing") - decided the character of someone and his/her beliefs?

You can defend that if you wish, but what you've done is not different than that done by the racist, the sexist, the homophobe. Nice.

Dr. Hill

12-12-2008, 08:10 PM

I explained what I meant by brainwashed, he seemed, from my judgment, to be repeating something he had heard without formulating the idea himself, hence, brainwashing. What you're doing is making a mountain of a molehill.

"You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain of a molehill-- he knows that himself, he he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness."

-The Brothers Karamazov (a great book I've had the pleasure of beginning not two days ago).

Learn from that. My mistake in words, my unfair judgment of Nikolai, was nothing but an opinion and perhaps a bias of mine. But I have explained that I meant not to insult, and yet, no one will get over it. It was tactless of me, not malicious.

Hisnibs

12-12-2008, 08:50 PM

How can a benevolent God find humour in the suffering of his creations? To me if there is an all powerful God the he is sadistic. Any sensible being with the power to ease the suffering of others would chose to do so especially if it within their means.

The posit that just because everything is logical and complex in the universe does not imply that intelligence guided every step of the way. Its possible that god existed before the creation of the universe and employed in his equations the possibility of forming self replicationg molecules through chemical reactions. Therefore even if this god exists "He" does not have to present anymore and nor does "He" have to care.

Good point. Does that mean then that if this god thing exists that he doesn’t need to be revered or worshipped?

People throw the word proof around. If God doesn't exist, you cannot prove a negative. One can say there is no evidence of God, and then one can agree or disagree. But one cannot say that there is proof that God doesn't exist.

That all depends on what you mean by proof though. By definition, atheists don’t postulate the existence of god. If atheists “believe” anything it is the logical disproofs of the logical proofs of god, i.e. omnipotence, for one. If one can make a disproof of it (and oh boy lol there are plentiful!) then there’s your proof right there. If you mean by proof in the material sense then no one has to bother trying to provide material proof of god’s non-existence seeing as there is none for his existence.

Evolution may just be a "theory", but so is gravity, and I don't see anyone denying that.

Uh-oh! Now you’ve done it! Not only do we have to contend with “intelligent ‘design’” constantly in our midst, but now you may very well have created a new one: “intelligent ‘falling’”! lol

Science is based solely on trying to prove things, and succeeding or failing. Evolution is proven through fossils and observing the evolution of bacteria and viruses, which evolve very quickly in comparison to multi-cellular organisms. Science IS proof, what do you mean what proof? They use actual, tangible experiments to prove things. Evolution may just be a "theory", but so is gravity, and I don't see anyone denying that.

Science can prove certain things; some things are evident by themselves and can be retested (gravity, for example); other things are not so - they require that the "evidence" be interpreted (especially if the actual event - the beginning of life - cannot be observed);

The event itself cannot be observed, you are correct. But you can deduct from existing evidence and work backwards (kinda like a detective at a crime scene). Cosmic radiation as well as many features of the current universe as it behaves now is consistent with the big bang theory. It’s actually quite simple.

in order to interpret something, we must apply an interpretive scheme of some sort. The intelligent design theorist applies a different interpretive device to the same "evidence" a secular scientist does (who is applying a different interpretive device - namely, naturalism) and they wind up with two different interpretations of the "evidence." Lots of evidence doesn't necessarily speak for itself.

What an intelligent design theorist has in his arsenal as “evidence” is not actually what could characteristically be described as evidence by the way. What evidence are you postulating? Stories from the bible?

Yes, I would not be offended. I don't need proof that he is a brainwashed cultist for my concern to be valid, as concern is a part of my interior thoughts, thus opinion. I would not be offended at anything you could formulate about me, because I have confidence that I am not that, or, if I am that, then I admit it.

I guess I'm bothered because what you've done is the equivalent of "racial profiling" or, worse, sheer stereotyping. In other words, if you drew such conculsions about someone based upon their ethnicity or gender, you would be severly attacked for your judgmental and bigoted attitude - primarily because you decided who someone based upon a limited (and unfair) idea as to who certain kinds of people are. In this case, you decide upon very limited information (a post or two in a discussion forum) that someone's religious beliefs equal "brainwashing" - as opposed to other legitimate options. You could never get away with such generalizations about someone based upon their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation - so why is it OK for you to do so based upon religious belief? How are you any different from the racist, sexist, homophobe in that you have - without bothering to even consider other options (i.e. deep religious belief could be due to study, profound experience or other means than "brainswahing") - decided the character of someone and his/her beliefs?

You can defend that if you wish, but what you've done is not different than that done by the racist, the sexist, the homophobe. Nice.

That is one great, big, smelly, giant sh!t sandwich of an association fallacy that you’re forcing Dr. Hill to take a bite of if I’ve ever seen one!

Virgil

12-12-2008, 09:11 PM

What are social laws though? The Law isn't democratic is it? It is based on the legal tradition - otherwise the Christian lobby would overpower the Muslim Lobby, who would overpower the Jewish Lobby, who in turn would burn the Atheist Lobby to the ground.

I can't speak for your conuntry but in the US, Judicial process based on legal tradition, law is generated by legislature, people elected to represent their regions.

The Law itself reflects naturally a moral code, as prescribed by a constitution, and in the American case, especially the Bill of Rights.

That is the problem - to what extent can the law be applied to minorities, if the majority are theocratic? Where can justice be found?
I think most people in the US think the Bill of Rights and the admentments added over the years are adequate. I haven't heard either side complaining. We had one problem dealing with race. I can see issues in history over that. It took a good deal and a lot of blood shed to deal with it. Actually it was the religious institutions that pushed for the end of slavery and equal rights. Martin Luther King was a reverend. It was the northeast churches that pushed for the end of slavery.

That is the problem which all advocates of democracy end up fighting - on what grounds do minority rights exist in democracy - most advocates argue for a respect of minority rights, but is that possible?
Are you advocating dictaorship? Or arstocracy? I will be glad to be your king or dictator. I bet you wouldn't want to live under my rules. ;) Seriously, what choice does one have but a democracy? Actually it's a republic, but we know what we mean.

The problem rests in the separation of religion and morality, which to date hasn't been done.

To what extent can your so called "social laws" exist outside of religion. To what extent are they formed based on the fallacies of religion? Should, for instance, something like Sodomy be illegal in certain states, and if so on what grounds?

When right and wrong get thrown in, religion complicates things, because to the believer, in enough cases, the view of God is the only view, despite the obvious fallacy, and that is used as a tyrannical view over the non-believer.
It doesn't even have to do with religion. Religion is a basis of people's morality. Even if religion were gone tomorrow there would still be morality and contrasting views of morality. There are atheists who are anti abortion. It doesn't have to based on religion. If religion were gone tomorrow, you and I would still disagree on most things. I don't know what tyrannical laws you feel. I'm certainly not up on the laws of Canada. But I would think they would be more in tune with yours than mine. Even here there are no religious laws. Even if a state may still have sodomy laws on the books, I've never heard them being inforced.

And what do you mean my social laws? Don't you have social laws in Canada? I assume those are your social laws. Are you really that nihilistic?

JBI

12-12-2008, 11:43 PM

Your judges aren't chosen the same way ours are - and because of that, to an extent, you get political judges, and people chosen for their views on certain issues.

Here it is a little different, but to what extent does religious morality, and collective values effect the verdict? Are we to assume the law is fair, and in favor, of, lets say, Homosexual Rights? To what extent? What about the rights of other minority groups? What about, for instance, Handicap people, or, for instance, poor people?

The fact that rich people can afford to go to court, can buy better lawyers, and sue more people attests to the imbalances, and disadvantages automatically put on the lower class. A rich person can sue on whim, a poor person generally cannot.

A rich person, therefore, can lobby the government harder, and get their wants put forward, whereas a poor person generally cannot. That is why the Jewish Lobby, and the Gun Lobby, and the lobbyists from major corporations get more say. That is why religion, and the collected consciousness of people affiliated with religious groups get more of a vote than those who aren't.

And as to social laws, I was merely using your term, which you used one post above mine. And yes, I would say I am a border-line nihilist.

Dr. Hill

12-13-2008, 12:20 AM

Here comes the crucifixion.

ShoutGrace

12-13-2008, 12:25 AM

With regard to the opening post, I believe in God primarily for the following intellectual and (as far as I can tell) emotional reasons:

1 – The absolute beginning of the Universe out of nothing a finite time ago. (This is evidenced not only by the overwhelming majority of scientific data on the subject, but also through philosophical reasoning.)
2 – The fine tuning of the physical constants in our Universe, which is necessary for any kind of life permitting Universe at all. (This fact really isn’t disputable anymore – the cause of the fine tuning of physical constants is disputable, but the fact that it exists is not. I recognize also that the term “fine tuning” may be seen to be imprecise.)
3 - The existence of objective moral values.
4 – The historical evidence regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Science is based solely on trying to prove things, and succeeding or failing.

As far as I can see, a good scientist is not trying to prove anything, but rather trying to understand the way the natural world is constituted, the way it behaves, and for what reasons. A good scientist vigorously tests his hypothesis, trying to disprove it.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” - Einstein

“The future is under no obligation to mimic the past.” – David Hume

Any single exception or discrepancy obliterates the viability of calling repeatedly observed phenomena a “law of nature.” It is for this reason, I think, that science is more about testing than confirming.

I didn't say I didn't believe in God. I was referring to people who claim that there is "proof" that God doesn't exists. You can't prove a negative. One has to keep ruling out an endless list of possibilities and reach a conclusion or God then does exist. And what the circumstances of our knowledge is today may completely change tomorrow. So one can never be sure with a negative.

I would say that there is an exact way to prove that something does not exist – show that the thing could not possibly exist because the very concept of the thing is logically incoherent. An example of this would be a married bachelor. There is not such a thing in existence anywhere. Another example is a circular triangle (where “circular” and “triangle” are taken in their precise geometric understandings).

This method has been employed in theological ponderings before. Can God, who is omnipotent, create something that is so heavy even He cannot lift it? What about the nature of omnipresence? How can God possibly be “everywhere present” and yet “transcend” time and space? I pose these questions merely as examples, and do not expect any answers.

The point is, since a total proof cannot be found, the use of a God in any argument becomes fallacious. One cannot say God created the world, without saying "I believe God created the world".

Can one use a body of evidence that, when taken as a whole, clearly indicates a given conclusion, though doesn’t prove it?
I think that in order for this discussion to be fruitful, we need to come to terms and distinguish the myriad concepts being implicitly bandied about here – i.e. “rational” v.s. “irrational,” “episteme” v.s. “doxa.”
According to some, we have no knowledge that the physical world even exists. We simply take it on faith and behave as though it does. I am, however, prepared to take any statement having to do with the physical world as meaningful, and regard it as something that can be reasonably discussed among intelligent beings (though perhaps epistemologically I lack any “concrete justification” for doing so).

One cannot say "it is wrong to do this" when the grounds for the "wrong" are all scripture based.

But aren’t there different ways of acquiring moral knowledge? I think that here you fail to distinguish between the epistemology of moral values (how we come to apprehend and perceive them) with the ontology of moral values (their status in reality). One can argue on philosophical grounds alone that something is wrong without needing to quote any Scripture. My understanding that it is wrong to torture toddlers for the fun of it does not derive from any scrutiny of religious texts.

I am more comforted that when I die nothing exists than with the notion that I'm going to burn in hell for all of eternity.

I don’t see any reason to think that a place of eternal torment exists, and I think even a “fundamentalist” Christian could say that (the Catholic Church recognizes Universalism as possibly true, for example).

I can respect religion to an extent, but this "I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," is pure rhetoric. That isn't a reason to believe in something, it just shows the inner cowardice of the believer.

I also don’t think that mere intellectual comfort is sufficient reason to believe something (though I disagree with the spirit of the last part of your statement).

That day forward, I stopped believing in the power of prayer, and began bel[i]eving in the power of action.

I too believe in the power of action ;). I don’t think that these two concepts are in opposition, however. I think a longer view of prayer could be employed beneficially here. There is a time and place for both, and action must never be forsaken. Prayer can be seen as an action as well.

How can a benevolent God find humour in the suffering of his creations? To me if there is an all powerful God the he is sadistic.

It is the consensus of philosophy that as long as it is even possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering, then it shows that there is no logical contradiction between God’s being omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and there being great suffering. So conceptually I think this formulation of the “problem of pain” is impotent. The emotional and personal understanding of a God who would permit suffering, however, is serious and meaningful. I think one can approach that angle successfully from a Christian perspective.

Honestly, if you believe in a supreme being controlling everything, then you believe that supreme being wanted everyone who is suffering to suffer, everyone who is hurting to hurt, everyone who is killed pointlessly to be killed.

Is “permitting” the same as “wanting”? Can a person permit something while lamenting its happening?

The only consultation given is that in Job, which tells us that god can do whatever he wants, make us suffer whatever he wants, and despite that, we are not aloud to question them.

Incidentally, I think this goes directly to the heart of the profundity of the book of Job. I think you are incorrect in saying that Job teaches that we are not allowed to question God. Job spends 30 chapters questioning God energetically and critically, even unto the point of blasphemy. I think the method, form, and structure of Job provides one possible way of understanding the existence of evil, pain and suffering in our lives.

Just to loose faith in God because of 9/11, I don’t know how far it is correct.

I don’t think we can speak in terms of “correct” and “incorrect” in a situation like this. Wiesel's “Night” provides the most vivid and terrifying example of this that I know of in literature.

Dr. Hill

12-13-2008, 12:30 AM

weltanschauung

12-13-2008, 09:14 AM

"we believe in nossssing, lebowski! NOSSSING!"
http://cravencottagenewsround.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nihilists.jpg

Redzeppelin

12-13-2008, 11:56 AM

"You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain of a molehill-- he knows that himself, he he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness."

-The Brothers Karamazov (a great book I've had the pleasure of beginning not two days ago).

Learn from that. My mistake in words, my unfair judgment of Nikolai, was nothing but an opinion and perhaps a bias of mine. But I have explained that I meant not to insult, and yet, no one will get over it. It was tactless of me, not malicious.

Please don't use Dostoyevsky to lecture me with - I've read The Brothers twice, and there is far more in it to lecture you with. Your attempt to make your insulting langugage my issue merely attempts to deflect the reality that your "mere" opinion unfairly treated someone; however, all I really wanted was for you to do what your last sentence in your post finally did. Thank you. Nikolai is a friend of mine, and if you were a friend of mine, I'd have stepped up for you as well, had someone else dismissed you as you did him.

What an intelligent design theorist has in his arsenal as “evidence” is not actually what could characteristically be described as evidence by the way. What evidence are you postulating? Stories from the bible?

You're not really familiar with intelligent design theory, are you? ID does not use the Bible for any "evidence" - the Bible was not written to provide any evidence. ID scientists look at that same fossils, the same whatever that evolutionary scientists look at - and when they examine the evidence, they arrive at different conclusions. That's all I meant to say. Evidence does not always speak for itself.

That is one great, big, smelly, giant sh!t sandwich of an association fallacy that you’re forcing Dr. Hill to take a bite of if I’ve ever seen one!

Thanks for your eloquent assessment - I do not believe I'm "forcing" anybody to do anything. I drew a comparison that I though valid - just like Hill expressed an opinion he thought valid. I questioned the fairness of that opinion. You disagree - so?

Hisnibs

12-13-2008, 01:01 PM

What an intelligent design theorist has in his arsenal as “evidence” is not actually what could characteristically be described as evidence by the way. What evidence are you postulating? Stories from the bible?

You're not really familiar with intelligent design theory, are you? ID does not use the Bible for any "evidence" - the Bible was not written to provide any evidence. ID scientists look at that same fossils, the same whatever that evolutionary scientists look at - and when they examine the evidence, they arrive at different conclusions. That's all I meant to say. Evidence does not always speak for itself.

Yes, it’s the reasons WHY IDs cannot confirm scientific findings: it’s because they obviously don’t conform to the faith. I just want to personally let you know that you're backing the wrong horse.

That is one great, big, smelly, giant sh!t sandwich of an association fallacy that you’re forcing Dr. Hill to take a bite of if I’ve ever seen one!

Thanks for your eloquent assessment -

It doesn't shock me in the slightest that language nazis are present on forums such as these. Surely you could do better than a thinly disguised ad-hominem like that?

I do not believe I'm "forcing" anybody to do anything. I drew a comparison that I though valid - just like Hill expressed an opinion he thought valid. I questioned the fairness of that opinion. You disagree - so?

You have difficulty comprehending, I’ll elaborate.

Dr. Hill thought someone insane for their faith. You compared him as someone quite like a racist profiler. The two things are not direct examples of one another. Ergo, association fallacy, or guilt-by-association.

Gettit? Maybe hand puppets need to be employed?

NikolaiI

12-13-2008, 01:38 PM

"You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain of a molehill-- he knows that himself, he he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness."

-The Brothers Karamazov (a great book I've had the pleasure of beginning not two days ago).

Learn from that. My mistake in words, my unfair judgment of Nikolai, was nothing but an opinion and perhaps a bias of mine. But I have explained that I meant not to insult, and yet, no one will get over it. It was tactless of me, not malicious.

I do not like to hold grudges, and as long as you don't try to hold a grudge against me I would just say I am not upset about it. I'd much rather think and discuss other things and let the matter drop, believe me. In fact that's the only thing that will happen, for if we can't let it go on this forum-thread, I will leave the thread, although it would be less unpleasant to face it and let it go and then continue with dicussions.

I've read The Brothers Karamazov several times too, and it's also one of my favourite books. It's great that you are reading such lofty writing as Dostoevsky's. I got a new translation of this for Christmas last year- one of my favourite parts are "Talks and Homilies of Father Zosimov."

As for what you said, you simply shouldn't insult people. Insulting them is like degrading them which is like undercutting them. And if someone treats you this way you shouldn't allow it because verbal attacks are related to physical attacks. Maybe I'm overanaylzing, but it was a serious thing to say. To say someone is not capable of thinkign for themselves is very serious, especially if you drop it out of the blue, entirely open, as if to say; "this could mean as much as your imagination could let it."

And lastly but most obviously; you should never insult someone with the hidden, privately intended implication that you know they can take it. The logic behind this doesnt exist and if you use this behavior in life you will alienate many people. If they even take you seriously enough for that. Most likely they would simply not like to be around you and you would just be more and more alone. There was no reason to say what you said. It was completely untrue. And having said this in an open way-- as if to leave the attack open. Now if I say something about myself, that is good, or positive; you will attack me for that because I am disagreeing with your opinion, which was a negative of me. What does such behavior leave open? Certainly debate is completely out of the window. And finally it's against, blatantly against, forum rules, which you might want to check then.

I guess the basic thing is that you don't want to spend energy to make someone else's life worse. It's just stupid.

Virgil

12-13-2008, 05:05 PM

Your judges aren't chosen the same way ours are - and because of that, to an extent, you get political judges, and people chosen for their views on certain issues.

Which judges? Federal, state, or local? And are you aware that each state and localities have their own methods of choosing judges? I have no idea how your judges are picked. How do you presume to know so much about the US?

Here it is a little different, but to what extent does religious morality, and collective values effect the verdict? Are we to assume the law is fair, and in favor, of, lets say, Homosexual Rights? To what extent? What about the rights of other minority groups? What about, for instance, Handicap people, or, for instance, poor people?
A verdict in my country is either guilty or innocent. The charges against a person are based on the law.

The fact that rich people can afford to go to court, can buy better lawyers, and sue more people attests to the imbalances, and disadvantages automatically put on the lower class. A rich person can sue on whim, a poor person generally cannot.
Suing is essentially free for a person here. Lawyers take the case based on winning. If they lose they get nothing. As to getting better lawyeres for criminal cases, well, yeah. Better lawyers only exist because someone is willing to pay for them.

A rich person, therefore, can lobby the government harder, and get their wants put forward, whereas a poor person generally cannot. That is why the Jewish Lobby, and the Gun Lobby, and the lobbyists from major corporations get more say. That is why religion, and the collected consciousness of people affiliated with religious groups get more of a vote than those who aren't.
They do not. What law is there that favors religious people? I can't think of any.

And as to social laws, I was merely using your term, which you used one post above mine. And yes, I would say I am a border-line nihilist.

You know I must agree on something with you. The power of the middle class to take money away from a minority of rich people who legally earned a living is an incredible power. And yes the power of a majority of green environmentalists to force crazy expensive regulations that a minority think are a waste of money is a problem. I truly wish I was dictator.

I don't know how old you are JBI, but I pictured you rather young. At least you sound young. To be a nihilist at your age is not a good thing. It'll erode your soul.

Dr. Hill

12-13-2008, 10:46 PM

I don't think it's far fetched to say a religious person is brainwashed, that's what religion is. Taking you from when you are a child and telling you what the truth is and isn't. I in no way said it was your fault.

NikolaiI

12-13-2008, 11:22 PM

Well anyway it would be nice to get back on topic... we could actually discuss the topic instead of religion.

Redzeppelin

12-14-2008, 12:39 AM

It doesn't shock me in the slightest that language nazis are present on forums such as these. Surely you could do better than a thinly disguised ad-hominem like that?

It's called sarcasm, my friend - something you're familiar with as evidenced by your language below. At least mine wasn't condescending. The sarcasm was a response to your potty-language. I prefer not to return profanity with profanity. I've learned new words since 3rd grade (the year I learned profanity) and prefer to use those instead.

You have difficulty comprehending, I’ll elaborate.

Careful there: I may not be comprehending, true: but that could be due to one of two things:
1. I'm sorta dim
2. You're not as clear as you fancy yourself to be.

My vote is for #2

Dr. Hill thought someone insane for their faith. You compared him as someone quite like a racist profiler. The two things are not direct examples of one another. Ergo, association fallacy, or guilt-by-association.

Hill made a snap judgment about someone he hardly knows, based on his simplistic ideas about religious people; racists do the same thing to someone based upon their color rather than their beliefs. The comparison is not precise, but I found it relevant - both involve judging someone not as an individual, but upon very slight, often superficial evidence. You are not required to agree with the comparison for it to be valid.

Gettit? Maybe hand puppets need to be employed?

Spare me your patronizing - it doesn't make you look good, and it only makes me think I'm talking to a teenager.

JBI

12-14-2008, 01:01 AM

[quote[By this inconvenient the cotyledons of her matrix were presently loosed, through which the child sprang up and leaped, and so, entering into the hollow vein, did climb by the diaphragm even above her shoulders, where the vein divides itself into two, and from thence taking his way towards the left side, issued forth at her left ear. As soon as he was born, he cried not as other babes use to do, Miez, miez, miez, miez, but with a high, sturdy, and big voice shouted about, Some drink, some drink, some drink, as inviting all the world to drink with him. The noise hereof was so extremely great, that it was heard in both the countries at once of Beauce and Bibarois. I doubt me, that you do not thoroughly believe the truth of this strange nativity. Though you believe it not, I care not much: but an honest man, and of good judgment, believeth still what is told him, and that which he finds written.

Is this beyond our law or our faith--against reason or the holy Scripture? For my part, I find nothing in the sacred Bible that is against it. But tell me, if it had been the will of God, would you say that he could not do it? Ha, for favour sake, I beseech you, never emberlucock or inpulregafize your spirits with these vain thoughts and idle conceits; for I tell you, it is not impossible with God, and, if he pleased, all women henceforth should bring forth their children at the ear. Was not Bacchus engendered out of the very thigh of Jupiter? Did not Roquetaillade come out at his mother's heel, and Crocmoush from the slipper of his nurse? Was not Minerva born of the brain, even through the ear of Jove? Adonis, of the bark of a myrrh tree; and Castor and Pollux of the doupe of that egg which was laid and hatched by Leda? But you would wonder more, and with far greater amazement, if I should now present you with that chapter of Plinius, wherein he treateth of strange births, and contrary to nature, and yet am not I so impudent a liar as he was. Read the seventh book of his Natural History, chap.3, and trouble not my head any more about this.[/quote]

From Gargantua, Chapter VI

Rabelais once again to the rescue. Wiggle out of that one - to what logic can we say one book is more true than the other? How is Yahweh to be believed over a Greek God? Because something is written is it necissarily true? How then can we logically say one text is the word of God, and one isn't. Judging by the fact that there are more than one texts claiming to be the word of God, or of Gods, it is clear that the majority of people are wrong. Is it then, too much of a stretch to say that faith in one book over another is a mere ignorant approach, and a poor way of reading? Is there room to believe, when one rejects other faith based beliefs? How is the Pentateuch more right than, lets say, the Koran? What about contradictions in the books? How do we settle those?

Problems, problems, and really, the only answer is that the text has no grounding in objective truth, and is only true to a believer in the text, and can never be verified as being more true than any other text.

Edit: the Rabelais quote is from a dangerously old edition, and I just noticed it is missing half the passage, pretty much. If someone could find a better Public Domain copy and post a link, I will be grateful.

skasian

12-21-2008, 12:30 PM

NikolaiI

12-21-2008, 01:59 PM

In order to believe in God, you must experience his power. How His hand can move every single piece of your heart, soul and spirit. In order to believe in God, you must feel and taste His love. Simply, be with Him in His presence. Why I believe in God? Because I experience everyday that He is with me.
For example, in order to believe in love, you must experience love. If you never loved someone or been loved, you do not know it, hence cannot believe in love. In order to believe that you are loved, you must feel and taste love from that person no matter the distances. My point, God is the same as love. In fact we hear that God is love. We cannot see or touch love, but we can feel love. We cannot see or touch God, but we can feel God.

That last statement is quite invalid actually, we can see, hear and touch God. There have been many miracles occuring in the world, and God is in charge of it. People are speaking in tongues, having visions of the future, healing the physically and mentally sick. We are God's people and He wants us to stop being skeptical and believe that He is our God and that He loves us unconditionally.

This is wonderful. :)

For those who don't believe in a Great God or the Great God, I would ask them if they have thought about The Great Universe. I am using those words just to add emphasis. How can a part of the whole ever understand the whole? Actually everything is part of God, since God is the Whole. God is not simply the Whole, God is the source of the whole and more, since God is infinite; yet the universe is also one form of God. Worshipping the universe would, end the end, take you to God, but worshipping God directly is much more direct.

skasian

12-22-2008, 10:02 AM

NikolaiI

12-23-2008, 02:30 AM

NikolaiI, I agree with you completely. The universe, world, land, human beings, all these organic substances are merely a small footprint created by God. The reason why having a belief or faith in God for the first time is so difficult is because us human beings can never be measured against God, therefore for us, it is impossible to fully understand God. Most people will depict a big guy upstairs with soft white beard however we must understand that God is much much more. We must understand he is simply “ununderstandable”. We have no capability of processing the very power of God. For example, how Jesus walked on water, and how he turned water into wine-this is impossible for us to grasp because it cannot be explained by science, law of matter of our world constructed by us humans. (I could go on how in physics, Newtons Law of motion is broken by Jesus walking on water, and how in chemistry, H2O converting into wine cannot be done) Science has limitations, it is also uncertain. Science reflects the extent of our intellectual ability, therefore our intellectual ability has great limitations, which rounds back to my point. We arent developed to understand or question God. However we are developed to serve God by loving him and praising him. We are developed to understand God's Words and follow them to live peacefully with our neighbours in our world. That's our function in this world. Our meaning of life.

One thing I wonder is- atheists say they don't believe in the power of God, but if you have spent the last 5 years of your life speaking and trying to convince people that God does not exist, you will not probably see any of his power. God is something worth searching for. George Harrison said, and I know I probably quote this too often, "Many things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot wait."

But anyway I agree absolutely that our function is to serve God. Our natural position is service. If we serve God, we benefit everyone and everything, just like watering the roots of a tree is the way to benefit the whole tree.

skasian

12-23-2008, 07:34 AM

One thing I wonder is- atheists say they don't believe in the power of God, but if you have spent the last 5 years of your life speaking and trying to convince people that God does not exist, you will not probably see any of his power. God is something worth searching for. George Harrison said, and I know I probably quote this too often, "Many things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot wait."

But anyway I agree absolutely that our function is to serve God. Our natural position is service. If we serve God, we benefit everyone and everything, just like watering the roots of a tree is the way to benefit the whole tree.

Please, keep on spreading that quote by George Harrison, it deserves to be used very frequently. I too believe searching for God and serving Him comes before anything in our lives - and also it is our purpose to be imitators of Jesus Christ, which is what Christian means: Little Christ.

blazeofglory

12-23-2008, 11:18 AM

I believe in God thinking that it salvages me. From the gripe of vices. I believe in God thinking that it walls me from the rest, and gives me a distinct identity of myself and that sets me apart from others. My God may fight for me, and of course we have gods that fight for us.

skasian

12-23-2008, 12:15 PM

I believe in God thanking that he takes pity and mercy on people that does not surrender their hearts for Him. I believe in God thanking that He died in the cross when he was mocked, spat on and laughed at by His own children. I believe in God thanking that He is rock in the tough times.

blazeofglory

12-25-2008, 04:09 AM

skasian

12-25-2008, 06:02 AM

No, our God is beyond being our Father, protector and comfort zone.
He is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords and a merciful judge in the highest of the heavens.
In the bible, He states that He is the Alpha and the Omega, The first and the Last.
The creator of the universe, world, us and every organic substance in-between.
Becareful on how you finalise your statement because quite frankly, you are wrong.

NikolaiI

12-25-2008, 08:59 PM

Blaze, all this universe is the energy of God.

billyjack

12-25-2008, 10:33 PM

NikolaiI

12-26-2008, 01:59 AM

actually blaze is spot on.

also. i'm tired of hearing that God " is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords."

sure its poetic and powerful. but when ideas need to be put down on paper poetically in order for the meaning to stick in folks minds', you can bet your jiblets someone is passing off sweet lies as truth.

Well if you are an atheist then it's natural for you to reject the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. I'm saying this with a tiny bit of jest. My point is that we can discuss...perhaps if you disagreed with skasian using the term "King of Kings," etc., you could find something else of substance in her post to discuss? Just a thought.

Mr. Vandemar

12-26-2008, 02:28 AM

Today science has changed the way people live and think.
Remember when the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, and the emergence of rationalism occurred? About the same time as...the emergence of liberalism and capitalism!

Breaking things down into equalities and CONVERTIBILE values (subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, moles, etc.) allows us to mechanize the world. This is advantageous to the economy and its masters. We see things, no longer as romantic / mysterious or inherent, but as combinations of various units. These units can be given values, which can be then exchanged for capital. Can you put a value on God? No, so...where does He fit into this capitalist mindset? He doesn't.

skasian

12-26-2008, 09:08 AM

also. i'm tired of hearing that God " is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords."

sure its poetic and powerful. but when ideas need to be put down on paper poetically in order for the meaning to stick in folks minds', you can bet your jiblets someone is passing off sweet lies as truth.

Just as NikolaiI has kindly said, we can discuss something else in the substance.

I too consider that any atheist will disapprove with God being King of Kings and the Lord of Lords as they simply do not approve God being our God. Describing our God as King of Kings to such firsttime believers or atheists I believe won't get any where. However with an elaborated explanation of the reason why He is so may be suffice. But most of the time, elaborated explanation do not hinder the atheists' heart as it takes more than our words to formulate faith. It takes the Holy Spirit to create faith and eyes to see the power of our God.

skasian

12-26-2008, 09:16 AM

Remember when the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, and the emergence of rationalism occurred? About the same time as...the emergence of liberalism and capitalism!

Breaking things down into equalities and CONVERTIBILE values (subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, moles, etc.) allows us to mechanize the world. This is advantageous to the economy and its masters. We see things, no longer as romantic / mysterious or inherent, but as combinations of various units. These units can be given values, which can be then exchanged for capital. Can you put a value on God? No, so...where does He fit into this capitalist mindset? He doesn't.

I have deep passion in science, especially in biology, chemistry and psychology. But the reason why I do not compare with religion is because science is a manmade field. It is extremely limited and always uncertain. It is true that science indeed have changed our perspectives in life however as spiritual wise, we have not. Science, serves us in the physical world, as it constantly improves our capabilities of living. However, again, spiritual wise, improves nothing. My point is that science do not touch the spiritual level therefore undebatable in the topic of religion. (Unless you are a Tom Cruise fanatic and believe in scientology)

Mr. Vandemar

12-27-2008, 03:51 AM

I agree with you. However, I think that it does not improve our capabilities of living. It is utilized by the powerful and unavailable to the weak.

billyjack

12-27-2008, 04:22 AM

Just as NikolaiI has kindly said, we can discuss something else in the substance.

I too consider that any atheist will disapprove with God being King of Kings and the Lord of Lords as they simply do not approve God being our God. Describing our God as King of Kings to such firsttime believers or atheists I believe won't get any where. However with an elaborated explanation of the reason why He is so may be suffice. But most of the time, elaborated explanation do not hinder the atheists' heart as it takes more than our words to formulate faith. It takes the Holy Spirit to create faith and eyes to see the power of our God.

Well if you are an atheist then it's natural for you to reject the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. I'm saying this with a tiny bit of jest. My point is that we can discuss...perhaps if you disagreed with skasian using the term "King of Kings," etc., you could find something else of substance in her post to discuss? Just a thought.

first off, i'm not atheist. that said, i think questioning the wording that is used in regards to God is not something that need be brushed off hastily, nor is it lacking in discussional substance. my beef with "king of kings" is that its elitist. by saying "lord of lords" you're automatically saying that you're god is the god of any other gods that might be out there. wording like this breeds resentment from other religions and it gives over-zealous Christians that phony sense of pride and holier than thou mentality that comes with thinking they have a monopoly on truth.

laidbackperson

12-27-2008, 04:53 AM

I will tell a story that I read many years ago but which has stayed with me since then. The story I write from memory and some sentences I have made up as I don’t exactly remember what was written, but the gist of the story remain unchanged:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Long, long ago, Gods used to dwell in midst of human beings. One such God was Gujguj God who lived in a prosperous village. Gujguj God had a very good standing in the village and villagers would flock to him in their good times or bad times. In the village there also lived a simple, honest and hardworking farmer with his family. Gujguj God spoke highly about him to the people who would visit him.

One day the farmer came running to the Gujguj God and wailed, “ Gujguj God! Gujguj God! My crops have been destroyed completely in floods. How will I now feed my family? Please help me.”

Gujguj God told farmer not to worry unnecessarily. He told him, “ You have a good reputation in village. You ask for money or grains from other farmers as loan. No one will refuse you. Then once you get back to your original position, you slowly repay the loan back.”
Hearing this, the farmer quietly went back to his place and did as the Gujguj God told him to do.

Few months later, the farmer once again came running to Gujguj God in great despair, “Gujguj God! Gujguj God! Both of my children have suddenly died due to a mysterious fever. What is the purpose of my life now? Please bring them back to life”

Gujguj God listened to the farmer’s lamentation quietly. Then he said,” My son, it is the rule of creation that one does not return from death. But your wife is young and capable of bearing many more children. Go, and raise the family again.”

The poor farmer quietly returned to his home.

Not many months have passed, when the farmer again came running to the Gujguj God in a completely distressed and breakdown condition and wept: “ Gujjuj God! Gujguj God! My beloved wife has died just now of a snake bite. I am finished. Please, please get her back to me or bring death for me.”

Gujguj God looked solemnly at the farmer and said.” My dear son, life is sacred and not to be frittered away lightly. You are young and handsome. While coming to my adobe, you must have passed the well outside the village and must have seen beautiful maidens returning home carrying water. You should marry one of those girls and start all over again.”

Hearing this the farmer was suddenly filled with a blind rage. He looked around and saw an axe for cutting wood in Gujguj God’s hut. Picking it up and in one mad blow he chopped one hand of the Gujguj God. Gujguj God cried in pain.” Oh! My hand. What are you doing?”
The farmer replied.” Don’t worry about a lost hand. You still have one hand with which you can perform all the necessary functions.”
Then he lunged again at the Gujguj God and with another mighty blow cut off his one leg. The Gujguj God cried with unbearable pain.” Oh! My leg. Have you gone mad?”
The farmer replied,” Don’t worry about your lost leg. Look at the sun set. See, how beautiful the setting sun and the scenery all around is looking.”

From that day onwards, all Gods decided to become dumb to the calls of human beings and turned themselves into statues of stone.
--------------------------------------------------------

I see this story from three angles.

First, I see it written by a writer with an atheist outlook. The writer is sneering at the God’s lofty concepts and theories and is probably trying to say- the real world runs on its own style and God sermons and concepts don’t play much role in people’s lives. Unpredictable may happen and leave you devastated and no God is coming to help you in the manner you want.

Secondly, I see the story from believers angle.
The believers can be divided into semi-believers and true believers.
The semi believers, believe in a God when life is running good and smooth and is manageable. When hardships begin to come, when living life begin to get difficult, when there are unnatural deaths in families, or a person is permanently handicapped, when something bad and irreversible happens, when you loose a good job, you find that your spouse or lover is cheating on you, your kids get spoilt and other such things, then the faith of these people get snapped, as happened in the case of the farmer in the story. Such people keep toggling between God or no God.

Lastly, I think what if farmer was a true believer in Gujguj God. ( Gujguj God way of speaking was tactless but it still had the wisdom of the world. Also Gujguj God was just one of the God, and not the universal God I started the thread with). What the modern self-help experts would have told the farmer. It would have been more or less to what Gujguj God said.- Past is bucket of ashes. Live in present. Get over your grief. Start life all over again. When you really work at something, new avenues open before you. Everything get all right with time.

If the farmer had followed the Gujguj God unconditionally, he would have married a girl once his grief was over. May be that girl would have given her more love than her dead wife. May be the children would have been better.

I think of true believers as people who when struck by a great personal tragedy may despair, but do not leave God. They accept good or bad as will of the God and believe in God unconditionally. I think they also possesses selflessness.

I also believe that if you try to lead such life, God takes care. You may get your share of pains and heartbreaks but you will also get your share of happiness and sunshine.

skasian

12-27-2008, 07:35 AM

I agree with you. However, I think that it does not improve our capabilities of living. It is utilized by the powerful and unavailable to the weak.

What do you imply by science being unavailable to the weak and only utilized by the powerful? Do you imply the powerful as people that are intellectually superior than average and weak as the intellectually inferior?

What are the reasons that make you think that science does not improve the capabilities of living? Isn't it true that science and its technology that is based on it improve the standards of living? For example by increased knowledge of biochemistry and study of the immune system help us to take necessary drugs and medicine to improve our health. Improving health also improves our capabilities of living.

skasian

12-27-2008, 07:40 AM

first off, i'm not atheist. that said, i think questioning the wording that is used in regards to God is not something that need be brushed off hastily, nor is it lacking in discussional substance. my beef with "king of kings" is that its elitist. by saying "lord of lords" you're automatically saying that you're god is the god of any other gods that might be out there. wording like this breeds resentment from other religions and it gives over-zealous Christians that phony sense of pride and holier than thou mentality that comes with thinking they have a monopoly on truth.

Let me elucidate. When God said that he is King of kings and Lord of lords, he is implying that he is above anything in the world as he has created the world. By other kings and lords, he means by the people that are identified as kings and lords in earth. It is known that in the ancient times that kings and lords were ascended to earth by God Himself. Therefore God is saying that he is above all the people that are highest standing in earth. In other words, in hierarchy, we appoint the leader as alpha male. In the same line, God identifies Himself as the alpha, therefore leader and also the leader of all leaders that stood in earth. To be more specific, he is the overall King and Lord for mankind.

billyjack

12-27-2008, 04:13 PM

Let me elucidate. When God said that he is King of kings and Lord of lords, he is implying that he is above anything in the world as he has created the world.

na uh. for instance. i dont think a great writer would put himself above his masterpiece. rather, he'd probably think the masterpiece above him in that he was "in the zone" (to use a michael jordan phrase) and he himself was not so much responsible for the finished product, but rather a median through which the product, in this case a book, found its completion.

By other kings and lords, he means by the people that are identified as kings and lords in earth. It is known that in the ancient times that kings and lords were ascended to earth by God Himself.

appeal to the past and an appeal to an unreliable authority. people were throwing around stone tools when that line of reasoning worked

Therefore God is saying that he is above all the people that are highest standing in earth. In other words, in hierarchy, we appoint the leader as alpha male. In the same line, God identifies Himself as the alpha, therefore leader and also the leader of all leaders that stood in earth. To be more specific, he is the overall King and Lord for mankind.

alpha males allow their status as "alpha" to be challenged. when they get old and brittle, such as the christian ideal of god, they lose their status as alpha and typically get thrown out of the pack. this isnt to say that god is dead, but i am saying that old ideas about god have become unbelievable (to paraphrase Nietzsche)

NikolaiI

12-27-2008, 04:28 PM

na uh. for instance. i dont think a great writer would put himself above his masterpiece. rather, he'd probably think the masterpiece above him in that he was "in the zone" (to use a michael jordan phrase) and he himself was not so much responsible for the finished product, but rather a median through which the product, in this case a book, found its completion.

appeal to the past and an appeal to an unreliable authority. people were throwing around stone tools when that line of reasoning worked

alpha males allow their status as "alpha" to be challenged. when they get old and brittle, such as the christian ideal of god, they lose their status as alpha and typically get thrown out of the pack. this isnt to say that god is dead, but i am saying that old ideas about god have become unbelievable (to paraphrase Nietzsche)

God is not simply an alpha male. God is OM. God is God. There are many ways to think of Him. He is the male and the female aspect of the divinity. The female aspect of God is love of God personified.

Think of the universe. Now what does the universe come from? Everything that exists has an essance, a substance of some kind. Everything has a source. The source which is the original source is God. Whether God is personal or impersonal is not an issue until it's understood that God exists, personal or impersonal. Everything has a source and God is the original source - this may seem abstract. But can we infer anything about the source - God? We can infer that the source is Complete, and it is perfect, that in the source, the forms of everything which comes after it already exist.

billyjack

12-27-2008, 04:59 PM

Think of the universe. Now what does the universe come from? Everything that exists has an essance, a substance of some kind. Everything has a source. The source which is the original source is God. l. Everything has a source and God is the original source - this may seem abstract. But can we infer anything about the source - God? We can infer that the source is Complete, and it is perfect, that in the source, the forms of everything which comes after it already exist.

you say the universe comes from god. i say it doesnt come from anywhere bc there is nowhere outside it for it to come from.

everything has a source? you could go on and on ad infinitum looking for the source of things. at some point you randomly stop and say, God! rather than looking back to a source or a cause, might be more helpful to admit the arbitrariness of this and look around at what is--after all, isnt talk of source and cause only a means to understand what is? what better way to do this than to ditch the old witchcraft of "looking back" to prove/justify the present

NikolaiI

12-27-2008, 05:14 PM

you say the universe comes from god. i say it doesnt come from anywhere bc there is nowhere outside it for it to come from.

everything has a source? you could go on and on ad infinitum looking for the source of things. at some point you randomly stop and say, God! rather than looking back to a source or a cause, might be more helpful to admit the arbitrariness of this and look around at what is--after all, isnt talk of source and cause only a means to understand what is? what better way to do this than to ditch the old witchcraft of "looking back" to prove/justify the present

This "God!" you speak of only is disagreeable to you because of attachment or aversion to it. Basically it is disagreeable to you. Am I at least correct in this? It is a completely pointless discussion if you reject everything out of hand, but then I am not going to randomly abandon my position because you disagree with it. We can discuss and it doesn't have to be a bad thing. I hope you don't think I am a "Crazy believer," or something like that. That's part of my reason for discussing these things, is to defend believers. 70% of the world believes in God, or something like this; and if you simply open yourself to the communication with people, and then expand your base of people you know... get to know them you will find they don't speak of these things lightly, but they speak of what is deeply sacred to them. If you simply travel and look at people to learn something from them you will see there is always a great deal to learn - between anyone, be it believer or atheist or anything else.

I am speaking of a source and relating it to witchcraft does not make it so. Of course this is philosophy - yes, of course we are not going and making a living or something, we are discussing and so the point of it is inquiry - who am I? What is existence? This is simply philosophy and if it disgusts you, you can pursue something else, but this is philosophy.

The "Source" I am speaking of, which you seem to be against, is very valid. You have said nothing in response to my statement which was that all forms are existing in the original source. Everything in this life in this universe has a source! Every river has a source. Every being has a source. Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. Yes it is fluid. But yes there are perfections, sources, forms like this. There is infinite life. After all is there any form which will not appear once, again, three times, and infinitely?

You haven't said anything of value or substance you've simply dismissed everything I said without indication of reason - you just said "all your talk of sources, it's nonsense."

The words I am using such as source and form are valid philosophical, they are valid linguistical terms, and unless I am using them wrong or stupidly, It's not wrong or stupid to use them. They've been used since Plato and yes thought has evolved, but no not everything Plato said was stupid and wrong.

billyjack

12-27-2008, 05:39 PM

This "God!" you speak of only is disagreeable to you because of attachment or aversion to it. Basically it is disagreeable to you. Am I at least correct in this? It is a completely pointless discussion if you reject everything out of hand, but then I am not going to randomly abandon my position because you disagree with it. We can discuss and it doesn't have to be a bad thing.

god is not disagreeable to me. its ideas about the guy that i'm somewhat intolerant of.

I hope you don't think I am a "Crazy believer," or something like that. That's part of my reason for discussing these things, is to defend believers. 70% of the world believes in God, or something like this; and if you simply open yourself to the communication with people, and then expand your base of people you know... get to know them you will find they don't speak of these things lightly, but they speak of what is deeply sacred to them. If you simply travel and look at people to learn something from them you will see there is always a great deal to learn - between anyone, be it believer or atheist or anything else.

a local talk radio show host i listen to, the common man, has a theory that 7 out of 10 people walking around are lacking in common sense. funny that you're percentage of believers should line up with the common man's observations so well

I am speaking of a source and relating it to witchcraft does not make it so. Of course this is philosophy - yes, of course we are not going and making a living or something, we are discussing and so the point of it is inquiry - who am I? What is existence? This is simply philosophy and if it disgusts you, you can pursue something else, but this is philosophy.

i majored in philosophy nik. not that this makes me an authority. but i do enjoy it and i know what it is. question everything. including philosophy itself

The "Source" I am speaking of, which you seem to be against, is very valid. You have said nothing in response to my statement which was that all forms are existing in the original source. Everything in this life in this universe has a source! Every river has a source. Every being has a source. Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. Yes it is fluid. But yes there are perfections, sources, forms like this. There is infinite life. After all is there any which will not appear once, again, three times, and infinitely?

an analogy: you say a river has a source. well yes it does. and the common held belief is that the source is something like Lake Itaska in regards to the mississippi. however, lake itaska's source has a source--underground springs that feed it. and these springs have a source--rainwater, which also has a source--clouds, ad infinitum.

source is circular when you get down to the nitty gritty. so goes with cause and effect.

You haven't said anything of value or substance you've simply dismissed everything I said without indication of reason - you just said "all your talk of sources, it's nonsense."

not so much nonsense as arbitrary

The words I am using such as source and form are valid philosophical, they are valid linguistical terms, and unless I am using them wrong or stupidly, It's not wrong or stupid to use them. They've been used since Plato and yes thought has evolved, but no not everything Plato said was stupid and wrong.

so defensive. yes plato said many things that still hold true. he also didn't say a lot of things, and therein lied his wisdom (again, a nietzsche paraphrase)

NikolaiI

12-27-2008, 06:01 PM

an analogy: you say a river has a source. well yes it does. and the common held belief is that the source is something like Lake Itaska in regards to the mississippi. however, lake itaska's source has a source--underground springs that feed it. and these springs have a source--rainwater, which also has a source--clouds, ad infinitum.

Yes, and as I've said before, the universe itself, nevermind God, is pretty much more vast than anything we can imagine. You can't see the logical nature of the argument; since everything has a source - yes all is interconnected and arises, ceases, and things are always moving and flowing - this is my point as well. And God is the source of everything. In God are the forms of everything which exists. This entire material manifestation, which is actually a reflection of the spiritual world, are all forms which are made up in the source. Of course you may not understand this. It doesn't matter if you're a philosophy major or not. I am not trying to be particularly defensive, but yes I am defending belief against this onslaught of quips. You don't say anything except dismiss belief or faith or God and you only repeat over and over the negative that has been done in the past. You don't understand anything about psychology or human nature if you spout this perspective - if you think you've attained the last word on God, and that those who believe are wrong. If you did anything other than dismiss faith and belief with condescension, then there would be more to discuss. I apologize if I seem harsh. I will probably drop this because I don't think it's constructive to argue, but your posts do plead some opposition.

billyjack

12-27-2008, 06:17 PM

Mr. Vandemar

12-27-2008, 07:46 PM

skasian

12-28-2008, 08:50 AM

Our capabilities of living? Remember that in order to join this forum you must own a computer, a specific-to bourgeois gadget. The bourgeoisie are the strong, the rest are the weak. Strong in a capitalist sense, not strong intellectually speaking.

These advances in medicine and in "conditions of life" are only given to us. Are they given to the aboriginal living on a reserve in northern Saskatchewan? What about the refugee in the middle east? Or the AIDS infested child in Sudan? No.

All of these advances make our lives easier, because we can afford them (or we associate ourselves with those that can...if you live in a country with public health care). Not everyone has these. You need to see that only the bourgeoisie have them. Making our lives easier, and others harder, is what drains the people to become the weak. Once they are the weak and have to deal with these problems that we can easily solve, they are no longer a threat to the stability of our capitalist system.

I assume that you are directing at me. Yes, the weak cannot utilise science but not only when you are describing the level of wealth but also age and intelligence. A person that is aged 2 and has an IQ of 50 can be also identified as weak as they cannot utilise science.

Actually you are wrong about how advances of medicine and other science cannot upgrade the conditions of life without being given firsthand. For instance, some antibodies that enables our body to be immune to certain diseases are inherited directly from the mother to the unborn child. Because of many years of development of medicine, it has helped our immune system to be stronger against diseases. The medicine that you may be recalling is a picture of a small white bottle with numerous capsules however because of years of development of medicine that is passed through our ancestor's veins, it has become flesh and blood in our bodies, enabling us to improve our standards of living by increasing the chances of our survival.

Your last paragraph indicates that the bourgeoisie do receive medicine in benefit of the creation of science to improve the standard living condition of our lives. It is evident that people, regardless of the people who doesnt receive them or not, have their lives improved by medicine/science. This contradicts to the post that you have stated that you do not believe that science improve our capabilities of living. Please note, even though there are people that miss out (but are constantly approached with medicine by "us") WE are infact receiving its benefits therefore it can be concluded that "people"'s capability of life is indeed improved by science.

NikolaiI

12-28-2008, 12:38 PM

all i was trying to do in my previous post was question one thing you said: "everything has a source."

i can't just shrug this off. close observations tell me that saying something is the "source" will always be a random statement. I think it important to question these little points because like a small hole in a dam, they can lead to tidal waves if left unchecked.

I wish you could explain that more, because I sincerely did not intend it as random at all, or it is not to me. If I consider it, it does not seem random to me at all, rather it seems useful as something to always keep in mind. No thing exists separate from other things. Every object that anyone uses is dependent on at least one, and probably many, many other factors. For instance my clothes, everything I would ever use, not to mention a computer.

It seems absolutely valid to me to consider everything to have a source, and yes, be of the same nature as a river, that is, a flux of events. Since you actually say this yourself, that everything is in flux, I don't know why you disagree with my statement. Another way of thinking about this is like considering every living entity to be like a drop in a waterfall. They were together, as one, in the river above the falls, and separate for a short time, and then together as one afterwords. This is a Buddhist parable, and the time before and after is when we are unmanifest, then we are manifest for a short time, and afterwords we are unmanifest again. But being unmanifest is like being "at one" with everything, or at least it is basically eternal compared to the manifest.

Albert Einstein said this..

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

And there have been many western philosophers which studied eastern and western religion and did work in the field of connecting them. Ken Wilber is one of these.

billyjack

12-29-2008, 02:31 PM

I wish you could explain that more, because I sincerely did not intend it as random at all, or it is not to me. If I consider it, it does not seem random to me at all, rather it seems useful as something to always keep in mind. No thing exists separate from other things. Every object that anyone uses is dependent on at least one, and probably many, many other factors. .

huh. i was talking about the decision to say, "this or that is the source of something," as a totally random, or better yet, conventional decision. telling me that all things are interrelated affirms this and disproves your idea of sources. so what are you speakin about?

It seems absolutely valid to me to consider everything to have a source, and yes, be of the same nature as a river, that is, a flux of events. Since you actually say this yourself, that everything is in flux, I don't know why you disagree with my statement.
.

well you said it yourself, the world is in flux and repeats itself like a circle. (you spoke of the circular reptition of existence above somewhere) no point on a circle can be deemed its beginning, source. so again, where's the source.

NikolaiI

12-29-2008, 03:31 PM

huh. i was talking about the decision to say, "this or that is the source of something," as a totally random, or better yet, conventional decision. telling me that all things are interrelated affirms this and disproves your idea of sources. so what are you speakin about?

well you said it yourself, the world is in flux and repeats itself like a circle. (you spoke of the circular reptition of existence above somewhere) no point on a circle can be deemed its beginning, source. so again, where's the source.

First of all, I don't wish for you to accept anything without thinking. I'm not trying to hammer anything at you, but at the same time I don't think you're understanding me at all.

I probably fail in communicating with you because I don't know where to begin or end on this topic, as really it cannot be exhausted. What does it mean to be in flux? Let's take water as our example, as it illustrates perfectly. We look at water and the same water is recycled over and over, as it has been for billions of years. The water is always being used, running down hill, being evaporated, and going through so many other changes. It is eternally running this very complex course.

Now you disagree with my saying that everything is like this, everything is like this water. But you agree that all is in flux. This is exactly what in flux means - fluid. We observe the water and it is eternally flowing. In fact other things are like this too. The sun and moon may not be eternal, but we can assume the governing forces behind them are.

Now, the universe as a whole, I would like to point out, is greater than I will ever imagine. So in a way this prohibits me from attemting to understand it with certainty. But simply realizing how vast the universe is also make it very clearly absurd to say something like it cannot have a source.

Going to our example of water - do we agree that it's eternally fluid? It's hard to find myself agreeing with you with anything because you don't wish for my points, which are logically "holes"?.. But anyway, you said we are interdependent. Do you know what this means? One thing it means is that we are the same as the water we were talking about. Not the same exactly - but our natures reflect each other, since we and the water are both inderdependent. That means we are nothing apart from each other, but together we reflect each other and make up a reality between us. Existence is reflected with non-existence.

Except - you cannot get something from nothing. The universe can't come from nothing. It has to come from a source, in which all the forms in the universe already exist. So there is a source of all sources. And I would appreciate it if you'd be able to make some constructive point - or if you are not able to, then simply continue to act like I am somehow missing the obvious... when in fact I am not in the least... or at least tell me why I am wrong.

blazeofglory

12-30-2008, 08:57 AM

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

This is a great thought. I do not care whether Einstein was an atheist or theist. I am really moved and this spirit is beyond anything. This is the philosophy I totally unreservedly subscribe to.

This is a path to enlightenment, a road map to understand the self and its relationship with all, both animates and inanimates. This in essence imbibes in us a feeling that rises above all philosophies, syllogisms, sciences and the like. This is the Gita, the Vedas, the Koran, the Tripitika, the Dhmma pada, the Torah, the Bible and all. If one can understand the subtlety and depth of it no things more to be understood. When our feelings, understandings and sense of oneness or togetherness can permeate all layers, peripherals or externals we become enlightened.

Of course this difference has created a gulf or void, and of course this difference has distanced us. This difference has created gulfs, remoteness, geographies, borderlines, economic and social ills, vacuums and the like and needless to say such narrow feelings wall us against truth and incarcerate us.

Of course we must rise above all narrow feelings, and sentiments to take the entire universe as our home. Time and space are sheer illusions. And Einstein has understood this truth and with this realization I liken him to a great Rishi, something of sainthood.

B-Mental

12-30-2008, 10:38 PM

I wish I were more eloquent...perhaps like Nikolai or BlazeofGlory (two of my favorite philosophers). The inability of one to have faith (acceptance of something that cannot be proven) prevents one from understanding the nature of God. The more one understands compassion for all things, the closer one comes to enlightenment. It is surprising to me that those who are truly enlightened are so few, but then again the journey to enlightenment requires one to release themselves from their ego. This is obviously easier said than done.

laidbackperson

12-31-2008, 04:35 AM

Delta40

12-31-2008, 04:58 AM

blazeofglory I have replied to some of your posts without reply. I have a spiritual identity which means that I have a deep seated belief in God. Can you tell me what difference it would make to me if I am not enlightened? That is to say, if I do not seek to self-examine or understand that which I believe throughout my existence? Do you think it is relevant and if it is, in what way would I be disadvantaged? I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.

skasian

12-31-2008, 07:56 AM

Believing in the existance of God is not the same thing as believing that God is your one and true God, having confidence in Him and having faith that He is your saviour and creator.

Delta40

12-31-2008, 08:10 AM

That notwithstanding. Even if I have complete faith and confidence in God. This means that I put myself in His hands utterly. Please, you don't need to focus at the belief vs faith level to address this question which is if I don't seek to understand or self-examine that which I believe, is it relevant?

skasian

12-31-2008, 08:16 AM

Even the thread specifically recalls the question why people may believe in God, there is no barrer that is limiting me to express my opinions in the word believe. I no I am going indepth however I am just giving my input as a Christian and I believe that it causes no harm.

Delta40

12-31-2008, 08:31 AM

I respect you completely. I don't mean to sound abrupt.

skasian

12-31-2008, 08:39 AM

Thank you, and please let me add that your comments did not seem abrupt, as it is natural for us to question.

blazeofglory

01-02-2009, 11:51 AM

In point of fact God is a term that interests most, for man seeks a pattern, a system or wants to be a comfort zone and going out of or beyond the zone he feels unsafe.

As such man seeks God to take refuge in, to feel comfort and live happily.

God attracts most as people want to know something about their existence and the beleif in God only enables him to understand the meaning of this universe and God in it as a creator.

skasian

01-02-2009, 12:09 PM

Like father to his children, God also attracts his children so they will acknowledge that He is their father, and praise Him as their only Father they love and honour.

laidbackperson

01-04-2009, 05:54 AM

In college magazine, I once wrote an article – God Exists, wherein I wrote about how life slowly spring in earth from a Big bang as per the scientific theory and how I still felt that there is some guiding Power behind all this.

Over the years, I have pondered over the mystery, and the right and clear answers I seem to get when I started reading books about Avtar Meher Baba. It surprised me that nobody in lit net seems to have heard about Him.

On first instance, it would look utterly stupid when He says that He is Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha amd in this age Avtar Meher Baba. You will feel like stopping even before starting.
I have to listen to comments like, ‘Well, he looks like a thug. I will never believe in Him.’ :D
Well, he too don’t look to me at all radiating like the other beautiful Gods.
In the sometimes callous world I often get my own doubts, but when I read and try to think then I feel, if a God were to be there, then He should be like Him.

I will not tell you to follow Him, but just read what He says what people close to Him tell about Him, try to think and form your own unbiased opinions. The two starting links are as given.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba
www.avatarmeherbaba.org

Another book that really impressed me was “ Gaelic Manuscritpts’ by Betty White. This also look a very good book although I have only run through its pages and it looks much different from other more popular religious books.

www.isleofavalon.co.uk/GlastonburyArchive/gaelic/bwgaelx.html

Zee.

01-04-2009, 06:44 AM

Zee.

01-04-2009, 06:49 AM

skasian

01-04-2009, 10:41 AM

If there indeed is a God ( i believe that our existance is to reach enlightenment, and that we, like everything else in life, are forms of energy that are constantly moving )

then i believe she or he, did no more than create us.
Why? because we have freewill. We choose to do what we please and the consequence is a result of that exercising of freewill.

May I ask, where is this energy constantly moving towards? Does energy also have a purpose to reach enlightenment? And if you do reach this, what occurs?

Now I want to ask you why God created us in the first place if He does not do anything else. You speak of freewill, but what about destiny, your act of freewill also has a meaning. Everything does.

Redzeppelin

01-04-2009, 11:01 AM

If there indeed is a God [...]then i believe she or he, did no more than create us. Why? because we have freewill. We choose to do what we please and the consequence is a result of that exercising of freewill.

How does free will negate God's continuing interaction with His creations? That I can choose evil doesn't mean that God is disconnected from me and the entire earth I inhabit. I don't follow the logic here.

Zee.

01-04-2009, 03:47 PM

Who says that God has any other form of interaction with us?
Sure, there are instances in life where things happen and we'd like to believe it's a connection with God, but we have no proof, perhaps its something different.

Logic?
you're looking for logic in a religious discussion?

Who says he isn't disconnected from you? if indeed god gave you life, does he have a responsibility to you? we all seem to be talking about God as if he is a person - creating us in his image, etc etc.

Anyway, Red and Skasian, i am not christian, so my views differ greatly from yours.

Zee.

01-04-2009, 03:57 PM

May I ask, where is this energy constantly moving towards? Does energy also have a purpose to reach enlightenment? And if you do reach this, what occurs?

Now I want to ask you why God created us in the first place if He does not do anything else. You speak of freewill, but what about destiny, your act of freewill also has a meaning. Everything does.

See now you're talking as if you know for a fact. And you're misunderstanding me.
I'm not saying we don't have our different paths, perhaps yours will lead you to Heaven, and mine to enlightenment. Perhaps we are not all creations of one particular God, and when we die, we reach a level of spirituality we couldn't obtain on earth. But like i said, destiny can still exist, why must god hold our hand for us to fulfill it? Perhaps this is a test, right here right now. Perhaps he gave us free will to obtain our destiny on our own grounds.

Energy never remains still, you said in one of your posts you had studied science at school, if so, you would know this. Energy is never lost, it is recycled in many different forms.
I have many different beliefs, i've pulled from many different ideas. One i have always had is that we are god like creatures. We only use a small percentage of our brain, this has been proven, i belief the rest of it, is at a level that is almost god like - im not too sure what that means, but i think that we have the chance of being closer to a god by finding the divinity in ourselves - i believe that all the answers to such religious questions can be found in the existance of our being.
I'm not going to explain my beliefs here - if you're interested in buddhist views, look them up, but i've had enough of this forum.

Redzeppelin

01-04-2009, 04:52 PM

Who says that God has any other form of interaction with us?

Who's to say He doesn't? He may be speaking to you on a weekly basis - you just may not recognize it as God; recognizing God's voice requires a relationship with Him - but He doesn't just communicate with those who have chosen Him; we are all His creations, and therefore He is free to communicate with any of us in any way He feels fit.

Sure, there are instances in life where things happen and we'd like to believe it's a connection with God, but we have no proof, perhaps its something different.

The standard atheist bunker within which to hide: "proof" - as if your entire life is based on things you can empirically verify - you know that is not so. The majority of things human beings accept as true cannot be verified factually.

Logic?
you're looking for logic in a religious discussion?

As a matter of fact I am; I assume that's OK with you? A sheerly emotional discussion wouldn't get us very far.

Who says he isn't disconnected from you? if indeed god gave you life, does he have a responsibility to you? we all seem to be talking about God as if he is a person - creating us in his image, etc etc.

Do artists owe their creations anything? Am I not free to do as I wish with the thing I create? What responsibility does the artist owe His creations?

Anyway, Red and Skasian, i am not christian, so my views differ greatly from yours.

Well, yeah - I assume that's why we enter into discussions of this nature - to learn, to hear, to express, to understand.

Zee.

01-04-2009, 10:52 PM

Nor am i an atheist, sometimes, quite often actually - i come off as one.

NikolaiI

01-04-2009, 11:43 PM

blp

01-04-2009, 11:47 PM

happy festivus! the "airing of grievances" begins amongst my friends tonight. then its on to the feats of strength tomorrow morning

Now there's a holiday I can get on board with. But the pole. Don't forget the pole!

skasian

01-05-2009, 08:36 AM

See now you're talking as if you know for a fact. And you're misunderstanding me.
I'm not saying we don't have our different paths, perhaps yours will lead you to Heaven, and mine to enlightenment. Perhaps we are not all creations of one particular God, and when we die, we reach a level of spirituality we couldn't obtain on earth. But like i said, destiny can still exist, why must god hold our hand for us to fulfill it? Perhaps this is a test, right here right now. Perhaps he gave us free will to obtain our destiny on our own grounds.

Energy never remains still, you said in one of your posts you had studied science at school, if so, you would know this. Energy is never lost, it is recycled in many different forms.
I have many different beliefs, i've pulled from many different ideas. One i have always had is that we are god like creatures. We only use a small percentage of our brain, this has been proven, i belief the rest of it, is at a level that is almost god like - im not too sure what that means, but i think that we have the chance of being closer to a god by finding the divinity in ourselves - i believe that all the answers to such religious questions can be found in the existance of our being.
I'm not going to explain my beliefs here - if you're interested in buddhist views, look them up, but i've had enough of this forum.

You never answered my question and I know that energy cannot be distroyed or created. My question is where is this energy directed towards. But since maybe you cannot answer, I will ask some one else.

And please, you are contradicting your self yet again. Once you said you dont believe in a god where most Buddhist do not believe in a higher spirit. But now you are explaining that you believe our brains are almost god like and it gives us the chance to be closer to god? Please set yourself in one belief, you either believe in god or you do not.

skasian

01-05-2009, 08:40 AM

Well, yeah - I assume that's why we enter into discussions of this nature - to learn, to hear, to express, to understand.

I completely agree, limajean I dont know why you are remarking that I have all the facts, I am simply expressing my own belief and views, if you have your own sets, then I doubt there would be any reason to be so disagreeable as you can stick to your own. The bottom line is we want to get to know other peoples religion and philosophy that will increase our knowledge about the diversity of the people living in the world today.

Zee.

01-05-2009, 11:41 AM

You never answered my question and I know that energy cannot be distroyed or created. My question is where is this energy directed towards. But since maybe you cannot answer, I will ask some one else.

And please, you are contradicting your self yet again. Once you said you dont believe in a god where most Buddhist do not believe in a higher spirit. But now you are explaining that you believe our brains are almost god like and it gives us the chance to be closer to god? Please set yourself in one belief, you either believe in god or you do not.

i think youre misunderstanding me.
My beliefs - i take from certain aspects of life. God like was a term i used for a lack of a better one.

Zee.

01-05-2009, 11:42 AM

I mean to say, that i think we dont reach our full potential in this lifetime - and perhaps spend this lifetime reaching it, im not sure.

skasian

01-05-2009, 11:57 AM

I mean to say, that i think we dont reach our full potential in this lifetime - and perhaps spend this lifetime reaching it, im not sure.

Yes, you are confusing me, especially when as you regard God as not a being but as "a lack of a better one." I beg your pardon but I dont understand your definition of God.

"I mean to say, that i think we dont reach our full potential in this lifetime - and perhaps spend this lifetime reaching it, im not sure"

What are you trying to discuss here? How are you linking your ideas together? If you dont believe in a God, then could you possibly please remove the term altogether as what you are describing is a bit incoherent.
Thanks.

blazeofglory

01-07-2009, 10:16 AM

In point of fact when we have no answers of many questions we turn to God.

JBI

01-07-2009, 10:27 AM

In point of fact when we have no answers of many questions we turn to God.

Who's we? I merely float in aporia. I turn, I think, to poetry, notably Leopardi, not to god.

blazeofglory

01-07-2009, 09:19 PM

Who's we? I merely float in aporia. I turn, I think, to poetry, notably Leopardi, not to god.

Of course different people turn to different sources for answers.

mellsom

01-08-2009, 01:37 AM

Zee.

01-08-2009, 01:41 AM

Couldn't have said it better mellsom

Zee.

01-08-2009, 01:45 AM

Yes, you are confusing me, especially when as you regard God as not a being but as "a lack of a better one." I beg your pardon but I dont understand your definition of God.

"I mean to say, that i think we dont reach our full potential in this lifetime - and perhaps spend this lifetime reaching it, im not sure"

What are you trying to discuss here? How are you linking your ideas together? If you dont believe in a God, then could you possibly please remove the term altogether as what you are describing is a bit incoherent.
Thanks.

No Skasian, i cant remove it altogether. Sometimes i feel like i should refrain from using the term God as i don't want you to think i'm talking about the God from your faith or making references to christianity. I dub a "higher power" "God" because i find no other name for it.

And yes, i do believe there is some kind of higher power - specifically a form of energy. But when i use/used the term "god like" i only used it to describe something greater than us, thus applying it to my belief that we don't reach that point in this life time, but it is my belief that we can achieve a higher state of mind that is GOD like.

Also God like is a term. I'm not trying to make it sound like we can all be rulers of the universe.

NikolaiI

01-08-2009, 06:53 AM

Hi.

You all make probably good points and for me there isn't either something wrong with people who believe in a god or who know science. In the following I want to share briefly my attitude towards religion.

I am baptized and confirmed, I was altar server and my father is quite religious.
Growing up I started thinking why we believe in a God. It may seem provoking but to me, man makes a God up as an excuse for things happening around us we cannot explain yet.
What is interesting, is that the more science reveals, the less is a God, whom we can substitute for the question marks in our minds, necessary.
Nevertheless I do not oppose spirituality at all and affirm the strengthening ideals Christianity for instance teaches us.
Still, I dislike, how religion is used to stop process and progress of our understanding of nature. As far as I know, is creationism taught instead of the theory of evolution in many states of America.
There is a big difference between faith and knowledge. All theories, in order to be scientific, must be proven by experiments (or mathematics), anything else is philosophy. Thus we know that all discovered theories hold true and among us, isn't the excitement of science way more interesting than simply leaving it all to a "God" that is a variable for future discoveries?
Science and spirituality, and therefore religion, will always stay essential for humans to heed but the latter shall never get the upper hand over the other.

Thank you,

mellsom

Unless I am wrong, creationism isn't taught in any states of America. Unless you mean private or religious schools, in those it may be. But in any public school it should not be.

No Skasian, i cant remove it altogether. Sometimes i feel like i should refrain from using the term God as i don't want you to think i'm talking about the God from your faith or making references to christianity. I dub a "higher power" "God" because i find no other name for it.

And yes, i do believe there is some kind of higher power - specifically a form of energy. But when i use/used the term "god like" i only used it to describe something greater than us, thus applying it to my belief that we don't reach that point in this life time, but it is my belief that we can achieve a higher state of mind that is GOD like.

Also God like is a term. I'm not trying to make it sound like we can all be rulers of the universe.

I think if God exists, then no human term such as atheist or Christian matters. If God exists then all is in the will of God. Nothing, ultimately, would experience eternal suffering, or anything like that. We suffer for our own actions long before we have the right to point the finger at anyone else, let alone God, for our sufferings.

But also the existence of God indiciates that we should seek God out. If something is beautiful, seemingly truthful, and also satisfies your soul at the same time, can it be bad? No, we are interested in whatever is beautiful and truthful to us. God is the same as truth, and within God are the forms of all else. So whatever is beautiful or truthful which we see always comes from God.

skasian

01-08-2009, 05:46 PM

No Skasian, i cant remove it altogether. Sometimes i feel like i should refrain from using the term God as i don't want you to think i'm talking about the God from your faith or making references to christianity. I dub a "higher power" "God" because i find no other name for it.

And yes, i do believe there is some kind of higher power - specifically a form of energy. But when i use/used the term "god like" i only used it to describe something greater than us, thus applying it to my belief that we don't reach that point in this life time, but it is my belief that we can achieve a higher state of mind that is GOD like.

Also God like is a term. I'm not trying to make it sound like we can all be rulers of the universe.

Believing in a higher power especially in a form of energy can be defined as God, as God made energy and he can communicate with us by energy. God doesnt necessarily mean a being that looks like an oversized human with long white beard. He is anything pure, all righteous and clean.

Zee.

01-09-2009, 05:18 AM

kandaurov

01-09-2009, 06:01 AM

It's the 9th of January and quite sunny and cool in London.

skasian

01-09-2009, 08:02 AM

Yes Skasian I know that, of course I know that - i just want to make sure that you know when i am talking of God, i'm not talking about the Father of jesus - though i'm not saying that's not who God may be.

I'm not silly, of course i know its not a man with a long white beard..

I do know you wouldnt picture God like this, I was just giving an example that God can be in form of anything as you said higher energy.

skasian

01-09-2009, 08:04 AM

It's the 9th of January and quite sunny and cool in London.

I am happy for you. It's 10th of January and far too scorching and dry in New Zealand.

kandaurov

01-09-2009, 08:12 AM

skasian

01-09-2009, 09:13 AM

Skasian, there's something in your definition of God which I don't understand very well, and would like to have it explained. Because I can understand people when people believe in God as a creative energy which didn't exactly say 'There be Oceans! There be trees!', but somehow is life, and is the matrix of all living things. But when you say God is 'all righteous and clean', it seems you are attaching anthropomorphic attributes to him. What do you mean by 'clean'? Isn't that a prejudice of civilisation, that things that are 'clean' are 'good'?

Now here come some sadly predictable questions, but I'm interested in your thoughts on the subject. If he's 'all righteous', how come he allows evil to exist? Is it because in order to be good there must be evil? If so, wouldn't it be better were there no good nor evil so that people didn't have to die in genocides? And how do you conciliate 'all righteous' with the Old Testament?

If this is somehow the wrong thread to post these questions in, please show me the way.

Actually I have no idea if there is a specific thread that discusses these kind of questions, but there are on going discussions between the religious and atheists and in betweens in this thread and other threads, so I dont think it matters.

As you know I am a Christian, I will respond to your enquires with my thoughts as a Christian. First, in the Bible, first few chapters of Genesis indicates God did say 'There be Oceans! There be trees!'

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

If you read the first page of the bible you would know that God definitely created trees and oceans:)

When I said God was clean and good, I was talking about clear of impurities, and evil. In other words, SOURCE of good and light. For example, in a light bulb, it cannot emit darkness, only pure light.

Now here comes my thoughts as I am so insignificant to explain the nature and intention of God, as we mankind cant ever understand God.
I will take reference that in Garden of Eden, there was evil, as one of the Trees in the middle was Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Evil was obviously existed before The Fall of Man. I am not God, so I do not know why evil existed. My thought, evil existed in Earth to serve God. As we all know good overpowers evil, therefore evil can serve good. I think that earth is like a test for all mankind, the weighing of the righteous and good decisions of their freewill, ie accepting and believing in Jesus. Evil serves God by tempting individuals and testing if these people will fall for them or resist to look upwards to God. I think God gives us a choice to choose good or evil by giving us freewill, and hopes for everyone of His creation to choose good, and rightfully take the title of God's Children.
People dying from genocides: God cannot be held responsible. It was human's choice and freewill that lead to these conflicts, not God, so it cant wrong the fact that God is truely all righteous.

skasian

01-09-2009, 09:21 AM

You did read the reason for editing, right? Well what the hey, I'll just ask the question anyway: what do you mean when you say God is all that is 'clean'? And do you find the fact that God chose a people over all others righteous?

(Right, you have summer in New Zealand now, eh? Lucky!)

Yep I did read the foot notes, I just wanted to express the diversity of the weather in different regions of the world:)

Clean, by clear from impurities, simply pure and all truth. I should consider my choice of adjectives in the future as it is causing a bit of a confusion.

Choosing some people over others. The reason why it seems that He "chooses" people I think is because He knows the future. A person may have freewill and free choice of all the decision of His life however as God knows every future move of every man, He will know who responds to His call, therefore to Him, these people who respond to Him in the future are "chosen" ones. Choosing may seem that He picks out by hand, but I think its just that He already knows who will follow Him.

(Yep! Summer all right!:D pity where I live I cant see snow in winter thou)

kandaurov

01-09-2009, 10:10 AM

Right, just wanted to know what a Christian though about these matters. Thanks!

(been often told NZ is amazing, will visit it whenever I can. Must be odd to have summer at Christmas though!)

skasian

01-09-2009, 11:02 AM

Right, just wanted to know what a Christian though about these matters. Thanks!

(been often told NZ is amazing, will visit it whenever I can. Must be odd to have summer at Christmas though!)

Thats alright! Happy to share my views:)
(Oh yes, please visit, you can have a tour of the Lord of The Rings set in Wellington, if you are fan that is.. Yeah, sun sand surf and barbie in Christmas all good:) Our Christmas cards have pot bellied half naked santa surfing with sunglasses on, not the traditional covered up sleighing big red santa.. Seems we are getting a bit off topic, maybe I should link with Christmas and Christ..

I believe in God because Jesus Christ was born in a food bowl for cows and horses on Christmas day, born as Son of God, all pure, perfect. He was born to teach us with wisdom, correcting the old laws for our own convenience, born as a healer to cure the sick and give hope to the one suffering from darkness. He was born to be spat on, mocked and sworn on, born to suffer and die with nails being hammered in his hands and feet, to be slung by an arrow, crowned nailed thorns and be laughed at while he cried for us mankind in a cross.
Jesus Christ was born on Christmas day to be sent to earth to sacrifice Himself and be punished by us when He did nothing wrong. But we forget that on Christmas day, Christ was born to suffer for us, for our sins and for giving us the opportunity to live with God forever. Yet on Christmas day we rather focus on spending money for self indulgence and self satisfaction. On Christmas day, we forget that Christ sacrificed Himself simply because He loved us. Lest we forget His love. Lest we forget to love Him back and thank Him for being born on Christmas day.
I believe in God because He rose from death in three days, giving us a mission to spread the Word about God, and His works and words while in earth. I believe in God because He gives us hope and light in the darkest times in our world. I believe in God because He gave us meaning in the world, giving us the choice to thank Him for His time in earth, and spread the Word about Him. I believe in God because He is with us all the time. I believe in God because as He had done His painful work in earth, I want to repay His love for us by following His Words, and serving Him and His people.

Cat_Brenners

01-12-2009, 01:36 AM

So a big bang made this wonderful earth? Formed all those lovely planets and the skies and lined them up just so? Made them lovely? I don't think so. That was planned and done by God.
Cat

billyjack

01-12-2009, 01:55 AM

So a big bang made this wonderful earth? Formed all those lovely planets and the skies and lined them up just so? Made them lovely? I don't think so. That was planned and done by God.
Cat

feel free to believe irrational notions. but leave em at that. no need to defend your creationist view with an appeal to beauty argument

Ohmyscience

01-12-2009, 02:26 AM

I think I jumped in too late here but to answer the original question isn't more reasonable to say you believe in God due to an environment that promotes the idea? Anyone can be indoctrinated into any religion. Cultures have a wide variety of how they view God. Since we live in the west I guess its more likely the conception of God is along the lines of the Abrahamic religions.
What makes this conception more superior? Doesn't the fact that religions and conceptions of god(s) are not uniform make you ponder at least a little on whether you could be incorrect?

Cat_Brenners

01-12-2009, 04:01 AM

Sounds like I might have hit a nerve. lol. I believe in what I know in my heart to be true. No one will convince me that it's irrational notions. Beauty and the formation of our earth and universe is as much an argument as anything I have heard here.
Hugs, Cat

skasian

01-12-2009, 06:24 AM

NikolaiI

01-12-2009, 10:06 AM

I agree with you whole-heartedly Cat and skasian. I also believe that all comes from the divine. Within everyone is that divine. This world only looks to be material because we cannot see beyond that. But actually everything is beautiful, everything is spiritual - not because it is all divine but because it all belongs to the divine. In fact you can see that the divine is within everything only if you really focus on it, even as you walk down the street or sidewalk. Life is eternal, and as William Blake said, if the doors of perception were cleansed, then we would see all as it is, infinite. Saints and rishis all supported this, they said that all is a play of the infinite, or in other words divine. I follow Hinduism more than anything else, but Christ taught the same thing, that there is life within you, the Kingdom of God... it is difficult to explain but it is the destination of the self.

JacobF

01-12-2009, 09:20 PM

Cat, good on you to link God with beauty. I believe that God is beauty because as He is immaculate, clear from any flaws, He is beautiful. The universe and everything in it is beautiful and that is becuase God has created them. Everything in the world are created by purpose with His intricate care and love.

Try and study the most insignificant feature you can find in nature, and there is no doubt that you will appreciate its complex beauty. Reason is that they are footprints of God, and every footprints made by God are inexplicably beautiful.

Well, nature has its flaws. Humanity itself is a flawed species -- while other animals obtain satisfaction just by eating, sleeping and breeding, our intellect gives us the inspiration to achieve much more. It's why we have art, literature, science, and civilization in general. While that all sounds like a good thing, it just makes us self-serving wastes of space in the context of the natural world. We contribute basically nothing to it. We try and give back to nature by planting trees and constructing animal shelters, but that's really just an act of cleaning up our huge mess. Humans are just a scab on Earth's backside. I don't see any divinity in that.

Humanity tends to personify what they are not aware of or what they fear. I say that because you mentioned the "footprints" of God on everything he created. If a god or gods did in fact exist, we could not possibly fathom their existence. We can try to by creating Bibles and religions, and painting pictures of saints and prophets, but in the end it really wouldn't make a difference.

I kind of stumbled into this thread at a late time so if I am intruding on some other discussion then ignore me. But, still, I don't see how anyone can believe anything based on faith, even if it's a question that science hasn't completely answered yet.

Dr. Hill

01-12-2009, 10:13 PM

Considering that it wouldn't matter what this earth looked like, that as humans, living in the environment our entire lives, we would find beauty in whatever it was, I doubt the earth is beautiful. The earth is beautiful to us, and its inhabitants, because they've lived on it for billions of years.

billyjack

01-12-2009, 11:41 PM

I believe in what I know in my heart to be true.

sure but its the arrogance of thinking one knows (through belief--which is blasphemy of the word "know") the random, weird, contradictory whims of this dude named god, then making threats about hell when the only proofs lie in arrogance and ignorance, and finally admitting that you can't wait to throw the end of the world party with jesus---both of you toasting all the sinners into non-existence.
again, i've said it before on these forums. belief needs to be put on trial.

No one will convince me that it's irrational notions.

this is because faith is constantly given more value/virtue than open mindedness.

Beauty and the formation of our earth and universe is as much an argument as anything I have heard here.
Hugs, Cat

stone age homo sapiens also liked to attribute things they didnt understand, like thunder and lightning for an example, to a god. seems like, as a species, we cant seem to shake this archaic tendency. this doesnt prove the existence of god. it just proves that old habits are hard to break and that we like to name the unknown. makes us feel like we know it

Cat_Brenners

01-13-2009, 02:55 AM

I said on another board that I keep getting quoated but misinterpreted. I pray for everyone and hope no one burns in hell. I think sometimes people finally have to say " Let's agree to disagree and I will pray for you and love you anyways". God bless.
Hugs, Cat

Zee.

01-13-2009, 03:00 AM

Er, I deleted this post because it was irrelevant.

Cat_Brenners

01-13-2009, 03:07 AM

By that I mean I hope everyone makes their peace with God but I know it won't happen. Just wish it could be so.
Hugs, Cat

skasian

01-13-2009, 05:22 AM

Well, nature has its flaws. Humanity itself is a flawed species -- while other animals obtain satisfaction just by eating, sleeping and breeding, our intellect gives us the inspiration to achieve much more. It's why we have art, literature, science, and civilization in general. While that all sounds like a good thing, it just makes us self-serving wastes of space in the context of the natural world. We contribute basically nothing to it. We try and give back to nature by planting trees and constructing animal shelters, but that's really just an act of cleaning up our huge mess. Humans are just a scab on Earth's backside. I don't see any divinity in that.

Humanity tends to personify what they are not aware of or what they fear. I say that because you mentioned the "footprints" of God on everything he created. If a god or gods did in fact exist, we could not possibly fathom their existence. We can try to by creating Bibles and religions, and painting pictures of saints and prophets, but in the end it really wouldn't make a difference.

I kind of stumbled into this thread at a late time so if I am intruding on some other discussion then ignore me. But, still, I don't see how anyone can believe anything based on faith, even if it's a question that science hasn't completely answered yet.

So it seems you are a fan of science - abit of a too much believer in science? I ask you, can science touch the spiritual level? I see you are relying on science to answer your interrogations about faith and belief however I am sorry to point out, it just never will.

There are differences between the physical world we live here and now and the eternal worlds in afterlife. As you, an atheist do not accept God in your life, you admitted "We contribute basically nothing to it." it being the world. This is natural, since you have no sense of spiritual motivation dedicated to a living God. The religious however is the opposite; we have a fixed motivation in our lives in earth and life in heaven. We do not think that we ourselves contribute nothing to the world. That my friend, is the difference between you and I, even though we may be compromised and surrounded by the same matter of the world.

skasian

01-13-2009, 05:30 AM

sure but its the arrogance of thinking one knows (through belief--which is blasphemy of the word "know") the random, weird, contradictory whims of this dude named god, then making threats about hell when the only proofs lie in arrogance and ignorance, and finally admitting that you can't wait to throw the end of the world party with jesus---both of you toasting all the sinners into non-existence.
again, i've said it before on these forums. belief needs to be put on trial.

this is because faith is constantly given more value/virtue than open mindedness.

stone age homo sapiens also liked to attribute things they didnt understand, like thunder and lightning for an example, to a god. seems like, as a species, we cant seem to shake this archaic tendency. this doesnt prove the existence of god. it just proves that old habits are hard to break and that we like to name the unknown. makes us feel like we know it

Belief needs to be put on trial? For what offense? What did belief ever do to upset you? Belief is something personal; I have a sense of belief, you have a sense of belief in something completely different. We are all human, unique and no two are the same. Each individuals holds on to a belief that does not require the other to hold the same. What does it matter for you when you dont have to believe in someone elses belief? If someone has a completely contrasting belief than yours, then dont rebuke and disagree it too seriously - everyone in the world has a right to have a belief and no one should dare stop one from having that belief.

JacobF

01-13-2009, 04:57 PM

So it seems you are a fan of science - abit of a too much believer in science? I ask you, can science touch the spiritual level? I see you are relying on science to answer your interrogations about faith and belief however I am sorry to point out, it just never will.

Well, you can't "believe" in science, because science is not a belief. It is a procedure of collecting evidence, researching, investigating and observing. Plus, science does give us spirituality. You feel happy when you think of religion, and you feel things you can't explain, am I correct? That's your brain giving you those feelings. There's no rationality in faith. Logic and rationality is what places humans on top of the food chain, and when we build our lives around faith we discredit those traits. Of course all humans have a sense of wonder, and they question whether a god exists or not. But why should we subscribe so heavily to the belief in a god based on pure faith? You probably don't believe in Norse gods such as Odin and Thor. I don't think you believe in scientology either -- yet there's about as much truth to scientology being correct then there is Christianity (or any monotheistic religion for that matter). So who says the Judeo-Christian god is the right one? Irrational conclusions, i.e. faith.

There are differences between the physical world we live here and now and the eternal worlds in afterlife. As you, an atheist do not accept God in your life, you admitted "We contribute basically nothing to it." it being the world. This is natural, since you have no sense of spiritual motivation dedicated to a living God. The religious however is the opposite; we have a fixed motivation in our lives in earth and life in heaven. We do not think that we ourselves contribute nothing to the world. That my friend, is the difference between you and I, even though we may be compromised and surrounded by the same matter of the world.

And by the world, I meant the natural world, because you kept harping on how everything in nature is somehow divine. If you look in the context of OUR world, the one we created, then yes, we have contributed great things. We have a civilized system of government, currency, language, architecture, et cetera. But that means nothing when nature is involved. We are not even a dot on the map in regards to the universe. I don't see how you can argue that. Our intellect gives us a superiority complex and is easily explainable with science.

But let me make my stance clear -- I understand people who believe in god because I have wondered that so many times myself. Although I'm an atheist I don't trot around pretending like that's the absolute truth because we can never know. However, I don't see how someone can believe so heavily in the idea of a god existing. Nothing makes the bible more important than the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or even Norse mythology, and vice versa for all those.

atiguhya padma

01-13-2009, 06:04 PM

dzebra

01-13-2009, 07:05 PM

We CAN say we know there is no god with as much certainty as we can say we know anything else, that we know the sun will rise tomorrow. In fact, our observations and experiments show that the existence of god is as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow: ie there is no evidence to suggest either to be the case, and all our observations suggest the contrary.

What sort of experiments and observations suggest that there is no God? I can understand how someone could say there is no evidence that must necessarily be attributed to the existence of God, but I don't know what tests have been run that show that God probably does not exist.

JacobF

01-13-2009, 07:16 PM

JacobF,

I admire and agree with most of what you say. But one line I find rather bemusing. You say that "Although I'm an atheist I don't trot around pretending like that's the absolute truth because we can never know". Does that statement not make you an agnostic rather than an atheist?

I call myself an atheist, because, for me, neither knowledge or truth have to be absolute. If they did, we would all have to call ourselves solipsists. But just as the solipsist goes too far with his or her quest for certainty, so does the aspiring agnostic. We CAN say we know there is no god with as much certainty as we can say we know anything else, that we know the sun will rise tomorrow. In fact, our observations and experiments show that the existence of god is as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow: ie there is no evidence to suggest either to be the case, and all our observations suggest the contrary.

I call myself an atheist because that's my subjective belief. I really don't think there is a god or gods. What I said, that we can never know if there is a god, was more against the notion that there absolutely is no god, because how can we ever know that? I'm simply inclined to believe there is no god because there has never been any evidence or inklings toward one existing. It is, to me, the most rational and truthful stance. I suppose that makes me a weak atheist, but so be it.

Ohmyscience

01-13-2009, 08:01 PM

As an atheist I just want to point out that were not anti-theists. There is a difference. I agree with the atheists here and what our opinion is, hopefully not being too presumptious here, while we do not believe in the spiritual world our only objection is when scripture or dogma makes assertions about the physical universe that are incorrect. Even if they were correct an appeal to dogma would halt progress. Atheists believe in the scientific method not scientific theories that exist today. We only use the ones we have currently because they are the best. We're expecting better.

As for the spiritual I think most of us here nailed it. I think most of us have some wonder and appreciation for the universe only because we are conscious observers. Like other posters have said its only beautiful to us.

There might exists a god or gods beyond the universe but after all the millenia of billions of people begging for "His" appearance "He" is at best sadistic.

NikolaiI

01-13-2009, 10:20 PM

Everything we do and everything we hear -- everyone we are around, all this has effect on us. I am going to leave these forums for a little while at least, because I am not helping anyone I think, and I am not being helped myself because I think I care too much about all you people. When I am trying to tell people about the divine, I am not trying to get people to be irrational. The divine is not irrational. But I am not trying to convince you of this, I am merely trying to give you an alternate option, an alternate route, to atheism. Cat and skasian have said things well. Christ said he was teaching a well-spring which was inside us, and which did not ever end. I have partly realized this is love of God, dormant within us. You cannot have this randomly or for no reason, or if you just wish to demand it. Everything in our life is made up of our own intentions, of what we hear, what we say, what we do, eat, breathe, what we read, etc; it's a vast conglomorations of intention and suggestion and will. Godhead is not irrational, actually Godhead is supreme and infinite. This may seem foreign -- especially in our society which revolves around the desire for sex enjoyment. But actually we are souls, we are spirit, we are not just matter. We can't derive happiness from squeezing it out of matter - it doesn't work. And so we should seek for God, seek out the soul - Harrison said this often. And this is what I was trying to discuss. I was trying to discuss the divine. But it does not work if people do not come with any kind of open mind. If they wish to start a war on belief -- on faith. This is actually something like nihilism. Anyway I just wished to say that I wish you all peace -- and God is not saddistic He is the source of love, beauty, truth, etc. You do not see it but if you search for it you will find it. This is part of the infinte source from which you are sprung. It is your right. It is much better than living for material life. But while it is not offensive to me for someone to say they are atheist -- trust me, it is not -- it is offensive for believers -- devotees -- to be insulted, to be called delusional, and this has happened.

Actually there are traditions from all around the world which go very far back -- philosophical traditions, religious traditions... I say tradition but i don't mean dogma, because these traditions are made up of the lives and contributions of so many people. There is not a place you can go on this earth where you will not find love and beauty.

Um, so yeah, peace and good health. Bye.

JacobF

01-13-2009, 10:54 PM

NikolaiI

01-14-2009, 01:25 AM

Well, I tried to be as respectful as I could. And to be honest, I thought I approached this thread with a pretty open mind. I simply posed general questions to believers in the thread (I think I asked skasian about the Old Testament, I'll have to look back and see) and it continued from there.

Once again, I see no inklings of insult or animosity from any atheist or believer in this thread. Compared to other religious threads I have seen on other forums, this one is pretty civil.

I apologize sincerely if you thought I meant this at all about you, I didn't. And looking back a couple of pages I see you are right about this thread. So perhaps it is just a delayed reaction to people being called "delusional." In this case I wrote it on the wrong thread... I apologize and withdraw what I said. I guess in that light it isn't helpful. But if anyone calls anyone delusional, I am gone.

datulakan

01-14-2009, 05:03 AM

skasian

01-14-2009, 07:36 PM

Well, you can't "believe" in science, because science is not a belief. It is a procedure of collecting evidence, researching, investigating and observing. Plus, science does give us spirituality. You feel happy when you think of religion, and you feel things you can't explain, am I correct? That's your brain giving you those feelings. There's no rationality in faith. Logic and rationality is what places humans on top of the food chain, and when we build our lives around faith we discredit those traits. Of course all humans have a sense of wonder, and they question whether a god exists or not. But why should we subscribe so heavily to the belief in a god based on pure faith? You probably don't believe in Norse gods such as Odin and Thor. I don't think you believe in scientology either -- yet there's about as much truth to scientology being correct then there is Christianity (or any monotheistic religion for that matter). So who says the Judeo-Christian god is the right one? Irrational conclusions, i.e. faith.

And by the world, I meant the natural world, because you kept harping on how everything in nature is somehow divine. If you look in the context of OUR world, the one we created, then yes, we have contributed great things. We have a civilized system of government, currency, language, architecture, et cetera. But that means nothing when nature is involved. We are not even a dot on the map in regards to the universe. I don't see how you can argue that. Our intellect gives us a superiority complex and is easily explainable with science.

But let me make my stance clear -- I understand people who believe in god because I have wondered that so many times myself. Although I'm an atheist I don't trot around pretending like that's the absolute truth because we can never know. However, I don't see how someone can believe so heavily in the idea of a god existing. Nothing makes the bible more important than the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or even Norse mythology, and vice versa for all those.

There are people that believe in science, especially in evolution. They BELIEVE that they come from a long line of cave men and apes etc.

Science does not touch the spirit. Science cannot form an equation of the spirit because it cannot explain what it is. Religion making us happy? Being happy is just a response from a stimuli, which in this case is God. Other than this basic idea, science doesnt explain religion or spirit all together.

Try and define faith. Easy right? But try to understand faith and try for yourself to have faith in something. Not easy. You may have hard time trying to have faith that you cant see, but when you open your heart and be WILLING to accept a God, then faith forms.

Everything in nature that is not human made, ie organic is divine and beautiful in everyway,and yes we are a dot in the universe, we have a since of direction and space, therefore as we may look very insignificant in the universe, we are all important in the universe regardless of size.

Ohmyscience

01-14-2009, 08:59 PM

The theory of evolution comes out often in these debates and I think its being unfairly judged. Does it have flaws? Yes. However until science has a better theory on the development of life on this planet its the best answer based on empirical evidence we have.

If this theory were on trial today and you were the jury consider this: If God created all the organisms just as they were would you expect all the animals to remain the same as they were or change over time? Evidence such as new strains and mutations in genes suggests that every form of life is evolving. More evidence includes genetic make up mammals close to the human and a large extent of the genes match. At the forefront of modern medicine the theory of evolution is being applied to every recess of research from stem cells to mapping the DNA of life forms and recognizing mutations in genes which can cause diseases. And its working.

So in light of this evidence one can suppose two possible answers. That evolution occured previously and will continue to do so, or evolution occured after God created all life. To say evolution doesn't not occur is blatantly incorrect. If you wish to believe theory B thats okay however I believe it is more reasonable to assume the first considering if you extrapolate this theory back to the beginning you would have small handful of life forms evolving to more varieties.

This isn't an attact on faith however an appeal for the "God did it theory" is an appeal to ignorance because it is not a scientific theory, does not improve modern medicine and halts the well being of those who will one day need it.

You can have faith in whatever you want. Everyone is entitled to that. However science improves lives physically and of course you need to be physically well before you can appreciate anything right?

JacobF

01-14-2009, 09:59 PM

There are people that believe in science, especially in evolution. They BELIEVE that they come from a long line of cave men and apes etc.

Science does not touch the spirit. Science cannot form an equation of the spirit because it cannot explain what it is. Religion making us happy? Being happy is just a response from a stimuli, which in this case is God. Other than this basic idea, science doesnt explain religion or spirit all together.

Try and define faith. Easy right? But try to understand faith and try for yourself to have faith in something. Not easy. You may have hard time trying to have faith that you cant see, but when you open your heart and be WILLING to accept a God, then faith forms.

Everything in nature that is not human made, ie organic is divine and beautiful in everyway,and yes we are a dot in the universe, we have a since of direction and space, therefore as we may look very insignificant in the universe, we are all important in the universe regardless of size.

They don't just BELIEVE in evolution, they have some evidence to back it up. A belief is very subjective, such as "do you believe in god." To deny evolution, even though it is not a perfect theory (no theory is) is to deny real evidence.

Plus, I've felt faith before. I used to go to church and I genuinely believed in god and the bible. But when I reached an age when I started to think, I realized god was made-up and the bible was just a bed-time story for grown-ups. But today I still feel faith. Not in god, but faith in friends and family, because they are close to me and are part of my life. They aren't imaginary. I had faith in my mom when she started her own business, faith in myself when I do theater. It's an irrational emotion drawn from insecurity, and while it made me feel better I would never build my existence, my identity around it. Let alone would I let faith haze my judgment enough that I follow an age-old scripture which was written as an authoritative tool more than anything.

Science can't explain what isn't there. So, you are correct in that science can't explain the spirit. The spirit is an idea and nothing more. And you don't even need science to explain religion. It was created as a psychological remedy for the natural insecurity that people felt, as well as being a great tool for spreading culture and in turn expanding empires. Just look at how well the Islamic empire spread after Mohammed's death.

As for your last paragraph, you just keep regurgitating that, somehow, everything in nature is divine. Yet science has explanations for the development of nature and, even though they are not perfected, they are better than the cop-out that "god did it all."

Your only main point is that I have to have faith in order to see things as divine. That I have to 'accept faith' in order to see things the way you do. But I've been through all that faith-in-god stuff in my life and I've learned from it that it's pretty much imaginary. I don't claim to know everything about the universe from this self-revelation, but I do know that freeing myself from the prison that is believing in god has helped me see things more clearly, see things for what they are, not 'divine.' As ohmy said, you're entitled to your faith but it's my belief that faith in god is not necessary for humanity.

billyjack

01-14-2009, 10:05 PM

Science does not touch the spirit. Science cannot form an equation of the spirit because it cannot explain what it is.

i think you really made the point for me: science will not and cannot make claims about that which is unknowable (ie that which cant be explained, just experienced and felt), ie the spirit, the numinous, oneness, that which makes us marvel at the universe, whatever you choose to call it is fine.

religion on the other hand doesnt just make claims, it professes a knowledge of the unknowable that is remarkably detailed considering its unknowability.

on a sidenote. speaking of the unknowable as a known strips it of its luster, takes the shine off the apple. infects our sense of awe and replaces it with a sense of loyalty to ancient writers

NikolaiI

01-15-2009, 01:02 AM

In every effect there is a cause. I can not see the wind but I know it's there, I breath it, I see the trees dances because of it.

The whole universe exists. Everything exists. The ultimate ground of existence is what I call GOD/god or whatever you might call it.

Call it datulakan, faith or no faith, it's there.

Hey. I just wanted to say thank you for writing this, it is an act of kindness. :) It is exactly what I believe, that God is the root of existence. Each of us was created by the divine, and it is our purpose of life to pursue God and realize our relationship with the supreme.

You may not think all of this, and I will leave it, because some people on here will try to make fun and make people hurt (not you, The Atheist - you are kind).

But I do believe that God is OM, the source of all this vegetable and material world. All comes from that divine source, and it is the perfection to make it a part of one's life. I see this OM as the sum of all dreams and love and the source of all enlightenment.

Why do I believe in God? Because I've had very numerous experiences of the divine, and they have matched descriptions of God as the supreme, as the divine Grace. For this reason I believe we are all spirit, and our root of existence is the supreme and divine grace, call you it Om, Hari, Christ, Buddha or any other.

By the way does datulakan mean anything, for it seems familiar.

skasian

01-17-2009, 08:19 AM

They don't just BELIEVE in evolution, they have some evidence to back it up. A belief is very subjective, such as "do you believe in god." To deny evolution, even though it is not a perfect theory (no theory is) is to deny real evidence.

Plus, I've felt faith before. I used to go to church and I genuinely believed in god and the bible. But when I reached an age when I started to think, I realized god was made-up and the bible was just a bed-time story for grown-ups. But today I still feel faith. Not in god, but faith in friends and family, because they are close to me and are part of my life. They aren't imaginary. I had faith in my mom when she started her own business, faith in myself when I do theater. It's an irrational emotion drawn from insecurity, and while it made me feel better I would never build my existence, my identity around it. Let alone would I let faith haze my judgment enough that I follow an age-old scripture which was written as an authoritative tool more than anything.

Science can't explain what isn't there. So, you are correct in that science can't explain the spirit. The spirit is an idea and nothing more. And you don't even need science to explain religion. It was created as a psychological remedy for the natural insecurity that people felt, as well as being a great tool for spreading culture and in turn expanding empires. Just look at how well the Islamic empire spread after Mohammed's death.

As for your last paragraph, you just keep regurgitating that, somehow, everything in nature is divine. Yet science has explanations for the development of nature and, even though they are not perfected, they are better than the cop-out that "god did it all."

Your only main point is that I have to have faith in order to see things as divine. That I have to 'accept faith' in order to see things the way you do. But I've been through all that faith-in-god stuff in my life and I've learned from it that it's pretty much imaginary. I don't claim to know everything about the universe from this self-revelation, but I do know that freeing myself from the prison that is believing in god has helped me see things more clearly, see things for what they are, not 'divine.' As ohmy said, you're entitled to your faith but it's my belief that faith in god is not necessary for humanity.

Bible is like evidence to have belief in God. Textbooks with scientific theories are like evidence to have belief in evolution. Either way, you can believe in something if it seems "right" for you.

Good, you have great sense of faith towards your family and friends. Its not so hard right? Well its the same kind of faith and love that revolves around God. He is part of your family too, but just a higher being.

How would you know if religion was created just by humans' insecurities? Have you been back thousands of years yourself and discovered the reason why religion exists? Islamic empire was created when Mohammed converted from Christianity after he saw a vision of God telling him about a new religion. The reason why this religion was created was being of Mohammed's motivation to spread the news about God's intentions - Not because of human insecurities.

Science has explanation for development of nature? Nope. The big bang is a theory and it is not certain. Dont you know science is always 100% uncertain? Theres nothing in science that reveals why "e" or the nature number occurs in nature so much. The answer is simple. Because everything in nature has codings or blueprints God used when He created the world. The golden ratio appears almost everywhere in nature. Coincidence? Highly unlikely.

Let me say this one thing. I am not trying to convert you or convert your thoughts about faith but just sharing my views. My views and so does all the religious, everything about God and His creations is completely opposite from being imaginary, like we humans are not imaginary.

skasian

01-17-2009, 08:23 AM

i think you really made the point for me: science will not and cannot make claims about that which is unknowable (ie that which cant be explained, just experienced and felt), ie the spirit, the numinous, oneness, that which makes us marvel at the universe, whatever you choose to call it is fine.

religion on the other hand doesnt just make claims, it professes a knowledge of the unknowable that is remarkably detailed considering its unknowability.

on a sidenote. speaking of the unknowable as a known strips it of its luster, takes the shine off the apple. infects our sense of awe and replaces it with a sense of loyalty to ancient writers

Religion is indeed the knowledge of the unknowable, the most uncomprehensive - God. However religion is also holds the knwoledge of morality, humanity, many aspects that we humans should follow everyday in our lives in earth.

Pewnut

01-17-2009, 08:35 AM

skasian

01-17-2009, 09:25 AM

"Knowledge of the unknowable"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? How can one know something that is impossible to know?

It's true that all religions have their own "moral codes", so to speak, but I'm one of those people who believe you don't need religion or a fear of God in order to be a moral person. I try to do good and be good without expecting a reward in the afterlife. For me, it's a matter of empathising with my fellow man.

Knowledge of the unknowable. Let me elaborate. Unknowable is God, because God is a being that is infinite of all righteous, goodness, light and hope, He is just beyond our comprehension. Overall, we cant understand God, therefore unknowable.

Knowledge of God is very limited however by His Words, we are able to know His intentions, and His Will.

Knowledge of the unknowable is quite misleading I admit, however it is just about gaining knowledge of God's will and following them.

JacobF

01-17-2009, 04:58 PM

Bible is like evidence to have belief in God. Textbooks with scientific theories are like evidence to have belief in evolution. Either way, you can believe in something if it seems "right" for you.

The bible is not evidence. It is not contemporary to the period in which it was writing about, nor does it have any proven events within it. The big bang for instance is closer to fact than the bible because we actually have research to back up that it may have happened.

Good, you have great sense of faith towards your family and friends. Its not so hard right? Well its the same kind of faith and love that revolves around God. He is part of your family too, but just a higher being.

I don't think I need to form an argument for this. You're just regurgitating the same thing as you have in your previous posts and I've countered it numerous times.

How would you know if religion was created just by humans' insecurities? Have you been back thousands of years yourself and discovered the reason why religion exists? Islamic empire was created when Mohammed converted from Christianity after he saw a vision of God telling him about a new religion. The reason why this religion was created was being of Mohammed's motivation to spread the news about God's intentions - Not because of human insecurities.

I think this is the part in the argument where I have to simply say 'open your eyes.' Fear has been and always will be the main motive for humanity's actions. Religion is a textbook example of creating something out of fear.

Have you been back thousands of years to see Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection? Have you been back thousands of years to see Moses part the red sea?

And also, as a little side note, why must the burden of proof lay on me? If someone claimed that UFOs existed, you'd think the person making that claim would have to prove it, right? Then why must it be atheists having to disprove god rather than theists proving it? And by proving it, I don't mean pointing to the bible, because that is just words. Anyone could have written the bible.

Science has explanation for development of nature? Nope. The big bang is a theory and it is not certain. Dont you know science is always 100% uncertain?

Uh, but science DOES have solid explanations pertaining to the development of nature. I never said science is 100% certain (in fact, I'm pretty sure I previously said it wasn't) but science has more merit explaining how natural occurrences happen than religion does. Empirical merit: something that the bible doesn't have.

Theres nothing in science that reveals why "e" or the nature number occurs in nature so much. The answer is simple. Because everything in nature has codings or blueprints God used when He created the world. The golden ratio appears almost everywhere in nature. Coincidence? Highly unlikely.

Science hasn't discovered something yet... so it must be god, right? If this was 1000 years ago, you would be saying that the sun revolves around the earth, and god put us in the center of the cosmos. But, today we know that is incorrect with scientific research. Coincidence? Highly unlikely.

Let me say this one thing. I am not trying to convert you or convert your thoughts about faith but just sharing my views. My views and so does all the religious, everything about God and His creations is completely opposite from being imaginary, like we humans are not imaginary.

We humans are not imaginary because we have senses. We are physical entities. God, however, does not fit into any of those categories.

billyjack

01-17-2009, 07:18 PM

Knowledge of the unknowable. Let me elaborate. Unknowable is God, because God is a being that is infinite of all righteous, goodness, light and hope, He is just beyond our comprehension. Overall, we cant understand God, therefore unknowable.

Knowledge of God is very limited however by His Words, we are able to know His intentions, and His Will.

Knowledge of the unknowable is quite misleading I admit, however it is just about gaining knowledge of God's will and following them.

so you know the unknowable via the bible. white noise

Pewnut

01-17-2009, 09:25 PM

Unknowable is God, because God is a being that is infinite of all righteous, goodness, light and hope, He is just beyond our comprehension. Overall, we cant understand God, therefore unknowable.

Knowledge of God is very limited however by His Words, we are able to know His intentions, and His Will.

Knowledge of the unknowable is quite misleading I admit, however it is just about gaining knowledge of God's will and following them.

Hmm... I'm not swayed by this logic. If you know ("by His words") that God is infinitely righteous, good, etc. and you know His intentions and His will, then you have knowledge of some of His qualities. Meaning, He is not "unknowable", just "knowable to a certain limited extent".

Redzeppelin

01-17-2009, 10:57 PM

The bible is not evidence. It is not contemporary to the period in which it was writing about, nor does it have any proven events within it. The big bang for instance is closer to fact than the bible because we actually have research to back up that it may have happened.

There are a number of historical events that were prophetically predicted by the Bible. The life of Jesus Christ - who was a real historical figure - fulfills at least 8 prophecies made in the Old Testament (the last book of which dates about 400 years before his birth) - including such impossible to manipulate things as birthplace (Bethlehem - see Micah 5:2) and that Jesus' hands and feet would be pierced (see Psalms 22:16). There are plenty of others in the Books of Ezekiel and Daniel. Every year, archeological evidence surfaces that verifies locations and people mentioned in the Bible.

I don't think I need to form an argument for this. You're just regurgitating the same thing as you have in your previous posts and I've countered it numerous times.

I'm very familiar with this feeling. I feel your pain.

I think this is the part in the argument where I have to simply say 'open your eyes.' Fear has been and always will be the main motive for humanity's actions. Religion is a textbook example of creating something out of fear.

This is the part that is tiresome to keep reading. Our eyes ARE open - you make the assumption that you're the one who sees clearly. The Bible makes it clear that the condition of those who don't know God is one of blindness. Fear is - IMO - what actually drives people to deny the existence of God - because if He is real - then the lives we're living will get us into A LOT of trouble. It's easier to continue living life in whatever way we please once we pretend that there is no real cosmic justice out there in the form of an omniscient and holy God.

Besides, things created out of fear do not change people's lives; the Bible and Christianity have changed many, many people's lives for the better. Fear hasn't that power - it can only destroy - not recreate.

Have you been back thousands of years to see Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection? Have you been back thousands of years to see Moses part the red sea?

Jesus' crucifixion is an actual historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources. It is ironic that you use the very argument that works against abiogenesis - there's no real way to prove where life came from because you can't "go back" and see it.

And also, as a little side note, why must the burden of proof lay on me? If someone claimed that UFOs existed, you'd think the person making that claim would have to prove it, right? Then why must it be atheists having to disprove god rather than theists proving it? And by proving it, I don't mean pointing to the bible, because that is just words. Anyone could have written the bible.

Believers cannot "prove" God exists anymore than evolutionists can prove that life came from nothing. The logical fallacy that atheists make is in claiming that God doesn't exist: to make that claim (that something doesn't exist) presumes an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists. That is plainly impossible. How can atheists claim such a thing with a straight face? And we're the ones who need to "open our eyes"?

Uh, but science DOES have solid explanations pertaining to the development of nature. I never said science is 100% certain (in fact, I'm pretty sure I previously said it wasn't) but science has more merit explaining how natural occurrences happen than religion does. Empirical merit: something that the bible doesn't have.

1. Religion does not exist to explain the scientific origins of anything. It provides a pathway to a relationship with God.

2. Some science is "hard" (like mathematics) - there is no interpretation involved; some science, however, is "soft" in that it requires the "evidence" to be interpreted. Since evidence can be interpreted in more than one way, not all "evidence" in support of evolution is undeniably irrefutable. Sorry.

Science hasn't discovered something yet... so it must be god, right? If this was 1000 years ago, you would be saying that the sun revolves around the earth, and god put us in the center of the cosmos. But, today we know that is incorrect with scientific research. Coincidence? Highly unlikely.

Science can't discover God - all it can do is keep uncovering evidence of His handiwork and then come up with absurd explanations as to how it developed all by itself through random chance and lots o' time.

Pewnut

01-17-2009, 11:22 PM

Fear is - IMO - what actually drives people to deny the existence of God - because if He is real - then the lives we're living will get us into A LOT of trouble.

I completely disagree with this statement. Not everyone who denies the existence of God leads a "sinful" life, just as not everyone who believes in the existence of God leads an "exemplary" life.

Personally, I neither deny nor confirm the existence of God but like I said before:

I'm one of those people who believes you don't need religion or a fear of God in order to be a moral person. I try to do good and be good without expecting a reward in the afterlife. For me, it's a matter of empathising with my fellow man.

I'd rather do good and be good by my own will, rather than be compelled to do so.

I completely understand why people in biblical times would have found comfort in organised religion because (to a certain extent) it prevented chaos in society. However, civilisation has evolved to a point in time where we have enforceable laws to prevent people from running amock or at least hold them accountable for their actions.

On a more personal note, I really hope that God does exist because there are many people who suffer a great deal in this world and they should be able to find peace, at least in the afterlife.

JacobF

01-17-2009, 11:31 PM

There are a number of historical events that were prophetically predicted by the Bible. The life of Jesus Christ - who was a real historical figure - fulfills at least 8 prophecies made in the Old Testament (the last book of which dates about 400 years before his birth) - including such impossible to manipulate things as birthplace (Bethlehem - see Micah 5:2) and that Jesus' hands and feet would be pierced (see Psalms 22:16). There are plenty of others in the Books of Ezekiel and Daniel. Every year, archeological evidence surfaces that verifies locations and people mentioned in the Bible.

The bible has gone through countless revisions. Plus, even if the old testament did prophecize events in Jesus' life, that's like prophecizing something that was most likely made up. I'll repeat: no record from the time Jesus lived indicates that he existed.

This is the part that is tiresome to keep reading. Our eyes ARE open - you make the assumption that you're the one who sees clearly. The Bible makes it clear that the condition of those who don't know God is one of blindness. Fear is - IMO - what actually drives people to deny the existence of God - because if He is real - then the lives we're living will get us into A LOT of trouble. It's easier to continue living life in whatever way we please once we pretend that there is no real cosmic justice out there in the form of an omniscient and holy God.

I do see clearly, because I don't see a man in the sky named god, nor have I ever claimed to have experienced him with any of my senses. That's not an assumption on my part. Fear doesn't drive me to do this, at all. If I was afraid of god, I would worship him and go to church every Sunday. The worship of god is self-serving and totally fear-based -- people are afraid of death and hell, thus they want to go to heaven. People only say it makes their lives better because 1) they have the false comfort of knowing they are a 'good person' who is going to heaven and 2) ignorance is bliss. As an atheist, I do not fear death, and I'm happy for this. I know I'm not going to "get in trouble" when I die.

Besides, things created out of fear do not change people's lives; the Bible and Christianity have changed many, many people's lives for the better. Fear hasn't that power - it can only destroy - not recreate.

Um, fear can only destroy? No. Fear is why we walk on the side-walk instead of on the street. Fear is why we pour money into insurance. Fear is why we protect ourselves. That's why the bible and Christianity were conjured: to protect us from god. But, of course, he is as loving as he is vengeful. Makes sense.

Jesus' crucifixion is an actual historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources. It is ironic that you use the very argument that works against abiogenesis - there's no real way to prove where life came from because you can't "go back" and see it.

Well, those sources aren't contemporary to the time-period when he was crucified, are they? If so, please direct me to them. And as for the "go back and see it" thing, it was a response to skasian asking me if I went back to see the religions originating, which I found to be ironic on her part too.

Believers cannot "prove" God exists anymore than evolutionists can prove that life came from nothing. The logical fallacy that atheists make is in claiming that God doesn't exist: to make that claim (that something doesn't exist) presumes an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists. That is plainly impossible. How can atheists claim such a thing with a straight face? And we're the ones who need to "open our eyes"?

You are straw-manning me here. I don't, nor does any atheist in the right mind, claim that I have an 'exhaustive knowledge of all that exists.' We don't know all that exists, and we probably won't anytime soon. But, to say that all things were created by god is a cop-out. I myself find it ironic that you are trying to use logic to support god's existence.

1. Religion does not exist to explain the scientific origins of anything. It provides a pathway to a relationship with God.

2. Some science is "hard" (like mathematics) - there is no interpretation involved; some science, however, is "soft" in that it requires the "evidence" to be interpreted. Since evidence can be interpreted in more than one way, not all "evidence" in support of evolution is undeniably irrefutable. Sorry.

1. So the book of genesis, where the world was created in 7 days wasn't trying to explain the scientific origins of Earth? Right...

2. Again, you misrepresent what I say. I said in my very post that no evidence is irrefutable. But, empiricism appeals to rationality, while the belief in god appeals to faith. The former is more rational to believe as a physical being with senses and logic.

Science can't discover God - all it can do is keep uncovering evidence of His handiwork and then come up with absurd explanations as to how it developed all by itself through random chance and lots o' time.

Science doesn't try to discover god. It doesn't try to discover what is not there. And the 'absurd explanations' are a lot better than what religion has to offer. "God did it" is an absurd explanation to me.

Explain to me this, though: Who says the norse god Odin doesn't exist? What about all the Hindu gods? What makes the bible more correct than norse mythology or the Rig Veda or even Scientology?
That's why I don't get theism. You worship one god, but then another god doesn't allow you to do that. Then when you worship that god, another set of gods scolds you for that. And so on and so forth. Logically, no religion is correct, because they all contradict the existence of one another.

Redzeppelin

01-18-2009, 12:24 AM

The bible has gone through countless revisions. Plus, even if the old testament did prophecize events in Jesus' life, that's like prophecizing something that was most likely made up. I'll repeat: no record from the time Jesus lived indicates that he existed.

I won't bore you with the details, but textual studies of the Bible reveal that both the New and Old Testament are higly reliable in terms of consistency in what they say. The accuracy level is actually quite high. In the case of the New Testament, the 5300 extant copies in original language (dating from AD 70 - 120) show a 99.5% accuracy when compared to each other.

As far as no record of Jesus' life, here you go:

1. Josephus - Jewish Historian (AD 37 - 100): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man..."

2. Tacitus - Roman Historian (AD 55 - 117): Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, call Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."

Both of these men were neutral parties - neither one having anything to gain by writing that which was untrue - and if they had, they would have been confronted as lies by other writers of the time.

Give it up - Jesus was a real person.

I do see clearly, because I don't see a man in the sky named god, nor have I ever claimed to have experienced him with any of my senses.

Well, I don't see any man in the sky either; I'm glad you don't - I might wonder about your sanity if you said you did.

That's not an assumption on my part. Fear doesn't drive me to do this, at all. If I was afraid of god, I would worship him and go to church every Sunday.

My supposition is as reasonable as yours; plenty of people go into denial to make unpleasant realities "disappear." I do not diagnose you in particular, but the process of denying that which we find unpleasant or frightening is well documented in the literature of psychology.

The worship of god is self-serving and totally fear-based -- people are afraid of death and hell, thus they want to go to heaven.

If the very real consequences of smoking, crack-cocaine use, and unprotected sex aren't enough to stop many people from still indulging, what makes you think the fear of hell is that effective either? Worshipping God is "self-serving"? Have you read the Bible? The Christian life is actually rather demanding because it requires one to work against our normally selfish human nature. There's not much of anything "self-serving" about putting others first, loving my enemies, and forgiving those that wrong me. You oversimplify why people believe.

People only say it makes their lives better because 1) they have the false comfort of knowing they are a 'good person' who is going to heaven and 2) ignorance is bliss. As an atheist, I do not fear death, and I'm happy for this. I know I'm not going to "get in trouble" when I die.

And exactly where did you get the divine/clairvoyant power to know why other people say Christianity has made their lives better? Or are you just assuming on a grand scale?

Christianity does not make one feel like a "good person" - the first step in becoming a Christian is realizing and accepting that we are sinners incapable of being "good" without the help of God in our lives. Atheists tend to thump their chests and talk about what "good" people they are - most Christians will tell you right off that they are sinners working on becoming better people.

My favorite part about talking to an atheist about death is this: if you are right, and God doesn't exist, neither you nor I will know it; if I'm right, and He does exist, then both of us will know it.

Um, fear can only destroy? No. Fear is why we walk on the side-walk instead of on the street. Fear is why we pour money into insurance. Fear is why we protect ourselves. That's why the bible and Christianity were conjured: to protect us from god. But, of course, he is as loving as he is vengeful. Makes sense.

You're straw-manning here. I spoke of "fear" in the context of your statement - of religion being based upon fear. A belief system based upon fear does not change lives for the better.

Non-believers like to complain that God doesn't stop all the suffering, and then turn around and complain that He is just and will eventually administer justice. You can't have it both ways, you know.

Well, those sources aren't contemporary to the time-period when he was crucified, are they? If so, please direct me to them. And as for the "go back and see it" thing, it was a response to skasian asking me if I went back to see the religions originating, which I found to be ironic on her part too.

I just quoted a couple above. Look up.

You are straw-manning me here. I don't, nor does any atheist in the right mind, claim that I have an 'exhaustive knowledge of all that exists.' We don't know all that exists, and we probably won't anytime soon. But, to say that all things were created by god is a cop-out. I myself find it ironic that you are trying to use logic to support god's existence.

To claim that something doesn't exist without being in possession of an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists is absurd. That's the point. You cannot say God does not exist unless you have a complete knowledge of all reality. Trust me, you don't.

Well, come on - if I didn't use logic you'd be nailing me there too - you can't have it both ways, you know.

1. So the book of genesis, where the world was created in 7 days wasn't trying to explain the scientific origins of Earth? Right...

No - because there is no "science" mentioned - God speaks and it exists. Genesis does explain the origin of the earth, but does not bother to give us the science of how God did it.

2. Again, you misrepresent what I say. I said in my very post that no evidence is irrefutable. But, empiricism appeals to rationality, while the belief in god appeals to faith. The former is more rational to believe as a physical being with senses and logic.

If one examines this world and the things in it closely enough, one realizes that only wishful and fanciful thinking can come up with explanations for the things that exist. I think evolution takes an incredible amount of faith.

Science doesn't try to discover god. It doesn't try to discover what is not there.

This strikes me as begging the question - you assume as truth something you have no empirical basis for.

And the 'absurd explanations' are a lot better than what religion has to offer. "God did it" is an absurd explanation to me.

Well, sure. You're entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Explain to me this, though: Who says the norse god Odin doesn't exist? What about all the Hindu gods? What makes the bible more correct than norse mythology or the Rig Veda or even Scientology?

Because the Bible features real people who actually were here on earth, and events that actually happened. Archeology continues to find things that confirm Biblical locations, people, and events. Scientology? That's funny.

That's why I don't get theism. You worship one god, but then another god doesn't allow you to do that. Then when you worship that god, another set of gods scolds you for that. And so on and so forth. Logically, no religion is correct, because they all contradict the existence of one another.

There's only one God. You're partially correct: either all religions are wrong, or one is right. I prefer the latter explanation.

NikolaiI

01-18-2009, 12:35 AM

With all respect I disagree with you completely Jacob on several points. I was an atheist until I was 17... all my life I studied different philosophies and religions. You'd be surprised to find the similarities. For instance, Tukaram, a Hindu saint from the 17th century, wrote this:

Words are the only Jewels I possess
Words are the only Clothes that I wear
Words are the only food That sustains my life
Words are the only wealth I distribute among people
Says Tuka Witness the Word He is God
I worship Him With my words

So Tuka says the same thing which the Bible says in John, that the Word is God.

I guess the fundamental thing is, does God exist? That is what we are trying to figure out. So if God does exist, it is logical to believe in Him, and if He does not, then it is not.

Actually a lot of the arguments could be said for consciousness, for superconsciousness, for reality, for the universe... for all of these things. We all exist in God, and God exists in us. Similarly, we all exist in the universe, just as we all exist in reality.

Who can explain that they have seen reality? The most recent answer I got from an atheist on this was that everything they could see and touch was reality. I don't know what happened to this discussion with that person. My response to this I had intended to be - I am speaking of reality as a whole.

Reality is the whole reality. It cannot be seen or touched. When I am seeing a leaf, touching a leaf, I am not touching the Universe - well I am, but I am only touching a part. What I am asking about is the whole, the universe, and reality - the whole of reality. The whole of the universe, of reality, is inconceivable to us. But it is the most commonly accepted.

Understanding God is somewhat similar to this; except that God is the infinite. Einstein said one of the most fundamental questions everyone should answer is this; "is the universe a friendly or a hostile place?" Well, the answer of religion is that yes, it is. In fact, it is divine, because all belongs to the divine Lord.

NikolaiI

01-18-2009, 12:51 AM

About seeing clearly. . . Jacob I am not saying you are not seeing clearly. But as the universe is infinite, as life is infinite, we are also rooted in that infinite. W. Blake said, "If the doors of perception were cleansed, then all would appear as it is, infinite."

You said Hindus believe in many Gods and some do, but every Hindu I have ever met speaks about God as One. In fact I have been studying different scriptures for a while now; Sri Isopanisad is a great one. But with the Vedas, there are many interpretations, ranging from atheist to impersonalist to theist. I myself am a theist. And in my understanding religions are not exclusive.

Actually what I believe is that we are part and parcel of God. So it's not that we go to hell or anything like that -- and I would please request that since there is one thread which is called "Christian Hell," and one which is called "Why I believe in God?" Let's let there be at least some difference between the two, as I have refrained from posting about God in the Christian Hell but more speaking about Christianity.

But we are part and parcel of God - there is no great substance to bodily identifications. Even the idea "I am human" is one coming from ignorance, because I am not this body, I am not a human body - I am a spirit soul. I saw you write you did not believe in the soul and I would discuss that if you wish. In fact every living entity is a soul. Not just humans but animals, plants, insects, all of these have - are - a soul. The body we take on simply due to our karma and our desires. But all souls are part of the Supreme soul. It is not a question of body. The only question is one of consciousness. I have the consciousness, the desires, and the karma of a human, and so I am in a human body. But I am related to every other living entity in this way; that I am part of God and they are as well.

Being part of God does not mean one is God. Actually to think that one is God is a very false idea. I am part of God just as my hand is part of me. My hand serves my will, but if it was cut off from me, it would no longer be a hand (since it does not perform what a hand does) though it might appear like one.

Now there are certain things which we disagree on. I am not close minded and neither are you. As I said I used to be an atheist. But now I am not. I would gladly explain why I believe in the soul, and God.

After all this thread was created and is titled "Why I believe in God," so hopefully it can continue in that vein.

JacobF

01-18-2009, 01:49 AM

I won't bore you with the details, but textual studies of the Bible reveal that both the New and Old Testament are higly reliable in terms of consistency in what they say. The accuracy level is actually quite high. In the case of the New Testament, the 5300 extant copies in original language (dating from AD 70 - 120) show a 99.5% accuracy when compared to each other.

As far as no record of Jesus' life, here you go:

1. Josephus - Jewish Historian (AD 37 - 100): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man..."

2. Tacitus - Roman Historian (AD 55 - 117): Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, call Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."

Both of these men were neutral parties - neither one having anything to gain by writing that which was untrue - and if they had, they would have been confronted as lies by other writers of the time.

Give it up - Jesus was a real person.

1. Weren't the writings of Flavius Josephus deemed to be forgery? http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

2. I admit I'm speaking out of hearsay for this one, but I'm pretty sure Tacitus' writings were deemed to be added in by Christian scholars as well. Plus, Jesus died around 30-35 A.D. That account is decades after the life of Jesus.

There really aren't enough records to deem Jesus as a real person. Even if Jesus was a real person, there is no evidence, not even after his time, that he performed miracles or was at all divine. His identity was formed by later Christian scholars.

Well, I don't see any man in the sky either; I'm glad you don't - I might wonder about your sanity if you said you did.

Interesting that you should say that...

My supposition is as reasonable as yours; plenty of people go into denial to make unpleasant realities "disappear." I do not diagnose you in particular, but the process of denying that which we find unpleasant or frightening is well documented in the literature of psychology.

The whole 'denying god out of fear' is ham-handed to me. People denying alcoholism because they don't want to quit. People deny their financial debt because they don't want to endure something that directly inconveniences them. The idea of god, however, is completely intangible, and really does not harness the immediate power to inconvenience someone enough to the point of denying god. If someone really was scared of god, there are churches and bibles everywhere. They could just get down on their knees and pray. In Islam for instance, all you have to do is say that you accept Allah and you are saved.

If the very real consequences of smoking, crack-cocaine use, and unprotected sex aren't enough to stop many people from still indulging, what makes you think the fear of hell is that effective either? Worshipping God is "self-serving"? Have you read the Bible? The Christian life is actually rather demanding because it requires one to work against our normally selfish human nature. There's not much of anything "self-serving" about putting others first, loving my enemies, and forgiving those that wrong me. You oversimplify why people believe.

In the grand scheme of things, people only carry out the tasks in the bible (well, ideally they do, but as history has shown that doesn't always happen) to get to heaven. There's no other motive. They only do it because god said so. I do good things in my life for others because I summon the motivation myself. The bible is altruistic.

As another side note, I don't see the goodness in 'loving your enemies.' How about just not having any enemies at all? I know I don't have any. We'd all be better off without holding grudges.

And exactly where did you get the divine/clairvoyant power to know why other people say Christianity has made their lives better? Or are you just assuming on a grand scale?

As I've already argued many times, Christianity is a remedy for fear. There's really nothing else to it. Sure, there's the allure of being closer to god, but that's only because when you are closer to god you won't go to hell. Here we see that "loving yet vengeful god" paradox again.

Sure, some people may enjoy Christianity for the aspect of community it provides, but that's a minor reason because community can be found in many other places.

Christianity does not make one feel like a "good person" - the first step in becoming a Christian is realizing and accepting that we are sinners incapable of being "good" without the help of God in our lives. Atheists tend to thump their chests and talk about what "good" people they are - most Christians will tell you right off that they are sinners working on becoming better people.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I guess I meant 'better' person (even still the goal is to be good). When humanity subscribes to any organization that makes them feel better about themselves, doing the 'right thing,' they feel like they are a good person -- validated. As for sin, from a catholic perspective, all you have to do to rid yourself of your sins is go into the confession box X times per year. From a protestant perspective, you pray and go to church and read the bible. Isn't the only rule laid out by the New Testament "love god"? In the end, that's all it boils down to anyway. You can be a terrible person, commit horrible crimes yet when you 'accept god' you can still go to heaven.

And from my experience going to a protestant church for 13 years, Christians aren't all that modest. Some are I am sure, but a lot aren't. Even still, they're only sinners because God said so. A person should correct their faults because THEY think it's the right thing to do, not the bible.

My favorite part about talking to an atheist about death is this: if you are right, and God doesn't exist, neither you nor I will know it; if I'm right, and He does exist, then both of us will know it.

I guess the favourite part of talking to a theist is knowing that they wasted so much time by subscribing to antiquated and transparent beliefs.

You're straw-manning here. I spoke of "fear" in the context of your statement - of religion being based upon fear. A belief system based upon fear does not change lives for the better.

You said "things created out of fear do not change peoples' lives." You did mention the bible and christianity but you were talking about fear very generally.

Non-believers like to complain that God doesn't stop all the suffering, and then turn around and complain that He is just and will eventually administer justice. You can't have it both ways, you know.

When did I ever complain that god will stop all the suffering? When I referred to god being as loving as he is vengeful, I was poking at the paradox that Christianity seems to buy into.

To claim that something doesn't exist without being in possession of an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists is absurd. That's the point. You cannot say God does not exist unless you have a complete knowledge of all reality. Trust me, you don't.

The concept of god is based on faith and faith alone. There is no rationality to it. I'll assume for a second that god does exist -- if he does, he would be unfathomable. No human or being would be able to conceive of his existence. No scripture could outline what god really is. To claim that you are in possession of the knowledge of something that is divine -- beyond human comprehension -- is absurd. So, as beings who are governed by logic and rationality, atheism is the best choice.

Well, come on - if I didn't use logic you'd be nailing me there too - you can't have it both ways, you know.

Well, that's the thing about theism -- it's governed by faith, not logic.

No - because there is no "science" mentioned - God speaks and it exists. Genesis does explain the origin of the earth, but does not bother to give us the science of how God did it.

It didn't give us the science because the science has proven it wrong. We all know the world wasn't created in 7 days. They didn't know any better, so they just made it up.

If one examines this world and the things in it closely enough, one realizes that only wishful and fanciful thinking can come up with explanations for the things that exist. I think evolution takes an incredible amount of faith.

Well, evolution has evidence. No scientist really denies evolution because of the sheer amount of evidence behind it. The only thing in science that comes close to faith are hypotheses. But after the tests and observations, the hypothesis doesn't matter. I'm not saying evolution is completely true -- no theory is -- but at least it's not supported by faith and faith alone.

Because the Bible features real people who actually were here on earth, and events that actually happened. Archeology continues to find things that confirm Biblical locations, people, and events. Scientology? That's funny.

So? There's no evidence that points to Jesus being the son of god. There's nothing that says biblical locations actually hosted the events which happened. And as I've previously mentioned, a lot of the stuff is forgery. Christianity was a tool of authority in its birth, and history always 'edits' history to its own advantage. Yes, Scientology is funny, because it's probably about as true as Christianity is. Aliens coming here and implanting stuff in our minds, that's totally silly... but a virgin birth and a talking snake, that's believable.

There's only one God. You're partially correct: either all religions are wrong, or one is right. I prefer the latter explanation.

And this is what I hate most about religion. The fact that everyone thinks their own is right. Religion was necessary to expand empires and give people hope in antiquity, but now it really just causes more problems than it solves. We don't need it anymore; in my opinion, it's just holding back humanity.

And Nikolai, thank you for contributing to the argument, but I'm pretty tired now and am probably going to bed. I'll read/reply to your post tomorrow.

WanderingGirl

01-18-2009, 04:21 AM

Well, I do believe in God. I'm not a strong believer or one of the most 'faithful', but I still believe because there is some things even science can't explain. Like what happens when you die, why did humans evolve the way they did (no scientist knows why we evolved the way we did because there was no factor to make us evolve), or what caused the big bang?

As humans we are the only creatures on planet Earth that has been given the ability to think or to see the Earth as we can see it. Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death. So why us out of billions of species that are alive or extinct are we able to do this or know this? And even the chances of us evolving the way we did is very slim. Really, there was a better chance of dinosaurs to be still alive now, then us being here. All these reasons make me believe there is some kind of 'outside' guidance.

And what is the point of life at all if everything just lives for a while and then dies? It makes me feel depressed at the thought of thinking that, not just humans, but everything from the smallest things like insects to the huge universe will just die and then there will be nothing left. What is the point of life at all if there is just that? Except maybe, there is something better out there after we die, which I believe there is. And in believeing that, I believe in God.

billyjack

01-18-2009, 05:08 AM

Well, I do believe in God. I'm not a strong believer or one of the most 'faithful', but I still believe because there is some things even science can't explain. Like what happens when you die, why did humans evolve the way they did (no scientist knows why we evolved the way we did because there was no factor to make us evolve), or what caused the big bang?

we know what happens when we die. you rot in a casket, get all ashy in an urn, or get churned through another animals digestive track.

we evolved like we did because it was copacetic with our environment. banana and the human hand argument anyone?

not knowing why or how things got put in motion isnt an excuse for superstition

Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death.

na. replace "aware?" with "repress" and you've hit the nail on the head

And what is the point of life at all if everything just lives for a while and then dies?

ah, to live and then die. if you can't find a point between these two then perhaps a renegotiation of world views is in order

It makes me feel depressed at the thought of thinking that, not just humans, but everything from the smallest things like insects to the huge universe will just die and then there will be nothing left.

this reasoning doesnt correspond to reality. we know that when someone dies the rest of the world keeps on living. so goes with the universe when a star dies out. even if the universe ends up eventually becoming nothing again, you can be sure that it will eventually find its way towards something eventually. if its happened once, it can happen again.

What is the point of life at all if there is just that? Except maybe, there is something better out there after we die, which I believe there is. And in believeing that, I believe in God.

speak of heaven, ye disgrace earth (walden)--my favorite quote

Pewnut

01-18-2009, 05:12 AM

As humans we are the only creatures on planet Earth that has been given the ability to think or to see the Earth as we can see it.

Because we can't communicate with other animals as well as we can amongst ourselves, we don't really know how they "think" or "see the Earth". But that doesn't mean their experience in this world is any less complex to them. If you really think about it, we don't get to experience what it feels like to have an innate ability to fly like a bird or run like a cheetah. So essentially all living creatures experience the world in a limited way.

Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death.

I beg to differ. (http://www.herald.ie/world-news/heartbreak-at-the-zoo-as-gorilla-mum-gana-continues-to-cradle-her-dead-son-1460479.html)

skasian

01-18-2009, 05:38 AM

The bible is not evidence. It is not contemporary to the period in which it was writing about, nor does it have any proven events within it. The big bang for instance is closer to fact than the bible because we actually have research to back up that it may have happened.

I don't think I need to form an argument for this. You're just regurgitating the same thing as you have in your previous posts and I've countered it numerous times.

I think this is the part in the argument where I have to simply say 'open your eyes.' Fear has been and always will be the main motive for humanity's actions. Religion is a textbook example of creating something out of fear.

Have you been back thousands of years to see Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection? Have you been back thousands of years to see Moses part the red sea?

And also, as a little side note, why must the burden of proof lay on me? If someone claimed that UFOs existed, you'd think the person making that claim would have to prove it, right? Then why must it be atheists having to disprove god rather than theists proving it? And by proving it, I don't mean pointing to the bible, because that is just words. Anyone could have written the bible.

Uh, but science DOES have solid explanations pertaining to the development of nature. I never said science is 100% certain (in fact, I'm pretty sure I previously said it wasn't) but science has more merit explaining how natural occurrences happen than religion does. Empirical merit: something that the bible doesn't have.

Science hasn't discovered something yet... so it must be god, right? If this was 1000 years ago, you would be saying that the sun revolves around the earth, and god put us in the center of the cosmos. But, today we know that is incorrect with scientific research. Coincidence? Highly unlikely.

We humans are not imaginary because we have senses. We are physical entities. God, however, does not fit into any of those categories.

I have to correct on your opening paragraph. The bible accually do hold some contemporary evidences, such as the place where Jesus spent his life, Noah's remaining wooden pieces of the arh deep under the sea. Now let me ask you how does researching back up the big bang theory. Dont you realise new discovery hinders and alters each theories or articles and that every few years and then, researching on a common subject becomes different? Let me give you an example, food science, where in one time scientist declare something is bad for your health, and in another time that same food is good for you. Overall the judgement on that particular food is tossed around from being good and bad.

Sorry,but religion is not created out of fear. Let me say one thing. Religion is created for serving and following God or for self enlightment. It is true that religion helps followers to fight away from fear, however that is not the motive of having a religion.

The Bible made be made up by words, but its not just ordinary words. It holds the Words of God, and holds powerful wisdom and knowledge. It hold the Words that is like a guide to life. People who arent Christian read the Bible for self enlightment, and I dont see how they will be bothered to read "just words".

Acutally some science does appear in the Bible, like personal hygene, which appears in the Laws of moses. God forbids people to do certain things because it is considered as "unclean" for example drink blood from animals. Even though people back then wouldnt be able to come up with a reason why, modern science reveals that drinking animal blood should be avoided because it contains antibodies that affects our bodies, and it is concentrated from toxic wastes contained in plasmas.

Also, bible contains more merit than science that how we should live our lives. Science, especially in the medical field does help us to be our best in health, however the bible helps more as it shows the way of healthy spirit = healthy mind = healthy body. Because now in university I will be studying in the medical field, I will be able to fully appreciate God's Words and His intentions.

We being centre of the cosmos.. science doesnt reveal that to the full extent. What if we are centre of the universe, astromony havent discovered the beginning or the end of the universe, therefore it hasnt discovered the our position of the universe. Science hasnt discovered something yet? Other than God, the possibilities of being that something is infinite.

"We humans are not imaginary because we have senses. We are physical entities."
Rocks do not have senses yet they arent imaginary. You say to your pencil " you aint imaginary!" just because it doesnt have senses? Interesting.

skasian

01-18-2009, 05:45 AM

so you know the unknowable via the bible. white noise

Depends what you kind of knowledge you are thinking about. Knowledge can be grasping 100% about a subject but also as knowing only a small partial.

Knowledge of the unknowable can be like understanding a very insignificant small piece about God. However when knowledge is knowing 100% about the subject, we have no knowledge about the unknowable because we can never know 100% about God.

WanderingGirl

01-18-2009, 05:47 AM

Because we can't communicate with other animals as well as we can amongst ourselves, we don't really know how they "think" or "see the Earth". But that doesn't mean their experience in this world is any less complex to them. If you really think about it, we don't get to experience what it feels like to have an innate ability to fly like a bird or run like a cheetah. So essentially all living creatures experience the world in a limited way.

You are talking about experiences, and I'm thinking about actual thinking. Like you were thinking about what you were going to say when you wrote above, and like I'm thinking about what I'm going to write now. A bird or a cheetah couldn't have have a conversation like this because their brains aren't as developed as ours, so they couldn't think about things like this.

I beg to differ.

I didn't mean what I said like that. You know that sometime in your life you are going to die, and I know that sometime I will die. An animal doesn't know that they can die. And when a child or a mate of an animal die that animal pokes or touches the animal that id dead, expecting it to wake. It doesn't realise that it wouldn't wake up, like that mother gorilla. While animals can feel the pain of someone they love dying, they have no idea that it will happen. They even have no idea that they, themselves, will die.

skasian

01-18-2009, 05:50 AM

Hmm... I'm not swayed by this logic. If you know ("by His words") that God is infinitely righteous, good, etc. and you know His intentions and His will, then you have knowledge of some of His qualities. Meaning, He is not "unknowable", just "knowable to a certain limited extent".

In a way yes, but knowing something can imply understanding 100% about something, like for me when I learn about a particular subject of chemistry, to have a knowledge about that topic, I regard it as knowing 100%about that topic because when there is an aspect I dont understand, I regard that topic as having lack of knowledge. In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.

Pewnut

01-18-2009, 06:12 AM

You are talking about experiences, and I'm thinking about actual thinking. Like you were thinking about what you were going to say when you wrote above, and like I'm thinking about what I'm going to write now. A bird or a cheetah couldn't have have a conversation like this because their brains aren't as developed as ours, so they couldn't think about things like this.

Let's not jump to conclusions. (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/03.14/01-thinking.html)

Obviously they don't think like we do but it'll be quite remarkable for, say, bees to inhabit communities, build hives, distribute pollen, collect nectar, create honey etc. yet not have the ability to "think" in some rudimentary way. If humans behaved in such a way, we might call them communists. :D

I didn't mean what I said like that. You know that sometime in your life you are going to die, and I know that sometime I will die. An animal doesn't know that they can die. And when a child or a mate of an animal die that animal pokes or touches the animal that id dead, expecting it to wake. It doesn't realise that it wouldn't wake up, like that mother gorilla. While animals can feel the pain of someone they love dying, they have no idea that it will happen. They even have no idea that they, themselves, will die.

Animals may not have the ability to worry about or fear death like we do but if they don't know that they will die, they wouldn't protect themselves or their offspring from predators.

Ohmyscience

01-18-2009, 06:14 AM

I don't understand why anyone of faith would need their scripture validated. It's faith. Whatever says in the book is infallible regardless of empirical evidence against it. So in my opinion treading the waters of whether holy books are verifible only hurts the believers. What can a religious person gain by offering scripture up to scrutiny?

As many have expressed, being conscious is living with angst. It is unbearable at times to know your existence and to understand that it has to end. Many brilliant minds have investigated and anyone remotely interested will engage in it as well. If its any consolation. instead of finding god, find peace and comfort at the fact that we all have to face it.

Another point that someone brought up was Pascal's wager. If you prescribe to god merely for a chance at redemption, isn't that cowardly. As Bertrand Russell said wouldn't god respect those that have integrity to just not believe due to the lack of evidence? If heaven exists surely a just god would not punish someone for having the rationale and conviction to believe what they think is correct rather than to do so only to gain passage to heaven.

To sum it up I think belief in god is just a mechanism to feel comfortable; the feeling that some intelligence in the universe cares about him or her. But consider this, why would a just god care about you more than those billions who suffer needlessly? I know some religious people would say that its gods plan or that its to test their faith but that is just degrading to humanity. Imagine a child suffering and your best answer is that its god's plan for him/her. Why can't we just be honest and say that there is no agent behind the suffering. Its a circumstance of luck and distribution and we should best try to alleviate it.

Thats the thing that bothers me the most about religion: solipsism. It isn't about you get it over your head.

Pewnut

01-18-2009, 06:26 AM

In a way yes, but knowing something can imply understanding 100% about something, like for me when I learn about a particular subject of chemistry, to have a knowledge about that topic, I regard it as knowing 100%about that topic because when there is an aspect I dont understand, I regard that topic as having lack of knowledge. In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.

See, I used the words "knowable to a certain limited extent" for a reason. You can have partial knowledge of X and the remainder will remain unknowable to you but X itself is not unknowable. If God is 100% unknowable, then you cannot possibly know anything about Him.

skasian

01-18-2009, 06:55 AM

See, I used the words "knowable to a certain limited extent" for a reason. You can have partial knowledge of X and the remainder will remain unknowable to you but X itself is not unknowable. If God is 100% unknowable, then you cannot possibly know anything about Him.

God is not 100% unknowable, therefore agrees with your logic of X which can be substituted as God.

Pewnut

01-18-2009, 09:45 AM

Whaa?

Your exact words before:

In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.

And your exact words now:

God is not 100% unknowable, therefore agrees with your logic of X which can be substituted as God.

:eek2:

OK, I'll make this easy for you because you're starting to confuse yourself. Is the word you're looking for unknown?

Unknown = (a) Not established or verified (b) Not identified or ascertained

Unknowable = Impossible to know

skasian

01-19-2009, 10:21 AM

Whaa?

Your exact words before:

And your exact words now:

:eek2:

OK, I'll make this easy for you because you're starting to confuse yourself. Is the word you're looking for unknown?

Unknown = (a) Not established or verified (b) Not identified or ascertained

Unknowable = Impossible to know

It looks like you have misunderstood what I am saying.
Could you please read the WHOLE extract I wrote in each of these situations?
In this way, they dont mean the same thing. However maybe I am maybe using the wrong adjective.

laidbackperson

01-19-2009, 12:30 PM

I hope JacobF, you read this for I like the earnest way you put forward your points:

We first begin with the assumptions that there is no God.
So everything started with a Big Bang as Science says. A dense ball burst throwing matter in all directions. In course of time, galaxies were formed from this matter and these galaxies are still receding at a high speed. In one such galaxy, Milky way galaxy, there is our Sun with number of planets orbiting around it. In the third planet, known as earth, life forms begin to appear with time. Starting from coacervates, to unicellular life, to marine, to vegetation, higher forms (animals) of life begin to appear in earth. Eventually human beings came who were endowed with better thinking ability. From stone age where they moved unclothed and fed on animals, human being learnt to live in community, learnt to make fire, invented wheel, started agriculture and kept progressing. Then science started dominating some 150 years from now and how quickly we have progressed and where we have reached now. If in a time machine with some of our gadgets and AK47 rifle, we could go back to the old age we will be taken for God.:D

Here I question you.

Assuming that everything happened as Science says, does it not look wondrous that we are the outcome of a Big bang that occurred some 12-15 billions years ago. Do you feel that evolution is just a series of coincidences occurring in long term ( In long term, a remote coincidence can always occur as per theory of probability) and we are the product of all this trial and error.
Secondly, delve into any science subject: Physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, just anything. You will find an astonishing beauty. How non-living and living things work? The amount of complexity and planning in each work of nature and universe. As per science we have to assume that all this happened by itself. Science has only discovered these secrets which have been always there. And science has only used these discoveries to make its own inventions. Cell phone, aeroplanes, Edision’s bulb etc all are there because scientists and technologists are knowing some secrets of matter and nature. Many modern inventions may still pale in comparison of its counter part existing in nature.

It is the discoveries made by science that may make you ask the question: Is it all by chance or is there someone behind, guiding everything to the minutest detail. It looks mind boggling but here I turn towards God. Also you may come across many scientists and doctors believing in God – in existence of a Higher Power.

You need not believe in religious text, word by word. God has to be beyond all religions.

Each one of us have to find our own answer, believe our own heart and be really open minded, not just a pompous atheist seeking scientific proof of God like ‘gravity’.

Second picture is that let us assume that a God is there.
Let us also believe that God started the big bang and evolution occurred under his guidance and we have reached to our present level.
First question is what is the purpose of all this. I read an article which asked: what if you are given infinite power, all knowledge, all richness, everything that can be there, then what will you do. The answer given was that you would eventually like to share this with all others. May be God’s doing the same although no one is competent to read God’s mind. I like to think of it all as a play of God and live with following beliefs.
• We are not gone in time and space when we die but keep getting re births again and again, till we are ready for God consciousness.
• I believe as you sow, so you reap but the rewards and punishments I don’t restrict to a single lifetime.
• Though God do not reveal Himself openly but His signs you may find everywhere and in your day to day life, if you care to look closely enough.
• I believe God loves all of us more than anybody else is capable of loving us inspite of suffering the world sees. But He also work in the principle of ‘you reap what you sow’ so how we work with our free will is important.
• Also nobody is going to rot in hell for ever, if there is really a hell.
• I believe, you need not believe in the God till you are ready for it. If you are good, you will be taken care of. If you are bad, you will turn up becoming good after number of re-births. I believe all are going to be saved. All are going forward, some are more ahead, others are behind. But God is pushing everybody towards Him.
• Atheist may keep on harping for scientific proof and it may never come. So one has to think beyond science.
• I believe that God like simplicity, honesty and humility in humans to arrogance and the habit of pulling somebody down and gloating over it. God must be loving a humble atheist more than a crooked believer.

I recollect a monk’s words that I read years ago:

We (human beings) are like small children playing in a sea-shore. We are lost in our play with water, sand, pebbles, sand castles and other such things. But the moment we had our fill, the time we feel our play is over, we we will loose interest in everything and will go rushing towards the waiting arms of Mother ( God).

Redzeppelin

01-22-2009, 12:15 AM

1. Weren't the writings of Flavius Josephus deemed to be forgery?

Not that I'm aware of.

2. I admit I'm speaking out of hearsay for this one, but I'm pretty sure Tacitus' writings were deemed to be added in by Christian scholars as well. Plus, Jesus died around 30-35 A.D. That account is decades after the life of Jesus.

That the account is decades later doesn't make the subject imaginary. History is rarely written the minute it happens. Since Jesus was 33 at the time of his death, it is possible the even 40 years later to have people writing who knew him personally. I don't think an attempt to make all historical documents refering to Jesus a Christian conspiracy theory will have much traction.

There really aren't enough records to deem Jesus as a real person. Even if Jesus was a real person, there is no evidence, not even after his time, that he performed miracles or was at all divine. His identity was formed by later Christian scholars.

One of the strongest arguments against your position is the Bible itself; the books about Christ's life (the Gospels) were written and disseminated while people who lived during Christ's lifetime were alive - if they were simply fabrications, there would have been refutations published during the time denouncing the veracity of the Bible. Such refutations do not exist - and certainly not for lack of people to do so. There are plenty of people who would have immediately come forward to challenge the gospels if they had been false - especially the Jewish leaders - who look pretty bad in terms of how they come across in the gospels. That there were no challenges to the published life of Christ suggest that it was accepted as true by his society.

Interesting that you should say that...

The whole 'denying god out of fear' is ham-handed to me. People denying alcoholism because they don't want to quit. People deny their financial debt because they don't want to endure something that directly inconveniences them. The idea of god, however, is completely intangible, and really does not harness the immediate power to inconvenience someone enough to the point of denying god. If someone really was scared of god, there are churches and bibles everywhere. They could just get down on their knees and pray. In Islam for instance, all you have to do is say that you accept Allah and you are saved.

I'm not pursuing the argument that far - I'm simplying reminding you that the fear that you claim is behind believers' choices to believe ironically can be turned around as the root of many nonbelievers' attempts to deny the existence of God. It is well documented that human beings quite willingly deny that which they do not wish to be true. It is a viable explanation for at least some nonbelievers' choices to deny the existence of God.

In the grand scheme of things, people only carry out the tasks in the bible (well, ideally they do, but as history has shown that doesn't always happen) to get to heaven. There's no other motive. They only do it because god said so. I do good things in my life for others because I summon the motivation myself. The bible is altruistic.

There you go again - making sweeping generalizations about what motivates believers. And how do you know this? How can you definitively say "there's no other motive"? What privileged knowledge do you have into the contents of the hearts of millions of Christians worldwide?

As another side note, I don't see the goodness in 'loving your enemies.' How about just not having any enemies at all? I know I don't have any. We'd all be better off without holding grudges.

Not having enemies at all is virtually impossible. Even peaceful, nonviolent men like Ghandi had enemies (the British weren't real fond of him in his movement to liberate India). Enemies are inevitable - the only way to avoid them is to have no opinions and take no stands on any issues whatsoever - and at that point, you may have no enemies, but you probably won't have many friends either. You certainly won't have any respect. Hating one's enemies poisons your own heart and hurts you more than them. That doesn't mean that we must like them - love means doing what is in your enemies best interest - and that best interest might be in turning him into the authorities, or confronting him for something wrong he's doing.

As I've already argued many times, Christianity is a remedy for fear. There's really nothing else to it. Sure, there's the allure of being closer to god, but that's only because when you are closer to god you won't go to hell. Here we see that "loving yet vengeful god" paradox again.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't see much to substantiate it beyond your opinion. If only humanity acted out the same principle in reality - you might have a stronger argument. In other words, desire for reward and fear of punishment has only limited success in controlling human behavior - and that is with consequences and rewards that are clearly tangible and "provable." Why should the intangible consequences and rewards of hell and heaven carry any weight if tangible ones have only limited success? The reality is that many people choose to believe because God answers the questions they have about life, about the universe, about reality, about human nature that no other philosophy or belief system properly answers. People come to Christianity by as many routes as those who leave it.

Sure, some people may enjoy Christianity for the aspect of community it provides, but that's a minor reason because community can be found in many other places.

But not community that changes one's life for the better. Christianity doesn't just offer fellowship - it offers a new life and an eternal life to boot.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I guess I meant 'better' person (even still the goal is to be good). When humanity subscribes to any organization that makes them feel better about themselves, doing the 'right thing,' they feel like they are a good person -- validated. As for sin, from a catholic perspective, all you have to do to rid yourself of your sins is go into the confession box X times per year. From a protestant perspective, you pray and go to church and read the bible. Isn't the only rule laid out by the New Testament "love god"? In the end, that's all it boils down to anyway. You can be a terrible person, commit horrible crimes yet when you 'accept god' you can still go to heaven.

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.

And from my experience going to a protestant church for 13 years, Christians aren't all that modest. Some are I am sure, but a lot aren't. Even still, they're only sinners because God said so. A person should correct their faults because THEY think it's the right thing to do, not the bible.

There's always those who don't fly the flag well - no institution, group, organization, etc is immune to zealots and miscreants. They are sinners because they act contrary to the character of God. The problem with your supposition is that without a standard by which to evaluate our behavior, why should be think anything wrong? Why should we be motivated to do "the right thing" if the only weight it carries is from other flawed people like ourselves? The Bible doesn't create reality; it verifies it.

I guess the favourite part of talking to a theist is knowing that they wasted so much time by subscribing to antiquated and transparent beliefs.

Another grand assumption that cannot be proven in any way to be true - simply your biased evaluation of the value of Christianty - which carries zero weight.

You said "things created out of fear do not change peoples' lives." You did mention the bible and christianity but you were talking about fear very generally.

People did not write the Bible or establish Christianity because they were fearful. There is nothing to substantiate your claims beyond your assumptions.

When did I ever complain that god will stop all the suffering? When I referred to god being as loving as he is vengeful, I was poking at the paradox that Christianity seems to buy into.

You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.

The concept of god is based on faith and faith alone. There is no rationality to it. I'll assume for a second that god does exist -- if he does, he would be unfathomable. No human or being would be able to conceive of his existence. No scripture could outline what god really is. To claim that you are in possession of the knowledge of something that is divine -- beyond human comprehension -- is absurd. So, as beings who are governed by logic and rationality, atheism is the best choice.

The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I'm sorry - the odds of abiogenesis are approximatley 1 in 10 to the 33, 133 power. That number is astronomical - especially considering that it has been calculated that the number of particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 60th power. (I'm quoting from memory, so I'm prepared to have those numbers challenged). Now, tell me that that number is a rational number - tell me that the those odds are believable - because in my mind, numbers that big become so unreal as to almost become as "unreal" as God is to others. Why is that incredible number more believable than a Divine Being? Tell me its rational to believe that the incredible complexity of this world "just happened" even though nothing in our world conforms to that principle - that in reality, matter grows less complex and less organized as time goes on - not more complex and more organized.

Well, that's the thing about theism -- it's governed by faith, not logic.

Please - very few things in this life that make life worth living - relationships, love - follow the laws of logic. Our human hearts defy that logic on a daily basis - and not always to our detriment.

It didn't give us the science because the science has proven it wrong. We all know the world wasn't created in 7 days. They didn't know any better, so they just made it up.

You don't "know" anything about how the earth got here - you simply have what you believe to be true. Science can't prove its competing theory either.

Well, evolution has evidence. No scientist really denies evolution because of the sheer amount of evidence behind it. The only thing in science that comes close to faith are hypotheses. But after the tests and observations, the hypothesis doesn't matter. I'm not saying evolution is completely true -- no theory is -- but at least it's not supported by faith and faith alone.

Most evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation requires the employment of a subjective interpretive framework - that's why evolutionists and intelligent design scientists can look at the same evidence and arrive at two different conclusions.

Abiogenesis cannot be tested or observed - it can only by hypothesized.

So? There's no evidence that points to Jesus being the son of god. There's nothing that says biblical locations actually hosted the events which happened. And as I've previously mentioned, a lot of the stuff is forgery. Christianity was a tool of authority in its birth, and history always 'edits' history to its own advantage. Yes, Scientology is funny, because it's probably about as true as Christianity is. Aliens coming here and implanting stuff in our minds, that's totally silly... but a virgin birth and a talking snake, that's believable.

You have no proof for your accusations - you are simply parroting the standard (and rather hysterical) arguments thrown against the Bible and Christianty. Archeology makes finds year after year that confirm people, locations and events that the Bible reports. This is all well-documented. Textual criticism of the Bible has esatablished that the original language copies have a 99.5% integrity rate - higher than any other ancient texts; the rules for copying texts in the Jewish community are incredibly exacting - the Dead Sea scrolls confirm the integrity of the Old Testament. Frankly, you're simply grasping at straws. And, if God can create the universe (whether it took 7 days or longer) and raise the dead to life - well, a virgin birth and talking snake are mere child's play - don't you think?

And this is what I hate most about religion. The fact that everyone thinks their own is right. Religion was necessary to expand empires and give people hope in antiquity, but now it really just causes more problems than it solves. We don't need it anymore; in my opinion, it's just holding back humanity.

Well, Jacob, hate away - but religions are all mutually exclusive - not just Christianity. Islam and Judiaism do not say that all other religions are correct - no religion does that. In reality (look at the world around you) not everybody gets to be right. Sorry. That's kind of how reality works - at least that I've noticed.

Why don't you detail all the problems religion causes and then show me how those problems outweigh the benefits (which you should list in order to be fair). I'd be very interested in hearing you actually lay out the specifics of these charges instead of simply tossing out sweeping generalizations (which comprises the majority of your posts).

JacobF

01-22-2009, 08:13 PM

One of the strongest arguments against your position is the Bible itself; the books about Christ's life (the Gospels) were written and disseminated while people who lived during Christ's lifetime were alive - if they were simply fabrications, there would have been refutations published during the time denouncing the veracity of the Bible. Such refutations do not exist - and certainly not for lack of people to do so. There are plenty of people who would have immediately come forward to challenge the gospels if they had been false - especially the Jewish leaders - who look pretty bad in terms of how they come across in the gospels. That there were no challenges to the published life of Christ suggest that it was accepted as true by his society.

It suggests it, but it doesn't confirm anything. Maybe there were challenges, and they were simply supressed/rewritten.

I'm not pursuing the argument that far - I'm simplying reminding you that the fear that you claim is behind believers' choices to believe ironically can be turned around as the root of many nonbelievers' attempts to deny the existence of God. It is well documented that human beings quite willingly deny that which they do not wish to be true. It is a viable explanation for at least some nonbelievers' choices to deny the existence of God.

Maybe there's a few people who choose atheism just because they're denying their fear of god. But, like you said below about Christians, they generally aren't real atheists.

There you go again - making sweeping generalizations about what motivates believers. And how do you know this? How can you definitively say "there's no other motive"? What privileged knowledge do you have into the contents of the hearts of millions of Christians worldwide?

That's the only motive that, really, is present. There may be variations of that motive, subsects of it, but in the end that's the core motive. I don't know why you continue to think I project myself as someone who knows everything that a Christian is thinking about Christianity. Obviously I don't. And there's another part of that quotation where I said some may do it for the community, because it's true there a plenty of Christians who go to church to see their friends. But please outline more genuine motives other than the desire to go to heaven. Seems to me that's really all Christianity offers that you can't achieve without being Christian.

Not having enemies at all is virtually impossible. Even peaceful, nonviolent men like Ghandi had enemies (the British weren't real fond of him in his movement to liberate India). Enemies are inevitable - the only way to avoid them is to have no opinions and take no stands on any issues whatsoever - and at that point, you may have no enemies, but you probably won't have many friends either. You certainly won't have any respect. Hating one's enemies poisons your own heart and hurts you more than them. That doesn't mean that we must like them - love means doing what is in your enemies best interest - and that best interest might be in turning him into the authorities, or confronting him for something wrong he's doing.

Well, Ghandi was a martyr. He had adversaries -- but I wouldn't call them enemies. An enemy is someone for whom you'd go out of your way to annoy/ignore/harm et cetera. To me, enemies are mutual in their hate toward each other. Not everyone is going to like you, and many people will inconvenience you, but do they have to be your 'enemies'? I don't think so. But this, like your argument above, this isn't one I really put much weight on.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't see much to substantiate it beyond your opinion. If only humanity acted out the same principle in reality - you might have a stronger argument. In other words, desire for reward and fear of punishment has only limited success in controlling human behavior - and that is with consequences and rewards that are clearly tangible and "provable." Why should the intangible consequences and rewards of hell and heaven carry any weight if tangible ones have only limited success? The reality is that many people choose to believe because God answers the questions they have about life, about the universe, about reality, about human nature that no other philosophy or belief system properly answers. People come to Christianity by as many routes as those who leave it.

Intangible rewards/threats can be more effective for the simple reason of fear again -- fear of the unknown. Hell is a place of eternal excruciation: you can barely imagine it, right? So when that threat is asserted, you can either say: 1) I don't believe it, or 2) I don't want to go there, help me avoid going there. The latter comprises of Christians and the former doesn't. It's the carrot-on-a-stick philosophy, as well, for heaven. I'm not really sure where you get that last part, that it teaches people many things about the universe/human nature/et cetera. All the bible really teaches is that 'god is love.' The moral of the story always is 'love god.' Much like in the Hitchhiker's Guide where the answer to everything is 42, it doesn't reveal a whole lot.

But not community that changes one's life for the better. Christianity doesn't just offer fellowship - it offers a new life and an eternal life to boot.

Okay, but a lot of people have Christianity or any religion for that matter rooted into their upbringing that, even if they may or may not believe the religion, going to church is traditional. I've spoken to many church-goers and they say they enjoy church because they've met a lot of friends there.

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.

It isn't as obviously self-serving as, say, buying a huge mansion and laughing at the poor people from your 70-inch screen TV. But, it's still self-serving because 1) it legitimizes yourself as a person (the whole thing that you just said with not being worthy as an independent human being) and 2) you simply feel good about your own self-esteem for helping others. Some Christians may have better intentions than others but the fact still remains we are self-serving species, with Christianity or without.

There's always those who don't fly the flag well - no institution, group, organization, etc is immune to zealots and miscreants. They are sinners because they act contrary to the character of God. The problem with your supposition is that without a standard by which to evaluate our behavior, why should be think anything wrong? Why should we be motivated to do "the right thing" if the only weight it carries is from other flawed people like ourselves? The Bible doesn't create reality; it verifies it.

Morals are not only extracted from religion, but nature too. We should be motivated to do the right thing because it's in the best interest of our race. For instance, killing each other for no reason is not in our best interest. At any rate, the 'right thing' is quite subjective and never absolute, and that's another gripe I have with the bible -- it attempts to solve everything with a quick fix that if you worship god, everything will be okay.

Another grand assumption that cannot be proven in any way to be true - simply your biased evaluation of the value of Christianty - which carries zero weight.

That wasn't an argument, by the way -- it was my belief, in response to yours which seemed kind of out of place anyway, or else I would have embellished on it.

People did not write the Bible or establish Christianity because they were fearful. There is nothing to substantiate your claims beyond your assumptions.

There is nothing to substantiate many of your claims beyond faith, but here I am arguing with you about it. Do you know why they wrote the bible?

You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.

I don't really see that as admirable, but to each his own.

The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I'm sorry - the odds of abiogenesis are approximatley 1 in 10 to the 33, 133 power. That number is astronomical - especially considering that it has been calculated that the number of particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 60th power. (I'm quoting from memory, so I'm prepared to have those numbers challenged). Now, tell me that that number is a rational number - tell me that the those odds are believable - because in my mind, numbers that big become so unreal as to almost become as "unreal" as God is to others. Why is that incredible number more believable than a Divine Being? Tell me its rational to believe that the incredible complexity of this world "just happened" even though nothing in our world conforms to that principle - that in reality, matter grows less complex and less organized as time goes on - not more complex and more organized.

There are no traces of the divine in our universe. Therefore, it's only logical to pass it up as mythology. No evidence exists that proves the divine. We have scientific explanations for a lot of things, definitely not everything, and generally the only things we don't have explanations for (such as the origins of the universe) are deemed as unknown. Why does everything that we can't explain have to be carried out by a divine being? There's nothing that inclines us to believe that, except for our imagination.

Please - very few things in this life that make life worth living - relationships, love - follow the laws of logic. Our human hearts defy that logic on a daily basis - and not always to our detriment.

Love is logical to reproduce. Relationships are logical because they give us our own identity, and therefore make us feel good. That doesn't make them valid, but they are logical. Theism is, in a way, logical, because it has proved to be a good mechanism to control civilizations and give easy answers, thus making life easier to deal with -- but the truth of theism isn't logical. It's faith.

You don't "know" anything about how the earth got here - you simply have what you believe to be true. Science can't prove its competing theory either.

I'm pretty sure we've disproven that, the mass amount of matter called Planet Earth, wasn't created in 7 days. I don't think it even needs to be disproven.

Most evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation requires the employment of a subjective interpretive framework - that's why evolutionists and intelligent design scientists can look at the same evidence and arrive at two different conclusions.

Abiogenesis cannot be tested or observed - it can only by hypothesized.

They arrive at their conclusions not based on their status as a scientist, but due to their beliefs. A scientist will say: "this is how x happened," while an intelligent design scientists will say: "this is how x happened; plus, god helped." The raw evidence itself is the same, however. Since when can abiogenesis not be observed? There are many observations of it.

You have no proof for your accusations - you are simply parroting the standard (and rather hysterical) arguments thrown against the Bible and Christianty. Archeology makes finds year after year that confirm people, locations and events that the Bible reports. This is all well-documented. Textual criticism of the Bible has esatablished that the original language copies have a 99.5% integrity rate - higher than any other ancient texts; the rules for copying texts in the Jewish community are incredibly exacting - the Dead Sea scrolls confirm the integrity of the Old Testament. Frankly, you're simply grasping at straws. And, if God can create the universe (whether it took 7 days or longer) and raise the dead to life - well, a virgin birth and talking snake are mere child's play - don't you think?

Since when can archaeology excavate the evidence that there was a virgin birth, a talking snake, a man named Moses who received the 10 commandements, et cetera?

Well, Jacob, hate away - but religions are all mutually exclusive - not just Christianity. Islam and Judiaism do not say that all other religions are correct - no religion does that. In reality (look at the world around you) not everybody gets to be right. Sorry. That's kind of how reality works - at least that I've noticed.

Why don't you detail all the problems religion causes and then show me how those problems outweigh the benefits (which you should list in order to be fair). I'd be very interested in hearing you actually lay out the specifics of these charges instead of simply tossing out sweeping generalizations (which comprises the majority of your posts).

Not everyone gets to be right. But why must one religions assert that other religions are wrong? That's what I hate about it: fighting over mythology. You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore. A study was released that showed IQ rates to be higher as the dependancy on religion of a nation grew smaller (I don't have the link to it, but it's easy to find i'm sure). It's holding us back. But while I dislike the existence of religion, I can see why we still have it. Still, we don't need to.

I do, however, admire your tenacity at trying to support your faith with evidence and rationality -- I genuinely do. A lot of theists respond with the same stuff over and over again, but you've forced me to think about my responses. And that's why I'm going to step away from this debate now. I've said what I've needed to say. I guess you can use that against me in your next post (if there is one) but this argument, while I've learned quite a bit from it (i really have) is to the point where it is merely exhausting.

Redzeppelin

01-22-2009, 11:08 PM

It suggests it, but it doesn't confirm anything. Maybe there were challenges, and they were simply supressed/rewritten.

In order to honor your "exhaustion," I'll keep responses brief.

First, the suggestion that all challenges to the life of Christ were suppressed by the church I find on par with just about any other conspiracy threory.

Maybe there's a few people who choose atheism just because they're denying their fear of god. But, like you said below about Christians, they generally aren't real atheists.

Fear of God isn't what makes some people choose atheism: it is fear that they way they are choosing to live is not right. What better way to feel OK about the life you live than to get rid of the standard by which you are evaluated?

That's the only motive that, really, is present. There may be variations of that motive, subsects of it, but in the end that's the core motive. I don't know why you continue to think I project myself as someone who knows everything that a Christian is thinking about Christianity. Obviously I don't. And there's another part of that quotation where I said some may do it for the community, because it's true there a plenty of Christians who go to church to see their friends. But please outline more genuine motives other than the desire to go to heaven. Seems to me that's really all Christianity offers that you can't achieve without being Christian.

The core motive is to be in the presence of our creator - the Being from whom love and beauty are derived. Who wouldn't want to be in the presence of the source of all goodness, beauty and love in the universe?
What higher motive do people need than to be united with the Being who created them?

Well, Ghandi was a martyr. He had adversaries -- but I wouldn't call them enemies. An enemy is someone for whom you'd go out of your way to annoy/ignore/harm et cetera. To me, enemies are mutual in their hate toward each other. Not everyone is going to like you, and many people will inconvenience you, but do they have to be your 'enemies'? I don't think so. But this, like your argument above, this isn't one I really put much weight on.

Hair-splitting. You're playing around with the definition of "enemy" in order to try and refute my point. Someone may consider me their enemy without me feeling likewise.

Intangible rewards/threats can be more effective for the simple reason of fear again -- fear of the unknown. Hell is a place of eternal excruciation: you can barely imagine it, right? So when that threat is asserted, you can either say: 1) I don't believe it, or 2) I don't want to go there, help me avoid going there. The latter comprises of Christians and the former doesn't. It's the carrot-on-a-stick philosophy, as well, for heaven. I'm not really sure where you get that last part, that it teaches people many things about the universe/human nature/et cetera. All the bible really teaches is that 'god is love.' The moral of the story always is 'love god.' Much like in the Hitchhiker's Guide where the answer to everything is 42, it doesn't reveal a whole lot.

You dismiss "God is love" very easily - do you understand what that really means? It means that the greatest examples/experiences of love on this earth are mere shadows of the Being which is love embodied. Since our desire for love is one of the primary motivations and goals of most everybody on earth, I think you're dismissing pretty easily something amazing - who wouldn't want to be in the presence of love embodied, if we will do just about anything here on earth simply to experience even this highly flawed experience that we call "love" here? What answer need be given beyond God is love?

Okay, but a lot of people have Christianity or any religion for that matter rooted into their upbringing that, even if they may or may not believe the religion, going to church is traditional. I've spoken to many church-goers and they say they enjoy church because they've met a lot of friends there.

Fine - but if that's all it offers, it won't keep people for long because the tenants of Christianity require much more out of an individual than other communities do.

It isn't as obviously self-serving as, say, buying a huge mansion and laughing at the poor people from your 70-inch screen TV. But, it's still self-serving because 1) it legitimizes yourself as a person (the whole thing that you just said with not being worthy as an independent human being) and 2) you simply feel good about your own self-esteem for helping others. Some Christians may have better intentions than others but the fact still remains we are self-serving species, with Christianity or without.

You are flat-out wrong. I have no idea how me acknowledging that I'm a sinner "legitimizes" me as a person. Second, the Bible teaches us that any good that we do comes from the presence of God in our heart - so the Christian who "feels good" about what she/he does is all wrong and is enjoying the sin of pride because the source of those good deeds is not me - it's God within me. Christianity is hard because it demands that we consciously work against the human tendency to be self-serving.

Morals are not only extracted from religion, but nature too. We should be motivated to do the right thing because it's in the best interest of our race. For instance, killing each other for no reason is not in our best interest. At any rate, the 'right thing' is quite subjective and never absolute, and that's another gripe I have with the bible -- it attempts to solve everything with a quick fix that if you worship god, everything will be okay.

Sometimes what is in my best interest is to be selfish and manipulative. Killing someone to get his money or car might just be in my best interest. Once right/wrong becomes subjective, there is no reason for me to bow to any law but that which serves my best interest. Only a higher law above human revision can stop us from becoming tyrants.

There is nothing to substantiate many of your claims beyond faith, but here I am arguing with you about it. Do you know why they wrote the bible?

Playing "tit-for-tat" doesn't change the fact that your claim has nothing to substantiate it.

The Bible was written to reveal the character of God and His history with the Jewish people. The New Testament was written as the revelation of Jesus Christ - God's son - in order to offer all people redemption from sin and the chance to accept the free gift of eternal life.

I don't really see that as admirable, but to each his own.

Oh come on - are you telling me that you don't think justice being served - a murderer being put in prison for his crimes - isn't admirable? Don't you want a just society that punishes wrong-doers? Please don't ask me to believe that you're trying to make justice into some sort of fancy that not everybody believes in. Everybody wants justice.

There are no traces of the divine in our universe. Therefore, it's only logical to pass it up as mythology. No evidence exists that proves the divine. We have scientific explanations for a lot of things, definitely not everything, and generally the only things we don't have explanations for (such as the origins of the universe) are deemed as unknown. Why does everything that we can't explain have to be carried out by a divine being? There's nothing that inclines us to believe that, except for our imagination.

What's your proof of no divinity in the universe? Because you can't find it? Because science hasn't found heaven or a big man in the sky it has decided that God doesn't exist? You're kidding, right? As if a Being who is capable of creating the universe from the atoms up could simply be found by our devices? You MUST be kidding...

Our sense of moral justice and the complexity of creation and the existence of love all point to a creator.

Love is logical to reproduce. Relationships are logical because they give us our own identity, and therefore make us feel good. That doesn't make them valid, but they are logical. Theism is, in a way, logical, because it has proved to be a good mechanism to control civilizations and give easy answers, thus making life easier to deal with -- but the truth of theism isn't logical. It's faith.

No - you're talking about relationships and the logic of being in them; sure - but while in these relationships we will often make very illogical decisions; logic does not rule the heart - it rules the head.

I'm pretty sure we've disproven that, the mass amount of matter called Planet Earth, wasn't created in 7 days. I don't think it even needs to be disproven.

And how was that proved? By what standard do we establish that an almighty being couldn't create the universe in 7 days beyond the fact that we can't imagine that kind of power? Ancient civilizations couldn't imagine most of the simple devices we use today.

They arrive at their conclusions not based on their status as a scientist, but due to their beliefs. A scientist will say: "this is how x happened," while an intelligent design scientists will say: "this is how x happened; plus, god helped." The raw evidence itself is the same, however. Since when can abiogenesis not be observed? There are many observations of it.

Wrong again; the scientist's beliefs do not come into play until the scientist must answer the question as to the "first cause" - at that point both scientists choose their foundation; the creationist chooses to believe that the First Cause is God; the evolutionist chooses as his First Cause naturalism. Both CHOOSE the First Cause they wish to point to.

Since when can archaeology excavate the evidence that there was a virgin birth, a talking snake, a man named Moses who received the 10 commandements, et cetera?

Those need not be proven for the Bible to be credible. It is sufficient to have people and events be shown to be true. If the miracles weren't true, where are the refutations (oh yeah, the conspiracy theory...)

Not everyone gets to be right. But why must one religions assert that other religions are wrong? That's what I hate about it: fighting over mythology. You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore. A study was released that showed IQ rates to be higher as the dependancy on religion of a nation grew smaller (I don't have the link to it, but it's easy to find i'm sure). It's holding us back. But while I dislike the existence of religion, I can see why we still have it. Still, we don't need to.

Any religion that claims to have the "truth" (that would be all of them) automatically brings the truthfulness of others into question simply by existing. It's only mythology to you - to us, its reality. I'm not impressed by the study on IQ - as if IQ is some sort of determination of the worth of people - let's not go down that road because we've already had plenty of exposure to people who thought in terms of "master race" - right? Do you choose your friends based upon IQ? Does IQ have some magical power to make someone better than someone else in a way that really matters?

I do, however, admire your tenacity at trying to support your faith with evidence and rationality -- I genuinely do. A lot of theists respond with the same stuff over and over again, but you've forced me to think about my responses. And that's why I'm going to step away from this debate now. I've said what I've needed to say. I guess you can use that against me in your next post (if there is one) but this argument, while I've learned quite a bit from it (i really have) is to the point where it is merely exhausting.

Understood and acknowledged.

jon1jt

01-23-2009, 12:58 AM

You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore.

Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time? I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance.

And when you say something like "we" you speak for the human race, and that's solipsistic, or should I say pretentious. You need to learn to temper that. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman. :thumbs_up

JacobF

01-23-2009, 01:27 AM

Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time? I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance.

And when you say something like "we" you speak for the human race, and that's solipsistic, or should I say pretentious. You need to learn to temper that. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman. :thumbs_up

I don't claim to have it all figured out, and I don't know where you get that from, unless you're just using the prejudice of "I'm younger than him, therefore my arguments are less valid." I know have a lot to learn, and I've acknowledge that numerous times. And I'm not saying that simply to victimize myself by claiming ignorance, because I know it's true. When I called red patronizing I wasn't pointing to all his posts, I was pointing to a specific quotation... which is why I quoted it.

By the way, I've seen disrespectful/rude/"know-it-all" assertions of atheism which were bar none worse than mine (not on this board, though). Atheists would reply with "you're a moron, I hope you burn in the hell you've created," among other things which would get me banned.

And maybe I'll be a Christian in 10 years, I don't know. But these are the beliefs that I currently hold and I may as well throw myself in the ring and see how I do. That's how I learn sometimes. I'm not as mature or wise as older posters but I think I have the right to input my views. It's the internet after all.

Sorry you found my use of 'we' pretentious. It's a force of habit, and I'll duly note it. It's just a lot easier to refer to things as we, I guess.

I promised myself I wasn't going to re-engage in the debate but there's something I'd like to clear up. I don't think I trivialized the role or importance of religion or myth in society. Of course it plays a huge role, and I don't think it should. That was the basis of my argument.

skasian

01-23-2009, 12:50 PM

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.

You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.

The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I would like to appreciate for sharing your thoughts and belief about God, it was spiritually refreshning.:)

atiguhya padma

01-23-2009, 01:14 PM

To act ethically dfor a Christian is much easier than it is for an atheist. A Christian can just look up the rules and regulations in his/her handbook and pull out some moral teaching that suits her/him. An atheist on the other hand has think things through and come up with fresh approaches to fresh problems.

Its all very easy to use scripture to support your actions. When there is no scripture to refer to, then you have to be creative, bold and act in the knowledge that, though you might be wrong, you've done your best to act in a good way.

Redzeppelin

01-24-2009, 12:17 AM

. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman. :thumbs_up

Thank you jon

I would like to appreciate for sharing your thoughts and belief about God, it was spiritually refreshning.:)

Thank you skasian

To act ethically dfor a Christian is much easier than it is for an atheist. A Christian can just look up the rules and regulations in his/her handbook and pull out some moral teaching that suits her/him. An atheist on the other hand has think things through and come up with fresh approaches to fresh problems.

Wrong. The Bible isn't a "rule book" we consult. It is the revelation of God's character and we are directed to "become" like God. As we grow in relationship, we voluntarily choose to engage in behaviors that mirror His character. Don't patronize us by making us sound like bean-counters who mindlessly parrot the behavior the Bible suggests we engage in. The atheist's philosophy of behavior isn't self-created; they consult their own "rule books" - whether that be conventional morality, social contract theory, utilitarianism, or other philosophies they have read or been exposed to. I don't buy this "Christians are parrots but atheists are creative" idea in terms of moral behavior. The supposed "freedom" of atheist ethics also makes their ethics unstable and unreliable.

Its all very easy to use scripture to support your actions. When there is no scripture to refer to, then you have to be creative, bold and act in the knowledge that, though you might be wrong, you've done your best to act in a good way.

Pretending that atheists create their own "bold creative" response to the cirucumstances of the world strikes me as a bit self-aggrandizing. Atheists adhere to morality by-and-large that they inherited from Christian morality or other sources.

blazeofglory

01-24-2009, 03:17 AM

There are many disputations about God, creation, different gods, faiths, sources of faiths.

I do not think one God is greater and another smaller. Even paganism is also as good as Christianity.

At times Christians try to dodge paganism as a religion or cult of the savage but I hold it strongly that paganism is as complex and as advanced as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism.

People become so irrational and dogmatic when it comes to defend their particular sets of beliefs and now never than ever before we have fundamentalists and fanatics waging all kinds of wars.

They want to assert their ideas and religions
at any costs
This is sheer foolhardy. Politics of religions is sheer politics and not religions at all.

Politicizing it as a religion is to debase it and rather to be interested in politics only.

billyjack

01-24-2009, 04:51 PM

[QUOTE=jon1jt;663077]Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time?/QUOTE]

he is right and he wasn't patronizing.

[QUOTE=jon1jt;663077] I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance. /QUOTE]

i've dabbled in campbell's "hero with a thousand faces". myth played a role. so did the stone age. we don't swing stone axes anymore but the beliefs of that time still hold, its a shame and a sham

Niamh

01-24-2009, 06:17 PM

Just a reminder for you all to discuss the topic, and not each other before you all get carried away..
:)

Dr. Hill

01-24-2009, 09:10 PM

Thank you jon
Pretending that atheists create their own "bold creative" response to the cirucumstances of the world strikes me as a bit self-aggrandizing. Atheists adhere to morality by-and-large that they inherited from Christian morality or other sources.

Christian morality? Morality has been around, and almost exactly the same as it is now, for much longer than Christianity has. If we were following Christian morality we would be going around casting plagues at infidels and killing our children.

Sk8ynat

01-24-2009, 11:30 PM

I believe in God because there are good things and good people in the world.
I believe that if God didn't exist no one would ever act beyond their own natural instinct. They would live for the purpose of producing healthy offspring then die.
But because God exists, and because we are made in his image, we think, we feel, we learn, we create, we love. We have a purpose in life.

I just can't believe that we are all a coincidence, an accident. When you see a beautiful painting, or read an inspiring book, or hear an incredible song. How can the people who created these things - whether they believe in God or not - have simply been an accident?

Can you really look at someone you love dearly and tell them that they're here by accident, that it's all just a coincident that you ever met them?

That's why I believe in God, because any other concept just makes me feel worthless and hopeless.

NikolaiI

01-25-2009, 12:05 AM

You need not believe in religious text, word by word. God has to be beyond all religions.

Each one of us have to find our own answer, believe our own heart and be really open minded, not just a pompous atheist seeking scientific proof of God like ‘gravity’.

Second picture is that let us assume that a God is there.
Let us also believe that God started the big bang and evolution occurred under his guidance and we have reached to our present level.
First question is what is the purpose of all this. I read an article which asked: what if you are given infinite power, all knowledge, all richness, everything that can be there, then what will you do. The answer given was that you would eventually like to share this with all others. May be God’s doing the same although no one is competent to read God’s mind. I like to think of it all as a play of God and live with following beliefs.
• We are not gone in time and space when we die but keep getting re births again and again, till we are ready for God consciousness.
• I believe as you sow, so you reap but the rewards and punishments I don’t restrict to a single lifetime.
• Though God do not reveal Himself openly but His signs you may find everywhere and in your day to day life, if you care to look closely enough.
• I believe God loves all of us more than anybody else is capable of loving us inspite of suffering the world sees. But He also work in the principle of ‘you reap what you sow’ so how we work with our free will is important.
• Also nobody is going to rot in hell for ever, if there is really a hell.
• I believe, you need not believe in the God till you are ready for it. If you are good, you will be taken care of. If you are bad, you will turn up becoming good after number of re-births. I believe all are going to be saved. All are going forward, some are more ahead, others are behind. But God is pushing everybody towards Him.
• Atheist may keep on harping for scientific proof and it may never come. So one has to think beyond science.
• I believe that God like simplicity, honesty and humility in humans to arrogance and the habit of pulling somebody down and gloating over it. God must be loving a humble atheist more than a crooked believer.

I recollect a monk’s words that I read years ago:

We (human beings) are like small children playing in a sea-shore. We are lost in our play with water, sand, pebbles, sand castles and other such things. But the moment we had our fill, the time we feel our play is over, we we will loose interest in everything and will go rushing towards the waiting arms of Mother ( God).

I was really glad to read this, you wrote very well, and I would like to reply to your points. My understanding is very similar to yours. First I believe the entire material universe is actually manifested in Brahman. This is the first reason why so many sages throughout the world have identified a transcendent level being free from attachment or illusion, and thus being free; also free from pain and any kind of suffering. Plato identified this and called it coming into the light, from as if being chained in dark cave. There is more to his analogy, and if you follow it you see it is similar to Buddhist and Hindu ideas of maya, illusion, and enlightenment. Each of us is playing a role, but the role is an illusion, and we are illusioned to think that everything is acting upon us, giving us suffering, etc. I know it is an unpopular thing to say things are an illusion, but the illusion is this; we are illusioned into thinking we are matter, only material bodies, but actually we are spirit. Actually we come from spirit and God.

And so since we are illusioned, we have desires, and these desires make us come back into this world for birth and death.

So this talk of illusion, maya, and the material universe, but what does it mean, and is any of it true? I know there are those who may read this who will never agree with me, and that is fine. But since this is a public forum, I can only speak to everyone here. Since I am, I will ask a question of all of you. What is consciousness? Who am I? What is there? This last question I mean to explain as, "what is there in terms of the possible states of consciousness?" If we decide that we are consciousness, then we cannot know any existence other than consciousenss. And then comes the question, what exists besides consciousness? If nothing exists besides consciousness, then there is never anything besides consciousness. There is never "No consciousess." For if there is "No consciousness," then there is nothing at all, and it cannot be that there was never not anything. Time is a construct which comes from consciousness which has divided things into qualifications. Since time came after consciousnes; consciousness came before time and will remain after time. Consciousness before time would be the vegetative consciousness, but actually all consciousness came before time and exists after. Thus we see that consciousness is actually not affected by time.

The other part of the question is "what consciousness is there?" We know there is the consciousness of we, the humans, although we can tell that this does not mean anything, since there are infinite varieties or shades of this consciousness. We can delude our consciousness into more physical or vital consciousnesss, or we can come to the mental platform, or we can ascend into the spiritual or divine consciousness. Generally we are ignorant of the spiritual side, and we are only in the mental, which we dull to some degree in order to better enjoy physical consciousness. But actually we are eternal because although there infinite degrees of consciousness, all of them exist and none of them are unique or separate, and they all exist eternally.

We can know there are levels of consciousness above and below our own. On this website communicating with language, we are on a mental level. The other states would differ in what we designate them, but we generally see them coming from nothing and going toward the infinite. No consciousness would be rocks and other inanimate things. Notice that 99% of anything which exists is inanimate and not conscious. Then we know of bacteria and the most basic lifeforms, these are the lowest type of consciousness. Notice that this accounts for 99% of the variety and diversity of life on earth. Then after that there is vegative consciousness, plants, which covers a similar percentage of the complex life forms of consciousness. After plants are animals and then, most refined of all are humans. But is final premise correct? How do we know. In all our knowledge we have finally come to the conclusion that life is subjective. Have you ever seen a star-nosed mole? Have you seen geckos? There are near infinite varieties of life on earth and they understand the world with a similar array of devices, senses, or "windows." No wonder the most common operating system is "Windows."

Consider that dolphins have a greater brain than humans, in relationship to their body size. So why again do we think we are all-superior? It is a blindness. A separation from reality. There is no reason which we need to lord it over the whole world, and destroy other species'. I know I participate in it and I do not keep myself above or separate, but I am trying to explain another point. We are part of a collective consciousness of sorts; we are not supreme but we are only a part of the myriad, beautiful, collection.

Now, I come to one problem in what I am saying, which this. I am mixing and going interchangably between my own views and ideas, and those which I have picked up from others. When I speak of God or spirituality, I am being honest when I say I believe it is what exists, it is what is out there. I cannot emphasize any more when I say that I do believe all of this is true.

I used to be an atheist and I cannot imagine how I would guess if someone approached me this way, and asked me to try to understand what consciousness was, in this way. What I am trying to say is that there is divine consciousness. If there is supreme consciousness, then all comes from that supreme consciousness. We are not supreme, not in consciousness or within life on earth; although we are part of the supreme. We can only be conscious of ourselves individually, and cannot know what God knows. And yet-- we can dovetail our lives to the will of the supreme if we follow that will with love and devotion. There are specific modes for that path, which result in a reawakening of our divine consiciousness.

What is the divine? This has been discussed and worked out for the entire history of our race, perhaps even more. I have for a long time searched about spirituality and different things of this nature. Plato, perhaps, and Emerson, and many others have studied the Vedic scriptures from India, I have also studied these; and yet there are other mystics from all cultures who have understandings of the divine. They do not all speak the same language but if you understand them enough, they are communicating the same message. The first step in understanding the divine, which is the source of everything; including reason ;)... is to understand that we are not matter, but spirit. I would perhaps get into this more but this is already lengthy enough, I realize...and there is time of course for this more.

One last point, and I know I will think more before I post again, is this... just because we do not understand the divine with our normal perceptions and thought consciousness, does not mean it does not exist. This is the primary point I would wish to press. In fact the divine cannot be understand with normal perceptions and consicousness. But just because we are particular consciousness - and that consciousness must be fully understood before anything else - this does not mean consciousnesses such as the divine do not exist. The spectrum of consciousness could be compared to the spectrum of light. We cannot see all light on the spectrum, but only certain kinds. In fact if we could see all of them we could not make any sense of it. The same is true with consciousness. We are socially required to follow a very rare path which is always afraid not to seem to conform. But actually we are connected to the same source of everything. We are not supreme at all but we are merely an infinitesimal part of a much greater, divine, supreme. I agree with laidbackperson in saying that our conceptions of time and space are way off, and they main came to exist after our associations with the body, based on desire for sense gratification.