I won't become a real Christian.

[virginiawang]

I went to a Bible discussion today, where a group of people talked about topics related to Bible, and I was shocked to find that some people did commit themselves to God. They could even remember a particular passage in my Bible, which I bought lately. However I only went there to have people to talk to in English. I wonder how they've convinced themselves of God, Jesus, and everything that was realated in Bible, when nobody could have given a piece of evidence to what had happened thousands of years ago. It's really interesting to see how those people put their trust and energy in some sort of myth and take it as a guide to everything they do. As far as I am concerned, I will join some of these discussions gladly, but will not surrender my soul to any invisible power.

[JBI]

I went to a Bible discussion today, where a group of people talked about topics related to Bible, and I was shocked to find that some people did commit themselves to God. They could even remember a particular passage in my Bible, which I bought lately. However I only went there to have people to talk to in English. I wonder how they've convinced themselves of God, Jesus, and everything that was realated in Bible, when nobody could have given a piece of evidence to what had happened thousands of years ago. It's really interesting to see how those people put their trust and energy in some sort of myth and take it as a guide to everything they do. As far as I am concerned, I will join some of these discussions gladly, but will not surrender my soul to any invisible power.

Who knows - I have a friend, for instance, who thinks, when you die, you are given soup by an old woman, and wake up in an alternative universe, only to die there and get another bowl of soup to return. Of course, she couldn't tell me what kind of soup, or how there is any logic in that, but she did tell me she was a rather secular, not so religious practitioner in this belief.

The point is - people like to believe ridiculous things - it's upbringing more than anything. If you are told something by your parents as a kid, and know no other sense of authority, it can be assumed, that unless you rebel later on in life, you will continue to believe in it. On another note, if you later come to it, it could be for many other reasons, the most probable being, a) a sense of desire to be part of a community, b) a fear of death, c) a percieved sense of guilt at not being a good person, or d) you were bored and they knocked on the door, and wouldn't go away (I know a girl, raised by a single mother who was forced to convert to Jehovah's Witness in that fashion) or even e) a cultural hegemony that insists one way of life and belief system is more right, and better than another.

Of course, some people just don't know any better, and take this as the best explanation.

[Wintermute]

a) a sense of desire to be part of a community, b) a fear of death, c) a percieved sense of guilt at not being a good person, or d) you were bored and they knocked on the door, and wouldn't go away

Hi JBI,

I'm going with b. Death is scary.

The promise of eternal bliss is awful tempting--until you really wrap your head around 'eternal'. And unfortunately no one seems to be able to define 'heaven' in specifics. Everyone's ideas are different.

Most apparently take it on faith that they will be happy there. Some folks think you actually meet others you've know from your time on this planet. My grandma imagined green hills and beautiful houses. Being agnostic, I'm doubtful but uncertain.

Blessings,
Doug

[Virgil]

You non believers just don't understand believers. You think it's a calculation. It's not a calculation. It's God entering your heart. You either feel Him or you don't. The calculations are rationalizations by both believers and non believers. If you've never had Him in your heart you don't understand it.

That said, I do believe that God (non denomnational God, or a sort of Gog-head) is probable in a scientific/statistical way. But I'm not getting into that. I've had it arguing that.

[Wintermute]

It's God entering your heart. You either feel Him or you don't.

Hi Virg,

I've tried, I promise you. But as of yet nothing. I do think there is something amazing going on in the universe, but as I've said many times I haven't a clue what it is. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't give a darn if I eat meat on Fridays or have sex with a man.

I don't know what you mean by 'calculated'. If that means asking for specifics before concluding that a particular religion is right for me, then I'm guilty as charged.

Cheers,
Doug

[Virgil]

Hi Virg,

I've tried, I promise you. But as of yet nothing. I do think there is something amazing going on in the universe, but as I've said many times I haven't a clue what it is. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't give a darn if I eat meat on Fridays or have sex with a man.

I don't know what you mean by 'calculated'. If that means asking for specifics before concluding that a particular religion is right for me, then I'm guilty as charged.

Cheers,
Doug
First I understand Wintermute. I spent a lot of my early life as an atheist so I know what you mean.

I look at established religions as paths to God. They are intertwined with culture because that's how man can conceptualize something that is beyond our senses. The culture establishes a sense of sacredness and holiness, whether through a historical bond to a past (as in the Old Testament) or through a mystical figure as in Jesus. There are other ways of how the sense of sacredness leads a conceptualization of a transcendence. In my opinion, all religions are paths toward that transcendence, toward God. If you have a chance, take a course in theology.

What I meant in calculation was this rational working through of whether God exists or not, whether there is an after life or not, whether our fear of death leads us to believe in God, and so on. These are all calculations of some sort. You can't experience the metaphysical that way. All I can tell you is that I experience something and there was a time when I didn't. All I can tell you is that if there is no God then life, including humans, is nothing more than a machine, a mechanical-chemical device. I can tell you that I'm not a mechanical device and no life is such.

I leave you with a Shakespeare quote from Hamlet, Hamlet speaking to Horatio: "There are more things to heaven and earth, Horatio, than your philosophy ever dreamed of."

[MarkBastable]

I wish you'd stop saying 'I can tell you' in that condescending way.

Also, being an atheist doesn't preclude one from understanding or experiencing the metaphysical. And there are those who have been brought to atheism through the study of theology.

Lastly, why do believers always trot out that line from Hamlet, as if it proved something in their favour? It may apply as tellingly to your philosophy, Virgil, as to anyone else's.


First I understand Wintermute. I spent a lot of my early life as an atheist so I know what you mean.

I look at established religions as paths to God. They are intertwined with culture because that's how man can conceptualize something that is beyond our senses. The culture establishes a sense of sacredness and holiness, whether through a historical bond to a past (as in the Old Testament) or through a mystical figure as in Jesus. There are other ways of how the sense of sacredness leads a conceptualization of a transcendence. In my opinion, all religions are paths toward that transcendence, toward God. If you have a chance, take a course in theology.

What I meant in calculation was this rational working through of whether God exists or not, whether there is an after life or not, whether our fear of death leads us to believe in God, and so on. These are all calculations of some sort. You can't experience the metaphysical that way. All I can tell you is that I experience something and there was a time when I didn't. All I can tell you is that if there is no God then life, including humans, is nothing more than a machine, a mechanical-chemical device. I can tell you that I'm not a mechanical device and no life is such.

I leave you with a Shakespeare quote from Hamlet, Hamlet speaking to Horatio: "There are more things to heaven and earth, Horatio, than your philosophy ever dreamed of."

[Virgil]

I wasn't being condescending in any way whatsoever. Perhaps it's you that feels insecure.

Not sure what you mean but by definition atheism precludes metaphysics. If I'm wrong please explain it to me.

[MarkBastable]

I wasn't being condescending in any way whatsoever. Perhaps it's you that feels insecure.

Not sure what you mean but by definition atheism precludes metaphysics. If I'm wrong please explain it to me.

metaphysical
1.pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics.
2. Philosophy. a. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
b. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.

3. highly abstract, subtle, or abstruse.

Atheism precludes God. It doesn't preclude anything mentioned in the definition of metaphysics reproduced here.

[The Atheist]

It's really interesting to see how those people put their trust and energy in some sort of myth and take it as a guide to everything they do. As far as I am concerned, I will join some of these discussions gladly, but will not surrender my soul to any invisible power.

You'd probably guess that I agree ith you 100%.

:)

[Whifflingpin]

"As far as I am concerned, I will join some of these discussions gladly, but will not surrender my soul to any invisible power."

Should that not be "will not surrender my soul to any other invisible power" ? A soul is an invisible power.

[Jane_Li]

Hello People..
I see you are discussing something interesting here...
Actually,you can't tell anything about God Or Jesus or anything that you don't believe in..I see you randomly not believing in anything..have you searched for the truth???
Have you read about any evidence whether God exists or not??
I don't believe in something unless I know everything about it...Indeed, I read about alot of beliefs and religions to know the truth and end up to believe in God as something that can't be seen but can be felt..I end up with the belief that Jesus is only a human ..An honest man who led people to God

[Wintermute]

Hi Virgil,


All I can tell you is that I experience something and there was a time when I didn't.

I hate to be calculative, but could you be very specific on this, please. What, exactly, do you experience? Was if physical? Mental? I've not experienced anything that I would define as paranormal or outside of my own brain and senses. I'm 53 years old. I've prayed. I have indeed taken Theology (University of Maryland, 1982). And honestly, I've experienced nothing that would lead me to believe with absolute certainty that a universal creator exists and that it cares about us here on this little chunk of rock in the corner of a relatively normal little galaxy amongst billions of galaxies. Could ego be involved here?


I leave you with a Shakespeare quote from Hamlet, Hamlet speaking to Horatio: "There are more things to heaven and earth, Horatio, than your philosophy ever dreamed of."

Now on this, we can agree 100% 8-). Again, I just don't think it cares if I shave my beard or not.

Blessings,
Doug

[NikolaiI]

I didn't read all the posts after Virgil's, and I am restricting my time on Lit-net so I don't have a lot of time for it right now, but in response to


I've tried, I promise you. But as of yet nothing. I do think there is something amazing going on in the universe, but as I've said many times I haven't a clue what it is. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't give a darn if I eat meat on Fridays or have sex with a man.

I would say, something I've recently felt and wanted to share was the feeling that I am part of the universe. I know this has been covered, but in the sense, directly perceiving that I'm part of some kind of infinite energy. To me that is what God is - the source which all eventually flows to.

I had this feeling and again, I am of the understanding that the first step is to intellectually acknowledge something like this, like I felt, or to feel it perhaps. Then one may choose whatever path to search for this and hopefully realize it. But I guess the first questions I'd ask would be, "what is the Universe," and "what is my relation to it?" Because I know, for sure, absolutely, that I am part of this thing called the universe, and I have an intimate connection to it. That's the source of mysticism, for me. What's the end of mysticism? Enlightenment or some such. For we're in illusion - we are part of the universe, in truth, connected to an infinite energy; yet we feel as we are not. To intellectually understand this is a prelude to ever realizing it.

Can the microcosm ever know, ever feel the macrocosm? That is spirituality.

[JBI]

Hello People..
I see you are discussing something interesting here...
Actually,you can't tell anything about God Or Jesus or anything that you don't believe in..I see you randomly not believing in anything..have you searched for the truth???
Have you read about any evidence whether God exists or not??
I don't believe in something unless I know everything about it...Indeed, I read about alot of beliefs and religions to know the truth and end up to believe in God as something that can't be seen but can be felt..I end up with the belief that Jesus is only a human ..An honest man who led people to God

In other words, if I can't know anything unless I give my soul to it, and devout a part of my income, a morning one day a week, and chasten my life to its guidelines. In other words, you can only comment on Christianity if you are a devout, Jesus feeling Christian? Does that not sound like an absurd argument?

Lets put that into retrospect - your comment about atheism is ungrounded since you are a believer. Your position as a believer does not let you understand atheism, and therefore, you have no ground to comment, since you do not know what it feels like to be atheist.

Likewise, I am not allowed to have, by your logic, any thoughts regarding women's issues, because I am not a woman - and they can't comment on masculine issues or subjects either, since they are not men.

Hell, lets take it even further - all my comments on the US (and the rest of the world outside the US), useless - we aren't American. I might as well stop studying Italian and Italian literature - I'm not Italian, how could I possibly understand it.

Or, I can do even better than that -

How can you punish criminals for sick offenses like pedophilia, without understanding the crime itself (in your words, committing the offense, and letting it into your heart)? How can you comment on anything you haven't done, by your logic?

In other words, you create an immunity for yourself - it's alright for Christians to get up and go to literally every corner of the world to convert people (historically, often by force), but I cannot possibly know anything about Christianity, and cannot possibly comment since I haven't yet let Jesus Christ into my soul. All I can do, is close the door in these missionaries faces, when they come, from different sects, each preaching a slightly different Bible (all of which have been mistranslated in numerous ways). And it is me who hasn't searched for the truth? Well, I guess I'm in the wrong for slamming the door in their faces - I guess I'm a rude, ignorant, un-open, unyielding stubborn jackass, who refuses to let Jesus into my life.


I have no problem with other people's beliefs, but this censorship because "I don't know what it feels like to know god" is an insult to my rights as a commenter. I could argue you do not know not knowing God properly, therefore, I think, you cannot possibly comment on this thread, as Miss Wang is a non-practitioner of Christianity, and therefore your opinion cannot possibly apply to her, by your logic. If I made such a claim, would you be a little bit insulted, hurt, set back? Now you know how I feel.

Though, in all irony, this thread has derailed completely - the thread has nothing to do with whether God exists or not - it has to do with the psychology behind people's decisions to practice certain religions - topically, Christianity, though, I see no reason why we couldn't discuss differences and rational between all religions. So far, there has been a lot of mumbojumbo about metaphysics and whatnot, but lets be honest - I think only a few of us have put out answers toward the real question, and I think, for terms of keeping coherency, one could suggest one leave their personal desire to extend their belief system out of this, and perhaps take a more scientific outlook at the question, providing rational answers, as apposed to emotional ones.

The question then, is why do certain people choose to believe this - I see no reason why people cannot comment, and, perhaps give their reasons in a logical manner (instead of saying you cannot possibly know what I feel), or give their thoughts on the subject as a whole.

[Virgil]

Hi Virgil,



I hate to be calculative, but could you be very specific on this, please. What, exactly, do you experience?

Sorry I don't wish to. This is my private life and I don't wish to elaborate. If you have never experienced it, you just don't know and there is no real way to really communicate it. I don't usually get into religious discussions. I wish you well.

[MANICHAEAN]

Virgil
Hang in there. You are not away with the fairies. I was raised as a Catholic, and graduated (if that is the right word) first into an atheist (based upon logic), and then an agnostic (based upon the cause/effect argument).
After many years overseas, I entered a church in London on Ash Wednesday & quite simply broke down & was overwhelmed in my heart during the service. It was not something I could rationalise but it happened & I came back to my initial faith with no questions, just simple acceptance. I've since experienced the same intense feeling in the porch of a church in Mexico City & at the beginning of a Mass in Rome..Is it sensitivity to some Supreme Being? I dont know. I just accept it and am thankful for the peace it gives me.
I'm not into imposing or even trying to convince others. I know what I experienced & wonder at the intensity of feeling of those that have experienced (like Padre Pio) the development in their mortal bodies of stigmata.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I went to a Bible discussion today, where a group of people talked about topics related to Bible, and I was shocked to find that some people did commit themselves to God. They could even remember a particular passage in my Bible, which I bought lately. However I only went there to have people to talk to in English. I wonder how they've convinced themselves of God, Jesus, and everything that was realated in Bible, when nobody could have given a piece of evidence to what had happened thousands of years ago. It's really interesting to see how those people put their trust and energy in some sort of myth and take it as a guide to everything they do. As far as I am concerned, I will join some of these discussions gladly, but will not surrender my soul to any invisible power.

I understand and share how you feel. As I wrote somewhere else: A map will only get you to where others have already been. If one the one hand "God" created us with free will, can "He" possibly have intended it that we give it all up in order to follow word for word what is written in any book attributed to "Him"?

And if on the other hand there is no God, or at least no tangible evidence of one, why should we curtail whatever degree of free will we do have by committing ourselves to ancient myths and those armies of theologians who interpret those myths?

[JBI]

I understand and share how you feel. As I wrote somewhere else: A map will only get you to where others have already been. If one the one hand "God" created us with free will, can "He" possibly have intended it that we give it all up in order to follow word for word what is written in any book attributed to "Him"?

And if on the other hand there is no God, or at least no tangible evidence of one, why should we curtail whatever degree of free will we do have by committing ourselves to ancient myths and those armies of theologians who interpret those myths?

The free will bit, actually, is more commentary than anything else. Take Milton for example, the whole purpose of Paradise Lost was to show how God gives mankind the power to choose their fate, yet ultimately, the poem completely fails at proving that in the slightest bit. It merely says that Satan is not capable of repenting, whereas Mankind is - not that God created an illogical possibility that undermines determinate linear time.

Free will in itself though, is a theological assumption, rather than a scriptural-based birthright. I think people miss that - god knows everything, where is the freedom there, if all time is contained within God's knowledge?


But that is a different argument, and I don't wish to go into it in to much depth today, because It's my day off.

[MarkBastable]

Sorry I don't wish to. This is my private life and I don't wish to elaborate.


Ah. "Perhaps it's you that feels insecure."

How do you feel about discussing the use of the English language such as, simply to pull a topic out of the air, the meaning of 'metaphysical'?

[PrinceMyshkin]

The free will bit, actually, is more commentary than anything else. Take Milton for example, the whole purpose of Paradise Lost was to show how God gives mankind the power to choose their fate, yet ultimately, the poem completely fails at proving that in the slightest bit. It merely says that Satan is not capable of repenting, whereas Mankind is - not that God created an illogical possibility that undermines determinate linear time.

Free will in itself though, is a theological assumption, rather than a scriptural-based birthright. I think people miss that - god knows everything, where is the freedom there, if all time is contained within God's knowledge?


But that is a different argument, and I don't wish to go into it in to much depth today, because It's my day off.

Yours and, presumably, God's!

The free-will assumption is pretty well negated in Genesis when Adam & Eve transgress the one prohibition God gives them and are immediately exiled from the Garden and sentenced to what we know, more or less, as tragic quotidian life.

[MarkBastable]

Yours and, presumably, God's!

The free-will assumption is pretty well negated in Genesis when Adam & Eve transgress the one prohibition God gives them and are immediately exiled from the Garden and sentenced to what we know, more or less, as tragic quotidian life.

Indeed. I can't really get behind a God who says, "Listen, you have free will. You can do what you like. Though - just so you know - if what you like isn't what I like, I'm going to banish you from my house, condemn you and all your ancestors as yet unborn to a life of suffering and, when that life is over, I'm going to judge you and if you're found wanting I shall be consigning you to the eternal flames. But - y'know - that apart, feel free. Knock yourself out."

If a twelve-year-old took that attitude to an eight-year-old, you'd send him to his room with no dinner.

[JBI]

Indeed. I can't really get behind a God who says, "Listen, you have free will. You can do what you like. Though - just so you know - if what you like isn't what I like, I'm going to banish you from my house, condemn you and all your ancestors as yet unborn to a life of suffering and, when that life is over, I'm going to judge you and if you're found wanting I shall be consigning you to the eternal flames. But - y'know - that apart, feel free. Knock yourself out."

If a twelve-year-old took that attitude to an eight-year-old, you'd send him to his room with no dinner.

It's not even that - god is Omniscient, therefore he must have known they would eat the apple before he even created them (or created light for that matter). The creation of man alone undermines free will, as he created man with the knowledge that he would eat from the tree, in the same way that he, if we take Milton again, created Satan knowing he would break the peace in heaven.

[PrinceMyshkin]

It's not even that - god is Omniscient, therefore he must have known they would eat the apple before he even created them (or created light for that matter). The creation of man alone undermines free will, as he created man with the knowledge that he would eat from the tree, in the same way that he, if we take Milton again, created Satan knowing he would break the peace in heaven.

The infuriating thing to me is that you are here applying plain, rational human logic, whereas any one of a platoon of theologians could twist the language of either Testament to make it mean the very opposite of what it appears to mean. As I wrote elsewhere: "Theists, when they interpret the Bible, can not only make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear; they have enough left over to clothe a bishop or two."

[Jane_Li]

"you have no ground to comment, since you do not know what it feels like to be atheist."

Actually,you are right! I didn't comment on atheism because I don't know how is it to be atheist..
If I insulted you in anyway I'm sorry because I didn't mean it..Forgive me:blush:..I'm just discussing you


"Likewise, I am not allowed to have, by your logic, any thoughts regarding women's issues, because I am not a woman - and they can't comment on masculine issues or subjects either, since they are not men."
I don't think that this example apply to here because there's alot of common things between men and women..whereas can you tell me what do believers and no-believers share cocerning there beliefs???


"I'm not Italian, how could I possibly understand it"

Of couse,how could you comment on the Italian language while you don't know a letter of it..It's nothing to do whether you are Italian or not..It has to do with your knowledge about Italian language..


"I might as well stop studying Italian and Italian literature"
If you study it then you can comment on it..Because only then you'll know everything about it and you comment on everything you know..!


"How can you punish criminals for sick offenses like pedophilia, without understanding the crime itself (in your words, committing the offense, and letting it into your heart)? How can you comment on anything you haven't done, by your logic?"
I can't comment because I don't understand these criminal right? I agree of course..There are people that Understand those criminals and they deal with them because they understand their psyche..


"I could argue you do not know not knowing God properly, therefore, I think, you cannot possibly comment on this thread,"
Noooo,that's not what I meant ...

But I have a question here to all the participants :
how can some people believe in the soul that is living in them while they can't see it???
How can they know that there's is a kind of soul but there's not any God???

[JBI]

I wouldn't know, I think of the soul as a metaphor for the human consciousness - nothing more. I don't believe, for instance, in an "actual soul", merely a poetic interpretation of the living spirit. There is no scientific logic in the existence of any "real soul", much less is their any grounding in it.

You are assuming that everyone believes in these magical souls that can move around and junk and leave the body and whatnot.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I wouldn't know, I think of the soul as a metaphor for the human consciousness - nothing more. I don't believe, for instance, in an "actual soul", merely a poetic interpretation of the living spirit. There is no scientific logic in the existence of any "real soul", much less is their any grounding in it.

You are assuming that everyone believes in these magical souls that can move around and junk and leave the body and whatnot.

I call myself a "lapsed atheist" inasmuch as I realized that I could be as dogmatic in denying the existence of "God" as are those who believe deeply in him; neither position, as I see it, subject to proof. I adhere to Einstein's "I am a deeply religious non-believer..." inasmuch as one cannot but have a 'religious' feeling - awe & humility - in the face of one's own existence let alone that of the universe or multiverses as it is now thought.

But, knowing as I do that there are many people, at least as intelligent and 'good' as I consider myself to be, who do believe, I've lamented the impossibility of speaking with them without either of us trying to convert the other.

[JBI]

I call myself a "lapsed atheist" inasmuch as I realized that I could be as dogmatic in denying the existence of "God" as are those who believe deeply in him; neither position, as I see it, subject to proof. I adhere to Einstein's "I am a deeply religious non-believer..." inasmuch as one cannot but have a 'religious' feeling - awe & humility - in the face of one's own existence let alone that of the universe or multiverses as it is now thought.

But, knowing as I do that there are many people, at least as intelligent and 'good' as I consider myself to be, who do believe, I've lamented the impossibility of speaking with them without either of us trying to convert the other.

I'm not trying to convert anyone - I merely challenged his assumption. If he believes in God or not is irrelevant - I have just as many believer friends as nonbelievers (though, the University scene here seems to be very, very secular, with, strangely enough, a very secular Buddhism being probably just as major in the circles I frequent as Christianity).

But the point is not that, but the direct hostility coming in here and challenging the non-believer, without the desire to challenge his own beliefs - I challenge my beliefs daily, yet to come here and say I'm being closed minded for not questioning my atheism and allowing God into my heart seems a bit of a ludicrous statement.

The question of the soul, actually, starts before Christianity, and is more, in the west, a Greek invention than a Hebraic one - Pindar tried to find it, and alas, failed, and Plato and Aristotle did a fair number writing about it. The Jewish tradition, classical one that is, essentially considers the soul what I have described - the part of the mind that contains emotion and thought - not some transmigratory ethereal thing that can descend into other worlds. RamBam himself described the classical concept of the soul similar to the way I conceive of it; it as merely a metaphor for the consciousness, in the sense that I did, and not a physical entity that exists beyond the body.

The concept of the soul in Hinduism, for instance, is completely different, as the religious outlook on the world in Hinduism is completely different - likewise, the Buddhist concept of ever changing mind and body are directly in opposition to the belief in the Christian concept of soul - that too is at odds.

All this talk of souls is really good and dandy, except that it makes no sense outside of the context of Christianity - the metaphor of the soul has become a standard in our understanding of the world, but the theological soul, that is, the soul that "actually" exists and will move on to the afterlife is a mere religious-specific construct that holds no bearing on a non-believer.

I believe, when I die, I will rot, and then decompose, and then regrow into something else - Energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely altered in form. There is no incompatibility there - I don't need a God for where I'm going, only a will that says where.

[islandclimber]

It's not even that - god is Omniscient, therefore he must have known they would eat the apple before he even created them (or created light for that matter). The creation of man alone undermines free will, as he created man with the knowledge that he would eat from the tree, in the same way that he, if we take Milton again, created Satan knowing he would break the peace in heaven.

but there is such a plethora of arguments supporting the existence of free will even with an Omniscient God...

one of the main ones being that God does not experience time in the linear fashion that we do. Therefore in experiencing all time at once God is not really determining our future choices but more experiencing them side by side with us... or at least I think that is what Catholicism kind of suggests... whereas Protestantism more follows along the path of saying that even though God is Omniscient and Omnipotent and Omnipresent, humans still ultimately have the final say in what they do... both these arguments have flaws which have been pointed out more than enough times :p

and then dropping into philosophy you get into soft and hard determinism, indeterminism, compatibilism, incompatibilism, metaphysical libertarianism, etc. etc.... there are so many differing views here, even without having an omniscient being in the Universe many still argue against the idea of free will... for if man is not the ultimate or originating cause of his actions can he truly be said to have free will? If determinism is true and all choices and actions are caused by events outside man's control, then man can't have free will as he is not "Causa Sui"...

but I've got to go eat breakfast now, so I'll just leave with a quote from Schopenhauer :D


The true picture of Spinoza's "Causa sui" is Baron Munchhausen encircling his horse with his legs, and raising himself and the horse upwards by means of his pigtail, with the inscription "Causa sui" written below

[Jane_Li]

"these magical souls"
I don't think that we can call it MAGICAL..magical suggests that there's a kind of superhuman or a fairy that gave us souls and I don't believe in magic..


"can move around and junk and leave the body and whatnot"
I also don't think our souls leave our bodies whenever they want...NO,they depart us only when we die..

you say that there's no scientific evidence that proves the existance of the soul..ok is there any scientific evidance that denies it??
the thing is that the human nature (psychologically speaking) needs something to believe in..you can't live without some beliefs whatever they may be right??
Ok!
I wanted on day to visit an island near home...when I arrived at the seashore I found no ship to take me there...I sat down and waited..suddenly some wood came flying..it was cut and put by itself together to form a kind of a ship..It was made by itself and it carried me to the island...you will laugh a this stupid story..how can a ship be made by itself??
Now look at yourself! you are the most beautiful creature..were you made this random way???
Of course, just like you,I'm not trying to convert anybody..


"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely altered in form"
Of course, but will it alter into the same form??I mean into another creature??
no .I don't think so..It will alter into another form..something that other creatures need..maybe dust..maybe by along time a kind of another chemical substance..
But may I ask : what energy are you talking about??can you explain to me!

I noticed something here : why do we quote from our favourite writers??:idea:
we are as clever as they were and maybe even more:idea::crash:... so why to let them think on our behalf??;)
why to approve on everything they wrote while we can fascinate them by our thoughts??:alien::idea:

[The Atheist]

but there is such a plethora of arguments supporting the existence of free will even with an Omniscient God...

Really?

Can you describe some of these arguments, because all of the ones I've seen during the past 30 or so years have been irrelevancies and ignorance dressed up as opinion rather than genuine arguments.

[hampusforev]

This is such a complicated discussion, man. I tell you, I've swung all over the place on this one. Sometimes I think people who belong to organized religion, and grant merit to the fundies, are the evildoers of the world, other times I completely understand their position.
I believe in spirituality, and people like Dawkins annoy the hell out of me, thinking that religion is actually a trait separate from the human condition that works like some kind of satanic force.

I agree with Kierkegaard, spirituality is something that's best practiced in the comfort of oneself, without bashing other people for straying from a god.
I do believe however that people who belong to organized religion, and buy the crap that preacher spews without a single shred of skepticism, are stupid. Religion and stupidity go hand in hand, there's no denying it.

[islandclimber]

Really?

Can you describe some of these arguments, because all of the ones I've seen during the past 30 or so years have been irrelevancies and ignorance dressed up as opinion rather than genuine arguments.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that these arguments are relevant, valid, or right, or in any way even begin to prove that free will and an omniscient god are not a contradiction.. if you read the rest of my post you will probably see that ;)

all, I'm saying is there is a plethora of arguments, and whether some consider them to be just just irrelevant and ignorant opinions or not, they are still there... this very issue has been debated for a couple thousand years now...

above I even mentioned the argument of the catholic church, of God and Humans existing in seperate forms of time... but there are countless others, and to be honest I agree with you completely and would say there is little besides opinion and ignorance in the vast majority of them...

One school of Hindu thought suggests that matter has no freedom, and the soul cannot control matter, therefore it would appear there is no free will, but then they suggest free will is found in seperating the self from matter.. freedom cannot be found and this universe and therefore we must escape its boundaries and limitations...

Buddhism rejects both absolute free will and strong determinism and follows a middle ground partially because there really is no god... and partially because the notion of absolute freedom of choice appears silly as it ignores outside influence that is necessarily there...

there are also arguments from centuries ago such as Augustine's, Ockham's, Kieerkegard's... whether any of them have any validity is debateable, but they are still there and all I suggested was there are a large number of arguments (using the word plethora ;))..

anyways I don't myself agree with the possibility of free will and divine omniscience... but that is just my opinion...

Jane Li, we quote writers because sometimes what we want to say has already been said, sometimes a perfect example has already been given...

[aloe]

As a former athiest and current Christian, I believe I can speak to both sides of the question. I was an athiest because I looked around at the mess the world is in (war, poverty, famine, addictions) and decided there could be no God. Later, after coming in contact with the true Church of God, I learned that this world is such a mess precisely because man does have free will - man has been free to disobey God which leads to every kind of sorrow. If you look at the rest of the universe which must follow the natural laws of science, you see beauty and perfection. The first book I read on this site was "The Brothers Karamazov" which deals with this very issue of the existence of God. One brother, Ivan, feels as I did once. Another brother, Alexey is a man of faith in tune with the perfection of creation. I recommend that as a good read. If you want to find out what in the world God is doing I recommend "The Awesome Potential of Man" by David C. Pack.

[The Atheist]

there are also arguments from centuries ago such as Augustine's, Ockham's, Kieerkegard's... whether any of them have any validity is debateable, but they are still there and all I suggested was there are a large number of arguments (using the word plethora ;))..

Sure. Arguments can be made that black is white, or that 2+2=5, but I don't find them worth acknowledging.


As a former athiest and current Christian, I believe I can speak to both sides of the question. I was an athiest because I looked around at the mess the world is in (war, poverty, famine, addictions) and decided there could be no God. Later, after coming in contact with the true Church of God, I learned that this world is such a mess precisely because man does have free will - man has been free to disobey God which leads to every kind of sorrow.

Ah, that old "true church of god".

Aren't they all?

Sounds to me as though you were an anti-theist rather than atheist. The state of the world has never been an argument against god.

[JBI]

Really?

Can you describe some of these arguments, because all of the ones I've seen during the past 30 or so years have been irrelevancies and ignorance dressed up as opinion rather than genuine arguments.

The best argument is compatibility - in that, humans are able to make choices within the scheme of things - though there is still a predestined plan - given the nature of time as linear, time itself determines itself when it happens, and relies on the choices of everything. The choices themselves allow humans to choose, in many cases, the path their lives take, in keeping with the predetermined scheme.

In other words, the same predetermined time graph, with human choice taken into account and more emphasis put on the ability for humans to choose what course in life they take.

Just a more optimistic look on life than incompatibility, but ultimately, no closer to proving free will, as free will makes no sense whatsoever, as souls, in the Christian understanding make no scientific sense, and I think, "Just because you can't find one doesn't mean there isn't", and "

As for scientific evidence that denies the existence of the soul - well, the lack of physical matter or proof of any spirits anywhere does a decent enough job at dispelling it - also, the simple logical answer that the burden of proof is on those proving the existence of something, rather than denying it. If there is no evidence, logic dictates that we assume it does no exist. There is no evidence of a monster living under my bed, therefore, I can comfortably say, until proven otherwise, there is no monster under my bed.

There is no evidence of me being a messiah born without a father, therefore, I can safely say, I am not a reincarnation of Jesus Christ - we can go on forever - that which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt cannot logically be assumed true.

Likewise, if we have two reports saying contradictory things, in an objective perspective, we must treat at least one as untrue, and suspect both of them. We have accounts of "proofs" of multiple conflicting faiths, whose doctrines aren't compatible with each other, therefore, the validity of such claims serves no real proof (not that it would be convincing anyway).

[Jane_Li]

Concerning the free will I don't konw much about this matter but what I know is that the existance of the free will does not contradict with the existance of God..God gave us our free will but He knows that we will do such and such..


"the lack of physical matter or proof of any spirits anywhere does a decent enough job at dispelling it"
Then if we go back to the year of 1201 and I said to you:"you know that there's something called electricity which can't be seen but it's all around ,and it's soooo helpful"
Of course you would say:" are you crazy??":D because nobody knew the electricity at that time though it was spread around


"There is no evidence of a monster living under my bed, therefore, I can comfortably say, until proven otherwise, there is no monster under my bed."
you are again talking about fairy tales and magic on which we all approve that they're just lies:idea:..souls are not like monsters or tooth fairies or bigfoot or or or...:alien:


"I learned that this world is such a mess precisely because man does have free will - man has been free to disobey God which leads to every kind of sorrow. If you look at the rest of the universe which must follow the natural laws of science, you see beauty and perfection."
These are very beautiful words ...Goodness is from God and evil is from ourselves:yawnb:

[MarkBastable]

May I offer this (http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue304/singing_cod.html)contribution to the God debate? (As opposed to the Cod debate, which might be what it at first appears to refer to.)

[Buh4Bee]

I went to a Bible discussion today, where a group of people talked about topics related to Bible, and I was shocked to find that some people did commit themselves to God. They could even remember a particular passage in my Bible, which I bought lately. However I only went there to have people to talk to in English. I wonder how they've convinced themselves of God, Jesus, and everything that was realated in Bible, when nobody could have given a piece of evidence to what had happened thousands of years ago. It's really interesting to see how those people put their trust and energy in some sort of myth and take it as a guide to everything they do. As far as I am concerned, I will join some of these discussions gladly, but will not surrender my soul to any invisible power.

It's funny, because I am trying to give my soul over to God, but it's just too hard. So I thought what you wrote was quite funny, whether you meant it to be or not.

[Wintermute]

Hi,

Just an off topic observation/question: I've been away from this board for a while (4 months?) and I've noticed that the topics are pretty much the same. However there does seem to be a drop in the quality of pro-God arguments. What has happened to people like Pendragon (the gentle Christian) and RedZepplin (intelligent, slice-you-off-a-the-knees with bulldog persistance arguments)? Those folks were able to put forth well formed, intelligent arguments that facilitated learning and interest. In this thread at least, I see none of the old vigor--just boring, wishy-washy kind of arguments. Know what I mean?

Cheers,
Doug

[Buh4Bee]

Maybe the topic has been out argued as Virgil stated in the beginning. It also could be the time of year. Summer is a time when people are running in all kinds of directions.

[Wintermute]

Maybe the topic has been out argued as Virgil stated in the beginning. It also could be the time of year. Summer is a time when people are running in all kinds of directions.

Thanks Jersea,

That makes perfect sense.

Doug

[Virgil]

Hi,

Just an off topic observation/question: I've been away from this board for a while (4 months?) and I've noticed that the topics are pretty much the same. However there does seem to be a drop in the quality of pro-God arguments. What has happened to people like Pendragon (the gentle Christian) and RedZepplin (intelligent, slice-you-off-a-the-knees with bulldog persistance arguments)? Those folks were able to put forth well formed, intelligent arguments that facilitated learning and interest. In this thread at least, I see none of the old vigor--just boring, wishy-washy kind of arguments. Know what I mean?

Cheers,
Doug

I don't know about Red Zep. I haven't noticed him here as frequently as before, but I did see him here the other day. RichardHesko (I think that's his name) hasn't been around in a while. Pendragon has had health problems and only comes by on occaision. I will say these are all the same arguments you guys have already had, only inspired by a new poster. Is there anything new under the sun? ;)

[virginiawang]

Later, after coming in contact with the true Church of God, I learned that this world is such a mess precisely because man does have free will - man has been free to disobey God which leads to every kind of sorrow. If you look at the rest of the universe which must follow the natural laws of science, you see beauty and perfection.
A world where everyone obeys an omnipotent power and thus loses his own free will is an artificial factory with dead machines, which funtion all the time without fail. It can never be something perfect. Words that we often use to describe such a place are dull, indifferent, cold, ect.

[ShadowFire]

I just stumbled upon this thread. I agree with aloe. I would like to state my opinion with the hope of not offending anyone. I am not trying to convert anyone, just hoping to give another perspective. I know some of you will roll your eyes at my words, but one cannot understand if one doesn't try. I am one of these Christians that give my whole life to it. I believe in the Bible as the absolute truth. Already many of you have rolled those eyes... I am open to any questions (even if they have already been discussed in this thread). I would like to touch on a bit of everything, especially the very first post.

My religion: Christian, Protestant, Nazarene

My source: Bible (if someone doesn't believe in this being true words then I find it very hard for he or she to understand the Christian faith, because Christians do believe it being true)

The first thing I would like to say about the Christian faith is it is just that "faith". Believing in something that is not necessarily logical or tangible. The reason faith is such a big factor is many things that can't be explained are because our minds are incapable of comprehending it (I believe). For example, someone stated there is no consistent description of heaven. The Bible states heaven is beyond the minds comprehension, so people speculate, hence the different views and the inconsistency.

The very first post asks how can people put their whole lives into this myth. Very simply it is not a myth to them. It is reality. Christianity has many benefits to it. Many people I have heard find it just a bunch of rules and guilt, but I feel then they may want to try a new perspective.

The Bible gives examples of when God changed His will because of a human's choice. He gave us free will so that we may choose Him. Doesn't it feel better if someone chooses to believe in you (support you, love you, etc.) than when they are forced to? The fact Adam and Eve choose not to obey (by the way I believe we obey God because we love Him not because it is the "right" thing to do) is why they were punished.

Hey watch them rolling eyes lol :)

hampusforev: I think it is foolish to listen to the preacher mindlessly. But I don't think that means religion and stupidity go hand in hand. My preacher uses scripture, and if he says something without scripture that I disagree with I turn to the scriptures for truth.

jersea: Maybe to give your soul over to God you may need to try a new tactic (Not necessarily to stop trying). Or you don't believe in Him in your heart? Just suggestions, I admit that I do not have a firm understanding on what you have/are doing in your life.

The Atheist: I just suggest to you to keep an open mind. And remember when doing your math it is all perspective...because in binary 1+1=10 :)

Everyone: Like I said before, I wish not to offend or convert anyone. I am open to questions. My goal is to provide my perspective in a hope to give others a better understanding of where my beliefs, and others with similar beliefs to mine, come from.

[Wintermute]

I am open to any questions (even if they have already been discussed in this thread). I would like to touch on a bit of everything, especially the very first post.

Hi ShadowFire,

And welcome! What do you think heaven is like? Please describe your vision of heaven as specifically as possible. For example:

Will we be individuals?
Will we remember our +-76 years on this planet?
Will we meet other individuals, family members, etc. that we knew on earth?
Will we be able to see, hear, smell, tasted, and feel?
Are there animals in heaven?
What will we do in heaven?
Does heaven really last for infinity?

Anything else you can add. I'm very interested in this, so thanks in advance for your words.

Blessings,
Doug

[JBI]

I don't know about Red Zep. I haven't noticed him here as frequently as before, but I did see him here the other day. RichardHesko (I think that's his name) hasn't been around in a while. Pendragon has had health problems and only comes by on occaision. I will say these are all the same arguments you guys have already had, only inspired by a new poster. Is there anything new under the sun? ;)

Well, there has been quite the derail - I tried to return to the original topic - what makes people subscribe to a religion, yet nobody really seems to actually care about that - merely to push forward their belief.

In actuality, I think I am one of the few posters who actually gave an answer to that - the rest of this hogwash about pseudo-intellectual rubbish and free will (which, one poster claims to not understand, yet subscribe to, tisk tisk), is technically off topic.

[The Atheist]

In other words, the same predetermined time graph, with human choice taken into account and more emphasis put on the ability for humans to choose what course in life they take.

Yes, but it just a shows a lack of understanding of maths and what "free will" is.

It's usually the maths which bogs people down, because they don't understand the effect of billions of choice multiplied exponentially, or the effect of others. It makes me chuckle when people grasp at U234 [?]as an exception to determinism, when it doesn't matter a hoot in the end.


Hi,

Just an off topic observation/question: I've been away from this board for a while (4 months?) and I've noticed that the topics are pretty much the same. However there does seem to be a drop in the quality of pro-God arguments. What has happened to people like Pendragon (the gentle Christian) and RedZepplin (intelligent, slice-you-off-a-the-knees with bulldog persistance arguments)? Those folks were able to put forth well formed, intelligent arguments that facilitated learning and interest. In this thread at least, I see none of the old vigor--just boring, wishy-washy kind of arguments. Know what I mean?

Cheers,
Doug

Pendragon, I agree with you - an outstanding bloke. Red, on the other hand, is just another bible literalist. I just cannot bother with people who refuse to see the wood.

Speaking of which:


...I believe in the Bible as the absolute truth...


...The Atheist: I just suggest to you to keep an open mind....

I find the irony of those two statements delightful.

[ShadowFire]

Wintermute: As I have said before, heaven is beyond conception. I will give my opinion, but again I don't know for sure. I think we will be individuals with our memory of our time here on earth. We won't have our bodies, so I don't believe we will smell and see. I do feel we will have senses though and feelings. So we will be able to meet others up there as a sense of feeling them near us. I think there will be animals, but I have no support yet for such. There will be eternal bliss. None of us have experienced life with no sorrow. Many don't know how you could possible feel as happy as we will. Again we can't comprehend. We will be in awe and love God, those who are there, so we will worship Him. The Bible says the Lord is preparing a house for each one of us who go. A dwelling not built by human hands (2 Corinthians 5:1 NIV). It also says it will be paradise. Of all your questions the one I can give a definite answer with scripture is that it will last for infinity. Even the concept of infinity is hard for the human mind to grasp. If you would like me to further research this topic with my beliefs or if you have more questions, please ask.

JBI: I am sorry this thread has gotten derailed. And I do realize I am not helping the matter. I again apologize to anyone this is bothering.

The Atheist: The reason I believe in the entire Bible is for the fact I wouldn't know what parts to believe and which not. For example, should I not believe the part that says the whole thing is true? I was not trying to be hypocritical in any sense. I do try myself to keep my mind open on many things. I find my believing the Bible to be absolute truth is not as much being closed minded, as it is a thoughtful choice.

[Mathor]

The question then, is why do certain people choose to believe this - I see no reason why people cannot comment, and, perhaps give their reasons in a logical manner (instead of saying you cannot possibly know what I feel), or give their thoughts on the subject as a whole.

but aren't experiences the basis of all human understanding? I like chocolate because it tastes good. I know it tastes good because it tastes good. You can't prove to me that chocolate does not taste good, nor could I prove to you that chocolate does taste good. And even If I conducted an experiment of 1,000 college students and found that 100 percent of those students agreed that "Chocolate does not taste good", it would prove that generally people find chocolate to not taste good, but the fact that by my experience chocolate does taste good, it negates the possibility of disproving that chocolate tastes good. The same goes for all subjective experiences, like the subjective experiences of both the atheists and theists taking part in this discussion. Whether or not one believes in atheism or theism, it is simply their belief.

[The Atheist]

I find my believing the Bible to be absolute truth is not as much being closed minded, as it is a thoughtful choice.

No, I can't buy that claim. Acceptance of the bible as litarlly true requires the suspension of 1000 years of empirical science. It is a thoughtful choice to become closed minded, and you admit that, because you will always side with the bible despite evidence to the contrary.

[BienvenuJDC]

Why can't atheists choose to believe that there is no God without harping on it to Christians? Why be so contentious about what other people choose to believe? This is one reason why I don't care to come here anymore. And the moderators think that politics are bad?

If people have honest questions about the Bible, then ask someone who cares and chooses to understand it. If all you want to do is ridicule someone who chooses to believe in the Bible, leave it alone.

[The Atheist]

Why can't atheists choose to believe that there is no God without harping on it to Christians? Why be so contentious about what other people choose to believe? This is one reason why I don't care to come here anymore. And the moderators think that politics are bad?

Well, some people see it as a chicken and egg situation - which came first, the theism or the atheism?

I like to think that when atheist organisations have televised events, evangelical broadcats on tv, leaflets dropping in my letterbox alongside the religious ones, and all of the other publicity theists give their religions, then I'll probably give it away.

I'm 100% certain that if there were far less christian fundamentalism in the world, you'd see a lot less of atheism.

If not for the atheists who stand up, Dover might be teaching creationism. Which other groups are going to refute the Discovery Institute and the Creation Museum?

Hey, maybe you're happy to let huge, organised groups take over our education and entertainment systems, but I can't sit idly by and let it happen.


If people have honest questions about the Bible, then ask someone who cares and chooses to understand it. If all you want to do is ridicule someone who chooses to believe in the Bible, leave it alone.

I haven't actually seen much in the way of ridicule, but again, it comes back to letting statements stand unchallenged. Should I stop challenging fuel-device manufacturers on their products being rip-offs? Should I accept the word of "sasquatch researchers"? Should I accept the accounts of alien abduction?

Seems to me, the last time we believed in fairy stories for a while - the great recovered memory syndrome scam - lots of innocent people ended up in jail, and some are still fighting to clear their names.

Where should we draw the line?

[Janine]

Why can't atheists choose to believe that there is no God without harping on it to Christians? Why be so contentious about what other people choose to believe? This is one reason why I don't care to come here anymore. And the moderators think that politics are bad?

If people have honest questions about the Bible, then ask someone who cares and chooses to understand it. If all you want to do is ridicule someone who chooses to believe in the Bible, leave it alone.

I agree; and I won't be coming back to post further in this thread. I find this whole discussion a bit ridiculous and pointless.

[virginiawang]

My intuitions told me that I had once been a devil, which a large amount of people worshipped thousands of years ago. I should say I was rather a good-natured devil, which people always found in legends. I was utterly convinced of my intuitions, which sometimes revealed to me facts that would otherwise be unknown, and I always found myself to feel quite the same as those animal devils did in a television soap opera or some books since I was able to perceive anything. This sort of feelings arose in my heart naturally even before they entered the realm of my conscience.
As far as I know, Bible denounces all kinds of witchcraft, which defined by most people as having things to do with a devil. Dating back to the Middle Ages, Christian churches even had the authority to execute witches for their engagement in the field of some unknown power or in devil worshipping. People considered as witches were also put to death for the common good. I am not pretty sure how Bible explains witchcraft and devils, or how God views and deals with such unwonted cases. I don’t really know what will be the outcome if I surrender my soul to God, so that’s going to be something I will never attempt at. By the way, I just don’t like to feel I’ve been dominated by a power all the time. I will certainly feel a lack of freedom if I will have to look up to God before I make every decision or arrive at each truth.
However I have enjoyed spending time around Christians since my college years. I graduated from a Catholic University and I addressed some of our professors as fathers since the first time we met. They are really nice people, and I always felt their sincere kindness when I listened to them or engaged in a talk with them. It was in this University that I accomplished my dream in English Literature, which I had always wished to study but had not had the chance before I entered this University, so I have had some sincere thanks for Christianity even though I will never become a real Christian.

[trueromantic]

Good natured devils, soul-stealing gods? What kind of catholic 'university' were you at?

[Wintermute]

Why can't atheists choose to believe that there is no God without harping on it to Christians? . . .

If all you want to do is ridicule someone who chooses to believe in the Bible, leave it alone.

Hi JDC,

I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. In my opinion anything is possible and nothing is certain. I will admit that earth-bound religions like Christianity, Islam, etc. seem like nothing more than human constructs, based in hope, and used to dampen primal fears of death. A wonderful, eternal afterlife promised to the meek is awfully tempting to those of us who choose a gentle life.

What upsets me about religious certainty is that it implies that I'm missing something--that I'm a goober for not seeing the obvious! I have spent a good portion of my life (I'm 52) reading, observing, meditating, praying, and discussing. And the only conclusion I can come to is that no one has a clue what is really going on in the universe. However I do think that evidence is important--and as of today, I have yet to see even a spec of evidence that Christians have found the secret and that everyone else is wrong. On the other hand I have seen overwhelming evidence that I have evolved over billions of years. I have seen undeniable evidence that the universe is unimaginably huge. I understand that our little rocky planet is spinning around in the fringes of a regular galaxy composed of billions of stars and planets which is only one of billions of galaxies in the universe.

To say with 100% certainty that some creator, who happens to look just like us, slapped together this planet and made it so special (among the trillions of others) that it would eventually need to send its only son here to get nailed to a cross because it screwed up in the first place--knowing that it was going to screw up, mind you--seems egotistical in the least.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong.

Blessings,
Doug

[Wintermute]

Hi ShadowFire,

Thanks for your response.


... but again I don't know for sure.

And thanks for your honesty.



I think we will be individuals with our memory of our time here on earth.

Yeah, because if not, our 70+ years here would seem rather pointless, no? If God is omnipotent, why not just hit the FF button to where its going to eventually get to? I mean it already knows what's going to happen. One plausible reason for not doing so is that it wants us to have our earthly memories. It does however seem that 70 years worth of memories might grow a little stale after a few trillion years in heaven.


We won't have our bodies, so I don't believe we will smell and see. I do feel we will have senses though and feelings.

So we will be individuals? Not some big ball of communal energy or something? What will we be doing do you think? I mean if we are individuals we will probably get bored just sitting there, no? I'm just using this as an example ShadowFire, but do you think I will be able to do jigsaw puzzles in heaven? How do you think we will keep from getting bored after say a million years?


I think there will be animals, but I have no support yet for such.

Good deal! Because I can tell you this with certainty: If the animals that have touched my life over the years--that have given me so much unselfish love and happiness--are not a part of your God's 'dwelling not built by human hands' then I will have no part of it. Heaven would be Hell.


Again we can't comprehend.

Why not?


Of all your questions the one I can give a definite answer with scripture is that it will last for infinity. Even the concept of infinity is hard for the human mind to grasp.

The concept of infinity if pretty easy for me to grasp--first semester calculus did a pretty good job of explaining it. No beginning, no end--never ending. That seem awfully convenient in the theological sense.


If you would like me to further research this topic with my beliefs or if you have more questions, please ask.

I think you should Shadow. Not for me. For yourself.

Thanks again for your thoughts and ideas.

Cheers,
Doug

[shahsaab1]

With respect to those who would deny the existence of God, the attempt to deny it only proves the case. For, there is no need for me to deny that which does not exist. Take the earth, for example. Some people say it is round. Others say it is flat. Would a dispute have broken out had not some observed the earth moving out away from them along a flat plane? If previous knowledge had not confirmed for them that the earth is round, for what reason would the dispute have arisen? The dispute broke out, however, because there is actual knowledge which is at variance with what the eye actually sees. Therefore, before the refutation and before the dispute, there was a pre-existing truth. For, if we wish to deny a scientific theory which requires its existence as a precondition, how then can it be refuted? The differences here between denial and existence necessarily presuppose the fact.

Therefore, the attempt to deny the existence of God presupposes the truth that God exists. Otherwise, why would any disbeliever make the attempt to advance such denials? An attempt to deny a thing and argue about it is impossible to put forth apart from the existence of the thing. If there were no basis for asserting the existence of a thing, why argue about it? Who would attempt to refute its existence?

Doubt in the existence of God (may He be praised and exalted) only confirms His existence. Those who attempt to validate doubt in God's existence serve only to confirm the existence of something which requires no need of proof. For, the proof of the existence of God is the very demand for such a proof. Efforts to make understandable such concepts only serve to prove that God has been with us since creation.

[MarkBastable]

Why can't atheists choose to believe that there is no God without harping on it to Christians?

You don't often see groups of atheists going door-to-door with pamphlets, or declaiming in malls, or lobbying that their beliefs should be inextricably woven into civil law and national constitutions. But then, not all Christians do that - just the most evangelical ones. Same with atheists. You might be surrounded by quietly devout atheists and never know it.


If all you want to do is ridicule someone who chooses to believe in the Bible, leave it alone.

Actually - as an aside and not in any way as an encouragement in the context of this discussion or any other thread on this forum - it's worth noting that ridicule is a massively effective and underused aspect of discourse, and I never understand why people are so against it. Perhaps it helps if one thinks of it as satire or irony. In any case, one of the best ways of demonstrating that an idea is ridiculous is to ridicule it. It's entirely fair that ideas should be ridiculed. Ideas don't get hurt - they're just abstract constructs and they can take a bit of kicking about. And there's a long-standing and respectable literary tradition of doing exactly that

I agree though that, for the most part, one should be very wary of ridiculing the people who hold the ideas. That's just a question of courtesy.

Unless the people are politicians or Stevie Nicks. And then you can ridicule them unceasingly, and with impunity.

[Haunted]

I have seen undeniable evidence that the universe is unimaginably huge. I understand that our little rocky planet is spinning around in the fringes of a regular galaxy composed of billions of stars and planets which is only one of billions of galaxies in the universe.

To say with 100% certainty that some creator, who happens to look just like us, slapped together this planet and made it so special (among the trillions of others) that it would eventually need to send its only son here to get nailed to a cross because it screwed up in the first place--knowing that it was going to screw up, mind you--seems egotistical in the least.

Check out the theory of the Cosmological Singularity. In physics, all causal chains begin in the Singularity. The Cosmological Singularity is an achieved infinity. And that infinity is God.

Again, this is a theory. It just shows that physics and the concept of God doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

There'll be endless arguments and theories. And then there's such thing as Faith. It's what you believe in. Faith is entirely personal. And indisputable.

BTW anyone ever wondered what a "real" Christian is? Can one then become a phoney bologna Christian?

"Good-natured devil" reads like an oxymoron....

Imagine a world with phoney bologna Christians and good-natured devils...phew. That sure loses credibility real fast.



Why be so contentious about what other people choose to believe?

ditto



I find this whole discussion a bit ridiculous and pointless.

ditto

[JBI]

With respect to those who would deny the existence of God, the attempt to deny it only proves the case. For, there is no need for me to deny that which does not exist. Take the earth, for example. Some people say it is round. Others say it is flat. Would a dispute have broken out had not some observed the earth moving out away from them along a flat plane? If previous knowledge had not confirmed for them that the earth is round, for what reason would the dispute have arisen? The dispute broke out, however, because there is actual knowledge which is at variance with what the eye actually sees. Therefore, before the refutation and before the dispute, there was a pre-existing truth. For, if we wish to deny a scientific theory which requires its existence as a precondition, how then can it be refuted? The differences here between denial and existence necessarily presuppose the fact.

Therefore, the attempt to deny the existence of God presupposes the truth that God exists. Otherwise, why would any disbeliever make the attempt to advance such denials? An attempt to deny a thing and argue about it is impossible to put forth apart from the existence of the thing. If there were no basis for asserting the existence of a thing, why argue about it? Who would attempt to refute its existence?

Doubt in the existence of God (may He be praised and exalted) only confirms His existence. Those who attempt to validate doubt in God's existence serve only to confirm the existence of something which requires no need of proof. For, the proof of the existence of God is the very demand for such a proof. Efforts to make understandable such concepts only serve to prove that God has been with us since creation.

Wow, that makes no sense - Galileo disputed the church's claims on science - does that mean he presupposed they were true, and therefore they were? Aristotle was thought to be right forever, but I think people challenged his views.

Aether isn't what keeps the planets in space, and that was challenged and debunked.
Just because you challenge something doesn't make it true - that's an illogical argument, sorry (blessed be he, etc.).

But, to humor your logic - I doubt believe in either the Christian Trinity, or the Chinese folk religion pantheon - two religions which cannot exist together - does that make both of them right now?

The reason the disbeliever, as you call him, challenges God, is because, quite simply, we live in a world filled with religious people who find it appropriate to go where they are not invited, and preach, and preach, and preach, and then a) make people feel bad for not believing, b) try to hold people back who have different views, and c) use their influence for purposes that are harmful to those who don't believe, or go against the ideology of the nonbeliever. In addition to this, there is the constant self-victimization of the religious person, as someone who is mistreated, and misunderstood because of their beliefs, and a constant self-importance which, going on for roughly 2000 years (in this form, in the Ancient-Greek influenced countries, though it is more like 2400) has finally started to be outwardly challenged, with the balance of power taken away from the institution and given to the individual. The reason, in the past, there wasn't this opposition, is, quite simply, people got burned for it - people still do in parts of the world, that's why there is this opposition now.

Look at what is being criticized, keep in mind - I don't see many people taking stabs at, for instance, Taoism, Buddhism, or the Baha'i faith. The reason is simple - what practitioners of those religions practice is inconsequential and undetrimental to any non-believer - whether someone burns incense for their ancestors, or meditates for clarity, or doesn't drink, or any other such practices (these are, a rather stereotyped few, and by no means reflect the scope of ritual or practice of either of these three religions, or any religions) has no real affect on anyone but the believer. These religions in general don't preach - these religions don't knock on people's doors, or tell people to give them money or they'll burn in hell, or tell children that if they do perfectly healthy things, they will be lost in hell for all eternity.

There are annoying, arrogant, bigoted atheists, but for the most part, atheists just seem like people who just don't want to take any more **** from Bible or whatever text wielding bigots who have no problem trying to **** everyone off who doesn't believe, and then on the other hand, when something practical, such as education, is being done for everyone, scream like a great victim in some Satanic plot against them.

There are good and bad people on either side, but quite frankly, the reason atheists or nonbelievers find it necessary to contradict, and deny outright the existence of God, and seek to display the illogicality of such an argument is because the believers are so damn adamant on displaying how great and mighty, how benevolent and righteous their god(s) is/are, and by extension, those who follow them are.

Nobody here really seeks to display the illogicality and nonexistence of the Eight Immortals, because, quite frankly, whether they exist or not has no real bearing on anyone besides those who worship them, whereas the denial of science has been proven to set back education and to have cemented itself into the political discourse of our time - thereby, it becomes not just something that matters to believers, but something that is, because of the practices and organizations of these religions, affecting everyone.

I may tease my friend about her belief in the old woman with soup, but ultimately, I recognize it as a harmless belief, one that requires nothing of her, and in that sense, have no real malice against it, and no reason why I should suggest to her its illogicality and ridiculousness. On the other hand, the Jewish missionaries that stop me on the street (Jewish missionaries that only work within the Jewish community to increase observance, not convert people) annoy me, and I have to tell them off every now and then, because, quite frankly, I don't see why I should be bullied by a pack of them into having justify why I am not going to pray in the morning, or going for a quick prayer with them in the bus stop.

[JBI]

Check out the theory of the Cosmological Singularity. In physics, all causal chains begin in the Singularity. The Cosmological Singularity is an achieved infinity. And that infinity is God.

Again, this is a theory. It just shows that physics and the concept of God doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

There'll be endless arguments and theories. And then there's such thing as Faith. It's what you believe in. Faith is entirely personal. And indisputable.

BTW anyone ever wondered what a "real" Christian is? Can one then become a phoney bologna Christian?


Even this theory though, though it perhaps may allude to a God, comes no closer than anything else - it doesn't suggest which god, whose god, what kind of god, etc. or what this God's powers are, appearance is, existence is, or anything of the sort - the theory leaves, perhaps, room for vagueness - it does not, however, even come close to proving anything we understand about a "deity" as true, and doesn't pretend to - there has been more ink spilled over Filioque to show that not even Christians understand what the hell they are actually talking about, so, ultimately, I don't think this theory comes anywhere near proving anything - it perhaps justifies a mild agnostic urge - in that it creates an uncertainty in the non-existence of a potential deity.

[The Atheist]

With respect to those who would deny the existence of God, the attempt to deny it only proves the case. For, there is no need for me to deny that which does not exist.

So, that makes bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Vishnu, Thor, Osiris and the Cottingley Fairies all real as well.

Excellent logic!


Unless the people are politicians or Stevie Nicks. And then you can ridicule them unceasingly, and with impunity.

Not Stevie Nicks!


There are good and bad people on either side, but quite frankly, the reason atheists or nonbelievers find it necessary to contradict, and deny outright the existence of God, and seek to display the illogicality of such an argument is because the believers are so damn adamant on displaying how great and mighty, how benevolent and righteous their god(s) is/are, and by extension, those who follow them are.

It even goes a step beyond that, because theists try - often successfully - to enforce their "god-given" morality onto all others. Not pointing out the contradictions would be surrender, in my view, and I really don't want to give up eating bacon.

[MarkBastable]

So, that makes bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Vishnu, Thor, Osiris and the Cottingley Fairies all real as well.


I think you'll find that Bigfoot takes a capital letter.

I now have to burn you.

[tailor STATELY]

I went to a Bible discussion today, where a group of people talked about topics related to Bible, and I was shocked to find that some people did commit themselves to God. They could even remember a particular passage in my Bible, which I bought lately. However I only went there to have people to talk to in English. I wonder how they've convinced themselves of God, Jesus, and everything that was realated in Bible, when nobody could have given a piece of evidence to what had happened thousands of years ago. It's really interesting to see how those people put their trust and energy in some sort of myth and take it as a guide to everything they do. As far as I am concerned, I will join some of these discussions gladly, but will not surrender my soul to any invisible power.

Faith (from LDS.org): "The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). "Alma..." (a Book of Mormon Prophet: my notation) "... made a similar statement: "If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true" (Alma 32:21). Faith is a principle of action and power. Whenever we work toward a worthy goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope for something that we cannot yet see."

Jesus understood His gospel would not be accepted by all, even by those who received it; and gave His disciples (and us) further insight in the following parable on people and their receptiveness to His word:

The Gospel According to Saint Matthew

CHAPTER 13

" 1 The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

18 ¶ Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. "

James E. Talmage, in his book "Jesus the Christ", Chapter 19, further elucidates for our benefit:

" Further exposition may appear superfluous; some suggestion as to the individual application of the contained lessons may be in place, however. Observe that the prominent feature of the story is that of the prepared or unprepared condition of the soil. The seed was the same, whether it fell on good ground or bad, on mellow mold or among stones and thistles. The primitive method of sowing, still followed in many countries, consisted in the sower throwing the grain by handfuls against the wind, thus securing a widespread scattering. Running through the Galilean fields were pathways, hard trodden by feet of men and beasts. Though seed should fall on such tracts, it could not grow; birds would pick up the living kernels lying unrooted and uncovered and some of the grains would be crushed and trodden down.
So with the seed of truth falling upon the hardened heart; ordinarily it cannot take root, and Satan, as a marauding crow, steals it away, lest a grain of it perchance find a crack in the trampled ground, send down its rootlet, and possibly develop."

"Seed falling in shallow soil, underlain by a floor of unbroken stone or hard-pan, may strike root and flourish for a brief season; but as the descending rootlets reach the impenetrable stratum they shrivel, and the plant withers and dies, for the nutritive juices are insufficient where there is no depth of earth. So with the man whose earnestness is but superficial, whose energy ceases when obstacles are encountered or opposition met; though he manifest enthusiasm for a time persecution deters him; he is offended, and endures not. Grain sown where thorns and thistles abound is soon killed out by their smothering growth; even so with a human heart set on riches and the allurements of pleasure -- though it receive the living seed of the gospel it will produce no harvest of good grain, but instead, a rank tangle of noxious weeds. The abundant yield of thorny thistles demonstrates the fitness of the soil for a better crop, were it only free from the cumbering weeds. The seed that falls in good deep soil, free from weeds and prepared for the sowing, strikes root and grows; the sun's heat scorches it not, but gives it thrift; it matures and yields to the harvester according to the richness of the soil, some fields producing thirty, others sixty, and a few even a hundred times as much grain as was sown."

"Even according to literary canons, and as judged by the recognized standards of rhetorical construction and logical arrangement of its parts, this parable holds first place among productions of its class. Though commonly known to us as the Parable of the Sower, the story could be expressively designated as the Parable of the Four Kinds of Soil. It is the ground upon which the seed is cast, to which the story most strongly directs our attention, and which so aptly is made to symbolize the softened or the hardened heart, the clean or the thorn-infested soil. Observe the grades of soil, given in the increasing order of their fertility:

(1) the compacted highway, the wayside path, on which, save by a combination of fortuitous circumstances practically amounting to a miracle, no seed can possibly strike root or grow;

(2) the thin layer of soil covering an impenetrable bed-rock, wherein seed may sprout yet can never mature;

(3) the weed-encumbered field, capable of producing a rich crop but for the jungle of thistles and thorns; and

(4) the clean rich mold receptive and fertile. Yet even soils classed as good are of varying degrees of productiveness, yielding an increase of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred fold, with many inter-gradations."

Some Bible expositors have professed to find in this splendid parable evidence of decisive fatalism in the lives of individuals, so that those whose spiritual state is comparable to the hardened pathway or wayside ground, to the shallow soil on stony floor, or to the neglected, thorn-ridden tract, are hopelessly and irredeemably bad; while the souls who may be likened unto good soil are safe against deterioration and will be inevitably productive of good fruit. Let it not be forgotten that a parable is but a sketch, not a picture
finished in detail; and that the expressed or implied similitude in parabolic teaching cannot logically and consistently be carried beyond the limits of the illustrative story. In the parable we are considering, the Teacher depicted the varied grades of spiritual receptivity existing among men, and characterized with incisive brevity each of the specified grades. He neither said nor intimated that the hard-baked soil of the wayside might not be plowed, harrowed, fertilized, and so be rendered productive; nor that the stony
impediment to growth might not be broken up and removed, or an increase of good soil be made by actual addition; nor that the thorns could never be uprooted, and their former habitat be rendered fit to support good plants. The parable is to be studied in the spirit of its purpose; and strained inferences or extensions are unwarranted. A strong metaphor, a striking simile, or any other expressive figure of speech, is of service only when rationally applied; if carried beyond the bounds of reasonable intent, the best of such may become meaningless or even absurd."

For those of faith who might feel saddened, or even persecuted for their faith by others' words in this, or any other, thread... A scripture from my faith:

D&C 101: 35 "And all they who suffer persecution for my name [Christ], and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this [His] glory."

Sincerely,
tailor STATELY

[The Atheist]

I think you'll find that Bigfoot takes a capital letter.

I now have to burn you.

Definitely not. It is just a noun as is lion, tiger, yeti, etc.

Even worse, bigfoot and yeti are definitely improper nouns!

:D


Sincerely,
tailor STATELY

Thanks - most of us have read the bible. Your repeating some of it doesn't enhance it at all.

(And if you include internet chat as persecution, I think you have a persecution complex rather than what the bible describes. That was more aimed at christian martyrs, of which there are very few, nowadays, but hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it.)

[MarkBastable]

I speak not of false bigfeet, but of the one true Bigfoot.

Just step up to this pyre, please.



Definitely not. It is just a noun as is lion, tiger, yeti, etc.

[tailor STATELY]

Thanks - most of us have read the bible. Your repeating some of it doesn't enhance it at all.

(And if you include internet chat as persecution, I think you have a persecution complex rather than what the bible describes. That was more aimed at christian martyrs, of which there are very few, nowadays, but hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it.)

Are we reading the same thread ? (LOL)

The originator of the thread implied a newness to the idea of Christianity. This is a literary forum... Hence the scriptural citing and elucidation to what I thought was a worthy response to the topic.

D&C 101: 35 "And all they who suffer persecution for my name [Christ], and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this [His] glory."... Written December 16, 1833 and pertains to past, present, and latter days.

No... No complexes here, thank you. Anchored in Christ.

Persecution takes on more forms than dying for the faith. Some in this thread have stated a desire not to return to the Religious Texts discussions for various reasons: derision, contension, off topic remarks, and 'ad hominem' attacks are what I have found most notably. Driven away?... Food for thought.

I pray I have not been too unfair in my humble comments... I've learned much from those of diverse views and plan to study a treatise by Blaise Pascal who I found mentioned in a wiki about "Atheism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) [ I had no clue how many different sects were ascribed to Atheism ! ]

God (or no one if you prefer) bless,
tailor STATELY

[The Atheist]

I speak not of false bigfeet, but of the one true Bigfoot.

Just step up to this pyre, please.

Ah, that one!


I've learned much from those of diverse views and plan to study a treatise by Blaise Pascal who I found mentioned in a wiki about "Atheism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) [ I had no clue how many different sects were ascribed to Atheism ! ]

"Sects" is a poor description. Maybe flavours of atheism is a better way of looking at it since atheism contains no doctrine and is merely a lack of belief. Some quasi-religious sects are also atheist - Buddhism for example, but atheism is not organised or led.

Pascal is an interesting case - a mathematician who never understood odds. If you want to look at odds, ask a bookie. Pascal would have gone broke in a week. Also, his argument of moral relativism falls to pieces when you look at secular countries (Sweden, New Zealand, etc.) and compare them to theocracies - Iran, Sudi Arabia, etc.

[shahsaab1]

I understand what you are saying I am still trying to understand what atheism really is. So a question if you don’t believe in god than how does everything work in the world like how does a mother give birth how do we breath, how do we see, who made the trees, the water, how are our bodies made so perfect, like how come the earth is made perfectly round and its all orbiting the sun in such a perfect manner? I mean I have millions of questions like this how is this all possible. I am a Muslim so I read the Quran how is it that the Quran is written so perfect like 1400 years ago we had no technology no science but we still got so many facts from there one such as the Quran says the earth is round and we just discovered that the earth is round when 1400 years ago people said it was flat. There are many versus such as:
Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp? (Qur'an, chap 71: Versus 15-16)
In the above verse, the word "light" is used for the Moon ("nooran" in Arabic) and the word "lamp" for the Sun ("sirajan" in Arabic.) The word used for the Moon refers to a light-reflecting, bright, motionless body. The word used for the Sun refers to a celestial body which is always burning, a constant source of heat and light.
On the other hand, the word "star" comes from the Arabic root "nejeme," meaning "appearing, emerging, visible." As in the verse below, stars are also referred to by the word "thaqib," which is used for that which shines and pierces the darkness with light: self-consuming and burning:
Did we not make the earth a receptacle? (Surat al-Mursalat, chap 25)
in the above verse, means “living things being gathered together and protected in their dwellings, places where living or inanimate things are gathered together; on which things are piled; place where things are collected
This is impossible to be written by a human especially 1400 years ago without the technology of today.

Here are websites for the Quran and another miracle is that the Quran has not been changed since 1400 years you can find the Quran anywhere you want but it will always be the same all over the world.
http://www.quranexplorer.com/
and a website on the miracles of the Quran. Check it out and please respect my religion as I respect everyone else’s beliefs.

Thank you

[shahsaab1]

Here is the website for Miracles of quran just to prove how its impossible to be written by a human so there has to be a GOD (in my opinion)

http://miraclesofthequran.com/index2.php

[The Atheist]

I understand what you are saying I am still trying to understand what atheism really is.

It's simple; atheists do not believe in god/s.

That's all.


So a question if you don’t believe in god than how does everything work in the world like how does a mother give birth how do we breath, how do we see,...

This is Biology 101. Everything works in the world because life has evolved over billions of years. During this time 99% of all species which ever lived have died out already and are now extinct. We're just lucky that our line is unbroken. If our ancestors had been dinosaurs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


... who made the trees, the water,...

Nobody made them, they were there. The water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, both of which exist throughout the entire universe. If a god made all of the universe, why did he bother making it so huge and uninhabited?


... how are our bodies made so perfect, like how come the earth is made perfectly round and its all orbiting the sun in such a perfect manner? I mean I have millions of questions like this how is this all possible. ...

These aren't questions, they're fallacies. How is the human body perfect? Pound for pund, we are the weakest animal on earth and only our ability to develop our minds has enabled us to survive. As to the earth, it isn't a perfect sphere and our orbit isn't perfect either. I'm sure most of your questions could be answered if you really wanted to find out the answers, because this is all really simple stuff.


I am a Muslim so I read the Quran how is it that the Quran is written so perfect like 1400 years ago we had no technology no science but we still got so many facts from there one such as the Quran says the earth is round and we just discovered that the earth is round when 1400 years ago people said it was flat.

Another fallacy. Many people realised the world was round by that time because ships always went below the horizon hull down. Here is one (http://www.gma.org/space1/nav_map.html)of many sites which show that the information pre-dated Mohammed by several centuries. Science was alive and well long before the Quran was written - please spend some time studying Greek philosophy from ~400BC onwards.


Here is the website for Miracles of quran just to prove how its impossible to be written by a human so there has to be a GOD (in my opinion)

http://miraclesofthequran.com/index2.php

More fallacies, sorry.

I've had a look through your site and it is just grasping at straws. Take for instance the one on atomic power (http://miraclesofthequran.com/predictions_14.html). It's just an example of some really bad post hoc argument. If I saw that part of the Quran, atomic power wouldn't occur to me, because Mohammed is talking about seeds, which are made up of a kernel (the exterior skin) which covers two identical parts which split when the seed opens. This is why seeds sprout with two identical leaves and has nothing whatsoever to do with atomic energy.

Like the bible, the Quran can appear to predict all sorts of things if you try hard enough. You should check out Nostradamus, whose prophecies are equally twisted to fit later facts.

Here's another one: The Hour has drawn near and the moon has split. (Qur'an, 54:1)

That is meant to indicate man's landing on the moon.

Really? Maybe if they'd blown it up.

[Drkshadow03]

It's simple; atheists do not believe in god/s.


But how do I know if you're a real atheist or not?

[Haunted]

Even this theory though, though it perhaps may allude to a God, comes no closer than anything else - it doesn't suggest which god, whose god, what kind of god, etc. or what this God's powers are, appearance is, existence is, or anything of the sort - the theory leaves, perhaps, room for vagueness - it does not, however, even come close to proving anything we understand about a "deity" as true, and doesn't pretend to - there has been more ink spilled over Filioque to show that not even Christians understand what the hell they are actually talking about, so, ultimately, I don't think this theory comes anywhere near proving anything - it perhaps justifies a mild agnostic urge - in that it creates an uncertainty in the non-existence of a potential deity.

One of the sources for Cosmological Singularity is the book The Physics of Christianity. Singularity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I don't think the book is to "prove" anything, it simply uses theories of spacetime, quantum mechanics, bio-physics, astrophysics, etc to show how Christian concepts, events and phenomena, are possible. It's not religious writing, it's a book of physics and an intellectual pursuit.

No, you don't get all your answers in one place. Just like taking vitamins. Even if you're taking a multi-vitamin, you still need to exercise. And then what about brain activities? The list goes on and on. There's a lot out there, each offering partial answers but they can be pieced together for the curious-minded.


tailor STATELY, thanks for your #66 posting. I enjoyed reading that again. Stuff like that never gets old.



Thanks - most of us have read the bible. Your repeating some of it doesn't enhance it at all.

Why is this comment necessary? There's no harm in posting that. Some people may not have read that before, and those who did, it should be ok to re-read it, shouldn't it? We play the same songs and music over and over. If you don't want to read it, then skip over it.

I'm seeing a pattern of criticizing for the sake of criticizing. It's almost obsessive compulsive.


My intuitions told me that I had once been a devil

This thread started with a self-proclaimed devil going to a Bible class just to practice English, then expressed displeasure/disapproval in that experience. Not only that I failed to appreciate the irony, I found it quite distasteful. Plus the mean spirited, condenscending, combative nature of some comments, this thread has lost every sense of credibility and decency. Like others I will not return to this thread.

[The Atheist]

But how do I know if you're a real atheist or not?

Ah, but I'm not just an atheist, I'm The Atheist.

;)


Why is this comment necessary? There's no harm in posting that. Some people may not have read that before, and those who did, it should be ok to re-read it, shouldn't it? We play the same songs and music over and over. If you don't want to read it, then skip over it.

I'm seeing a pattern of criticizing for the sake of criticizing. It's almost obsessive compulsive.

Then you're clearly not understanding, because trying to describe my comments as any type of obsession is pulling a very long bow.

Placing a bible extract isn't advancing any argument, far less one about being/not being christian.

Hey, it suits some people to spout tracts rather than advance a personal opinion, but if so, then it's my right to call it a spurious argument, which it is.

You need to trust me that if someone merely quoted The God Delusion I'd give it the same offence. I never did like parrots.

By all means, play the music as many times as you like, but play it at home.

[MarkBastable]

The trouble with posting an excerpt from the Bible in support of an argument for the existence of God is that unless you believe in God it's not an argument for the existence of God. The proposition is circular.

That often leads to the 'ears to hear' and 'seed on stony ground' arguments, which boil down, in the end to, 'you'd find it much easier to believe in God if you believed in God' and 'God said there'd be people like you, therefore he must exist'.

For the record - my interest in this is not so much the existence or otherwise of God, but the logic of the argument. As I say, the argument from the scriptures is circular, and I think it's fair to point that out. By doing so, I'm not saying that God doesn't exist - I'm just saying that that doesn't indicate that he does.

[virginiawang]

This thread started with a self-proclaimed devil going to a Bible class just to practice English, then expressed displeasure/disapproval in that experience. Not only that I failed to appreciate the irony, I found it quite distasteful. Plus the mean spirited, condenscending, combative nature of some comments, this thread has lost every sense of credibility and decency. Like others I will not return to this thread.
I never said I was displeased by attending a Bible class. In fact I said I had enjoyed the comapny of Chriatians since I was in college, but there had been some reasons which thwarted me from becoming a true Christian since a long time ago. So I started a thread here for the purpose of knowing more from people in this forum. As I said before, I've had the most sincere thanks for Christianity until now.

[Wintermute]

By doing so, I'm not saying that God doesn't exist - I'm just saying that that doesn't indicate that he does.

Greetings Mark,

I tend to agree with you. I think many folks are brought up in families where even questioning the truth of the Bible is unthinkable. As they mature it just becomes natural to say, "Well the Bible says.....".

What do you think would constitute absolute proof of the existence of any god, Christian or otherwise? Is it possible to prove such a thing in words?

Cheers,
Doug

[shahsaab1]

i still cant understand how someone can not create all this its kinda like when your in sand and you see foot steps you knew someone was there its the same way how it just seems that when we come to this world someone had to create the universe and all the planets and everything i just dont believe that this was already here for as scientist say 4.6 billion years it seems kinda impossible i think someone had to create it

[MarkBastable]

i still cant understand how someone can not create all this its kinda like when your in sand and you see foot steps you knew someone was there its the same way how it just seems that when we come to this world someone had to create the universe and all the planets and everything i just dont believe that this was already here for as scientist say 4.6 billion years it seems kinda impossible i think someone had to create it

Actually, when you put it like that, it does sound kinda persuasive....

[NikolaiI]

Hi,

Just an off topic observation/question: I've been away from this board for a while (4 months?) and I've noticed that the topics are pretty much the same. However there does seem to be a drop in the quality of pro-God arguments. What has happened to people like Pendragon (the gentle Christian) and RedZepplin (intelligent, slice-you-off-a-the-knees with bulldog persistance arguments)? Those folks were able to put forth well formed, intelligent arguments that facilitated learning and interest. In this thread at least, I see none of the old vigor--just boring, wishy-washy kind of arguments. Know what I mean?

Cheers,
Doug

It seems the same as ever. Still, argument is one thing I do not wish to engage in. God can only be perceived in complete peace. God is infinite peace, power, bliss and knowledge. This is not meant for argument, but just to present the idea and for discussion perhaps. The goal of argument is to win, while another loses - but my position is that "all are one." If I have made anyone feel as though they lost, then I did lose.

But conflict and competition are not the only way to communicate. ;) As you know, I am sure. We can discuss and that is more facilitating to thought, I would reason, as arguments in general tend to become emotional, since they are usually based on defense of one's ego.

About Christianity, there is some good, and some bad. Dogmatic thinking is bad, but that goes for atheists as well as religionists. And religion is not necessarily dogmatic. It's just become sort of attached that way, based on the words and deeds of many religionists, and by general perception. I strongly agree with Shakyamuni Buddha's position that one should not accept something just because anyone says it, but only if it accords with everything they know to be true - or something like that.

My position is that God is Being, or Infinite Light. What is Being? To me it is that - infinite peace, bliss, the highest principle, infinite intelligence or knowledge. It's not bound, however, to any religion or dogma or ritual. It's the infinite life force or energy. So the question is, does an infinite life force, energy, exist?

The issue I would raise to everyone, if they remain skeptical, is this: what are we? We come from the earth. The earth comes from stars - star dust, is the common word. Anyhow - matter is energy and energy is matter. So I would ask - is it not true therefore that we are light? This is the reasoning that led me to my current idea that all is light. The only intelligence is perhaps our own conscious actions, in that our intelligence is higher than plant, animal, or bacterial intelligence. And yet if we came from light, and if we are in fact light, then must it be true that we are the highest intelligence? But there is no human who has the highest intelligence. Just as light follows the laws of physics, so do we humans, those of us who wish, follow the laws of the moral or spiritual realm; the highest law of which is the infinite intelligence, bliss, power and peace which is God.

[edit- by the question "must it be true that we are the highest intelligence?" I am referring to the idea that there is nothing higher than us.]

[The Atheist]

i still cant understand how someone can not create all this its kinda like when your in sand and you see foot steps you knew someone was there its the same way how it just seems that when we come to this world someone had to create the universe and all the planets and everything i just dont believe that this was already here for as scientist say 4.6 billion years it seems kinda impossible i think someone had to create it

Sorry, but I find this approach heavily ironic. Hard, scientific evidence "seems kinda impossible", but no evidence whatsoever of an invisible being creating the entire universe to populate less than 0.000000000000000000001% of it is believable.

Funny how the creator left no footprints.

[islandclimber]

Sorry, but I find this approach heavily ironic. Hard, scientific evidence "seems kinda impossible", but no evidence whatsoever of an invisible being creating the entire universe to populate less than 0.000000000000000000001% of it is believable.

Funny how the creator left no footprints.

and we're back at the beginning again.. so is any of this really necessary?

honestly though, there are many respected and eminent scientists, who believe exactly what Shahsaab said there.. and while it is obvious that this line of reasoning provides no proof of some form of creator god, it is also just as obvious that science does NOT provide any proof that there is no creator god/ divine impulse/ whatever you want to call it... being an atheist is all fine and dandy, I would even say I myself am an atheist for the most part, but to say that there is no "God" and to say this is fact is just as absurd as claiming that it is a fact there is a "God"...

as I said many very respected scientists believe that science itself points to the existence of some form of Creator God... this doesn't have to be at all at odds with any of science, with evolution or anything...

the biggest problem with religion is the way people so often try to impose it upon others... to have it thrust into the education system which is far beyond ridiculous.. but to imply that religious belief and spirituality suggest ignorance is just a way of showing one's own ignorance.. and arrogance for that matter...

[islandclimber]

by the way, great post Nikolai :)

[JBI]

and we're back at the beginning again.. so is any of this really necessary?

honestly though, there are many respected and eminent scientists, who believe exactly what Shahsaab said there.. and while it is obvious that this line of reasoning provides no proof of some form of creator god, it is also just as obvious that science does NOT provide any proof that there is no creator god/ divine impulse/ whatever you want to call it... being an atheist is all fine and dandy, I would even say I myself am an atheist for the most part, but to say that there is no "God" and to say this is fact is just as absurd as claiming that it is a fact there is a "God"...

as I said many very respected scientists believe that science itself points to the existence of some form of Creator God... this doesn't have to be at all at odds with any of science, with evolution or anything...

the biggest problem with religion is the way people so often try to impose it upon others... to have it thrust into the education system which is far beyond ridiculous.. but to imply that religious belief and spirituality suggest ignorance is just a way of showing one's own ignorance.. and arrogance for that matter...
Meh, it's not as if religious people don't preach enough about not knowing happiness or whatever by not believing in their religion - the Catholic church, for instance, preaches that I will burn in hell, so in a sense you are right.

Like I said before though, I don't see anyone ripping on Taoism, and it's no shocker as to why - the same with Buddhism.

[islandclimber]

Meh, it's not as if religious people don't preach enough about not knowing happiness or whatever by not believing in their religion - the Catholic church, for instance, preaches that I will burn in hell, so in a sense you are right.

Like I said before though, I don't see anyone ripping on Taoism, and it's no shocker as to why - the same with Buddhism.

Nope besides some hardcore atheists, who think all religion is evil no matter how innocent its outward appearance, the only people who rip on religions like Buddhism and Taoism are members of the big three Abrahamic religions, as belief in anything else is blasphemy.. I am just recalling a University Prof I was friends with that was also Catholic, telling me that the more she learned about Buddhism, the more ridiculous it seemed.. it was all hogwash.. :lol:

[Wintermute]

Hi shahsaab1 and Mark,


i still cant understand how someone can not create all this its kinda like when your in sand and you see foot steps you knew someone was there its the same way how it just seems that when we come to this world someone had to create the universe and all the planets and everything i just dont believe that this was already here for as scientist say 4.6 billion years it seems kinda impossible i think someone had to create it


Actually, when you put it like that, it does sound kinda persuasive....

Doesn't it seem equally impossible that this 'someone' was just sitting around for infinity and then 6000 years ago decided to snap its omnipotent fingers and create a universe with our little planet being the entire focus of its attention? Seems like hope wrapped in ego to me.

Peace,
Doug

[Wintermute]

Hi Nikolai,


My position is that God is Being, or Infinite Light. What is Being? To me it is that - infinite peace, bliss, the highest principle, infinite intelligence or knowledge. It's not bound, however, to any religion or dogma or ritual. It's the infinite life force or energy. So the question is, does an infinite life force, energy, exist?

This sounds like the philosophy of one of my favorite jazz musicians, Sun Ra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Ra). Ever heard of him? I would encourage anyone to explore his music and his message. A warning: It takes some patience.

Also, I have received my copy of Living at the Source and read the introduction and the first few pages last night. Swami Vivekananda seems like a very interesting and gentle fellow. I look forward to my reading this weekend.

Cheers,
Doug

[MarkBastable]

Hi shahsaab1 and Mark,

Doesn't it seem equally impossible that this 'someone' was just sitting around for infinity and then 6000 years ago decided to snap its omnipotent fingers and create a universe with our little planet being the entire focus of its attention? Seems like hope wrapped in ego to me.

Peace,
Doug

One of these days I'm going to develop a font specifically for online forums, called Irony Sans Serif.

[The Atheist]

and we're back at the beginning again.. so is any of this really necessary?

honestly though, there are many respected and eminent scientists, who believe exactly what Shahsaab said there..

Really?

Please state which eminent and respected scientists are creationists. Plenty of scientists are theists, but I certainly know of none that would be classed as either respected or eminent who are creationists.

Creationism's biggest proponent, "Dr" Michael Behe admitted under oath that creationism isn't a science, so I really am interested in seeing some details here. I know plenty of other PhD-level scientists who are creationists, but they are laughing stocks rather than respected.

This may give you a clue as to why I do join these "debates".



... but to say that there is no "God" and to say this is fact is just as absurd as claiming that it is a fact there is a "God"...

I don't believe I've said that at any stage, so it isn't an argument for me. I completely disagree on the level of absurdity required, though.


as I said many very respected scientists believe that science itself points to the existence of some form of Creator God... this doesn't have to be at all at odds with any of science, with evolution or anything...

That's not the type of god I'm talking about, which should have been abundantly clear all the way.

Catholics, Anglicans, lots of religions produce scientists who believe in a theistic god, but I have been talking explicitly about young earth creationism.

As to the "many scientists", I'll simply point to the well-known statistic that members of the National Academy of Sciences - where the genuinely respected and eminent scientists hang out - disbelief in theistic god/s is the overwhelming position. Sure, lots of scientists are theists, but they're a small minority of the whole bunch.


but to imply that religious belief and spirituality suggest ignorance is just a way of showing one's own ignorance.. and arrogance for that matter...

Well, it all depends how you class arrogance, I guess, but the type of arrogance which gets on my goat is the kind which claims to have a personal relationship with an antity which created the entire universe and who's going to make people burn eternally because they don't like him.

Atheists tend not to worry too much about eternity, so I wonder which kind of arrogance is worse, myself.

Each to his/her own.

I'm interested in your vehemence on your stance since I haven't even seen so much as an ad hominem in the thread yet.

Scher and the others are pretty strict about keeping threads on the good side of fair, and not a comment has been forthcoming.


Like I said before though, I don't see anyone ripping on Taoism, and it's no shocker as to why - the same with Buddhism.

Bingo!

If only True Believers would see that obvious fact. Dawkins has no The Buddha Delusion, Sam Harris has not written Why I don't believe in Reincarnation and I'm certain Chris Hitchens has not penned The Dalai Lama Exposed!


Nope besides some hardcore atheists, who think all religion is evil no matter how innocent its outward appearance,...

Yet again, this seems like insinuation without basis in fact.

I know some pretty damned hardcore atheists and I don't know one who even mentions Buddhism. Sure, they - and me - might think it's laughable rubbish, but I know of not a single atheist who writes or agitates against "Eastern Philosophies" like Buddhism.

Our family are regulars at a huge Buddhist temple just down the road from our place and I wouldn't be seen dead - literally! - in a church.

Can you provide some examples of this behaviour actually existing?


One of these days I'm going to develop a font specifically for online forums, called Irony Sans Serif.

:lol:

Brilliant!

[JBI]

Actually, the Chinese government likes to take stabs at Buddhism, in the Tibetan form (to the complaint of Westerners, but I won't pick a side). Ultimately, the argument seems founded on the same principles - the powers that control the religion are deemed to be out of hand, and they have cracked down (hard) on Falun Gong, which, if I understand is sort cult type thing like the Scientology of China.

But really, you aren't going to see people denying the Buddha, or the existence of LaoZi. You really aren't going to see people calling it delusional, and ultimately, these religions will get very little criticism of the religion, and will just get criticism over the organizations that distribute them.

In a sense though, the difference comes perhaps from a lack of recognition on the part of the believers as being part of an agonistic movement, which ultimately is a Western phenomenon - Western religions, ultimately, are far more text bound, I would argue, than Eastern ones (West here including the Abrahamic Religions) which leads too a more authoritative structure, as apposed to a more open one. Keep in mind, for instance, that the term Hindu actually was coined by Colonists trying to understand the beliefs of the region - it wasn't, in a sense, a religion until it became constructed as one in the colonial period - more of a way of life.

The Hellenizing of these religions then, has not altered them enough to create too big authority wholes - the understanding of the religion is still flowing, and isn't defined - there is no one body controlling everything - no Vatican or whatever, and as a result, there is no real opposition.

[NikolaiI]

But really, you aren't going to see people denying the Buddha, or the existence of LaoZi. You really aren't going to see people calling it delusional, and ultimately, these religions will get very little criticism of the religion, and will just get criticism over the organizations that distribute them.

Eh, true, perhaps, but I've been called delusional - which is a rather unpleasant thing, people should not say this kind of thing, you know! - for saying little else than what is in parts of the Tao Te Ching. For instance my understanding of God is no different from my understanding of the Tao - in the words of Laozi, it is the source of infinite worlds. Laozi says, how do I know it is true? I look within myself and know it is true. And what he says about the Tao is very similar to what Hindu rishis said about God or transcendental reality.

I have always been completely fascinated by Doaism. Is the Tao real then? Does it exist? It's called infinite in the Tao Te Ching. I haven't really ever thought of God as anything else than what Laozi describes the Tao as.

[The Atheist]

Actually, the Chinese government likes to take stabs at Buddhism, in the Tibetan form (to the complaint of Westerners, but I won't pick a side). Ultimately, the argument seems founded on the same principles - the powers that control the religion are deemed to be out of hand, and they have cracked down (hard) on Falun Gong, which, if I understand is sort cult type thing like the Scientology of China.

I'd have to argue pretty strongly that while the leaders in China are atheistic, the oppression of Falun Gong - Buddhism to a lesser extent - has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with an organisation which recognises an alternative voice to the government and can make huge numbers of people work in unison. The sight of tens of tens of thousands of people doing synchronised anything is anathema to dictators.

I've been intinately involved with Falun Gong members and join their protest outside the Chinese Embassy in Auckland from time to time. They quietly smile at this huge, mad Western man who stands among their silent protest.

One thing - Falun Gong is to Scientology in the way that shark is to a hippo. Scientology is just a scam; Falun Gong is a large, ponderous beast of great power solely because it's big. It is therefore a threat. Pretty bloody stupid all round in my opinion.

:flare:

(Hey, I got to use that flamey thing - because the history of a certain, large Asian country's human rights regarding the Falun Gong is negligibly reported on, but we snuggle up to it through economic necessity appals me, but I won't get into that for fear of the P word!)

Back to.....

....which god was I bashing?

:)

Seriously, if they were all like Vishnu and Buddha (not really a god, but close enough as makes no difference) I wouldn't even bother calling myself an atheist.

[JBI]

Oh, I didn't say they cracked down on them because they were a religion, I merely wanted to point out that they cracked down on them because they were an organized body. - keep in mind, for instance, that there is a protest - as soon as there is a protest, there is an opposition to authority, and, as you put it they are a threat because they are big, and quickly spreading.

But again, the major point is, they are striking the institution, not the actual belief system, though Fulan Gong seems only to be an institution, and not really to be a full blown religion, as it has no great historical significance, or oral or even textual tradition that existed outside of contemporary times. In that sense, it is similar in a sense to Scientology, in that it is annoying, and quickly spreading, except China isn't The US, and their value and hierarchical systems don't tolerate those sorts of disturbances and fluctuations in power.

In truth, I am simply disturbed by how there are always weirdo cults popping up everywhere even today. Hell, as they say, the difference between a cult and a religion is 10 years.

[JBI]

Eh, true, perhaps, but I've been called delusional - which is a rather unpleasant thing, people should not say this kind of thing, you know! - for saying little else than what is in parts of the Tao Te Ching. For instance my understanding of God is no different from my understanding of the Tao - in the words of Laozi, it is the source of infinite worlds. Laozi says, how do I know it is true? I look within myself and know it is true. And what he says about the Tao is very similar to what Hindu rishis said about God or transcendental reality.

I have always been completely fascinated by Doaism. Is the Tao real then? Does it exist? It's called infinite in the Tao Te Ching. I haven't really ever thought of God as anything else than what Laozi describes the Tao as.

You seem to have missed the first point of Taoism though, from right at the beginning of the text (Section I I believe);

The Tao that is able to be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that is able to be named is not the eternal name.

The unnameable is the eternal - the naming is the mother of all particular things.


In other words, the fact that you ponder if the Tao is real or not isn't the point - the point is, that the actual way to understand things is to break apart the categorization of all things, which, ultimately, is the exact opposite of Greek and by extension, Western philosophy which, especially after Aristotle, to categorize everything.

Thereby, by denying the name, and denying the actual answer to everything, we are left within the infinite - beyond all relative understanding of the world. If one continues on, for instance, he argues that beauty is only beautiful next to ugliness, etc. etc., thereby, again by denying the binary of categorization and ignoring all comparisons and values.

I think the Tao is closer to what Derrida called an Aporia - at any rate, it is like an infinite Aporia, that is a complete lack of anything - it is similar in a sense to God, but instead, as LaoZi put it, when we name it, we aren't talking about the real thing, only a rationalized perception of it - the real thing is beyond everything - it essentially is nihilistic.

[NikolaiI]

You seem to have missed the first point of Taoism though, from right at the beginning of the text (Section I I believe);

The Tao that is able to be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that is able to be named is not the eternal name.

The unnameable is the eternal - the naming is the mother of all particular things.


In other words, the fact that you ponder if the Tao is real or not isn't the point - the point is, that the actual way to understand things is to break apart the categorization of all things, which, ultimately, is the exact opposite of Greek and by extension, Western philosophy which, especially after Aristotle, to categorize everything.

Thereby, by denying the name, and denying the actual answer to everything, we are left within the infinite - beyond all relative understanding of the world. If one continues on, for instance, he argues that beauty is only beautiful next to ugliness, etc. etc., thereby, again by denying the binary of categorization and ignoring all comparisons and values.

I think the Tao is closer to what Derrida called an Aporia - at any rate, it is like an infinite Aporia, that is a complete lack of anything - it is similar in a sense to God, but instead, as LaoZi put it, when we name it, we aren't talking about the real thing, only a rationalized perception of it - the real thing is beyond everything - it essentially is nihilistic.

I thought you were one to scoff at anyone who said their belief in the spiritual was an essence beyoned relative understandings of the world. :)

But anyway I didn't miss that point. I am well aware of it. And I agree with you about everything. The real thing is beyond everything. The mantra in the Prajna Paramitam Heart Sutra, mentioned as the great mantra, is Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Sva, or Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond, Gone Completely Beyond, All Awakened, So Be It! In other words - beyond everything. I don't agree it is nihilistic, but that's not really an issue.

[MarkBastable]

Can I just say, incidentally, that I have nothing much against any sort of religious belief that falls short of burning people, and I really don't think that religious observance is de facto a bad thing. I don't care how supportable or ludicrous may be the rationale for religious belief, or the lack of it, because it's just what people do, and some of us believe Elvis is alive and who cares?

To me, that is an entirely separate argument to the one about the existence of God. Even if everyone on the planet were a staunch atheist, God would continue to exist if he existed at all. And even if everyone were a committed believer, none of that belief would bring him into being if he didn't exist in the first place.

So - the existence of God has nothing to do with anyone's belief in God, or lack of it.

And that's why the argument is not about what people believe, but about the bases of those beliefs. For an argument for or against the existence of God to be worth anything, it has to work whether or not you believe in him.

[MSDGreen]

I feel out of place jumping into this thread now, but what the hey.

No matter how much it breaks my mothers heart I can not allow myself to believe in something without any credible evidence. I do not believe in magic, so it boggles my mind why people accept an all powerful magical being giving us free will and then no evidence of its existence. I understand that death is scary, but to believe that there is a heaven to hide this fear seems like a horrible thing to do to yourself. I think that religion does bring some good to the world, but it is far outweighed by the atrocities done in its name.

It is exciting and depressing knowing that I only have one life to live. Almost like a constant reminder that I have to do something great before I am no more. Life can be ended at any moment, and I don't want to spend it on my knees.

[NikolaiI]

I feel out of place jumping into this thread now, but what the hey.

No matter how much it breaks my mothers heart I can not allow myself to believe in something without any credible evidence. I do not believe in magic, so it boggles my mind why people accept an all powerful magical being giving us free will and then no evidence of its existence. I understand that death is scary, but to believe that there is a heaven to hide this fear seems like a horrible thing to do to yourself. I think that religion does bring some good to the world, but it is far outweighed by the atrocities done in its name.

It is exciting and depressing knowing that I only have one life to live. Almost like a constant reminder that I have to do something great before I am no more. Life can be ended at any moment, and I don't want to spend it on my knees.

Oh don't feel out of place at all. That's the only way to enter discussion is jumping in.

For me there's not a fear of death, actually not at all. I do have a small fear about the pain which could go with death. As for death, I am quite sure that life and death are two parts of one coin. Some perhaps believe in heaven to hide the fear of death - I do not. I do not believe in heaven because others have told me they did. They would be foolishness.

My idea of heaven is a mix between Buddhism and Hinduism. I've had experiences which quite enlightening, which led me, in effect, to the understanding that beneath everything is peace and bliss, and also, that beneath all is a transcendental reality. Swami Vivekananda said exactly what I believe, and what I've experienced to be true;

"Herein lies the whole secret of Existence. Waves may roll over the surface and tempest rage, but deep down there is the stratum of infinite calmness, infinite peace, and infinite bliss."

So that is the only thing I know to be true. Why? In my experiences there was a constant thought: this alone is true, never forget. I do not always live completely to the standard ideal of life, and I have to strive in meditation and mindfulness to find peace in my life. Everyone living here on earth lives here on earth. But I also believe - or know, or something in between - that there is at the root something eternal and infinite.

The rest is just the fun of learning.

[islandclimber]

heaven is just one view of religion.. I can't say the belief that there is some sort of creator god/ divine force/ whatever that got the ball rolling is such a ridiculous belief... for that doesn't at all fly in the face of science, it just is one more way of providing an explanation for how existence began... and in point of fact, science has no explanation as to why things began... as to what caused them to begin when they did, etc.. hence the "oh so" human need for Religion and to a lesser degree philosophy...

but to say that the good religion does in the world is far outweighed by the atrocities... well that may be true of some religions.. but it is also true of science, for the atrocities committed using the inventions of science, the destruction of this world and the environment using the inventions of science, well they far outweigh the good that science has done in this world.. in fact even the supposedly good things science does, have pretty big downsides as well.. modern medicine has done more to contribute to overpopulation than anything in the world...

TheAthiest, Sorry if I came across as being vehement, not what I meant to sound like at all.. anyways in reviewing what you wrote and what was written a little more closely I see no problem with agreeing with you in reference to Young Earth Creationism type religion, which I agree is totally absurd as it flies in the face of all science and reason.. and though I do prefer to stick my tongue out at reason, well sometimes that even becomes a little ridiculous :D

And I also agree that there are pretty much no respected creationism figures in science, at least of that sort of creationism, but many (and I never said most for of course not most, but there are still many) scientists do believe that science itself points to something behind it all, and often are theistic, or at least in a more eastern sense believe there is something infinite and incomprehensible behind it all... somewhere in the recesses of this religious section there's a thread about this and a link to an article by Schroedinger about this very thing that is quite interesting.. or so I found it.. but anyways as I said sorry if I came across as vehement it is not what I meant at all, as I think your insight is often quite valid and thought provoking :)

in regards to criticizing eastern religions/ philosophies/ etc. well that is more personal experience with atheists I know, who ridicule and speak derisively about these things, and as you say you think it is a load of rubbish, well though you don't attack it, some atheists don't hesitate to make that opinion known in my personal experience... I'm not saying many, just maybe a small minority... and to be quite honest the worst people I have found with regards to criticizing buddhism, taoism, etc. are more fundamentalist members of the big three western religions...

anyways enough with that...


JBI, what you say there is all true, but I also think the use of the term nihilism with regards to Taoism, Buddhism, and other such apparently world denying religions/philosophies is more of a western mistake than a reality.. or so is my opinion.. One could find strains of Nihilism, skepticism, relativism, mysticism, contrarianism, ethical intuitionism, naturalist stoicism, primitivism, pluralism, transcendent monism, in Taoism. but to define it as any single one is a misinterpreting what it is in my opinion...

[NikolaiI]

by the way, great post Nikolai :)

Thanks :) and the same to you (the post above this one)

[hampusforev]

You non believers just don't understand believers. You think it's a calculation. It's not a calculation. It's God entering your heart. You either feel Him or you don't. The calculations are rationalizations by both believers and non believers. If you've never had Him in your heart you don't understand it.

See, this is what it all boils down to. There's no argument here, so there's no idea to argue with believers. They have drunk the Kool-aid, it's all over, they won't explain it and if you question it, it's your ignorance that's the problem, not their unwillingness to explain.

Maybe my post is all out of place in this thread, I haven't read all posts, I started at the beginning and saw Virgil's post, which pretty much confirmed why I don't bother arguing religion.

Religion is an evolutionary trait, I read this article recently, which argued that the more rules and restrictions a particular brand of theism had the more likely it is to survive. Not to say that there isn't a force greater than what we know, something that doesn't need to be explained scientifically, I cringe when I hear people trying to rationalize love, who the f--- cares!? It's great, it's the nutrition of songs, poems and suicide, that's enough for me.
The damage done by religious people is enough for me to see that it's a load of crap spewed by leaders to suppress the masses, and anybody who follows organized religion is part of the problem, as I see it.

[The Atheist]

Maybe my post is all out of place in this thread, I haven't read all posts, I started at the beginning and saw Virgil's post, which pretty much confirmed why I don't bother arguing religion.

And yet you just did, and pretty vehemently, too!

:D


... I cringe when I hear people trying to rationalize love, who the f--- cares!? It's great, it's the nutrition of songs, poems and suicide, that's enough for me.

Should've been here last month, we did just that - rationalised love. Turns out love can be rational in origin and irrational in application. Life doesn't always turn out how we like.

You just need to remember that life is a simple dichotomy - there is either natural or supernatural and love and the universe are either rationally explained or they are not. Nothing gets a free pass - religion, love, telepathy, empathy, hatred, psychics, altruism, UFOs - none of them.

Unless one is agnostic, but I find fence-sitting pretty uncomfortable.


The damage done by religious people is enough for me to see that it's a load of crap spewed by leaders to suppress the masses, and anybody who follows organized religion is part of the problem, as I see it.

Pretty broad statement,

There's an awful lot of evidence that religion is of net benefit to mankind.

You have, however, provided timely proof of internet anti-theism, so thanks for that.

[MSDGreen]

but to say that the good religion does in the world is far outweighed by the atrocities... well that may be true of some religions.. but it is also true of science, for the atrocities committed using the inventions of science, the destruction of this world and the environment using the inventions of science, well they far outweigh the good that science has done in this world.. in fact even the supposedly good things science does, have pretty big downsides as well.. modern medicine has done more to contribute to overpopulation than anything in the world...

Maybe it is human nature. Advances in science seem to get further when being used for military application. Without religion we may just find different reasons to kill each other.

[islandclimber]

Maybe it is human nature. Advances in science seem to get further when being used for military application. Without religion we may just find different reasons to kill each other.

I would agree with this... I would say it is human nature to desire power, wealth, material gain, etc, etc. and to be willing to use any means necessary to reach this.. of course this is not all humans are like this, but as long as even the slimmest minority of people are like this it will always be human nature to seek strife and conflict for gain, religion is just one of the more oft-used excuses to justify atrocities...

[The Atheist]

Maybe it is human nature. Advances in science seem to get further when being used for military application.

It's actually more the case that demand for war material has driven a lot of science.


Without religion we may just find different reasons to kill each other.

Far more wars have started for territorial reasons than sectarian ones.

[islandclimber]

It's actually more the case that demand for war material has driven a lot of science.



Far more wars have started for territorial reasons than sectarian ones.

this is true.. and not to minimize the negative effects religions have had on the world for there have been many.. wars begun with sectarian pretenses quite often have other motives... territorial, resource driven, etc. etc..

the demand for cutting edge in technology for war, whether it is just armaments, weaponry, etc, or things with more civilian applications, largely fueled the rapid pace of scientific progress in the 19th and 20th centuries... it's interesting to look at the post-cold war, and post-arms race world of science, it seems quite a bit less militarily driven, but I could be wrong here... and I'm getting way off topic now :p

[MSDGreen]

I would agree with this... I would say it is human nature to desire power, wealth, material gain, etc, etc. and to be willing to use any means necessary to reach this.. of course this is not all humans are like this, but as long as even the slimmest minority of people are like this it will always be human nature to seek strife and conflict for gain, religion is just one of the more oft-used excuses to justify atrocities...

I think we are in agreement. :banana:

[Virgil]

See, this is what it all boils down to. There's no argument here, so there's no idea to argue with believers. They have drunk the Kool-aid, it's all over, they won't explain it and if you question it, it's your ignorance that's the problem, not their unwillingness to explain.

Maybe my post is all out of place in this thread, I haven't read all posts, I started at the beginning and saw Virgil's post, which pretty much confirmed why I don't bother arguing religion.

Religion is an evolutionary trait, I read this article recently, which argued that the more rules and restrictions a particular brand of theism had the more likely it is to survive. Not to say that there isn't a force greater than what we know, something that doesn't need to be explained scientifically, I cringe when I hear people trying to rationalize love, who the f--- cares!? It's great, it's the nutrition of songs, poems and suicide, that's enough for me.
The damage done by religious people is enough for me to see that it's a load of crap spewed by leaders to suppress the masses, and anybody who follows organized religion is part of the problem, as I see it.

And every thing you say confirms exactly what you quote from me. I really couldn't care less what you believe or don't. You're exactly why I don't discuss religion. Rational calculation only knows a short segment of an infinite line. I leave you with a quote from T.S. Eliot:


What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water.
from The Wasteland

[JBI]

Wow, Eliot way out of context there! he was talking about the bankruptcy of the realm inhabited by the impotent Fisher King - the unreal city (London, and by extension taken to represent all of Western civilization, especially Europe).

Beyond that, given its context in the poem, I tend to associate that with the dominant sexual frustration (again, referencing the impotence as structural myth that pervades the poem) and the inability to experience the real emotions - the desire to cling to the memory of the Hofgarten, or the desperate longing for a return to the Irish girl - the inability to embrace the Hyacinth girl - to feel real emotion.

In a sense, the Eliot quote is on topic, if you are keeping with the early interpretation of the Waste Land as a world without God, but it does not deal with an Aporia, rather a spiritual, or perhaps sexual emptiness in culture, filled in by meaningless acts, and failed emotions.

The Broken images, in a sense, and the handful of dust are foreshadowing the Madame Sosostris bit, but also the Desert imagery which dominates section III - I can't see how that has to do with rationalizing, though it is a great quote.


Now, if we were to go to Four Quartets, we could probably find more fitting quotes, but none as beautifully written (I think we can thank Pound for that).

Though, I do thank you for the passages - it has been some time since I've visited the Waste Land, and it is still shocking how great that poem is.

[Virgil]

Wow, Eliot way out of context there! he was talking about the bankruptcy of the realm inhabited by the impotent Fisher King - the unreal city (London, and by extension taken to represent all of Western civilization, especially Europe).

Beyond that, given its context in the poem, I tend to associate that with the dominant sexual frustration (again, referencing the impotence as structural myth that pervades the poem) and the inability to experience the real emotions - the desire to cling to the memory of the Hofgarten, or the desperate longing for a return to the Irish girl - the inability to embrace the Hyacinth girl - to feel real emotion.

In a sense, the Eliot quote is on topic, if you are keeping with the early interpretation of the Waste Land as a world without God, but it does not deal with an Aporia, rather a spiritual, or perhaps sexual emptiness in culture, filled in by meaningless acts, and failed emotions.

The Broken images, in a sense, and the handful of dust are foreshadowing the Madame Sosostris bit, but also the Desert imagery which dominates section III - I can't see how that has to do with rationalizing, though it is a great quote.


Now, if we were to go to Four Quartets, we could probably find more fitting quotes, but none as beautifully written (I think we can thank Pound for that).

Though, I do thank you for the passages - it has been some time since I've visited the Waste Land, and it is still shocking how great that poem is.

No, you're wrong. Absolutely wrong. The Wasteland is a world of spiritual dissolution. You cannot read Eliot without a religious context. Eliot is religious in almost everything he wrote. The sexual acts are empty because they have been stripped of religious significance. Look at all the Biblical language in just that passage I quote. But really I was after highlighting this: "for you know only/A heap of broken images," and the inability of man to see the entire universe of things.

[JBI]

No, you're wrong. Absolutely wrong. The Wasteland is a world of spiritual dissolution. You cannot read Eliot without a religious context. Eliot is religious in almost everything he wrote. The sexual acts are empty because they have been stripped of religious significance. Look at all the Biblical language in just that passage I quote. But really I was after highlighting this: "for you know only/A heap of broken images," and the inability of man to see the entire universe of things.

I disagree - the religious reading has been out of fashion since Allen Tate passed away - the state of affairs that point in the poem has nothing to do with lack of Religious meaning and being unable to grasp the universe, but with being unable to feel real emotions, and the bankruptcy of culture and the loss of the poet's gift. The ruined Russian Aristocrat, for instance, or the Hyacinth girl, or the Sailor singing to his Girl left at home, all point to that. This is 1922 T. S. Eliot, keep in mind, he had not converted yet, or become religious - that happened a little later in his career. This is post-war Eliot we are talking about - though there are religious influences and motifs, the poem is not dominated by a religious conversation in the way that Four Quartets is - it isn't that the oracles of the Waste Land cannot see - that isn't the issue - it is that they see too much.

The actual language comes from Ecclesiastes, not any of the Prophetic books -



12:5 Also when they shall be afraid of
that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree
shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire
shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go
about the streets:

12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the
golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or
the wheel broken at the cistern.

12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit
shall return unto God who gave it.

12:8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.


The language merely gestures the bankruptcy of the world of Eliot's Waste Land - the unreal city. The poem itself is dominated by traditionally biblical images, but not actually rooted in the same theological discussion as Four Quartets, or Ash Wednesday. The Desert vs Garden, Water vs. Fire function as significant symbols, but not as a religious allegory. Here we are in the desert, which is empty, with no path forward, and no grail searcher to restore the realm. The Fisher King is impotent, as is the land - a Waste Land - the lines that follow your quote, though they gesture to Isaiah, do not use it to imply the lack of clarity in man's search for understanding, but instead focus on the fallen state of the world - the desert the war has sent civilization into.

That is why Ezekiel is the dominant prophet in the book, replacing the classical models - this is civilization in exile - civilization in the desert, unable to get back to the garden - all the images point to it - Madame Sosostris, for instance, the fake seer who people seek for advice, who holds nothing but a pack of cards (another reference to the broken images), yet pretends to see the light, or the violated painting of Philomela, or the conversation between the angry woman and her husband? - or the discussion between the people in the bar, running out of time - it's a bankrupt world, an unreal city, surrounded by a dirtied Thames (which becomes Wagner's Rhine, missing its Rhinegold).

[Virgil]

Sorry I disagree. The cultural disintegration is a result of spiritual dissolution. Look at the last section of the poem. There is no way you can say this isn't linked to a spiritual theme:


A woman drew her long black hair out tight
And fiddled whisper music on those strings
And bats with baby faces in the violet light
Whistled, and beat their wings
And crawled head downward down a blackened wall
And upside down in air were towers
Tolling reminiscent bells, that kept the hours
And voices singing out of empty cisterns and exhausted wells.
In this decayed hole among the mountains
In the faint moonlight, the grass is singing
Over the tumbled graves, about the chapel
There is the empty chapel, only the wind's home.
It has no windows, and the door swings,
Dry bones can harm no one.
Only a **** stood on the rooftree
Co co rico co co rico 392
In a flash of lightning. Then a damp gust
Bringing rain
Ganga was sunken, and the limp leaves
Waited for rain, while the black clouds
Gathered far distant, over Himavant.
The jungle crouched, humped in silence.
Then spoke the thunder
DA
Datta: what have we given? 401
My friend, blood shaking my heart
The awful daring of a moment's surrender
Which an age of prudence can never retract
By this, and this only, we have existed
Which is not to be found in our obituaries
Or in memories draped by the beneficent spider 407
Or under seals broken by the lean solicitor
In our empty rooms
DA
Dayadhvam: I have heard the key
Turn in the door once and turn once only 411
We think of the key, each in his prison
thinking of the key, each confirms a prison
Only at nightfall, aethereal rumours
Revive for a moment a broken Coriolanus
DA
Damyata: The boat responded
Gaily, to the hand expert with sail and oar
The sea was calm, your heart would have responded
Gaily, when invited, beating obedient
To controlling hands
I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me 424
Shall I at least set my lands in order?
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down
Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina 427
Quando fiam uti chelidon - O swallow swallow 428
Le Prince d'Aquitaine à la tour abolie 429
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo's mad againe. 431
Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata. 401
Shantih shantih shantih 433

Chapel, bones, c**k crowing, dry bones, and the Hindu spirituality. Sorry but you are way off base.

[JBI]

Um, no I'm not - the setting is in the chapel, where the knight (Percival) undergoes his trials to retrieve the grail, and restore the realm - the girl herself stands in as Blaunchfleur, the maiden to rescue from the destroyed besieged castle. That's what the myth behind that passage is, woven with the Hindu scriptures, to signify the trials of the self in the progression forward - the trials then are transformed, to perhaps be society's, but also the poet's. In the end though, things sort of just die off, don't they - we are left in mid-trial, as the fate of the world, the fate of the grail quest is not known - we only keep going, keep fighting the Waste Land, as the death and destruction within it absorb us.

[Virgil]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but you are looking at the trees and not the forest. And you seem to think that a single statement, like the central thesis of an essay, applies to a work of art, and that works of art don't echo and flesh out with multiple layers. Let's just say we disagree.

[hampusforev]

And yet you just did, and pretty vehemently, too!

:D

Oh, it seems I did. But, let's say I recognize the futility of it then :lol:



Should've been here last month, we did just that - rationalised love. Turns out love can be rational in origin and irrational in application. Life doesn't always turn out how we like.


Well, I suppose one can be philosophical about it. I would argue that love is a choice you make, you have the initial lust, which isn't a choice, and then you choose to go forward from there. But as far as rationalizing it, I just don't give a damn.




You just need to remember that life is a simple dichotomy - there is either natural or supernatural and love and the universe are either rationally explained or they are not. Nothing gets a free pass - religion, love, telepathy, empathy, hatred, psychics, altruism, UFOs - none of them.

Unless one is agnostic, but I find fence-sitting pretty uncomfortable.


Life is simple dichotomy? No, I wouldn't think so, that's a pattern that I think you're trying to impose on it. If you're talking about science, I'm with you there, but as far as rationally explaining everything? Nah, I can sort of leave it to the unknown.



Pretty broad statement,

There's an awful lot of evidence that religion is of net benefit to mankind.

You have, however, provided timely proof of internet anti-theism, so thanks for that.

I'd say it probably has it's benefits, otherwise it wouldn't survive if you believe in the Darwinian view of the world, spiritually inclined people would die off from all the time they spend praying and ruminating pointless spritual minutia.
As I see it, people who accept the Bible, or the Qu'ran as either the inspired word of God or the actual word of God are essentially providing the loonies, who base all their decisions on religion, with ammo. Now I'm heading down ominous paths here, I don't want to come across as Hitchens-esque or Dawkins... esque, I think their notion of "the world would be better without spirituality" is retarded. Man I get a headache from this, I can't keep my train of thought from derailing. I'm not anti-theism, I'm just anti group-think, which is basically being anti-human :/

[aloe]

I enjoy reading this thread though some have expressed a disinterest in the same old arguments. I enjoy it because I'm glad some people are thinking big thoughts about big subjects.

Some have expressed an opinion that religion is a way of hoping for a favorable afterlife. I think that is a good part of the reason why religions have been an important part of almost all cultures. In this age of science and (for some) an abundance of life's necessities I think we tend to forget that for most of human history peoples have used religion as a way of ensuring the crops would grow and life could continue. They sought to please greater powers who could give assistance. Another reason for religions is a desire to explain origins; here again science offers a replacement in the theory of evolution.

For myself, science does not adequately explain the origin and difference between the living and the non-living. I still find a need for assistance in my life and the help of a higher power. I find it comforting to know that those whose lives have been filled with suffering and/or cut short, as well as the special people I have known and loved will live again in (as my religion teaches) a better world. The group I am a part of does not believe that atheists, agnostics, Buddists, Catholics or any other believers or non-believers are doomed to burn in hell. Instead we believe all will have the opportunity to know God and live forever in peace, joy, and happiness...in the future.

Have a little sympathy for those who do believe in hell and try to save you from it - they do it out of love though it can be annoying!

[RichardHresko]

I enjoy reading this thread though some have expressed a disinterest in the same old arguments. I enjoy it because I'm glad some people are thinking big thoughts about big subjects.

Some have expressed an opinion that religion is a way of hoping for a favorable afterlife. I think that is a good part of the reason why religions have been an important part of almost all cultures. In this age of science and (for some) an abundance of life's necessities I think we tend to forget that for most of human history peoples have used religion as a way of ensuring the crops would grow and life could continue. They sought to please greater powers who could give assistance. Another reason for religions is a desire to explain origins; here again science offers a replacement in the theory of evolution.

For myself, science does not adequately explain the origin and difference between the living and the non-living. I still find a need for assistance in my life and the help of a higher power. I find it comforting to know that those whose lives have been filled with suffering and/or cut short, as well as the special people I have known and loved will live again in (as my religion teaches) a better world. The group I am a part of does not believe that atheists, agnostics, Buddists, Catholics or any other believers or non-believers are doomed to burn in hell. Instead we believe all will have the opportunity to know God and live forever in peace, joy, and happiness...in the future.

Have a little sympathy for those who do believe in hell and try to save you from it - they do it out of love though it can be annoying!

I think that this is a very well-balanced, thoughtful post that may well possess some elements of a way to clarify as well as cool down some aspects of the argument.

First, a few clarifications:

1) as was pointed out earlier, metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question of the nature of reality. As was also pointed out, metaphysics is not the exclusive domain of those who allow for a non-material aspect of reality (whether religious or not). Materialists have chosen a metaphysics as well.

2) It is an error to suppose that science can settle the metaphysical question of the nature of reality, even in principle. Science has as its domain the answering of questions relating to how commensurate physical objects interact with each other. Science has nothing to say about objects (if any) that can not be measured. The idea that materialism is somehow sanctioned by science is mistaken and based on a profound misunderstanding of what science does. To argue that materialism is proven because a system designed to create understanding of material objects does not use non-material objects to understand material objects is, by its nature, circular and invalid.

3) Therefore materialism is neither more nor less rational than a metaphysical position that allows for non-material existence. It is merely another position.

Those points being made, Aloe's remark that science does not adequately fill very human needs is extremely cogent.

Science addresses how things act -- not whether these actions should be initiated. To use a graphic example: science can tell us how to create a sword that can cut through a helmet, but not whether humans should go to war.

Aloe points to what I think is an indisputable fact of human nature -- we are not reducible to a deterministic machine, or, at the very minimum, we are not made happy when treated as though we were deterministic machines.

Or, expressed another way, the materialist position that all that matters for human society is the satisfaction of material needs that can be determined by scientific means, is clearly untenable.

[The Atheist]

First, a few clarifications:

Opinions would be a far better description. Clarifications is the term when dealing with empirical matters, and as you note yourself, it's not a subject suited to empiricism.


1) as was pointed out earlier, metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question of the nature of reality. As was also pointed out, metaphysics is not the exclusive domain of those who allow for a non-material aspect of reality (whether religious or not). Materialists have chosen a metaphysics as well.

I completely disagree, because the logic of the position - in my kind of logic - says the two options are reality or solipsism, but I've said that to you before, so we can just continue to disagree on it.

Calling materialism a form of metaphysics is like calling Mt Everest a hill.

Sure, they both have their merits, but one side's merits fill a supertanker while the other side can barely fill a Vespa.


2) It is an error to suppose that science can settle the metaphysical question of the nature of reality, even in principle.

You know we disagree on this as well.

That's a sweeping statement and no more. Again, agnosticism may have some points, but given science being able to ask most questions we've asked of it, I think demanding that it can not happen is just naive.

That is a truly faith-based position.


Science has as its domain the answering of questions relating to how commensurate physical objects interact with each other. Science has nothing to say about objects (if any) that can not be measured.

Objects that cannot be measured. Physical objects...

What, exactly, are pbjects which can't be measured? What is a non-physical object?

If these things exist, they must have some properties. An invisible, immeasurable object/entity/force which has no properties could not, in all honesty, be said to exist at all.

It's the agnostic equivalent of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Crikey, even my seven year old can see through that.

Once those non-physical objects have some properties, they will be identifiable. 2000 years ago, there were lots of things which were invisible to man but still existed, and over the years, we've learnt a bit about most of them, from gamma-rays to gravity, so if such things as the non-material exists, I again feel it's naive and misleading to suggest that science cannot and will not ever be able to deal with it.


The idea that materialism is somehow sanctioned by science is mistaken and based on a profound misunderstanding of what science does.

Now, here, I can categoricall note that you're just wrong in your description and stance of materialism. This is something that a materialist ought to be able to articulate, so I'll have a go.

Firstly, it is completely incorrect to suggest that materialism claims any sanction by any branch of science. Materialism simply uses the results and tools of science to conclude that the idea of non-physical forces is absurd and not worth pursuing, thereby developing an alternative and materialistic view to "life, the universe and everything" [Thanks DNA, for that phrase]

Secondly, you've made a statement about how materialists see science. I'd like you to expand on the "profound misunderstanding", because I am a materialist from way back and I talk to plenty, yet not a single person I've ever met who is able to understand materialism sufficiently to describe himself as one has any misunderstandings about science.

I'd vouch for materialists' understanding and usage of science to be misunderstood by non-materialists, so I'm very interested to see you back that up.


To argue that materialism is proven because a system designed to create understanding of material objects does not use non-material objects to understand material objects is, by its nature, circular and invalid.

Again, a dismissal of a position based on incorrect information. Who argues that materialism is proven? Again, I know of no materialists who would make that claim. "Proven sufficiently to completely disregard non-material forces/entities/objects until one is found." might be fair, but proven? Never.

I'm sorry to say that you seem to be dissecting a parody of a materialist than the real thing.


Those points being made, Aloe's remark that science does not adequately fill very human needs is extremely cogent.

I find this interesting.

Does the fact that I consider love to be a purely material thing, with no basis outside of evolution make the love I have for my wife, children and friends different to yours of anyone else's?

I find that I have precisely the same hopes, dreams, emotions and fears as any theist or Buddhist. The idea that materialism somehow negates or lessens human experience is plain wrong.

Which human needs are not met by science?


Science addresses how things act -- not whether these actions should be initiated. To use a graphic example: science can tell us how to create a sword that can cut through a helmet, but not whether humans should go to war.

Which science has explored the question?

We've had several thousand years of theocratic-based society and wars haven't exactly gone away.

Coberst raises the very point in his thread on morality in Philosophy right now - go and check it out.

If you could point me to where a scientific enquiry & study has been initiated whether humans should go to war, I'd be grateful, because I don't think it's ever been attempted. Making up a team would be fun - geneticists, biologists, physicists, statisticians and a couple of anthropologists to sort it all out.

It's all very well to demand that science can't do this, but has anyone ever tried to approach it from a scientific view?

What if the answer is "War is good, because it improves the gene pool and will help the survival of the species"?

Maybe you wouldn't really want science to answer those questions, but again, I feel it's wrong to assume it cannot.


Aloe points to what I think is an indisputable fact of human nature -- we are not reducible to a deterministic machine, or, at the very minimum, we are not made happy when treated as though we were deterministic machines.

How many examples do you need to disprove this theory?

In general, I think you're right. I always say that people believe in god/s because they want to, and your statement is a good way of saying that. I don't believe I have a lower happiness or enjoyment of life quotient than anyone else alive. I certainly wouldn't swap with many people. I have a beautiful wife with whom I am emphatically and ecstatically in love with, four amazing kids...... well, three amazing kids and a teenager..... I own and run a couple of businesses and have a lifestyle which is full ans satsfying.

Some people do need to see the fairies at the bottom of the garden, and that's fine.

Not needing to does not require any reduction in quality of life. I'm prety sure my pragmatic, materialistic view of life is an immense benefit to me because I wouldn't be happy deluding myself.

Your "indisputable fact of nature" is again, plain wrong.


Or, expressed another way, the materialist position that all that matters for human society is the satisfaction of material needs that can be determined by scientific means, is clearly untenable.

Damn, I wish you'd explain that to all the humanists I know. Every one of them is empathic, generous to a fault, happy, contented, family-oriented, anti-war, anti-violence, altrusitic and hardworking. They are people who choose to add value to the planet without needing to either impress a deity or in fear of one.

How untenable is that?

[RichardHresko]

Science, properly understood, is a methodology by which one can come to an understanding of objects and actions that are sensible (in the philosophical sense, that is, can be sensed). It has nothing, pro or con, to say about anything that is only intelligible (in the philosophical sense -- meaning perceivable by the mind alone). It is also descriptive rather than prescriptive -- that is, it will explain how to achieve a goal but can not, in itself, offer guidance as to what that goal should be.

To make the claim that materialism is somehow more real than another system because science has revealed nothing that isn't sensible in the philosophical sense is an error and derives from a misapprehension of what science does and how it does it.

One can mask (though not remove) one's error by labelling any questions that are either unanswerable in one's framework or assertions that there are needs not met by one's chosen model as irrational, based on fairy tales, or a misunderstanding of one's position. The holes still exist.

Radical Materialism, like any other faith-based position that lays claim to undisputed superiority in describing all of reality, ends up doing violence to reality since it has no choice but to eliminate what does not suit it. Those who insist on such positions are no different in kind from any other religious fundamentalist, and certainly have no greater claim to rationality.

The ultimate error is, in the final analysis, not in being materialist, atheist, monotheist, pantheist, or whatever, but in adopting the position that there is a single system that has all the answers (or even all the so-called 'relevant' answers).

[LMK]

I went to a Bible discussion today, where a group of people talked about topics related to Bible, and I was shocked to find that some people did commit themselves to God. They could even remember a particular passage in my Bible, which I bought lately. However I only went there to have people to talk to in English. I wonder how they've convinced themselves of God, Jesus, and everything that was realated in Bible, when nobody could have given a piece of evidence to what had happened thousands of years ago. It's really interesting to see how those people put their trust and energy in some sort of myth and take it as a guide to everything they do. As far as I am concerned, I will join some of these discussions gladly, but will not surrender my soul to any invisible power.

That is very interesting, because I met a woman from Russia a few months ago, who learned English in a similar manner, from the Bible and through Bible Study, but who is not nor will likely ever be Christian.

I just found that to be interesting that someone else found learning English that way to be useful...religious preferences aside.

[The Atheist]

The ultimate error is, in the final analysis, not in being materialist, atheist, monotheist, pantheist, or whatever, but in adopting the position that there is a single system that has all the answers (or even all the so-called 'relevant' answers).

Again, we can sit and disagree on this, and on several fronts as well.

Describing science as a "single system" is wrong, but I'll leave that for the more important meat.

The real problem is, your dismissal of materialism works on your own philosophy as well. You're taking a position that questions cannot be answered, which is a hell of a lot more faith-based than the materialists' "reality is real" position.

Why do you find it necessary to attempt to denigrate materialism by referring to it as "faith-based"?

It's drawing one of the longer bows I could ever imagine, given the overwhelming evidence for the material and none whatsoever for the non-material. It's back to Mt Everst and a molehill. You're welcome to call it faith based if it fulfils a need for you, but I find it ironic that alternative views always try to paint it in those colours. Cute semantic device, maybe, but completely and utterly incorrect. Any materialist would immediately embrace the irrational, invisible entities/forces/objects which may or may not exist - just as soon as they are shown to exist and have properties. That's the bit you fail to accept.

I'll leave it there, as I have no hopes of you accepting the facts of the matter, and I note that you haven't made any attempt to discuss the glaring errors I pointed out in your previous post.

[LMK]

People may have their own thoughts and opinions about...well...anything and the very fact that people have thoughts and opinions can lead one to intuit that there is something beyond the physical. There is the mind along with the brain.

Is it such as stretch then to think or believe that there is a spirit along with the physical of all things sentient?

~L

[RichardHresko]

There is no problem with adopting a stance that the only reality is material as long as one understands that:

1) Logically speaking, science can give no support for this position. This is because science neither claims to, nor can, make statements about non-material entities (even on the level of testing their existence). To say that there is more evidence for material reality than others is flawed on several levels. The most obvious is that the question of the existence of non-material entities is a qualitative rather a quantitative one. To invoke mountains and molehills of evidence is to betray a lack of understanding of something as basic as what the question is about.

2) Beliefs in non-material entities and material entities are certainly not mutually exclusive. Therefore it is pointless to cite science's success with material objects as in some way constituting a rejection of non-material ones. Further, understanding that science does not deal with the question of non-material objects shows that the invocation of science in this discussion is irrelevant.

3)Materialism is a position that can not be proven in the sense that the only reality is the material one, and is thus a matter of preference or faith, just as much as religion is. That certain matters of faith are obvious to a believer is a phenomenon with which most people are familiar. Equally familiar is the sense that a believer's insistence on the obviousness of the truth of the believer's belief is a sign of emotion and not reason.

4)'Faith' is not a pejorative term since it accurately describes trust in an unproven or unprovable assumption (such as God or radical materialism).

Once it is understood that radical materialism does not hold a privileged intellectual position compared to other metaphysics one can then move on to something that is worthwhile: what insights can a radical materialism offer in addressing particular problems?

To deal directly with LMK's question:

Radical materialism here can offer a model that gives a simplified view of apparent sentient behavior as being the admittedly complex physical and biochemical interactions in the being. That being the case, any perceived difficulties can be dealt with by addressing the underlying necessarily physical (including chemical) causes.

If such an approach is not considered acceptable a different model would need to be adopted.

[LMK]

I'm not sure I would phrase it 'apparent sentient behavior' because a behavior; an action, a gesture, even a vocalization might be considered material. Unless it is the behavior itself that you are referring to as apparent.

However the fact that a living thing is sentient can be beyond material, there might be no outword sign that a thought or a reasoning has taken place.

Now apply the brain/mind idea to the body/spirit. I can be seated in aan auditorium nothing is touching my body in any way from one minute to the next, but then the lights dim, a conductor begins the overture and I feel something in the music, it touches me beyond the reverberation of the sound waves that literally might hit my body, it is not a physical thing, although synaptic responses might well be occuring.

Love, anger, these might or might not begin as thoughts, they might begin by words that are read, or the sight of someone. The trigger might be beyond physiological, but may include it.

The High School pep-squad gets the fans who might otherwise just sit on the bleachers to get excited, to tap into that team 'spirit' and to feel something.

Yes, chemical responses that we might have no control over can account for a portion of emotions in a spectrum, but if we are breaking it down simply to the biology then would a word or a person that incites in one person certain feeling, not generate the same reation from all persons of similar physiology?

~L

[The Atheist]

...but if we are breaking it down simply to the biology then would a word or a person that incites in one person certain feeling, not generate the same reation from all persons of similar physiology?

~L

No.

Regardless of genetics, we are conditioned by our upbringing, so the responses will never be identical.

[RichardHresko]

I'm not sure I would phrase it 'apparent sentient behavior' because a behavior; an action, a gesture, even a vocalization might be considered material. Unless it is the behavior itself that you are referring to as apparent.

However the fact that a living thing is sentient can be beyond material, there might be no outword sign that a thought or a reasoning has taken place.

Now apply the brain/mind idea to the body/spirit. I can be seated in aan auditorium nothing is touching my body in any way from one minute to the next, but then the lights dim, a conductor begins the overture and I feel something in the music, it touches me beyond the reverberation of the sound waves that literally might hit my body, it is not a physical thing, although synaptic responses might well be occuring.

Love, anger, these might or might not begin as thoughts, they might begin by words that are read, or the sight of someone. The trigger might be beyond physiological, but may include it.

The High School pep-squad gets the fans who might otherwise just sit on the bleachers to get excited, to tap into that team 'spirit' and to feel something.

Yes, chemical responses that we might have no control over can account for a portion of emotions in a spectrum, but if we are breaking it down simply to the biology then would a word or a person that incites in one person certain feeling, not generate the same reation from all persons of similar physiology?

~L

Once again, a strict, or radical, materialist would by necessity have to argue that what appears to be sentience (the use of knowledge by the exercise of a free will) must actually be merely complicated sets of deterministic processes.

One can invoke chaos theory to explain differences in responses to the same stimulus, even if the two subjects are identical twins.

In considering these increasingly elaborate explanations one may well begin to feel that strict materialism would not survive the application of Ockham's razor.

[The Atheist]

In considering these increasingly elaborate explanations one may well begin to feel that strict materialism would not survive the application of Ockham's razor.

:lol:

That's too funny for words. Materialism is the only thing which survives.

[LMK]

No.

Regardless of genetics, we are conditioned by our upbringing, so the responses will never be identical.

Does this response then state agreement that sentient beings are more than just material?

~L

[The Atheist]

Does this response then state agreement that sentient beings are more than just material?

~L

Not in any way at all. Learned behaviour conforms completely to materialism.

[LMK]

Once again, a strict, or radical, materialist would by necessity have to argue that what appears to be sentience (the use of knowledge by the exercise of a free will) must actually be merely complicated sets of deterministic processes.

My suggestion is that sentience may have no appearance. The simple fact that I can and do have thoughts that enter my brain, and that I can dismiss those thoughts or build upon without them or twist them or follow the bread crumbs back to something else if I choose of if I allow free association to work is the basis of this suggestion. There may, but also there may never be a product of this thought; no movement of any kind, no decision, no action, there may be nothing to prove it ever existed...it simply did (the thought).

It is the thought and the ability to reason that is sentience, not any outward appearance or physical manifestation. And it is sentience itself that I am referring to, that leads me to the hypothesis that there is not only my brain, but that there is my mind/my thought process (a tangible and intangible) beyond the fact that chemical reactions and nerve synapses are firing there is at some point a translation from material to incorporeal.


~L

[RichardHresko]

My suggestion is that sentience may have no appearance. The simple fact that I can and do have thoughts that enter my brain, and that I can dismiss those thoughts or build upon without them or twist them or follow the bread crumbs back to something else if I choose of if I allow free association to work is the basis of this suggestion. There may, but also there may never be a product of this thought; no movement of any kind, no decision, no action, there may be nothing to prove it ever existed...it simply did (the thought).

It is the thought and the ability to reason that is sentience, not any outward appearance or physical manifestation. And it is sentience itself that I am referring to, that leads me to the hypothesis that there is not only my brain, but that there is my mind/my thought process (a tangible and intangible) beyond the fact that chemical reactions and nerve synapses are firing there is at some point a translation from material to incorporeal.


~L

Which is exactly why the materialist position starts to resemble the Ptolemaic cosmology, requiring ever more elaborate epicycles to preserve its position.

However, if you are determined as an article of faith to deny the existence of anything that is not physical one is inevitably forced to these increasingly convoluted stop-gaps and the rejection of all experience that indicates that there is indeed a mind. Mere gainsaying on the part of a materialist that materialism avoids violating Ockham's Razor does not, obviously, change matters.

[The Atheist]

However, if you are determined as an article of faith to deny the existence of anything that is not physical ....

Gosh, Richard, do you misrepresent facts for a living?

I have repeatedly tried to explain that your statement bears no relation to real-world materialism, but you still fail to acknowledge it. There is a universe of difference between "no evidence for the non-material" and articles of faith & denial.

It disturbs me that you are deliberately making the same error time after time. It suggests that you are trying to push a particular agenda rather than wanting actual discussion.

[LMK]

I agree.

Not one time have I suggested that there is only or never either material or that which is not material, yet each response is the same.

I thought there was a dialogue to be had here, but I cannot seem to find it.

Maybe in another thread.

~L

[blazeofglory]

This classical debate over materiality or immateriality is something that carries our discussion eternally and in point of fact discussion is interesting. Both arguers cannot say conclusively whether it is material or non-material the world is made up of

[dulbriask]

please send mail for me

[Odysseus93]

My belief in God is partly logic and partly faith.
Anyway, I think that a great way to approach religion is to think of Pascall's Wager. Pascall asks that if you were offered two kinds of game in a casino, one in which you can win a cash prize, and your bet is automatically returned to you whether or not you win, or one where if you win you do not win anything, you just get a refund, and if you lose you lose everything, which would you pick? Pascall then goes on to say that the first game is belief in God, because if you are wrong you lose nothing in the end, and you have the satifaction of having lived a morally upstanding life. He likens the second game to Atheism, because if you are wrong you lose everything, but if you are right you gain nothing at all......

[mal4mac]

... Pascal then goes on to say that the first game is belief in God, because if you are wrong you lose nothing in the end, and you have the satisfaction of having lived a morally upstanding life. He likens the second game to Atheism, because if you are wrong you lose everything, but if you are right you gain nothing at all......

So which God do you put the money on? If you put the money on Jehovah, then you go to hell if Allah rules. Even in the same religion, you go to hell if you are a protestant and a Catholic God is actually on the throne. Humans have invented a thousand gods, which one do you put your money on? Of course, the reason there are a thousand gods is that there is no convincing evidence for any of them. So just be an atheists, relax, and be thankful you don't have to go through the strange rituals and worries of the god-fearing...

[MarkBastable]

Also, Pascal's logic is good but the practical application isn't supportable.

If I say I will give you a million dollars if you believe in microscopic pink dragons who live on discarded mint toffee wrappers, and I also say that there's no downside if such dragons turn out not to exist, could you suddenly start believing in them?

No. You can't decide to believe in the existence of something because there's an advantage in so believing. What you're actually doing is deciding not to go out of your way not to believe in it, as if that were the equivalent of a commitment to the belief.

Incidentally, I'm serious about the dragons, and about the reward. So I guess you'll be believing in those dragons from this moment on, as there's no downside to you if I turn out to be an insane pauper.

[soundofmusic]

My belief in God is partly logic and partly faith.
Anyway, I think that a great way to approach religion is to think of Pascall's Wager. Pascall asks that if you were offered two kinds of game in a casino, one in which you can win a cash prize, and your bet is automatically returned to you whether or not you win, or one where if you win you do not win anything, you just get a refund, and if you lose you lose everything, which would you pick? Pascall then goes on to say that the first game is belief in God, because if you are wrong you lose nothing in the end, and you have the satifaction of having lived a morally upstanding life. He likens the second game to Atheism, because if you are wrong you lose everything, but if you are right you gain nothing at all......

It's an interesting concept; that one choses to believe or not. I find that the difficulty is that when we are young and more suseptible to believing others ideas, we may hear enough to begin to believe in the negative consequences of nonbelief. We may think we will go to hell. However, we find it difficult to believe in the god personality that is presented to us. So we have the lingering fear of going to hell without a true belief in god.

[changelingchild]

I'd just like to point something out. I'm Catholic and I believe in God and an afterlife.
If I live my life according to that belief and it turns out I'm wrong, then I will cease to exist when I die.
If I live my life as an atheist and reject God and it turns out I'm wrong, then I will spend eternity separated from my creator in a hell of my own creation.
I think I'm going to stick with Catholicism.

The Catholic God does not send you to hell for being Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or even an Atheist. There is more to it than labels.

Why do atheists try to convince religious people that God doesn't exist?

[Legend]

I'd just like to point something out. I'm Catholic and I believe in God and an afterlife.
If I live my life according to that belief and it turns out I'm wrong, then I will cease to exist when I die.
If I live my life as an atheist and reject God and it turns out I'm wrong, then I will spend eternity separated from my creator in a hell of my own creation.
I think I'm going to stick with Catholicism.

The Catholic God does not send you to hell for being Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or even an Atheist. There is more to it than labels.

Why do atheists try to convince religious people that God doesn't exist?
Many of the atheists because they believe that there is no evidence of the existence of God
God with us .. all the time and everywhere ..

Dark or light
And forget we humans
That God sees us, and we do the ugly
When this happens the person has something bad or thing good
Due to the presence of Fate
And a FATE the work of God
This means that God exists
We are here to worship God
I apologize for the intervention

[Babbalanja]

I'd just like to point something out. I'm Catholic and I believe in God and an afterlife.
If I live my life according to that belief and it turns out I'm wrong, then I will cease to exist when I die.
If I live my life as an atheist and reject God and it turns out I'm wrong, then I will spend eternity separated from my creator in a hell of my own creation.
I think I'm going to stick with Catholicism.
So we should profess whatever belief ensures us the best reward, eh? How materialistic.

Regards,

Istvan

[Redzeppelin]

So which God do you put the money on? If you put the money on Jehovah, then you go to hell if Allah rules. Even in the same religion, you go to hell if you are a protestant and a Catholic God is actually on the throne. Humans have invented a thousand gods, which one do you put your money on? Of course, the reason there are a thousand gods is that there is no convincing evidence for any of them. So just be an atheists, relax, and be thankful you don't have to go through the strange rituals and worries of the god-fearing...

You "put your money" on the God whose existence and whose character most correctly explains the universe, our existence, human nature, morality, the nature of evil, and its solution. Very few actually do that as well as Christianity does.

[FoghornBellows]

I skimmed the first page of this thread. I agree with a lot of what JBI says.
I am technically an atheist, though I have such a sordid conscience that I fear going to hell. I was a hardcore atheist as a youth, but when I became acquainted with the near-death experience phenomenon I became concerned.
I don't know if this has already been said, but there is no tangible evidence for God. There are nothing but relational terms. What does "holy" mean? Can you find a manifest example in contemporary America? What does "divine" mean? What is a "soul"? If it is consciousness, is it not inextricably linked to the pulp of the brain; leading one to believe it will stop running with the end of the brain? I find no proof for God but relational terms.
Also, I'm acquainted with a little Camus. Why would God create a completely impartial environment for loved creations? Why is that though things happen for a reason, they do not happen for a purpose?
In "The Fall", Camus points out that Jesus Christ could have died for all the infants slaughtered in Judea. The angels of God held Jesus's life higher than that of a horde of infants. How does crime consist less in making others die? Just a few thoughts. Pull me back on track if I'm digressing.
Hopefully we'll reach some cogent arguments, but closure is likely destined to forever remain concealed.
Also, please do not attempt to convert me. I state that kindly but firmly. We are here to discuss, and I will respect your arguments under any circumstance.