Why I Don't Believe In God

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry

[G L Wilson]

I believe in God, I just don't like him. Hee, hee.

[Darcy88]

I don't believe in God because I was raised in a Godless household and a Godless culture. And I've seen people utterly destroyed, driven to depths of depravity and despair through absolutely no fault of their own, in light of which I find it hard to believe in the existence an active, beneficent deity.

That said, I've come to respect other people's faith in God. I see the existential solace it provides many and I can't help but approve of it. Sometimes I even envy them their faith. And Pascal's Wager actually makes a lot of sense to me. In the stark absence of certifiable proof which the thoughtful theist must endure, the possibility they might be right, along with all the boundless benefits that being right would entail, must be a great and welcome aid in maintaining their faith.

I say whatever gets one through the dark and lonely nights.

[G L Wilson]

I don't believe in God because I was raised in a Godless household and a Godless culture. And I've seen people utterly destroyed, driven to depths of depravity and despair through absolutely no fault of their own, in light of which I find it hard to believe in the existence an active, beneficent deity.

That said, I've come to respect other people's faith in God. I see the existential solace it provides many and I can't help but approve of it. Sometimes I even envy them their faith. And Pascal's Wager actually makes a lot of sense to me. In the stark absence of certifiable proof which the thoughtful theist must endure, the possibility they might be right, along with all the boundless benefits that being right would entail, must be a great and welcome aid in maintaining their faith.

I say whatever gets one through the dark and lonely nights.

The only solace a lie can give is outer good form, even the criminal is more honest than the spiritual.

[Darcy88]

The only solace a lie can give is outer good form, even the criminal is more honest than the spiritual.

There are plenty of people who truly believe. I know one person who has no fear of death. Even when people she cares about die, she is sad they're gone but is not sad for them. She thinks God and Jesus love her and are always there to listen to her. She believes she will go to heaven and spend eternity in paradise with her family. She's a mormon and so she does not drink, smoke, nor engage in premarital sex. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. I pressed her and pressed her, relentlessly, until I got her to admit that her faith has no foundation, but then she put the question to me "but what if it is true?" Fair enough I say.

[G L Wilson]

There are plenty of people who truly believe. I know one person who has no fear of death. Even when people she cares about die, she is sad they're gone but is not sad for them. She thinks God and Jesus love her and are always there to listen to her. She believes she will go to heaven and spend eternity in paradise with her family. She's a mormon and so she does not drink, smoke, nor engage in premarital sex. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. I pressed her and pressed her, relentlessly, until I got her to admit that her faith has no foundation, but then she put the question to me "but what if it is true?" Fair enough I say.

The true person of faith doesn't exist, what if that is true?

[WyattGwyon]

At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry

I understand what you are getting at, though I have never heard of your sixth scourge (Katy Perry). Just wondering why one needs a reason to not believe. Belief requires a reason, not its absence.

[OrphanPip]

Because I haven't been convinced otherwise. Also, I have personal moral objections to the conduct and values of many of the dominant organized religions.

But it's all right, as an openly gay philandering atheist, I'm sure God wouldn't like me much if he did exist anyway.

[Alexander III]

But it's all right, as an openly gay philandering atheist, I'm sure God wouldn't like me much if he did exist anyway.

Could be worst, at least your not a openly gay philandering atheist woman.

[cl154576]

There are plenty of people who truly believe. I know one person who has no fear of death. Even when people she cares about die, she is sad they're gone but is not sad for them. She thinks God and Jesus love her and are always there to listen to her. She believes she will go to heaven and spend eternity in paradise with her family. She's a mormon and so she does not drink, smoke, nor engage in premarital sex. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. I pressed her and pressed her, relentlessly, until I got her to admit that her faith has no foundation, but then she put the question to me "but what if it is true?" Fair enough I say.

I have no fear of death. Death is peace. I like Seneca's view of it – I was dead before and I will be dead again, and for me, the life in between is simply an inconvenient, excruciatingly painful phase brought on either by accident or for the amusement of this God.

I don't ask that God should take my sufferings away, only that He should make them bearable. Is that really so unreasonable? Is it necessary that I should suffer in life, and be damned in death? Must I live in endless pain, and in death find not even a shadow of kindness or sympathy, but only – a merciless tyrant's hand, reproaching me for my helplessness? How much does He expect from me; is anyone, anywhere, able to "turn the other cheek" and live well when there is no hope for happiness, in this life or the next?

I was taught to believe in God. I don't, but I still hate Him, or the idea of Him, and the hate is killing me.

[G L Wilson]

Could be worst, at least your not a openly gay philandering atheist woman.

You are lucky that you are not a midget, apparently God hates the midget with a special passion, according to the Bible.


I have no fear of death. Death is peace. I like Seneca's view of it – I was dead before and I will be dead again, and for me, the life in between is simply an inconvenient, excruciatingly painful phase brought on either by accident or for the amusement of this God.

I don't ask that God should take my sufferings away, only that He should make them bearable. Is that really so unreasonable? Is it necessary that I should suffer in life, and be damned in death? Must I live in endless pain, and in death find not even a shadow of kindness or sympathy, but only – a merciless tyrant's hand, reproaching me for my helplessness? How much does He expect from me; is anyone, anywhere, able to "turn the other cheek" and live well when there is no hope for happiness, in this life or the next?

I was taught to believe in God. I don't, but I still hate Him, or the idea of Him, and the hate is killing me.

You cannot hate him as much as me. Hate is best forgotten, for dwelling on hate seeds bitterness in one's soul. Who wishes to be bitter towards life?

[cl154576]

You cannot hate him as much as me.

Should this be "as much as I do"?
I usually don't nitpick with grammar, but here it changes the meaning significantly ...

Hate is best forgotten, but to be clichéd – "easier said than done."

[G L Wilson]

Should this be "as much as I do"?
I usually don't nitpick with grammar, but here it changes the meaning significantly ...

Hate is best forgotten, but to be clichéd – "easier said than done."

I have always found love easy to forget.

[The Atheist]

Good subject. I was musing on it the other day as I recalled Bertie Russell's Why I am not a christian.

There is no reason to believe, people believe because they want to. They are selfish and self-indulgent people who prefer myth to reality.

Both Einstein and Hawking have alluded to the concept of god to be childish fantasy, which concept I agree with 100%.

40 years after I realised it was a sham, it amazes me that people still believe.

[G L Wilson]

Good subject. I was musing on it the other day as I recalled Bertie Russell's Why I am not a christian.

There is no reason to believe, people believe because they want to. They are selfish and self-indulgent people who prefer myth to reality.

Both Einstein and Hawking have alluded to the concept of god to be childish fantasy, which concept I agree with 100%.

40 years after I realised it was a sham, it amazes me that people still believe.

A child of fantasy is not a creature of the dark - it is a bad analogy to call religion a childish whim. It is obviously the dark come to play in the light.

[JuniperWoolf]

I have personal moral objections to the conduct and values of many of the dominant organized religions.

This is all that I'll commit to when it comes to religion (I'd list this sentence as my "religious beliefs" if there were room for it on a questionnaire). Everything else means pretty much nothing to me, or at least nothing that I'd bother to discuss.

[G L Wilson]

I have personal moral objections to the conduct and values of many of the dominant organized religions.

Kant and I agree that organised religion is morally repugnant.

[Panglossian]

I don’t mind the idea of God at all, as long as it remains just that - an idea. I can never understand why humankind has taken the notion of God so seriously. It would be brilliant if God had remained just a curious imagining … something to wonder about and that’s it. No doctrine, no dogma, just a sublime idea that can never become Truth because we know we can never know.

[Silvia]

The reason why I don't believe in God is that I can't love God. I don't have that love in me, I think. I was brought up as a Catholic, my family is Catholic, I attend a Catholic University in which we are required to take theology exams, some of my best friends are deeply religious. I would believe, if I could. Probably, according to Protestantism, this means that I'm not among the chosen ones. When I was 12, right after confirmation, I realised that I had no idea why I was doing all that. It was a mere automatism, so I stopped going to Church and praying. I feel there's so much to be said about the religious upbringing of children, but that's another topic.
I'm glad this topic came up, because I think it's something I need to elaborate on, and I am interested in other people points of view and experiences on the subject.

[Arrowni]

I always found explanations of non-belief kind of an explanation after the fact. Finding reasons is always like that, reasoning is not the object, but the speech about the object.

So I wouldn't consider the reasoning behind it particularly important, as surely most people don't find the reason behind belief particularly engaging either.

[G L Wilson]

I always found explanations of non-belief kind of an explanation after the fact. Finding reasons is always like that, reasoning is not the object, but the speech about the object.

So I wouldn't consider the reasoning behind it particularly important, as surely most people don't find the reason behind belief particularly engaging either.

Faith is the insurance of truth, science insures nothing.

[Pavane]

Dear Mutatis,

re: Why I Don't Believe In God
At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry

Do you believe in Hitler?

Pavane.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do I believe in Hitler? Of course. What a silly question. Now, if you meant "Do you agree with what Hitler did," then no. Are you suggesting that just because I didn't list him I endorse him? There's thousands of things I could have listed.

To anyone who isn't clear: this thread was jokingly made. Bien suggested it was time to make a "Why I Don't Believe In God" thread in the "Why I Believe In God" thread, hence why I made it.

[Pavane]

Not such a silly statement. You said you didn't believe in God, presumably because of the bad things he is responsible for in your list. So, Hitler did equally bad things so I just wondered if you were prepared to believe in him too. Your criterion for belief was whether someone does bad things, you see.

On that basis, only good people exist, or at least you are prepared only to believe in them...

[OrphanPip]

Not such a silly statement. You said you didn't believe in God, presumably because of the bad things he is responsible for in your list. So, Hitler did equally bad things so I just wondered if you were prepared to believe in him too. Your criterion for belief was whether someone does bad things, you see.

On that basis, only good people exist, or at least you are prepared only to believe in them...

Oh please, you're being deliberately obtuse. Implicit in MM's post is the conception that God is a benevolent creator, so his point is that he doesn't believe in the concept of the Christian God because he doubts the benevolence of such a being who would allow the things he listed.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Not such a silly statement. You said you didn't believe in God, presumably because of the bad things he is responsible for in your list. So, Hitler did equally bad things so I just wondered if you were prepared to believe in him too. Your criterion for belief was whether someone does bad things, you see.

On that basis, only good people exist, or at least you are prepared only to believe in them...
:lol: Reaching there, aren't you?

The things on my list do not require belief, as they, without a doubt, exist, which makes your whole question and post irrelevant. A better question (though still stupid) would have been, "So, you don't include Hitler in your list of things that make you not believe in a benevolent God, so is Hitler okay with you?" But you asked "Do you believe in Hitler," which is stupid, because he undoubtedly existed. If you asked the second of the questions, I would have once again pointed out how there are thousands of things that were not listed that could have been.

Also, that you went to Hitler, the biggest analogical cliche in the book, is telling.

Frankly, I don't believe in God at all, so I don't believe he is responsible for anything.

The post was a joke. Get over it, and quit reading so much into it.

[The Atheist]

I don’t mind the idea of God at all, as long as it remains just that - an idea. I can never understand why humankind has taken the notion of God so seriously.

I can answer that.

It started to go sour when the alleged god enabled people to live after death.

[G L Wilson]

I can answer that.

It started to go sour when the alleged god enabled people to live after death.

I blame whingeing farmers myself.

[usman.khawar]

For the topic starter! The reasons, are not enough to reject the existance of God. the topic name should be why i dont like God if we take or want to go with these reasons. moreover i have posted and explained why sufferings and pleasures are set side by side by Lord.

but if you insisted for the same topic name then for this thread i have many arguments which are given by well known personalities to reject God's existance. like someone said " i dont beleive in God whose data is not available." nice argument. someone said" i dont beleive in God coz no one saw Him" also very nice argument! Socialogist said " We need a God to establish a good society" its also nice argement it means that people just draw a portrait of God to take shelter.

Anyone see air? anti protons? bacteria ?
God declared Quran his data. and own its every single word. prove any one fact wrong then u r free from God's existance.

short time to write more. but i have written a lot already in different posts. also my teacher words are clearing the thoughts with arguments/logics/reasons in2 two threads which i started.

there was a person who was given a title of the father of ignorance and arrogance who was also the head of his tribe. He said to other ignorants/egoistic/arrogant people i know He is right he is absolutly right. We all know he never spoke a single lie. whose chracter is above all to doubt. but if we admit him he will be the head. and we will lost the leading position. it will be shameful to accept the truth and change our self. people are sticky what they have owned. anyway
Regards

[G L Wilson]

It would be shameful to become what I ain't.

[OrphanPip]

Anyone see air? anti protons? bacteria ?
God declared Quran his data. and own its every single word. prove any one fact wrong then u r free from God's existance.

Besides the fact that you can see bacteria with a standard light microscope, there is convincing evidence air exists, while there isn't that God exists. I don't see why I should assume the existence of God, I don't assume the existence of bacteria, I've seen them myself. Not that seeing is the only form of valid reliable evidence.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I guess some people just can't take a joke.

[Arrowni]

I can answer that.

It started to go sour when the alleged god enabled people to live after death.


It all went bad when people started stocking grain. Life after death is a metaphor for the seasons, the story of religion is the story of economy. So wealth is where everything started to go sour.

I think we can all agree :biggrin5:

[The Atheist]

God declared Quran his data.

Sorry, I think your reasoning is way off line, so I'm not going to debate the point with you, but I will make this one note:

Your god declared your quran his data.

Christians believe their god declared the christian bible his data.

Buddhists believe Buddha declared his writings to be his data.

Hindus believe Vishnu declared Śruti and Smriti his data.

Jews believe g-d declared the Old Testament his data.

If you ever get consensus among believers as to which completely contradictory piece of writing is the right one, I might be interested.

(The idea that I don't like the idea of god is silly - I'd love there to be a benevolent, omnipotent god who saved children from starvation or death by diarrhoea from dirty drinking water when he wasn't too busy helping sportspeople win games.)


So wealth is where everything started to go sour.:

God needs cash!

[G L Wilson]

God is greedy for souls and riches, apparently.

[JuniperWoolf]

God declared Quran his data.

Authoritative statements like this from religious people really freak me out. Who's putting this stuff in their heads? Are they repeating someone? How can they find this inarguable, and put it forward as though it would convince other people? It implies a skewed view of reality.

[G L Wilson]

Authoritative statements like this from religious people really freak me out. Who's putting this stuff in their heads? Are they repeating someone? How can they find this inarguable, and put it forward as though it would convince other people? It implies a skewed view of reality.

Man is proof of God, apparently.

[Cunninglinguist]

Oh please, you're being deliberately obtuse. Implicit in MM's post is the conception that God is a benevolent creator, so his point is that he doesn't believe in the concept of the Christian God because he doubts the benevolence of such a being who would allow the things he listed.

Though it is not as if MM's definition is the only one out there, nor is it a rule that we have to stick to it.


Authoritative statements like this from religious people really freak me out. Who's putting this stuff in their heads? Are they repeating someone? How can they find this inarguable, and put it forward as though it would convince other people? It implies a skewed view of reality.

Fear, I would reckon -- people in general, and children especially, can be quickly indoctrinated by fear, and in some cases where they can't, the courageous and outspoken get killed. I think these sectarians tend to make such dogmatic statements more to convince themselves than anyone else. --

In any case, there isn't exactly a "normal" view of reality, nor is there a "normal" method for viewing reality. I don't want to commit myself to complete relativism, though, because there seem to be human constants when it comes to moral and otherwise transcendental ideas about the world, and there are delusions that can put life and happiness in jeopardy. The only way to judge a world view or an assumption is in terms of its practical (or impractical) effects, a means which can also bid room for some form of religion. A number of people have used this sort of argument to defend religion in some form (e.g. Kant) and reading of the Bible in schools (e.g. Huxley). Moreover, this argument betokens the idea that religion and God can only be refuted on practical grounds instead of theoretical ones -- For, after everything, the believer can always resort to fideism.


For the record I'll say that I believe in "God" in a way that doesn't require faith. For me, God is what I term that idea which answers the fundamental absurdity of existence; the answer to that question so shrouded in mysteriousness we cannot barely ask it.

[usman.khawar]

Orphan, athiest and all ! I would like to read the evidence that how u can see air. But my dear! If u people consider that after developing delicate n sophisticated machines we are able to see bacteria. And may b with more advancement and developing machines we will be able to see anti protons as well. But I like to say one fact for your consideration. Besides that we just can feel air only and we can see bacteria through fine machines so I have to say that to see God, who is creator of all universes and all living and non living beings, we need refined senses. We cannot see him through these body’s senses which are not reliable as you guys must hear the word illusion. Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ? this is very simple that to see God we need more refine senses. He is not available in the reach of these body senses. You have to develop your senses. You have to refine your senses. He exist little ahead what you have at this time. There is no other exam as well. If He had showed himself then there was no logic for creating brain. If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist.
About God declared Quran his data I wrote a lot if u guys are serious to understand what I wanted to say kindly read than discuss. Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it. There are so many scientific, anthropologist, biologist, cosmologist, etc facts which are proved in this era. How can u justify that fourteen hundred years ago a man with no laboroties/ equipments giving statements with absolute accuracy. Just for example “We made this universe from a big accident (big bang) and we are expanding this universe, everything is moving in its orbit” in single verse God is giving 100% accurate statements/facts with full confidence. Quran is absolutely different book from other jew’s and Christians one’s which were also from the Lord.

[Redzeppelin]

For the record I'll say that I believe in "God" in a way that doesn't require faith. For me, God is what I term that idea which answers the fundamental absurdity of existence; the answer to that question so shrouded in mysteriousness we cannot barely ask it.

Such a "God" is of no use whatsoever then.

[Arrowni]

On the contrary, it would serve every use.

[billl]

Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ?

...

About God declared Quran his data I wrote a lot if u guys are serious to understand what I wanted to say kindly read than discuss. Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it.


.....



Quran is absolutely different book from other jew’s and Christians one’s which were also from the Lord.


How about, instead of putting one hand in hot water, and one hand in cold water, why don't we take one person from one area and immerse his thoughts in the Koran, and another guy from another region, and immerse his thoughts in some different Holy Book, and then have both of them experience the real world. What do we typically see happen then?

[cl154576]

I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it.

There are contradictions in everything. A simple search of 'contradictions in the Quran' suffices.

Of course, you can probably write ten pages defending one sentence, saying how that sentence does not mean what it says but something else, and so much in this one sentence is beyond the capabilities of my unholy senses. People will believe what they want to regardless. But I think scriptures were written for people, not gods.

[The Atheist]

Orphan, athiest and all ! I would like to read the evidence that how u can see air.

What does seeing have to do with it?

If I hold my breath, I find myself struggling to force myself to breathe. When I start to breathe again, I feel fine.

When I went outside before, it was really windy. I could feel the force of the air moving, but I couldn't see it.

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that air exists.

[JuniperWoolf]

There are contradictions in everything. A simple search of 'contradictions in the Quran' suffices.

Hmm, but to be fair, if you read any of those pages you'll find that it seems to be harder to find crazy nonsense in the Quran than it is in the contradictory new testament or the unbelievably nonsensical old testament. Maybe Islam IS the better written mythology (religion does seem to depreciate with age and Islam is the newest of the three). I guess maybe I'll give the Quran a perusal.

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.

I love mythology, and I don't automatically dislike religious texts. I've never met a hardcore religious person who didn't come off as a small minded creep and who I couldn't easily imagine as a serial killer, but that doesn't automatically make their mythology as ugly as they are. The idea of books which are so effective that they've collected followers is intriguing, and maybe I'd find such a book beautiful or particularly insightful/useful. I gave the Bible a shot (I hated it, but I still gave it a shot).

Still, it's hard to get over associating "religious" works with that bad taste that the followers leave in my mouth.

[Cunninglinguist]

But I like to say one fact for your consideration. Besides that we just can feel air only and we can see bacteria through fine machines so I have to say that to see God, who is creator of all universes and all living and non living beings, we need refined senses. We cannot see him through these body’s senses which are not reliable as you guys must hear the word illusion. Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ? this is very simple that to see God we need more refine senses.

Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?


If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist.

You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.


Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong.

Contradiction is, to a large degree, a matter of interpretation. Moreover, there are two forms of contradiction; formal/ostensible/logical (Hilbertian, I call it) and material (Fregian). The first is simply an assessment of the immediate logical form, while the second requires an analysis of the objects in question, in order to make sure that they don't imply a tacit contradiction. This is where interpretation comes into play. Though, in any case, if something is formally immaculate it won't be by necessity true. An argument in which every inference is valid would not necessarily be sound, nor give true conclusions, if the premises themselves are untrue. In a similar vein, unsound arguments with false premises can render true conclusions through invalid inference.


There are so many scientific, anthropologist, biologist, cosmologist, etc facts which are proved in this era. How can u justify that fourteen hundred years ago a man with no laboroties/ equipments giving statements with absolute accuracy. Just for example “We made this universe from a big accident (big bang) and we are expanding this universe, everything is moving in its orbit” in single verse God is giving 100% accurate statements/facts with full confidence.

I think it depends on standards of proof. But the best (and probably first) test of validity and truth we have -- the principle of sufficient reason -- is one of utility. In short, the reason we think the big bang happened is because the assumptions that lead us to believe it happened are very useful to us. That said, in these fields we don't and cannot have 100% confidence in a strictly theoretical setting -- there never can be when it comes to induction --; for a science will and must change its assumptions in the light of new and good evidence, where religion may not. That science shouldn't/doesn't pretend absolute certainty is perhaps one of the more important defining characteristics that sets it apart from a vast majority of religion today.


Such a "God" is of no use whatsoever then.

On the contrary, if we had no way of accepting the absurdity, everything itself would appear absurd and purposeless. To this extent, my God is of every form of "use" possible.

[Drkshadow03]

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.


I think the stories in the Bible are fairly consistent. The contradictions tend to be greatly exaggerated, although granted there are some. But it's not really all that hard to follow the Bible as a straight-forward narrative for the most part.

[Darcy88]

Hmm, but to be fair, if you read any of those pages you'll find that it seems to be harder to find crazy nonsense in the Quran than it is in the contradictory new testament or the unbelievably nonsensical old testament. Maybe Islam IS the better written mythology (religion does seem to depreciate with age and Islam is the newest of the three). I guess maybe I'll give the Quran a perusal.

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.

I love mythology, and I don't automatically dislike religious texts. I've never met a hardcore religious person who didn't come off as a small minded creep and who I couldn't easily imagine as a serial killer, but that doesn't automatically make their mythology as ugly as they are. The idea of books which are so effective that they've collected followers is intriguing, and maybe I'd find such a book beautiful or particularly insightful/useful. I gave the Bible a shot (I hated it, but I still gave it a shot).

Still, it's hard to get over associating "religious" works with that bad taste that the followers leave in my mouth.

What I like about Islam is that they did not turn their prophet into a God, vis a vis Christianity. There is however a passage in the Quran which explicitly orders the devout to "beat" their wives should they show disobedience. For this reason I have difficulty taking the book all that seriously.

[usman.khawar]

Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?

Knowledge! Mind! . inner eyes! can write a lot coz indeed its a very good question. so will write another free time .


You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.

You are not getting in which context I wrote this argument. Look again. I said “If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist” I gave the example of air. We can just feel it. I gave the example of anti protons etc. I said bacteria and got the reply that he has seen it through a sophisticated machine. Which enhance his sense of watching. As a whole I said if we cant see God with our body’s eyes then its not the proof that there is no God. There is not a little skepticism rather a hard one my dear in my statement. if You enhance your senses than you can also b witness for sure that there is a God 

Contradiction is, to a large degree, a matter of interpretation. Moreover, there are two forms of contradiction; formal/ostensible/logical (Hilbertian, I call it) and material (Fregian). The first is simply an assessment of the immediate logical form, while the second requires an analysis of the objects in question, in order to make sure that they don't imply a tacit contradiction. This is where interpretation comes into play. Though, in any case, if something is formally immaculate it won't be by necessity true. An argument in which every inference is valid would not necessarily be sound, nor give true conclusions, if the premises themselves are untrue. In a similar vein, unsound arguments with false premises can render true conclusions through invalid inference.

i think you should read ist then comments on Quran. its not the discussion of contradiction's defenitions not interpretation. in reply which i stated below there is an example. ?

I think it depends on standards of proof. But the best (and probably first) test of validity and truth we have -- the principle of sufficient reason -- is one of utility. In short, the reason we think the big bang happened is because the assumptions that lead us to believe it happened are very useful to us. That said, in these fields we don't and cannot have 100% confidence in a strictly theoretical setting -- there never can be when it comes to induction --; for a science will and must change its assumptions in the light of new and good evidence, where religion may not. That science shouldn't/doesn't pretend absolute certainty is perhaps one of the more important defining characteristics that sets it apart from a vast majority of religion today.

Assumptions of big bang have been converted into a solid law for now after lot of experiences and mathematical laws. In round about 1635 it was believed that earth is static and sun is evolving around it. By the invention of Mr. Galileo the law changed and and thinking process move ahead and cosmologists said No, sun is static and earth is evolving around it after observations. By Eien Stien E=mc(square) when cosmologist found to measure the distances through light it is found that the distances is increasing. Logic is maintained that if everything is expanding then there must be a start when everything was one. After big bang this one huge particle converted into highly unimaginable particles in which our earth is one. Science started it journey and ends up what Lord has said in quran already. I have quoted so many verses like this you can read those in my other posts.

On the contrary, if we had no way of accepting the absurdity, everything itself would appear absurd and purposeless. To this extent, my God is of every form of "use" possible.

your God is not different then mine :) We all are the creations of one Lord my dear!


What I like about Islam is that they did not turn their prophet into a God, vis a vis Christianity. There is however a passage in the Quran which explicitly orders the devout to "beat" their wives should they show disobedience. For this reason I have difficulty taking the book all that seriously.

you are right coz there is a very strong concept in islamic'philosphy about the oneness of God.
let me solve your difficulty about the verse you have read in about wives.:)
if you read in full context and full verse about it its like " teach her ist , then seperate her from your sleeping place, then beat her"
before considering on it, you should consider another fact. from the time when human started to live in societies we see as physically women was weak and man was strong. so it was decided by nature, that woman will care inside of home and man will care of outside. islam gave equal rights to both but Lord said that one man is a one or 2 degree up from woman coz he earns and spent on her etc. Lord said in quran man has same rights upon woman as woman has upon man. but For the better living you see there should b a leader. so Lord think that man should be the leader of house.
Well come to the above mentioned verse. about beating someone ask to Muhammad how should we beat the woman if she dont understand? He replied with cloth! its not beating my dear! in islam there is a concept of full love care and affection. Good bye kises were common as well at that time. .. many extremist think that by this verse they got the license to beat. which is absolutly wrong.
i think if i see west that they are developoing and progressing in material life but deterioating their moral ethics. divorce ratio is too high so now they live together without marriage mostly. woman are doing great efforts they are doing jobs and taking care of household as well! there is a lot of about man and woman a lot of/. you can read it in chapter nisa your self. one more thing to clear about quran. that one cannot understand fully quran without reading hadiths. like i explain above about beating. hadiths is what Muhammad said, did and explained.


How about, instead of putting one hand in hot water, and one hand in cold water, why don't we take one person from one area and immerse his thoughts in the Koran, and another guy from another region, and immerse his thoughts in some different Holy Book, and then have both of them experience the real world. What do we typically see happen then?

besides that i have given this example of hands to prove non reliable senses. you took it another way but i like to give you reply that that person who has been immerse himself in the koran when experience the real world will live in ease and peace of mind n heart. as in koran each n every thing is for real world , there are practical and logical suggestions ,guidlines to live in real world . and other will ends up in fear and frustration.

[MarkBastable]

[B]
but i like to give you reply that that person who has been immerse himself in the koran when experience the real world will live in ease and peace of mind n heart. as in koran each n every thing is for real world , there are practical and logical suggestions ,guidlines to live in real world . and other will ends up in fear and frustration.

You are very scary.

[osho]

Your belief and disbelief in God has little to do with the existence or non existence, my friend. You are a dust swirling in the vortex of this infinity and your voice will be silenced by the thunder of the universe and before this cosmic existence you are almost nonexistent. Your hubris or sense of illustriousness will be submerged into infinite void.
There must be greater truths and your scientific discoveries and inventions cannot outreach them nor your experimental science and knowledge can outsmart or obscure some deeper realities.

Do not make a conclusion my friend; for we can never conclude. We have to go a long way and yet will be doing round and round in this great labyrinth and the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth. The shadow is not the real.

[MarkBastable]

the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth.


How do you know that?

[osho]

How do you know that?

'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

[BienvenuJDC]

How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

Very simply because you do not believe in God.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Right. Because you, being a believer in God (particularly the Christian one, if I'm not mistaken), discard all other possibilities of truth. If it isn't a Christian, it doesn't count. The very idea that belief in God somehow leads to some sort of truth is irrational in the first place, as there is no real truth in the idea, or belief, of God, only faith, and faith is belief in the unprovable.

Anyways, I said, "I, or someone else." That someone else might believe in God, though how that increases his chances of having arrived at truth (whatever that even means in the first place) I have no idea. Maybe you could explain to me why it does.

[cafolini]

I know of no god. But assuming I ever did, what difference would it make?

[Sancho]

At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry

Shocking!

Blasphemy!

Katy Perry is a cutie-pie.

[MarkBastable]

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth.

How do you know that?


'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

That argument comes down to 'because I don't feel I know the truth, there must be a truth I don't know'.


Which isn't a rational corollary at all.

But, as Mutatis says, if any of us were to feel that we had arrived at the truth, you'd be in a position either of agreeing with them that they'd found it, or telling them that what they'd found wasn't really the truth.

And if you were to say it wasn't the truth that you were talking about, I'd have to ask again: "How do you know that? How do you know that my truth isn't The Truth?" You'd have to give a reason for the truth you're talking about being the right one.

Im not saying, you'll notice, that this ...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth....

..is wrong. I'm just asking for evidence that it's right.

[Leobloom]

Paul Dirac: I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

This is exactly how I feel about it. It was created to explain the inexplicable thousands of years ago. It seems as though people only debate the existence of God because it has been defended so vigorously for such a long time. The constant debate has given it undue credence because it suggests that there is something deeper to it than, say, Santa Claus. To me, it's simply an elaborate and established belief that holds no more truth than a belief in alien conspiracy theories - it fills holes in knowledge and existence.

[osho]

How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

This is a logical fallacy and if you keep on arguing you will have to do it endlessly. Maybe somebody has arrived or has not. I cannot conclude this and all I say or can say is out of my own understanding. You may have a different understanding or experience. As far as my understanding goes based on what I have read, meditated, or learned through discussions or books or from other learned men, I can say truth is yet to be arrived at. I am just inquiring and this is my personal inquiry and even if I say you it is not necessarily you or any other persons.

As such if you have arrived or not at truth you can say and prove or if others have, they will. That is not my business; my business is to say what I know. Here no more argument is necessary.


How do you know that?



That argument comes down to 'because I don't feel I know the truth, there must be a truth I don't know'.


Which isn't a rational corollary at all.

But, as Mutatis says, if any of us were to feel that we had arrived at the truth, you'd be in a position either of agreeing with them that they'd found it, or telling them that what they'd found wasn't really the truth.

And if you were to say it wasn't the truth that you were talking about, I'd have to ask again: "How do you know that? How do you know that my truth isn't The Truth?" You'd have to give a reason for the truth you're talking about being the right one.

Im not saying, you'll notice, that this ...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth....

..is wrong. I'm just asking for evidence that it's right.

This is logical trash and your logic will lead you nowhere and will come to a labyrinth of tunnels and ultimately you will find yourself in a messy situation.
Truth is something different than your rational claptrap. We are thru our words try to define truth, whereas truth cannot be cramped in your dry verbosities. I do not want to prescribe any method or ways to arrive at truth. I do not claim I have arrived. My exclusive objective is to inquire into it. I do not know I will arrive at this by this way. all the same I am elated to discuss it and my method is not like yours to chase after rationality and logical fallacy

[blazeofglory]

Osho you are confusing me. You through your writing skills and use of different logic are simply misleading the general reader like me. I cannot understand your intricate philosophical proposition. You sound interesting and will be more if you make your message clearer

[MarkBastable]

This is logical trash and your logic will lead you nowhere and will come to a labyrinth of tunnels and ultimately you will find yourself in a messy situation.
Truth is something different than your rational claptrap. We are thru our words try to define truth, whereas truth cannot be cramped in your dry verbosities. I do not want to prescribe any method or ways to arrive at truth. I do not claim I have arrived. My exclusive objective is to inquire into it. I do not know I will arrive at this by this way. all the same I am elated to discuss it and my method is not like yours to chase after rationality and logical fallacy

But when you say this...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth...

...you say it for a reason. You didn't just start thinking it one day, out of the blue. You arrived at it. So all I'm asking is, how did you arrive at it?

[osho]

But when you say this...

......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth...

...you say it for a reason. You didn't just start thinking it one day, out of the blue. You arrived at it. So all I'm asking is, how did you arrive at it?

I arrived at fragments of truth. The truth I claim may not necessarily convince you and I never expected you to be convinced of what I have said. The mirage I referred to is seen through my lens. Never confuse yourself with what I said. Never agree and once you agree or negate you will cripple yourself intellectually. carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.

[Vonny]

carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.

This is terrific osho!

[MarkBastable]

I arrived at fragments of truth. The truth I claim may not necessarily convince you and I never expected you to be convinced of what I have said. The mirage I referred to is seen through my lens. Never confuse yourself with what I said. Never agree and once you agree or negate you will cripple yourself intellectually. carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.

Okay. So all this applies to you personally and, perhaps, only you personally.

[cafolini]

Paul Dirac: I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

This is exactly how I feel about it. It was created to explain the inexplicable thousands of years ago. It seems as though people only debate the existence of God because it has been defended so vigorously for such a long time. The constant debate has given it undue credence because it suggests that there is something deeper to it than, say, Santa Claus. To me, it's simply an elaborate and established belief that holds no more truth than a belief in alien conspiracy theories - it fills holes in knowledge and existence.

A relatrively succint view which might lead to atheism if we get entangled with the prikcsters (abundant in the museum) that will challenge this cleverly. For nothing but cleverness they have left to sustain the irrelevancies they postulate in the face of knowledge and progress. This having been said, the whole subject becomes irrelevant where today's action is.
Yet, there are lots of credulous vestiges in the dynamic museum of history waiting for piggybacking out on a weekend pass on the back of some agnostic or atheistic stooge. The three stooges of history being the theist, the atheist and the agnostic.
Have fun. Science has left them behind and they are not coming back to a position of power, so to speak, regardless of the noise. We can't close the windows of the museum. They must await recycling with good ventilation. So the screams come out, and we have to listen.

[Sancho]

I suppose I rejected the idea of God with a capital G around about the age of 8. You know which god I’m talking about – the one true God, a providential god, an omniscient god, an anthropomorphic god, Elohim, Yahweh, Allah, whoever – the guy with the flowing white beard, floating around in the ether, keeping watch over little-ole me, making sure I’m honoring my father and my mother and all that jazz. At a relatively early age, that idea struck me as sort of kooky.

The idea of a god with a lower-case g is something entirely different. This idea has been with humans since humans have been human. Indeed, it may be one of the things that makes us human. It’s a broader and more abstract definition of god. I think it can be best described as one’s overarching world-view. It would include ideas like Mother Nature, Gaia, pure reason, philosophy, evolution, the scientific method, and Adam Smith’s laissez-faire god of the markets -The Invisible Hand. Whatever it is that guides you through your life becomes your god (or gods) – with a little g. It has very little to do with organized religion.

But concerning religion, we may be misinterpreting what Karl Marx meant when he said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” In Marx’s time, opium was thought of as a pain killer not a hallucinogenic drug. And there was a lot of pain for a lot of people in his time. Religion offered some comfort for many people and, I think, made their lives less painful. I don’t disagree that religion has been used by despots as a crowd-control measure, but that’s a miniscule part of it. Also I predict that some of the “facts” that we enlightened folk know now will be looked at as crazy-superstitious in the future. At any rate, I try not to get too uppity when looking at other people’s belief systems.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.
Odd, since you state your ideas as if they are concrete facts that one must agree with. I guess our illogical thinking gets tripped up by that.

[cl154576]

Why does there have to be some sort of higher truth?

[cafolini]

Why does there have to be some sort of higher truth?

That's a funny question. I'm sure they'll give you thousands of whys. They are specialists in the museum.

[osho]

Okay. So all this applies to you personally and, perhaps, only you personally.

Everyone has to find his own way and if you follow another's path that will not get you there. Maybe we can discuss here since discussing truth is a luxury and playing with words is stirring. But truth is something we have to individually.

With that said I claim we can get closer to truth through discussions and without preoccupation.

[osho]

Odd, since you state your ideas as if they are concrete facts that one must agree with. I guess our illogical thinking gets tripped up by that.

I never claim what I said is concrete and I just expected your comments, and sometimes constructive ones.

[MarkBastable]

Everyone has to find his own way....

...we can get closer to truth through discussions and without preoccupation...

I never claim what I said is concrete and I just expected your comments, and sometimes constructive ones.

If this is your own way, and if you present it for discussion, I think it is constructive - in every sense of that word - to comment on the internal rationale for it, and to test the way it's constructed.

When I did that, you said that my comments were 'trash' and 'claptrap'. How would you have reacted had I said that about your way of thinking?

[osho]

If this is your own way, and if you present it for discussion, I think it is constructive - in every sense of that word - to comment on the internal rationale for it, and to test the way it's constructed.

When I did that, you said that my comments were 'trash' and 'claptrap'. How would you have reacted had I said that about your way of thinking?

I might have said so in a particular context not in every context. Maybe your comment could be constructive in a specific context thought I might have liked it at that particular moment. If I said your comments were trash and claptrap in that particular context I do not mean you have always been so.

We have differences and that is the nature of being two individuals and independent thinkers. Your programming might have been different from mine.

However there are certain truths or points at which we may agree. Disagreement fueled the discussion and I never want anyone to agree on what I say and if they do the argument ends and that will be the death of discussion.

What I said is not conclusive and this is a topic that demands arguments and discussion and inquiry and such independent arguments I believe lead us closer to truth

[osho]

This is terrific osho!

Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?


Osho you are confusing me. You through your writing skills and use of different logic are simply misleading the general reader like me. I cannot understand your intricate philosophical proposition. You sound interesting and will be more if you make your message clearer

There is nothing to make clear and this is an intricate subject and you cannot find clarity on such difficult topics. God, truth, afterlife, the secret of being alive or dead are some of the zones that have always mysterious. Of course some scriptures, and discourses of some saints or prophets seem to have demystified this but we always find such topics mysterious.

I cannot make this topic clear since I myself am not clear about it. I just communicate through my posts and create something for discussion.

[NikolaiI]

Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?

Osho, language thing here - "terrific" is a good thing, somewhat similar to "great," or "wonderful" or "fantastic" although not exactly the same as those words. Its resemblance to "terrify" is superficial and the words have entirely different meanings. English is definitely strange like that and there are innumerable examples; words that have the same root but have evolved to mean quite different things.

[Vonny]

Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?

As Nikolai said, I wasn't saying terrify.

That statement caught my attention because maybe the important thing is that we figure out what we personally think, rather than focusing on continually challenging one another so much. It was just an idea that occurred to me. Of course, through challenging we clarify.

[osho]

Osho, language thing here - "terrific" is a good thing, somewhat similar to "great," or "wonderful" or "fantastic" although not exactly the same as those words. Its resemblance to "terrify" is superficial and the words have entirely different meanings. English is definitely strange like that and there are innumerable examples; words that have the same root but have evolved to mean quite different things.

That is the beauty of English and I like that stuff. That is why we are far from being good at it if we do not come from an English speaking community. You enjoy that privilege as a native writer over me and I will have to work tremendously to be closer to you. Thank you for your illumination.


As Nikolai said, I wasn't saying terrify.

That statement caught my attention because maybe the important thing is that we figure out what we personally think, rather than focusing on continually challenging one another so much. It was just an idea that occurred to me. Of course, through challenging we clarify.

Vonny I apologize for my poor comment. I am from a non English community and I have to go a long way to understand the spirit of English. I believe you will forgive me for my nonsensical comment. Anyway Nikolai enlightened me on this.

[NikolaiI]

That is the beauty of English and I like that stuff. That is why we are far from being good at it if we do not come from an English speaking community. You enjoy that privilege as a native writer over me and I will have to work tremendously to be closer to you. Thank you for your illumination.

Yes, English will endlessly confuse you, because there are endless exceptions. In fact, I had to look it of endless curiosity and found "terrific" actually can mean what you took it to mean. But in 9 times out of 10 in conversational English, or probably at least 19 times out of 20, its closest synonyms will be words like "fantastic," "great," and "wonderful," although again, the exact texture and meaning of the word is not identical to any of those.

Glad you have a desire to learn English to precision. It's a goal that will take some time, just because of how different the language is. But if you read a good number of good books, you can eventually know it as perfectly as any average natural speaker. Your spelling is exceptionally good for a non-native speaker, so grammar is where you should work on; but you're getting it well! :)

One fun thing about English is all the funny words, like Gobbledygook.

[osho]

Yes, English will endlessly confuse you, because there are endless exceptions. In fact, I had to look it of endless curiosity and found "terrific" actually can mean what you took it to mean. But in 9 times out of 10 in conversational English, or probably at least 19 times out of 20, its closest synonyms will be words like "fantastic," "great," and "wonderful," although again, the exact texture and meaning of the word is not identical to any of those.

Glad you have a desire to learn English to precision. It's a goal that will take some time, just because of how different the language is. But if you read a good number of good books, you can eventually know it as perfectly as any average natural speaker. Your spelling is exceptionally good for a non-native speaker, so grammar is where you should work on; but you're getting it well! :)

One fun thing about English is all the funny words, like Gobbledygook.


Thank you Nikolai for your help. I will work hard to this end. I do not speak English and my knowledge of it is limited to or learned from what I come across in print. That is why my English is not natural and lacks the luster and sheen you have in yours.

[stephofthenight]

At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry

I'm sorry but your wrong Mutatis...
You forgot the number one reason, Don't get me wrong I'm a Christian- But I swear Justin Bieber makes me question things :P

[JuniperWoolf]

:lol: And I was just thinking, "the one thing this thread needs is a Justin Bieber joke..."

[stephofthenight]

:lol: And I was just thinking, "the one thing this thread needs is a Justin Bieber joke..."

HAHA sorry I would rather eat a plate of meat with a side of animal cruelty than hear him sing...

[Serena03]

Faith itself is probably more embraced than any actual truth of God's existence. It's only natural that people like to cling to a sort of motherly or fatherly substance that makes them feel motivated, inspired, directed and protected regardless if it's really necessary. Even in a functioning world of 21st century factuality of science, the deep seated need to believe will still be widely rampant no matter how science explains it for the sake of anthropological tradition and subjective purpose.

I on the other hand am happy with my own explorations, in search for sufficiency of survival, however purposeful that may be or induce.

[mazHur]

One doesn't believe in God because his heart is shut, mind awake!

Science has unveiled many truths of Nature but is still in infancy regards the mystery of soul and it's here that God comes in!! Believing or Unbelieving God makes no difference to God but it will always keep most men on their heels so much so that, out of curiosity and suspense, they would not stop talking about him most of the time!

[JuniperWoolf]

Even in a functioning world of 21st century factuality of science, the deep seated need to believe will still be widely rampant no matter how science explains it for the sake of anthropological tradition and subjective purpose.

One of the two main bio profs at the U of A believes that there must be some god-like force. I was pretty taken aback when I heard that.

[Serena03]

One of the two main bio profs at the U of A believes that there must be some god-like force. I was pretty taken aback when I heard that.

I heard of geologists who believe the world is only 7,000 years old, leaving many other scientists pretty dumbstruck there. I guess even scientists come in many packages. But a 'god-like force' doesn't necessarily mean a personal god or creator, it could refer to the laws of physics and nature behaving as 'god-like,' much like what Einstein interpreted.

[mazHur]

Interview with God..... absolutely beautiful.
No matter what you believe, or even if you don't believe, this is worth the sixty seconds it takes to watch.

Click on: http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup-frame.html

[osho]

In fact the Buddha never advocated for the existence of God and he was quiet neutral and was against idol worship. His ideas of Nirvana was closer to atheism than to theism though his followers preposterously idolized him.

I in fact do not want to believe in God the way Christians, Hindus and even Muslims believe in God in heaven or something like that that have instigated so many furors, antagonisms.

This is, philosophically close to Nihilism though it is not exactly it

[Theunderground]

There is no god but man. And bravery is the saviour of man.

[osho]

There is no god but man. And bravery is the saviour of man.

Well said! I second your idea unreservedly

[Theunderground]

Cheers! Coming from a lifelong 'believer' it took a lot of courage for me to become 'free'.

[osho]

Your courage deserves a lot of applause. In fact this world is getting full of violence because of beliefs and ideologies. Men in fact do not fight the ideologies they hold do.

[cafolini]

Your courage deserves a lot of applause. In fact this world is getting full of violence because of beliefs and ideologies. Men in fact do not fight the ideologies they hold do.

An interesting topic worth of examination. It is true, but it is also true that once upon a time there were just a few ideologies banking all men. And they were social catastrophes, e.g., wwii. Today is a product of the desintegration of those ideologies, substituted by thousands. It's the only possible step forward in a postnihilistic world.
The two main currents of nihilism are fighting each other. The first one occurred in the early 20th century against false values. Life lacked any sense as soon as values were discovered to be false. The other current started in the late 20th century when men did not have a basis for genuine values because they were mentally immersed in false values, they knew, but had no new alternatives.
In parallell to this, science advances and provides genuine values, but they are difficult to grasp in the midst of all the apparent chaos.
Nihilism is a very interesting subject, far more complicated than meets an untrained eye.
And chaos? Nietzsche said that all ages where there was progress were chaotic. He was correct.
I now view chaos as a prejudice against what we deem inconvenient. This is a natural situation of progress and open survival. It will slowly be overcome as science provides the vehicles and more importantly, people learn how to drive the multiplicity with healthy results. It's already happenning.

[mazHur]

Chaos

retract
pounce
retract after pouncing
this is all you need
to keep your blood warm.

Buddha didn't say he believed in God. But the question is what did he believe in?? He was much aggrieved at the sufferings of people and devised the Eight Paths. Asoka converted to Buddhism but because his mind became devoid of chaos he lost his empire soon!! Those nations which have usually been struggling for one reason or the other are here today alive. Whereas Buddhism which took its birth in India is no more practiced in India nor it is in other places in its ORIGINAL condition which is sad. I take Buddha as a Mahatama, a great Man, perhaps not less than a Prophet. But his teachings normally teach non-chaos...surrender to 'struggle' and self-affliction which is beyond me.

[Des Essientes]

Ashoka ruled his empire for 40 years until his death and his dynasty lasted for another 50 years. Buddhism convinced him to stop expanding his empire but it in no way caused him to lose it.

[mazHur]

Ashoka ruled his empire for 40 years until his death and his dynasty lasted for another 50 years. Buddhism convinced him to stop expanding his empire but it in no way caused him to lose it.

Ashoka was a great king of his time. After he converted to Buddhism he gave up bloodshed hence expansionism. If he hadn't changed he would have ruled for much more years and his dynasty prevailed for centuries!

Another great King I like was Chandra Gupt Maurya...his reign is know as the Golden Age of India. Perhaps he was a good Buddhist....my salaam to his departed soul!!:)

[Des Essientes]

Chandra Gupta Maurya was a Vaisnava not a Buddhist.

[mazHur]

Chandra Gupta Maurya was a Vaisnava not a Buddhist.

I had said ''perhaps', Well ChandraGupt Mauriya was Hindu and one of their sects believes in Vishnu god. He was the grandfather of Ashoka, right??

[cafolini]

Don't confuse me with the facts.:Yawn:

[mazHur]

:huh:!!

[Theunderground]

Nihilism is for wimps and failed idealists. I think most humans instinctively value genuine relationships with other people. Even if its only with ONE person. If you only genuinely love one person then life has infinite value. If you dont love anyone,make it your mission to find someone. Man is absolutley NOT a solitary animal. Nihilism exists because folks want to be totally independent. Sorry man is a dvinity,but he is also incurably social and gregarious. Man can try his utmost to be an island but he still needs his man friday.

[cafolini]

Nihilism is for wimps and failed idealists. I think most humans instinctively value genuine relationships with other people. Even if its only with ONE person. If you only genuinely love one person then life has infinite value. If you dont love anyone,make it your mission to find someone. Man is absolutley NOT a solitary animal. Nihilism exists because folks want to be totally independent. Sorry man is a dvinity,but he is also incurably social and gregarious. Man can try his utmost to be an island but he still needs his man friday.

You are totally missing the point. Nihilism is a reaction to false values. In fact a lot of the time it is a reaction to individualistic forces that forbid the natural gregariousness of people.

[osho]

You are totally missing the point. Nihilism is a reaction to false values. In fact a lot of the time it is a reaction to individualistic forces that forbid the natural gregariousness of people.

You sound convincing to me

[BienvenuJDC]

Nihilism is for wimps and failed idealists. I think most humans instinctively value genuine relationships with other people. Even if its only with ONE person. If you only genuinely love one person then life has infinite value. If you dont love anyone,make it your mission to find someone. Man is absolutley NOT a solitary animal. Nihilism exists because folks want to be totally independent. Sorry man is a dvinity,but he is also incurably social and gregarious. Man can try his utmost to be an island but he still needs his man friday.

God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."

[cafolini]

You sound convincing to me

More than that, please. I wouldn't want to make you static in any respect.

[mazHur]

God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."

hehe!! Excuse me Bien but which God, whose God is the question!!:)


You are totally missing the point. Nihilism is a reaction to false values. In fact a lot of the time it is a reaction to individualistic forces that forbid the natural gregariousness of people.

Could you please define Values??? Values seem to differ from place to place, culture to culture, society to society???


Nihilism is for wimps and failed idealists. I think most humans instinctively value genuine relationships with other people. Even if its only with ONE person. If you only genuinely love one person then life has infinite value. If you dont love anyone,make it your mission to find someone. Man is absolutley NOT a solitary animal. Nihilism exists because folks want to be totally independent. Sorry man is a dvinity,but he is also incurably social and gregarious. Man can try his utmost to be an island but he still needs his man friday.

You do seem quite reasonable to me!!:)

[cafolini]

Could you please define Values??? Values seem to differ from place to place, culture to culture, society to society???

Agree with that. So obviously you don't need me to define them if you know what you are saying.

[mazHur]

Agree with that. So obviously you don't need me to define them if you know what you are saying.

Well, I thought you were perhaps referring to some values not known to me yet??

[MarkBastable]

God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."

Well, yeah - but at the time he was talking not about the species - Man - but about the gender - guys. And his solution was to make woman 'as a helper'. Which, from a post-feminist point of view, was a bit suspect. And from a chauvinist point of view was totally counterproductive.

So either way, like many of God's homilistic one-liners, that one's not quite as definitive as it might at first appear.

[cafolini]

Well, yeah - but at the time he was talking not about the species - Man - but about the gender - guys. And his solution was to make woman 'as a helper'. Which, from a post-feminist point of view, was a bit suspect. And from a chauvinist point of view was totally counterproductive.

So either way, like many of God's homilistic one-liners, that one's not quite as definitive as it might at first appear.

I like God's reaction to Einstein. When the latter forbade God to play die, gambling increased 100% in Atlantic City.

[BienvenuJDC]

hehe!! Excuse me Bien but which God, whose God is the question!!:)

Since I was quoting the Bible, that would apply to Jehovah. However, I'm uncertain how the Muslim's view the Old Testament passages in reference to the Creator and/or the creation account. Can you enlighten me concerning your perspective?

[mazHur]

Since I was quoting the Bible, that would apply to Jehovah. However, I'm uncertain how the Muslim's view the Old Testament passages in reference to the Creator and/or the creation account. Can you enlighten me concerning your perspective?

Thanks, Bien. Most of the things listed in the Old Testament coincide with Islamic teachings.....especially Muslim belief is much closer to the Jews than Christians. Moral values etc contained in the OT form a considerable part of
Muslim teachings.....and are infact incorporated in the Quran. FYI to be a Muslim it is only necessary to believe in the Unity of God and Muhammad His last Messenger, other imperatives are belief in the angels, the day of judgement, all the holy Scriptures and all the Prophets earlier to the advent of Islam.
As for moral values those are precisely mentioned in the Quran. I would not like to refer to Traditions (said to be sayings of Prophet Muhammad) as the same are disputed among the Muslims themselves and tend to confuse.
Not restricted to religion, the nature of values differs from place to place, people to people due to socio-cultural factors. Even in the USA you will note this variation from state to state...and infact some ''values' have been incorporated in the Law.
Islam, as far as I know, came to change the then ''values' prevailing among the Arabian land (and their culture) . Of such 'values' you can
find good mention in many authentic history books by the western writers themselves. History of the Saracens by Amir Ali or works of Pickhall and Prof Arberry etc (perhaps Gibbon too) should be enough to elucidate further on the state of affairs (ie practices and values) prevailing among the ''pagan'' Arabs and elsewhere (the Huns and the Mongols etc).

[JuniperWoolf]

But a 'god-like force' doesn't necessarily mean a personal god or creator, it could refer to the laws of physics and nature behaving as 'god-like,' much like what Einstein interpreted.

Yeah, that was how it seemed when she was talking about it in class one time but she wasn't allowed to go into detail.

[usman.khawar]

Your belief and disbelief in God has little to do with the existence or non existence, my friend. You are a dust swirling in the vortex of this infinity and your voice will be silenced by the thunder of the universe and before this cosmic existence you are almost nonexistent. Your hubris or sense of illustriousness will be submerged into infinite void.
There must be greater truths and your scientific discoveries and inventions cannot outreach them nor your experimental science and knowledge can outsmart or obscure some deeper realities.
Do not make a conclusion my friend; for we can never conclude. We have to go a long way and yet will be doing round and round in this great labyrinth and the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth. The shadow is not the real.

so my dear friend u r rejecting everything like religion n sceinces as well.. you are concluding infact conlcluded about above and asking me not to conclude anything? strange suggestion lolzz :) anyway its all upto you me dear whether u like to live with cloze eyes or live after solving the very ist basic question of ur existance or earth..


Thanks, Bien. Most of the things listed in the Old Testament coincide with Islamic teachings.....especially Muslim belief is much closer to the Jews than Christians. Moral values etc contained in the OT form a considerable part of
Muslim teachings.....and are infact incorporated in the Quran. FYI to be a Muslim it is only necessary to believe in the Unity of God and Muhammad His last Messenger, other imperatives are belief in the angels, the day of judgement, all the holy Scriptures and all the Prophets earlier to the advent of Islam.
As for moral values those are precisely mentioned in the Quran. I would not like to refer to Traditions (said to be sayings of Prophet Muhammad) as the same are disputed among the Muslims themselves and tend to confuse.
Not restricted to religion, the nature of values differs from place to place, people to people due to socio-cultural factors. Even in the USA you will note this variation from state to state...and infact some ''values' have been incorporated in the Law.
Islam, as far as I know, came to change the then ''values' prevailing among the Arabian land (and their culture) . Of such 'values' you can
find good mention in many authentic history books by the western writers themselves. History of the Saracens by Amir Ali or works of Pickhall and Prof Arberry etc (perhaps Gibbon too) should be enough to elucidate further on the state of affairs (ie practices and values) prevailing among the ''pagan'' Arabs and elsewhere (the Huns and the Mongols etc).

AOA mahzr! i couldnt understand how jews's teachings close with islam ? and not christianity ?

[osho]

In fact I never conclude. God's idea we have is derived from books religions or mythologies or as we have heard from elders. suppose you were never told about God or if you were growing in an isolated area wherein you never hear about God or do not read books on God I do not think you would have any idea about God. The idea of God is invented and with that said however I am not denying the existence of God nor supporting and in fact I want to be indifferent.

I read books on God and I have read plenty of books on it. Buddhism is somewhat close to Nihilism and it is somewhat scientific too and therefore even Bertrand Russel and Einstein too were somewhat supportive of Buddhism.

[Big Dante]

Katy Perry

I'm sold.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Was my post deleted in which I called the OP an idiot, or some such insult? If so, it's pretty funny . . . since I'm the OP.

[mazHur]

[QUOTE=usman.khawar;1083390]



AOA mahzr! i couldnt understand how jews's teachings close with islam ? and not christianity ? ]

WA
Reference to Jews was in context of Old Testament. Yes, Islam also contains
several good points of Christianity as well as other holy Scriptures, such as Talmud and Torah, etc. But since the holy Quran only lives on with its ORIGINAL context for more than 1400 years therefore reliance on the authenticity of other edited or rewritten Scriptures by human hands becomes suspicious and unauthentic.


Was my post deleted in which I called the OP an idiot, or some such insult? If so, it's pretty funny . . . since I'm the OP.

good joke! like a clown getting bashed in circus!!:)

[cafolini]

A Muslim once told me a joke that I never forgot. He said that it is easy to prove that the Quram is a book of revelation simply because the prophet was an analphabet, very brutal, and he would not have been able to write it without help from Allah.

[skib]

This doesn't really fall directly in step with this thread, but it is some interesting thought food:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8KTFQ23CWY&feature=related

[Scheherazade]

Was my post deleted in which I called the OP an idiot, or some such insult? If so, it's pretty funny . . . since I'm the OP.According to our records, none of your posts has been deleted in this thread.



R e m i n d e r

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[MarkBastable]

Do you mean this one?


I can't believe so much has stemmed from the idiotic OP.


It's in the 'Why I believe in God' thread. Of which, by the way, you weren't the OP.

You're probably lucky the actual OP is so laidback.

[mazHur]

A Muslim once told me a joke that I never forgot. He said that it is easy to prove that the Quram is a book of revelation simply because the prophet was an analphabet, very brutal, and he would not have been able to write it without help from Allah.


and.....having such views about Muhammad he still holds on to Islam? What a hypocrite that so-called Muslim he must be!!

[cafolini]

and.....having such views about Muhammad he still holds on to Islam? What a hypocrite that so-called Muslim he must be!!

How religions are an epidemy of hipocresy. How could it be otherwise for a religion? John the Baptist was much more direct with the saxophons. But the Arabs do have branches of Islam which adhere to this idea to postulate revelation. And they have the puton going this way.

[mazHur]

How religions are an epidemy of hipocresy. How could it be otherwise for a religion? John the Baptist was much more direct with the saxophons. But the Arabs do have branches of Islam which adhere to this idea to postulate revelation. And they have the puton going this way.

It depends how you take religion, if at all, and how you play chords on !

[cafolini]

It depends how you take religion, if at all, and how you play chords on !

Religion is strictly two-dimensonal; a thing of the imagination. Can't avoid hipocresy. And so-called wisdom? Pure cleverness within confusion. How could God not be or exist? Impossible. It's a marvellous world, extremely hipocritical and condescending, based on acute resentment for three-dimensional occurrences. Thank goodness we were able to put it in a museum where it no longer makes history where the action is (the actual meaning of separation of church and state), and they all await for recycling in as much comfort they can take to alleviate suffering.
Who could be an atheist to the nonsense of the theist without feeling utterly useless? Who could be an agnostic to such funny setup?

[mazHur]

Religion is strictly two-dimensonal; a thing of the imagination. Can't avoid hipocresy. And so-called wisdom? Pure cleverness within confusion. How could God not be or exist? Impossible. It's a marvellous world, extremely hipocritical and condescending, based on acute resentment for three-dimensional occurrences. Thank goodness we were able to put it in a museum where it no longer makes history where the action is (the actual meaning of separation of church and state), and they all await for recycling in as much comfort they can take to alleviate suffering.
Who could be an atheist to the nonsense of the theist without feeling utterly useless? Who could be an agnostic to such funny setup?

funny?? Does it sound you funny that we are having a 'discourse' over here without even knowing or having seen each other?? You and I are HERE just because of a CAUSE and I can visulaize the TRUTH of YOU AND I talking to each other just because of the LITNET SIGN OR a manifestation of our mutual PRESENCE!!
IF this is POSSIBLE why God be lesser??

[cafolini]

funny?? Does it sound you funny that we are having a 'discourse' over here without even knowing or having seen each other?? You and I are HERE just because of a CAUSE and I can visulaize the TRUTH of YOU AND I talking to each other just because of the LITNET SIGN OR a manifestation of our mutual PRESENCE!!
IF this is POSSIBLE why God be lesser??

Ha! God lesser? Pleaaaaase. He's morer. Actually he's too much.

[mazHur]

Ha! God lesser? Pleaaaaase. He's morer. Actually he's too much.

hehe! trim his tail if you can!!:)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do you mean this one?




It's in the 'Why I believe in God' thread. Of which, by the way, you weren't the OP.

You're probably lucky the actual OP is so laidback.

:lol: I got the threads mixed up. Don't even know who the OP is in the other one. My apologies to him, though.

[ForrestJG]

At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry
You could also say that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the imagined gods exist, or have ever existed. A man of one particular faith believes in his own god, whilst dismissing the gods of men of other faiths. But all these derive from ancient times, when mankind knew nothing about the world, or how it functioned, and it has been passed down the ages to establish organised religion. A certain god is backed up by a book, but so are others; the existence of unicorns has the same amount of evidence as a gods existence. It is just taken on faith, no matter what your religious convictions are, it is all taken on faith, which is irrational, and illogical.
The god of the bible is evil, and if he existed, it would be a dark world indeed.
Rant over. I think Katy Perry does disprove the existence of god however :D

[mazHur]

You could also say that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the imagined gods exist, or have ever existed. A man of one particular faith believes in his own god, whilst dismissing the gods of men of other faiths. But all these derive from ancient times, when mankind knew nothing about the world, or how it functioned, and it has been passed down the ages to establish organised religion. A certain god is backed up by a book, but so are others; the existence of unicorns has the same amount of evidence as a gods existence. It is just taken on faith, no matter what your religious convictions are, it is all taken on faith, which is irrational, and illogical.
The god of the bible is evil, and if he existed, it would be a dark world indeed.
Rant over. I think Katy Perry does disprove the existence of god however :D

If there isn't any Supreme Being then how come you can't have your way all the time??? What makes you strong or weak, good or evil???
Before Galileo,Darwin embarked upon newer theories people thought Earth was Flat and animistic beliefs were common. Some people still believe in UFO's. How do you explain God if you cannot even explain UFO's , Big Foot,
(and perhaps Don Quixote)??? Why do accidents happen and all die except one?? Religion has many hidden mysteries which even science cannot unravel. If you don't understand religion and call it ''evil'' how can you understand the existence of God???

[cafolini]

If there isn't any Supreme Being then how come you can't have your way all the time??? What makes you strong or weak, good or evil???
Before Galileo,Darwin embarked upon newer theories people thought Earth was Flat and animistic beliefs were common. Some people still believe in UFO's. How do you explain God if you cannot even explain UFO's , Big Foot,
(and perhaps Don Quixote)??? Why do accidents happen and all die except one?? Religion has many hidden mysteries which even science cannot unravel. If you don't understand religion and call it ''evil'' how can you understand the existence of God???

This is so entangling that one can't but suspect that the whole forum is composed of press releases from The Vatican or some other disinformation organization. But one has humor and has to honor the fellowship.
It is not important to me what you believe or disbelieve. Because I care about all of you, I think that so long as you don't think that what you believe or disbelieve is knowledge, you will be safe.

[mazHur]

This is so entangling that one can't but suspect that the whole forum is composed of press releases from The Vatican or some other disinformation organization. But one has humor and has to honor the fellowship.
It is not important to me what you believe or disbelieve. Because I care about all of you,
I think that so long as you don't think that what you believe or disbelieve is knowledge, you will be safe.

I am amused:)

It may also be said this way..........
I think that so long as you don't think that what you believe or disbelieve is knowledge, you will never learn to identify relations, even of those of next of kin.

In the Hands of God

By Teresa of Avila
(1515 - 1582)

English version by Kieran Kavanaugh OCD and Otilio Rodriguez OCD



I am Yours and born of You,
What do You want of me?

Majestic Sovereign,
Unending wisdom,
Kindness pleasing to my soul;
God sublime, one Being Good,
Behold this one so vile.
Singing of her love to you:
What do You want of me?

Yours, you made me,
Yours, you saved me,
Yours, you endured me,
Yours, you called me,
Yours, you awaited me,
Yours, I did not stray.
What do You want of me?

Good Lord, what do you want of me,
What is this wretch to do?
What work is this,
This sinful slave, to do?
Look at me, Sweet Love,
Sweet Love, look at me,
What do You want of me?

In Your hand
I place my heart,
Body, life and soul,
Deep feelings and affections mine,
Spouse -- Redeemer sweet,
Myself offered now to you,
What do You want of me?

Give me death, give me life,
Health or sickness,
Honor or shame,
War or swelling peace,
Weakness or full strength,
Yes, to these I say,
What do You want of me?

Give me wealth or want,
Delight or distress,
Happiness or gloominess,
Heaven or hell,
Sweet life, sun unveiled,
To you I give all.
What do You want of me?

Give me, if You will, prayer;
Or let me know dryness,
And abundance of devotion,
Or if not, then barrenness.
In you alone, Sovereign Majesty,
I find my peace,
What do You want of me?

Give me then wisdom.
Or for love, ignorance,
Years of abundance,
Or hunger and famine.
Darkness or sunlight,
Move me here or there:
What do You want of me?

If You want me to rest,
I desire it for love;
If to labor,
I will die working:
Sweet Love say
Where, how and when.
What do You want of me?

Calvary or Tabor give me,
Desert or fruitful land;
As Job in suffering
Or John at Your breast;
Barren or fruited vine,
Whatever be Your will:
What do You want of me?

Be I Joseph chained
Or as Egypt's governor,
David pained
Or exalted high,
Jonas drowned,
Or Jonas freed:
What do You want of me?

Silent or speaking,
Fruitbearing or barren,
My wounds shown by the Law,
Rejoicing in the tender Gospel;
Sorrowing or exulting,
You alone live in me:
What do You want of me?

Yours I am, for You I was born:
What do You want of me?

[cafolini]

And what did the chap said he wanted? She tried hard to give him everything she had. Did he asked her to buy him a cruise to the caribbean at least?

[mazHur]

Thinking Makes It So

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."1

William James, the father of American psychology, stated that, "the greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitude of mind [your thinking]." He also said, "If you change your mind, you can change your life."

While what William James said is true, this truth wasn't discovered by his generation. Two thousand years ago God's word pointed out the importance of right thinking.

It is true; we can change our lives by changing our thinking—either for good or bad. If we harbor and dwell on negative thoughts, we will act in negative ways. On the other hand, if we harbor and dwell on positive thoughts, we will act in positive ways. What we think about comes about.

As another has said, "What the mind dwells on the body acts on." Think of temptation for instance. First comes a thought and, if we entertain it, it hooks our feelings, and the stronger we feel about it, the more we keep thinking about it, and the more we rationalize about doing it … and unless we nip that thinking in the bud, we give in to the temptation and act it out.

So as an unknown author also wisely said:

Watch your thoughts; they lead to attitudes.
Watch your attitudes; they lead to words.
Watch your words; they lead to actions.
Watch your actions; they lead to habits.
Watch your habits; they form your character.
Watch your character; it determines your destiny.


1. The quote is from 1. Philippians 4:8 (NIV).
source:ACTS

[Darcy88]

"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts."

-The Dhamapada.

By the way mazHur, that quote from Phillipians is one of my all time favourite quotes. I never took it in the sense that you take it here. I always just took it as adivce on how to achieve comfort and assurance.

[mazHur]

"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts."

-The Dhamapada.

By the way mazHur, that quote from Phillipians is one of my all time favourite quotes. I never took it in the sense that you take it here. I always just took it as adivce on how to achieve comfort and assurance.

Good, but haven't you heard people often say, ''Hey he is not good spirit'', ''She is feeling low'', 'Oh, you hurt my soul!"". Thus all this 'spirit' business is psychological. It has to do with mind as well as heart!! 'Have heart!!'' we usually say to a depressed person, don't we?

[leemadison11]

God to me is faith of goodness, as long as God exist, faith in goodness exists. The day its over, people in Wall Street and the corrupt politicians are going rule this country. The country would be go to the dogs.

[cafolini]

"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts."

-The Dhamapada.

By the way mazHur, that quote from Phillipians is one of my all time favourite quotes. I never took it in the sense that you take it here. I always just took it as adivce on how to achieve comfort and assurance.

I just realized that. I tried it and I became king of M31. The good thing about it was that when I got tired, I tried it again and I am back home to talk to you who are an honorable figment of what I think.:wave:

[Darcy88]

This may not have anything to do with my disbelief in God, but one of the reasons I am not a Christian is that I cannot make sense of the trinity. If its the father AND the son, then how is it not two gods and therefore a kind of polytheism?

[mazHur]

This may not have anything to do with my disbelief in God, but one of the reasons I am not a Christian is that I cannot make sense of the trinity. If its the father AND the son, then how is it not two gods and therefore a kind of polytheism?

Wow! You picked up the basic difference between two greatest religions of the world, ie Christianity and Islam!

[mazHur]

A nice sermon for those who cannot love!

Living, Loving and Learning Part I

"The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth."the Bible

A popular song from back in the '60s or '70s by Burt Bacharach was: "What the world needs now is love, sweet love / It's the only thing that there's just too little of / What the world needs now is love, sweet love / No not just for some but for everyone."

Only those embittered and disillusioned by failure in love would disagree with those words. We were created for loving relationship, without which we limp along in the shadows of life eking out a lonely existence. And even while living with others such people may live together alone apart—and die a little every day.

It may not be most desirable, but we can live without romantic relationships, but we cannot live healthily nor can we get our love needs met without being in at least one—and hopefully—several healthy relationships.

Furthermore, we can only love and be loved to the degree that we are known. As long as I hide behind a false mask, no matter how attractive and likable that mask may be, I will never feel loved, because my mask is not me. That's the person I'm pretending to be. Only real people find real love. What is more, only real people can experience a real relationship with God. I simply cannot feel close to God or anybody else as long as I hide behind a false mask.

Moreover, as Sydney Jourard wrote some years ago in his book, The Transparent Self, "Every maladjusted person is someone who has not made himself known to another human being and in consequence he does not know himself. Nor can he be himself. More than that, he struggles actively to avoid becoming known by another human being. He works ceaselessly at it day and night. And it is work!"

So to be healthy physically, emotionally and spiritually—and to find loving relationships—we need to come out of hiding and be real.''

source: ACT

[osho]

I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.

Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.

I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.

People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.

Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.

If you are born to a religious community and you get hooked up with them and you cannot break this chain of faith and you will die as a blind follower.

You live with an illusion and die with this. This does not accord with truth.

[cafolini]

I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.

Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.

I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.

People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.

Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.

If you are born to a religious community and you get hooked up with them and you cannot break this chain of faith and you will die as a blind follower.

You live with an illusion and die with this. This does not accord with truth.

You could spend your life talking about truth. There occurs no truth. There occur and infinity of truths and an infinity of lies.

[BlackCat]

My friend you appears to be asking the fundamental question: "How can there be God if there is suffering?".First let us realize something: a) there are no rules saying God must always protect mankind from suffering b) what does not kill me make me stronger. We realize then the assumption that a God must be there to always protect us and keep us from harm is a very human assumption. We realize it's a justification for the lack of belief in God or in a benevolent being. We must also realize that many time struggles and sufferings shape and mold man and his characters, as Cardinal François-Xavier Nguyễn Văn Thuận once said "You can't become a saint unless you suffer".

Secondly we must also realize that many of the multiple sufferings you've listed (including many natural catastrophes and Katy Perry) are man made. You realize that AIDS, diseases, poverty, hunger... are either caused directly by us or indirectly by our negligence. Our apathy for humanity, for the sufferings, our selfishness and self-centerness causes these sufferings. Like an Islamic scholar once said: "Why should God intervene something that human can do themselves?" This question about God's benevolence, or about God seeming negligence for humanity, eventually must lead us to question ourselves, our behaviors, our apathy.

[BlackCat]

You could spend your life talking about truth. There occurs no truth. There occur and infinity of truths and an infinity of lies.

If it is definite and objective that there is no truth, then lack of truth is the truth, thus occurs a paradox

[BlackCat]

I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.

Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.

I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.

People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.

Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.

If you are born to a religious community and you get hooked up with them and you cannot break this chain of faith and you will die as a blind follower.

You live with an illusion and die with this. This does not accord with truth.

Another presumption that a believer who have not fallen out of his faith or have left the faith is a blind believer. I must disagree. Especially in this society, I believe those who still believe are the most well read and the most enlightened people. Religious people are also people, they are capable of thinking and reasoning. Unfortunately they are painted nowaday as little morons who have absolutely not a single bit of common sense. They are painted as blind followers led to the slaughterhouse by wolves dressed in shepherd skin. As a believer I have longed for the day to break such stereotypes, I have longed to be recognized as a human being with reason and logic, someone who have studied philosophy. I want others to understand that I have too studied many faiths before come to the conclusion that my faith, Christianity, is the greatest faith of all.

Now the question back at you is what is truth? You said we as believers will be perpeptual worshippers of our memories. You said we will die in illusion and not accord with the truth. What then is truth? Is there even a truth? Is Plato right, or is it Nietzsche? Or is it like Buddhism, that truth is just an illusion? What is truth?

[cafolini]

If it is definite and objective that there is no truth, then lack of truth is the truth, thus occurs a paradox

There is plenty of truth in the two dimensions of the imagination. But there occurs no truth in three dimensions, only infinite truths and lies. No paradox. The truth only occurs in existence and being. We see it all the time. No paradox. A vicious circle. Imagination without knowledge is like a toilet without water. Knowledge without imagination, however, is an impossibility. Paradox is coax.

[BlackCat]

There is plenty of truth in the two dimensions of the imagination. But there occurs no truth in three dimensions, only infinite truths and lies. No paradox. The truth only occurs in existence and being. We see it all the time. No paradox. A vicious circle. Imagination without knowledge is like a toilet without water. Knowledge without imagination, however, is an impossibility. Paradox is coax.

Pardon me, but I don't know if this is physics or is it literature? Our world is 4 d, 4 dimension, not 3. I don't know how many dimensions imagination posesses, but my guess would be beyond 2 dimensions, since imagination is infinite. Truths can't be infinite, if so then truth won't be truth. It is either a truth or a lie, lies are infinite, truth is one. Lies are circular, truth is linear. If truth only occurs in existence and being, it is then more of a reason why truth can't be infinite, since existence and being, that of man, is finite.

If there is no truth in the 3 dimensions, there therefore no truth in the 4 dimensions, thus no truth in our realm. If there is no truth in this finite realm, then one should speculate that there are no truths belong to the 3 dimensions that can be infinite (since no effects can be greater than its cause). The paradox lies not in reality, but in fact in your statement. Assume if there is no truth, then the lack of truth is the truth :banana:

[cafolini]

Pardon me, but I don't know if this is physics or is it literature? Our world is 4 d, 4 dimension, not 3. I don't know how many dimensions imagination posesses, but my guess would be beyond 2 dimensions, since imagination is infinite. Truths can't be infinite, if so then truth won't be truth. It is either a truth or a lie, lies are infinite, truth is one. Lies are circular, truth is linear. If truth only occurs in existence and being, it is then more of a reason why truth can't be infinite, since existence and being, that of man, is finite.

If there is no truth in the 3 dimensions, there therefore no truth in the 4 dimensions, thus no truth in our realm. If there is no truth in this finite realm, then one should speculate that there are no truths belong to the 3 dimensions that can be infinite (since no effects can be greater than its cause). The paradox lies not in reality, but in fact in your statement. Assume if there is no truth, then the lack of truth is the truth :banana:

You are not grasping what I mean. "The truth" only is and exists. It does not occur except in that. You or many other people are accustomed to deal with existence and being, now museum pieces.
I could deal with this philologically going all the way back to classical Latin. I might do it here perhaps, although I have no interest now. But the age of existentialism has been overcome by postmodernism and science.

[BlackCat]

You are not grasping what I mean. "The truth" only is and exists. It does not occur except in that. You or many other people are accustomed to deal with existence and being, now museum pieces.
I could deal with this philologically going all the way back to classical Latin. I might do it here perhaps, although I have no interest now. But the age of existentialism has been overcome by postmodernism and science.

Classical Latin would have been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, which was mostly Platonism (unless they adhere to Stoicism, which of course are apathetic). Platonism would have advocated that truth is a distinct form, that could be compared to something like God in Christianity except it's more laid back and passive. Truth only is and exists, that is Platonism. Except in Platonism truth only is and exists and is definite and objective, there was no infinity, no circular truth. Truth to Plato and to the Western world as a whole is linear and straight forward, like the sun to earth. :banana:

[BlackCat]

you also said truth only occurs in existence and being, and said many others and I are accustomed to existence and being. Shouldn't we be able to understand truth instantaneously? I don't get the museum pieces statement.

This is also why I believe in God, lack of faith in God causes me intellectual head aches and more paradoxes than answers

[mazHur]

You could spend your life talking about truth. There occurs no truth. There occur and infinity of truths and an infinity of lies.

Good response but what the heck is 'free will' for??

[mazHur]

I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.

Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.
Tne animists do not believe in any god, for example. they worship almost everything and even nothing. I don't think they too are wrong by their choice though i may differ with them in their outlook or belief-even then the point reached the same thing-God!!

I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.

People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.

Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.

If you are born to a religious community and you get hooked up with them and you cannot break this chain of faith and you will die as a blind follower.

You live with an illusion and die with this. This does not accord with truth.

Condemnation of other religions such as Hinduism etc you remarked at is uncalled for. If you don't understand 'logarithms' you cannot condemn it as false just for the reason it is beyond your 'cognitive' capabilities or you just don't like the idea. Similarly all religions have a point in case, take it or leave it rather then puke disgust for it for personal reasons.

I suppose many here are quite grown up and sensible folk and they do not need their parents dinning about what to do or what not to do ...in many matters including religion.

Religion is not an illusion...though it may be a reflection of the Almighty!

[usman.khawar]

To " ina hadina sabeela wa imma shakirwn wa imma kaffora"

And we have given you (hadayt, mind) Whether to accept Him or reject Him.

To Recogonize Him or deny Him

[usman.khawar]

Good response but what the heck is 'free will' for??

i think To " ina hadina sabeela wa imma shakirwn wa imma kaffora" Surah Dahir.

And we have given you (hadayt, mind) Whether to accept Him or reject Him.

To Recogonize Him or deny Him

[BlackCat]

Good response but what the heck is 'free will' for??

my speculation is that free will allows man to either accept or deny truth, or in certain cases make one up

[mazHur]

I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.

Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.

I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.

People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.

Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.

If you are born to a religious community and you get hooked up with them and you cannot break this chain of faith and you will die as a blind follower.

You live with an illusion and die with this. This does not accord with truth.

Condemnation of other religions such as Hinduism etc you remarked at is uncalled for. If you don't understand 'logarithms' you cannot condemn it as false just for the reason it is beyond your 'cognitive' capabilities or you just don't like the idea. Similarly all religions have a point in case, take it or leave it rather then puke disgust for it for personal reasons.

I suppose many here are quite grown up and sensible folk and they do not need their parents dinning about what to do or what not to do ...in many matters including religion.

Religion is not an illusion...though it may be a reflection of the Almighty!
What do you think about animists?? they believe in everything and nothing .
All the roads lead to Rome! God.

[BlackCat]

Condemnation of other religions such as Hinduism etc you remarked at is uncalled for. If you don't understand 'logarithms' you cannot condemn it as false just for the reason it is beyond your 'cognitive' capabilities or you just don't like the idea. Similarly all religions have a point in case, take it or leave it rather then puke disgust for it for personal reasons.

I suppose many here are quite grown up and sensible folk and they do not need their parents dinning about what to do or what not to do ...in many matters including religion.

Religion is not an illusion...though it may be a reflection of the Almighty!
What do you think about animists?? they believe in everything and nothing .
All the roads lead to Rome! God.

Deja Vú?

[mazHur]

Deja Vú?

No, one can feel it!

[BlackCat]

you do realize you posted something twice?

[mazHur]

you do realize you posted something twice?

computer slip,I note . Usually the site detects and stops duplicates posts.......

[Theunderground]

God is just a historical misunderstanding of the personality/'soul' of strong men. Strong men are gods. The belief in one supreme governer or creator god is the biggest mistake and intellectual illusion man has ever fallen for. Strong men become gods by their actions and untiring desire,the rest will be content (or not as the case may be.) with religious or 'scientific' dogmas.

[Varenne Rodin]

I just can't believe, as an atheist, I'm still called upon daily to defend my "decision" to NOT believe in god. It's completely obvious to me that there is zero evidence supporting this stuff. I wish we could move on from it. I think things would be more peaceful.

[cafolini]

Precisely. Because the only truly atheistic act of civilization was the postulation of God.

[mazHur]

Man proposes God disposes...only Man cannot do both.

[cafolini]

Man proposes God disposes...only Man cannot do both.

That's Goddess. Sounds much more like my ex-wife.

[mazHur]

That's Goddess. Sounds much more like my ex-wife.

Wow! Then she must be a strong lady!!

[cafolini]

Wow! Then she must be a strong lady!!

Indeed. Being of this earth, she disposed better.

[BienvenuJDC]

I just can't believe, as an atheist, I'm still called upon daily to defend my "decision" to NOT believe in god. It's completely obvious to me that there is zero evidence supporting this stuff. I wish we could move on from it. I think things would be more peaceful.

You know...I feel the same way about my decision to believe in God. Seems like many people on both sides of the coin just lack the respect for people to believe what they want to. It's completely obvious to me that He is real, but I respect your belief as well. I've got several friends on FB that we just don't discuss these things.

So, just curious...since Christmas is mostly pagan anyway (I'm not one of those who observes it religiously), do you observe the traditions of the season?

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't get atheists that are anti-Christmas. Even Nietzsche loved Christmas.

[Theunderground]

On a side issue,lets not make the colossal mistake that even as a philosophical titbit eliminating religion would make the earth more peaceful.Many people are by nature agressive,not believing in god doesnt necessarly make you more peaceful.

[PoeticPassions]

I don't get atheists that are anti-Christmas. Even Nietzsche loved Christmas.

I love Christmas too. I just dislike the commercialization of Christmas and the materialism it has spurred in people, much like most other holidays (the mere idea of 'Black Friday' makes me shudder).


I just can't believe, as an atheist, I'm still called upon daily to defend my "decision" to NOT believe in god. It's completely obvious to me that there is zero evidence supporting this stuff. I wish we could move on from it. I think things would be more peaceful.

I agree with this... though I think, at the end of the day, people will always find differences and things to argue about or disagree on.


You know...I feel the same way about my decision to believe in God. Seems like many people on both sides of the coin just lack the respect for people to believe what they want to. It's completely obvious to me that He is real, but I respect your belief as well. I've got several friends on FB that we just don't discuss these things.




Bien, I definitely think that people need to respect one another more and that we should be more humble and respect each other's beliefs and faiths. However, though you feel similarly to Varenne, you should be aware that you are in the majority. Your position is the one that is more accepted in society (particularly in America, as opposed to maybe Western Europe), and that as the minority it is much more difficult to have a dissenting view.

[mazHur]

A look at history shows that the Huns, the Mongols etc had no religion yet they destroyed the world peace. This goes to prove that religion cannot be blamed for disturbing peace and BTW what is Peace?? Nothing, no one in the world was ever at 'peace'. Life is a struggle.....but religious as well as non-religious people are equally responsible for disturbing the world peace or peace of others due to their inherent instinct for power and supremacy.

[BienvenuJDC]

I love Christmas too. I just dislike the commercialization of Christmas and the materialism it has spurred in people, much like most other holidays (the mere idea of 'Black Friday' makes me shudder).

I hate commercialization. Isn't it ironic that on Thursday we dedicate the day to being thankful for what we have, then on Friday we spend more money than any other day to buy MORE stuff.

[OrphanPip]

A look at history shows that the Huns, the Mongols etc had no religion yet they destroyed the world peace. This goes to prove that religion cannot be blamed for disturbing peace and BTW what is Peace?? Nothing, no one in the world was ever at 'peace'. Life is a struggle.....but religious as well as non-religious people are equally responsible for disturbing the world peace or peace of others due to their inherent instinct for power and supremacy.

The Mongols were Buddhists and the Huns are not an ethnic group, but a political association of multiple Steppes people, who would have practised a diverse collection of pagan religions from the region.

[mazHur]

The Mongols were Buddhists and the Huns are not an ethnic group, but a political association of multiple Steppes people, who would have practised a diverse collection of pagan religions from the region.

''Genghis Khan set up an institution that ensured complete religious freedom, though he himself was a shamanist. ''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empire

[mazHur]

Huns and Mongols had no religion just like the Thugs of India.

''I would have guessed some sort of Asian animism, but Wikipedia says "unknown" so it must be true. Another site says "Tengriism" but that is a comic book hero site, so not sure how reliable it is.''




"Traditional religion of Turkic peoples and Mongols before their incorporation of major world religions. Incorporates elements of shamanism, animism, totemism and ancestor worship. Sometimes called called Goktanri religion"
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila
http://www.comicbookreligion.com/?Religi…

[irishpixieb]

Below I have a link for Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs for the existence of God. They are the foundation of my argument. Scroll down to "I answer that". You don't need to read the rest unless you're really interested.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.asp

Anyway, what Aquinas is saying is that there is a prime mover in the universe. He set off the Big Bang and he created everything. This mover controls all that goes on on this Earth. The issues that are addressed can all be lumped into the so-called "Problem of Evil". The "Problem of Evil" is simply the question of why a God that is good would let evil happen? And, it's a legitimate question. I ask it myself...a lot. But, what one has to rely on here is faith, in the end. Aquinas' arguments are pretty convincing. He uses logic to get his point across. But, logic seems to falter when it comes to the "Problem of Evil".

The only thing I can say to this is that there is a reason. How much good has AIDS created? Think about all of the people who are currently helping those in need. Starving children is the same way. Think about the good that has sprung out of the evil. War has also had its benefits, despite the hellishness of it. Some of our greatest technology has sprung out of research that happened during war. Also, in World War II, women were given a chance to enter the working world and make a difference. (Sorry, I had to throw the feminist thing in there!) And hate is not the opposite of love. Hate implies that the other person cares. In a way, it is a kind of love because one cares enough about a person to hate them.

There is no easy answer to the "Problem of Evil". No one has provided all the answers. I beg you not to give up on God yet. In due time, we may know the answers. Read the Book of Job in the Bible. It talks about all the things you reference (except Katy Perry haha). God requires faith, its as simple as that.

Oh, and my final point. Pascal's Wager stated that he believed in God because it was a win win either way. If God existed, then he was good because he believed in God and would get into heaven. If God didn't exist, then he still would win because he was at least playing it safe. Just something to think about if nothing else. Other things I beg you to check out are Anselm's Proof of God and Descartes, although Descartes is a flawed argument...

That's all I wanted to say :)

[Varenne Rodin]

You know...I feel the same way about my decision to believe in God. Seems like many people on both sides of the coin just lack the respect for people to believe what they want to. It's completely obvious to me that He is real, but I respect your belief as well. I've got several friends on FB that we just don't discuss these things.

So, just curious...since Christmas is mostly pagan anyway (I'm not one of those who observes it religiously), do you observe the traditions of the season?

I do celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving too. I don't put up pretenses about beliefs, I just enjoy decorating, making tasty treats, and giving. Sociocultural norms, and all of that. :D

[BienvenuJDC]

I do celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving too. I don't put up pretenses about beliefs, I just enjoy decorating, making tasty treats, and giving. Sociocultural norms, and all of that. :D

oh...we are going to have a problem if you DON'T like pumpkin pie...

Have you ever had Shoo Fly Pie (aka Wet Bottom Pie)?

[JuniperWoolf]

Christmas without gifts is just Thanksgiving. I love gifts, I love having this little package sitting in my house with my name on it, and I don't know what it is, and the anticipation. I like making lists of the people that I'm buying for, dwelling on who they are and what would make them happy and then putting together little parcels of goodies for them.

It doesn't have to be expensive, I have a cousin who once gave me a jar of feta in oil with spices that he made himself and it was one of the best things I've ever recieved. Feta is one of my favorite things on earth and I loved learning that he remembered and put time and effort into creating something just for me. My brother made me a "cold kit" when he was little, and it was genius. I was often sick as a kid, so he gave me a nice little box that he decorated himself. It looked beautiful and sat under the tree for weeks, and when I finally opened it I found packages of neo-citrin, a hot water bottle, some trashy books which I love to read when I'm sick, some vapor rub and a eucalyptus-scented teddy bear. It was brilliant, so personal. I could tell that he put a lot of thought into who I was and what I would need that he could give me.

[Varenne Rodin]

Aw. I love that, Juniper. Very sweet.

Bien, I do like pumpkin pie, if it's spiced properly. Is shoo-fly pie anything like pecan pie? I have no idea.

[OrphanPip]

Huns and Mongols had no religion just like the Thugs of India.


Since when do shamanism, animism and ancestor worship not count as religion?

[BienvenuJDC]

Aw. I love that, Juniper. Very sweet.

Bien, I do like pumpkin pie, if it's spiced properly. Is shoo-fly pie anything like pecan pie? I have no idea.

Shoo Fly is similar to pecan, but with a strong molasses flavor and a crumb top. It's a Pennsylvania Dutch recipe. I love it, but it's one of those desserts that you really like, or you really don't.

[mazHur]

Since God has given us Free Will, it is for us to choose between good and evil.
However, since this Free Will is subject to the Will of God we note a variety of 'evil' that boggles our minds. Perhaps, humans are easy to 'judge' things as Evil if these don't come up to their mark. God's 'mark' may be different......maybe He thinks 'poison' is the antidote of poison yet 'poison' is necessary for Him to keep the Universe in balance.

[mazHur]

Since when do shamanism, animism and ancestor worship not count as religion?

All these feature in almost every religion but without a proper name, hence calling them as religion is not quite understandable.

[BienvenuJDC]

Since when do shamanism, animism and ancestor worship not count as religion?

I guess I could also count "atheism" as a religion as well. It's just another belief system.

[Varenne Rodin]

No. It isn't. The same way not collecting butterflies isn't a hobby.

[OrphanPip]

I guess I could also count "atheism" as a religion as well. It's just another belief system.

Nonsense, shamanism is a clearly articulated form of religious belief, it simply involves the direct mediation of an individual in the tribe and the spirits/deities of the specific religion. Animistic religions are just as complex, may Native American societies involved very intricate collections of mythological nartives and traditions, believes and rituals. The statement that the huns had no religion, because they were not institutionalized at an imperial level, or monotheistic is just silly.

The reason there are no names for the religions of the Huns is because, one they were a short lived political amalgamation, and the cultures that composed the Huns were not literate. We have no direct information about the culture of those people, but it's silly to assume that they would be unique in not having an organized set of mythology or not having names for their belief system.

[BienvenuJDC]

Nonsense, shamanism is a clearly articulated form of religious belief, it simply involves the direct mediation of an individual in the tribe and the spirits/deities of the specific religion. Animistic religions are just as complex, may Native American societies involved very intricate collections of mythological nartives and traditions, believes and rituals. The statement that the huns had no religion, because they were not institutionalized at an imperial level, or monotheistic is just silly.

The reason there are no names for the religions of the Huns is because, one they were a short lived political amalgamation, and the cultures that composed the Huns were not literate. We have no direct information about the culture of those people, but it's silly to assume that they would be unique in not having an organized set of mythology or not having names for their belief system.

There are many people who simply choose not to believe in God, and that is perfectly fine. However, there are those who are adamant that not only should they themselves not believe in God, but that EVERYONE should not believe in God. There are many atheists who will ridicule those who have a belief system. However, they choose to follow the scientific belief. The evidence is fashionably cooked by those who have espoused the evolutionary model. However, they want to convert anyone and everyone to their belief system. They criticize every religion out there making their belief system a religion of their own.

[Sancho]

Oh man. I've gotta try one of those Shoo-Fly Pies.

[Varenne Rodin]

Religions are belief systems based on stories concocted by people. Water erosion isn't concocted by people. Stars aren't. Rocks aren't. Oceans aren't. Science isn't a belief system, it's physical. Obviously.

[BienvenuJDC]

Religions are belief systems based on stories concocted by people. Water erosion isn't concocted by people. Stars aren't. Rocks aren't. Oceans aren't. Science isn't a belief system, it's physical. Obviously.

True science observes all the evidence. There is evidence that contradicts the theories of many scientists. So should they modify their theory or throw out the evidence? Because they tell a story that they have concocted based on sketchy evidence. How do the stars, water erosion, rocks, and oceans support the story that they tell? You have stories that you choose to believe, as I have stories that I choose to believe. A story can be true or false. Maybe both stories have truths and falsities, but we choose to believe them. Why should we assume that my stories are false and that your stories are true? An open mind is a wonderful thing.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Science isn't based on stories.

[BienvenuJDC]

Science isn't based on stories.

Scientific theory is though. There's this story that I once heard that one celled creatures came about by happenstance and they evolved into more complex creatures. This wild story goes on and on....THIS is NOT Science.

[Darcy88]

Bien have you read Augustine's Confessions? I'm no believer but I'm reading it right now. A very articulate and emphatic declaration and discussion of faith, I think it would be pure gold to any Christian.

[Varenne Rodin]

Bien, when genuine evidence disproves a theory, it is thrown out. Thousands of scientists are attempting to disprove theories at any given time. That's part of scientific method. Asking over and over and over, "Can this be disproven?" Word of mouth bible stories don't disprove anything physical. I think this stubbornness on your part is an attempt for you to feel validated in your choice of beliefs. No scientist or atheist is going to validate an old fairy tale.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Scientific theory is though. There's this story that I once heard that one celled creatures came about by happenstance and they evolved into more complex creatures. This wild story goes on and on....THIS is NOT Science.
Meh. I don't argue with people who don't believe in evolution anymore. It's an exhaustive, pointless exercise.

[BienvenuJDC]

Meh. I don't argue with people who don't believe in evolution anymore. It's an exhaustive, pointless exercise.

I agree concerning those who believe that it's a fact.

[Varenne Rodin]

Even the Vatican acknowledges the reality of evolution. Is that why you don't like Catholics?

[OrphanPip]

Meh. I don't argue with people who don't believe in evolution anymore. It's an exhaustive, pointless exercise.

I've tried, it's pointless, I can't even convince him that the Earth is more than 8000 years old.

[cafolini]

Even the Vatican acknowledges the reality of evolution. Is that why you don't like Catholics?

The Vatican is not prepared to acknowledge the reality of evolution. They know didley about it. They are prepared for involution.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've tried, it's pointless, I can't even convince him that the Earth is more than 8000 years old.

I'm still waiting for explanations for the evidence that contradicts their theories. Too many holes in the theory. Funny, I still can't convince you that there is an intelligent design, and that requires an intelligent Designer. Oh...you still think that it all happened TOTALLY by accident.

[Varenne Rodin]

The Vatican is not prepared to acknowledge the reality of evolution. They know didley about it. They are prepared for involution.

I'm sure you're right, caf. I was just referring to statements Vatican priests gave on the matter. One priest went so far as to say the bible stories are just stories that are helpful for raising moral, happy people. He said yes, evolution has been proven. I am in no way condoning or advocating Catholicism by saying this. I'm merely pointing out that even very religious people can see that evolution is a part of life and change. It doesn't make sense to deny it. It's like a person saying that because they are religious, they can just choose to believe that the sky is made of marshmallows, and then saying their marshmallow sky theory is just as valid as the blue sky "theory".

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm sure you're right, caf. I was just referring to statements Vatican priests gave on the matter. One priest went so far as to say the bible stories are just stories that are helpful for raising moral, happy people. He said yes, evolution has been proven. I am in no way condoning or advocating Catholicism by saying this. I'm merely pointing out that even very religious people can see that evolution is a part of life and change. It doesn't make sense to deny it. It's like a person saying that because they are religious, they can just choose to believe that the sky is made of marshmallows, and then saying their marshmallow sky theory is just as valid as the blue sky "theory".

I don't have any respect for the religion of the Vatican, or their opinions. However, considering the evidences. I was taught in school that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but the truth of the matter is that it takes mere decades for wood to coalify. So why are the schools still teaching that it takes millions of years? There's also evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind. Pictographs and pottery has been found showing that man had seen dinosaurs long ago, but it seems that conflicts with the current teachings of many evolutionists. Why do we not see these things in the schools? It's because this evidence has been rejected. Since when do honest scientists reject evidence? I'd like to know.

[mazHur]

I guess I could also count "atheism" as a religion as well. It's just another belief system.

At the best these can be termed as ''variations' of a belief system...not beliefs.
I think belief and faith are two different domains?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't have any respect for the religion of the Vatican, or their opinions. However, considering the evidences. I was taught in school that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but the truth of the matter is that it takes mere decades for wood to coalify. So why are the schools still teaching that it takes millions of years? There's also evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind. Pictographs and pottery has been found showing that man had seen dinosaurs long ago, but it seems that conflicts with the current teachings of many evolutionists. Why do we not see these things in the schools? It's because this evidence has been rejected. Since when do honest scientists reject evidence? I'd like to know.

:lol: Wow. I can't believe what I just read there. Man and dinosaurs living together! Sorry, Bien, but your credibility is completely gone.

[MystyrMystyry]

I'm still waiting for explanations for the evidence that contradicts their theories. Too many holes in the theory. Funny, I still can't convince you that there is an intelligent design, and that requires an intelligent Designer. Oh...you still think that it all happened TOTALLY by accident.

The trouble with Intelligent Design Theory is it doesn't consider the big picture. Where did God come from? Was God intelligently designed by another God? And that God by another God before? Where did that God come from? Perhaps just spring into existence TOTALLY by accident?

Perhaps God created himself intelligently from the void?

If you don't have the answer then what makes you feel you can dump on an alternative theory to how life began? Life is physical and can be studied, and it's easier to see that it happened by chance - which doesn't make it any less amazing - in fact if anything it would surely make it more so?

[Varenne Rodin]

Mystyry, you are so smart!

I agree with, Mutatis. I'm sorry, Bien. That approach just doesn't hold water. I don't think I can participate much more for this one.

[mazHur]

you cannot grow tree even if you water it with a million gallons of water a day!!
Teaching is always done slowly---metered--to be assimilated by the brain. Changes take time to complete....Rome was not built in a day!


The trouble with Intelligent Design Theory is it doesn't consider the big picture. Where did God come from? Was God intelligently designed by another God? And that God by another God before? Where did that God come from? Perhaps just spring into existence TOTALLY by accident?

Perhaps God created himself intelligently from the void?

If you don't have the answer then what makes you feel you can dump on an alternative theory to how life began? Life is physical and can be studied, and it's easier to see that it happened by chance - which doesn't make it any less amazing - in fact if anything it would surely make it more so?

Where does love come from?? This Universe and all in it is not totally physical-there is a spiritual side to it as well which is still beyond 'science's' reach!

[MystyrMystyry]

Ah well, where Love comes from is a separate issue, and a far greater and more important thing than all the 'ologies and 'osophies combined (though shelter, sleep, food and drink and good music are also up there).

God as a metaphor for Love I have no problem with, but God as a metaphor for Absolutely Everything Else... that's pretty unsteady ground to me, especially as we're given free will but The Almighty knows what's going to happen anyway - that's more of a Gordian Knot than an answer. But we have Love so why worry about it at all?

[KCurtis]

I don't have any respect for the religion of the Vatican, or their opinions. However, considering the evidences. I was taught in school that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but the truth of the matter is that it takes mere decades for wood to coalify. So why are the schools still teaching that it takes millions of years? There's also evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind. Pictographs and pottery has been found showing that man had seen dinosaurs long ago, but it seems that conflicts with the current teachings of many evolutionists. Why do we not see these things in the schools? It's because this evidence has been rejected. Since when do honest scientists reject evidence? I'd like to know.

Please cite your references for coal. Pictures and pottery is not evidence that people saw dinosaurs. If you would like to know, find out by consulting scientists.

[KCurtis]

I've tried, it's pointless, I can't even convince him that the Earth is more than 8000 years old.

At least we all can agree that the earth is round.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

At least we all can agree that the earth is round.
I guess the late member Musicology was before your time. :lol:

[BienvenuJDC]

:lol: Wow. I can't believe what I just read there. Man and dinosaurs living together! Sorry, Bien, but your credibility is completely gone.

What about the credibility of sound evidence? I'm not saying that these things bring forth 100% proof by themselves, but this is indeed evidence that many in the scientific world totally rejects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtDbXN0RILE

[krymsonkyng]

At least we all can agree that the earth is round.

Wrong. Time cube. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

[JuniperWoolf]

:lol: Wow. I can't believe what I just read there. Man and dinosaurs living together!

I know, right?!? I've had conversations with these people in real life, they insist that wood that's been charred to the point that the composite material no longer resembles wood is a fossil, even though real fossils are made of hard solid stone and not flaky coal-like blackened wood. They also don't take into account the stratafied layers of earth. Apparently, fossils were buried under mountains of stratified layers of widely differing types of hard, solid rock during a world-wide flood (even though there's not enough water on earth to cover the every landmass and mountain). Faster animals are in the top layers of course because they ran away from the rising water, except that raptors are embedded thousands of feet deeper than sloths and slugs. Apparently, dinosaurs were just really slow runners.

http://www.weakstream.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/jesussauris.png

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What about the credibility of sound evidence? I'm not saying that these things bring forth 100% proof by themselves, but this is indeed evidence that many in the scientific world totally rejects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtDbXN0RILE

Sorry, but drawings, engravings, and sculptures of what vaguely looks like dinosaurs hardly seems credible, sound evidence. I honestly thought there would be more than that . . . but there wasn't, aside from the even more vague fossil "evidence." So, according to what this presenter posits, I guess we should also consider the possibility that there was a creature that was part man and part lion in Egypt. After all, they made a sculpture of it, so maybe it actually existed? People who lived thousands of years ago surely didn't possess any creativity.

[OrphanPip]

Even if you wanted to say these things were based in reality, humans co-existed along megafauna, like the Megalania, which was a very large lizard.

Also, the fact that most European and African dragon myths revolve around water suggests that they were probably inspired by crocodiles. You can trace the development of later models of dragons, like the flying fire breathing more dinosaur like kind as a later development and clearly invention.

Asian dragon myths are clearly based on snakes anatomically.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah, the earliest giant animal myth that I can remember reading is Mars' giant snake that was killed by Europa's brother whatsisname in order to sow it's teeth and make a new civilization. Besides, it isn't difficult to see how stories about giant animals would have been imagined by our ancestors, we're all fascinated by giant animals (imagine how the ancient sailor who stumbled across a blue whale would have had his imagination sparked). I've read about giant snakes, giant dogs, giant bulls, why are stories about giant reptiles with wings indicative of dinosaurs romping around with humans? The others didn't exist.

[deryk]

Where does love come from?? This Universe and all in it is not totally physical-there is a spiritual side to it as well which is still beyond 'science's' reach!
Disagree. All things are materials. Even our thoughts. That doesn't make them any less valid. It just makes them less fictional.

[Paulclem]

Disagree. All things are materials. Even our thoughts. That doesn't make them any less valid. It just makes them less fictional.

In what way are thoughts material?

[MystyrMystyry]

I think a lot of the evolutionary mis-information is due to the perspective of human/homo sapien (us) as being perfect.

These big brains, and long legs and flat feet, and vocal cords/language, and hairless differently coloured hides - they're not intentional adaptations like tool/weapons, but a series of mutations that allowed us to rule over the landscape - but not as agile in trees as certain primates.

We're amazing really, and it's sort of reassuring to know that some of our simian ancestors were around at the time of the dinosaurs, but when did we 'develop' into actual recognisable human form?

There's Lucy's bones - but they're merely the oldest we've found (I haven't been keeping up with it - are there any older?), we may well have become human on a dinosaur-less, sabre-tooth lion-less, island off of Gondwana (for all it matters - though unlikely), but if Lucy was 1.8 million years ago then what shape were we in 1.8 million years before - swinging from the branches, or had the evolution already occurred 18 million (or180 million) years previous?

Thing is about the specific date we don't know, and we probably did cohabit the Earth with Gigantosaurus and her ilk. But back then survival instinct would have been pretty high along with infant mortality rates and a probable life expectency of 15-20 years due to unbelievable stress levels.

Who would have had the time to stop and paint on a cavewall a wanted dead or alive poster of T-Rex public enemy no 1?

Come to that who would have had time to construct burial ceremonies either? Even if a shovel had been invented. Bones left in the sand break down fairly quickly compared to those protected by a layer of dirt, and so are lost.

[YesNo]

We're amazing really, and it's sort of reassuring to know that some of our simian ancestors were around at the time of the dinosaurs, but when did we 'develop' into actual recognisable human form?
...

Who would have had the time to stop and paint on a cavewall a wanted dead or alive poster of T-Rex public enemy no 1?

I remember reading a book by Brian Sykes called The Seven Daughters of Eve which used mitochondrial DNA to trace back the age of the human species to about 150,000 years. I don't know if that is still considered a good estimate. He also mentioned that our species and the Neanderthal's did not cross although I recall reading something recently hinting that they might have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve

If humans existed during the time of dinosaurs like T-Rex, I suspect we would have seen a lot more cave paintings of those guys than we do today, but we probably wouldn't have survived--at least based on how they behaved in Jurassic Park.

[krymsonkyng]

In what way are thoughts material?

In that a CAT scan can observe them perhaps.

[Paulclem]

In that a CAT scan can observe them perhaps.

How can a cat scan see thoughts?

[krymsonkyng]

How can a cat scan see thoughts?

You're right, a CT scan can't. What is the scan that shows electrical impulses within the brain? Can anyone help me in naming the scan that shows brain activity?

I know also that scientists have developed devices approaching the ability to read thoughts, for example the robotic arm that moves at a thought. So thoughts are at least physical in that they affect the physical world.

[deryk]

In what way are thoughts material?
If there isn't an influx of sodium or potassium or a chain of electrons to complete a synapse, then that thought you were about to have does not occur. Did you think perception was magic? This is decades old information. Neurologists have more recently observed things like love and have been able to replicate the conditions. There is no magical land of abstractions, only the tiny hard copies of reality inside our brains and our ability to manipulate those copies. EVERYTHING is material. That doesn't mean those things aren't special. It just means we don't live in a world of make-believe.


In that a CAT scan can observe them perhaps.
CAT scans are old hat, but you're on the right track.




I know also that scientists have developed devices approaching the ability to read thoughts, for example the robotic arm that moves at a thought. So thoughts are at least physical in that they affect the physical world.

http://emotiv.com/
What you're describing is already a household item. They are difficult to use, but they do in fact work.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If there isn't an influx of sodium or potassium or a chain of electrons to complete a synapse, then that thought you were about to have does not occur. Did you think perception was magic? This is decades old information. Neurologists have more recently observed things like love and have been able to replicate the conditions. There is no magical land of abstractions, only the tiny hard copies of reality inside our brains and our ability to manipulate those copies. EVERYTHING is material. That doesn't mean those things aren't special. It just means we don't live in a world of make-believe.
The action of thinking is a material process, but it's a bit harder to claim that what we think, for example pondering the possibility that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, is material. Unless I'm mistaken, no machine can read our thoughts. They can see them take place and make basic observations, but they can't read our thoughts.

[OrphanPip]

I think a lot of the evolutionary mis-information is due to the perspective of human/homo sapien (us) as being perfect.

These big brains, and long legs and flat feet, and vocal cords/language, and hairless differently coloured hides - they're not intentional adaptations like tool/weapons, but a series of mutations that allowed us to rule over the landscape - but not as agile in trees as certain primates.

A lot could say that most animals are amazing in this sense, they are all, in the words of Darwin, perfect in their interconnectedness and adaptation to their surroundings. There's nothing special about humans biologically.



We're amazing really, and it's sort of reassuring to know that some of our simian ancestors were around at the time of the dinosaurs, but when did we 'develop' into actual recognisable human form?

There's Lucy's bones - but they're merely the oldest we've found (I haven't been keeping up with it - are there any older?), we may well have become human on a dinosaur-less, sabre-tooth lion-less, island off of Gondwana (for all it matters - though unlikely), but if Lucy was 1.8 million years ago then what shape were we in 1.8 million years before - swinging from the branches, or had the evolution already occurred 18 million (or180 million) years previous?

Absolutely not, we diverged from monkeys less than 20 million years ago, and the earliest placental mammal that we can trace the ape lineage to emerged around 60 million years ago, after the extinction of the dinosaur, and it likely resembled a sort of quadrupedal raccoon like animal with grasping hands.

Lucy is not human either, she is a hominid (H. erectus to be specific), that is she is in the same lineage of upright apes we are in. Modern humans are only around 300,000 years old. It's a mistake to understand evolution as this progressive process where Lucy evolved into humans. Hominid ancestors are not unique either, the fossil record shows that multiple lineages of hominids have lived simultaneously around the same time. Humans and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and likely shared an ancestor, being from divergent clades.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/7621c41b0c89b306103d0cfa058ab671.png

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works, lineages radiate like the branches of trees from common sources, forming a web like pattern if you wanted to trace population histories along lines.

The picture above groups fossils anatomically and temporally. What you can see from reviewing that picture is that some of the lineages that gave way to humans also gave way to a number of other hominids that likely went extinct. Hominids were not a rare kind of animal over the evolutionary scale, humans are only special because we managed not to go extinct.



Thing is about the specific date we don't know, and we probably did cohabit the Earth with Gigantosaurus and her ilk. But back then survival instinct would have been pretty high along with infant mortality rates and a probable life expectency of 15-20 years due to unbelievable stress levels.

No, humans are roughly 300,000 years old as a species, and anything that can be reasonably described as human like could not have existed prior than 2.5 million years ago. Something ape like didn't even exist 20 million years ago.



I remember reading a book by Brian Sykes called The Seven Daughters of Eve which used mitochondrial DNA to trace back the age of the human species to about 150,000 years. I don't know if that is still considered a good estimate. He also mentioned that our species and the Neanderthal's did not cross although I recall reading something recently hinting that they might have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve


That would be the date of the last common matrilineal ancestor of all extent human beings. It's a different indicator than the age of the species. As the last matrilineal ancestor of most people from specific ethnic groups in isolated breeding populations might only be a few hundred years back.

[deryk]

Unless I'm mistaken, no machine can read our thoughts.
You are mistaken, but not completely. Marketing firms already use observations of brain functions to effectively determine product placements. Can scientific techniques "read your mind" verbatim? No, but we're probably much closer than you realize. Our thoughts aren't beyond ratio and measurement. It's a matter of time, not an impossibility.

But it's all beside the point anyhow. The point isn't that it can be done, the point is that those materials are verifiably the makeup of what we think and feel. That isn't even new science, it's old science. Form IS function. The separation between the two only exists in our understanding (or lack thereof).

[mazHur]

BTW where will 'thoughts' go after death????

[deryk]

Into the air and ground and other organisms. I guess you could use it to support a belief in reincarnation, but not a supernatural world of spirits.

[mazHur]

Into the air and ground and other organisms.

That's a shot in the dark!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Into the air and ground and other organisms. I guess you could use it to support a belief in reincarnation, but not a supernatural world of spirits.

Well, that's scientific. :lol:

[mazHur]

Well, that's scientific. :lol:

I wish it were and there was no question of matter and non-matter.:biggrin5:

[deryk]

Well, that's scientific. :lol:
And you had what in mind? Don't rebut without offering something.

[BienvenuJDC]

Sorry, but drawings, engravings, and sculptures of what vaguely looks like dinosaurs hardly seems credible, sound evidence. I honestly thought there would be more than that . . . but there wasn't, aside from the even more vague fossil "evidence." So, according to what this presenter posits, I guess we should also consider the possibility that there was a creature that was part man and part lion in Egypt. After all, they made a sculpture of it, so maybe it actually existed? People who lived thousands of years ago surely didn't possess any creativity.

I'm sorry, but that is not just creativity. I figured that you would just dismiss the evidence. It seems that any evidence that I could ever give would be dismissed as well. There are pictures (good pictures) of a triceratops and a small T-Rex, which could only have been drawn that accurately if one would have actually SEEN it. This is not just one case of chance. But it seems that evolutionists like the extremely high odds...or rather impossible odds. Don't lecture me on credibility. Evolutionists try to construct a complete skeletal modal based on sketchy parts. Let me see some of YOUR evidence.

[MystyrMystyry]

First one has to question the evidence - in this case what 'evidence' is there that they were drawn in the time of the dinosaurs, and not by a couple of pranksters last month or year (in recent history). Absolutely not one jot of evidence! I can count the evidence on the fingers of one foot - none, zero, zip and zilch! If they are badly drawn creatures (say mammals) that happened to look a little like dinosaurs, well I suggest everyone read Salvador Dali's Hidden Faces to avoid further confusion.

Jesus would be frowning from his burnt toast...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And you had what in mind? Don't rebut without offering something.
Rebut? Rebut what? This is what you said:

Into the air and ground and other organisms. I guess you could use it to support a belief in reincarnation, but not a supernatural world of spirits.
How am I supposed to rebut that? What is there to rebut? Here's my rebuttal. When a person dies, their spirit drifts through the air into the nearest animal, preferably a cat, and then that animal, in secret, portals itself into an ethereal alternate universe where the spirit is dropped off in a waiting room where it awaits an embryo to inhabit. That's my alternative. It seems just as likely.

I'm sorry, but that is not just creativity. I figured that you would just dismiss the evidence. It seems that any evidence that I could ever give would be dismissed as well. There are pictures (good pictures) of a triceratops and a small T-Rex, which could only have been drawn that accurately if one would have actually SEEN it. This is not just one case of chance. But it seems that evolutionists like the extremely high odds...or rather impossible odds. Don't lecture me on credibility. Evolutionists try to construct a complete skeletal modal based on sketchy parts. Let me see some of YOUR evidence.
What "good pictures"? I saw drawings and sculptures that looked on par with what kindergarteners do, just like all caveman drawings. That is absolutely NO proof that they saw a dinosaur. More likely they saw a lizard, maybe even a big one like a Komodo Dragon (http://reptilis.net/index4/komodo.jpg) and either A. got *creative* or, (and just as likely) B. they were poor artists. You explain to me how that is credible proof.

You accuse me of dismissing your evidence off-hand without even considering it--a baseless assumption, especially since I watched and considered that whole video of yours. I can easily link troves and troves of evidence to suggest that dinosaurs indeed existed millions of years ago, and not with humans, but you'd dismiss it just as you accuse me of doing. Hell, you already dismissed it above before it was even posted!

Here's something I don't get. What does it matter? Are you a Bible literalist? Does the possibility of evolution and dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago somehow invalidate your faith? Isn't that what creationism was invented for, to give comfort to the religious as they are confronted with reality?

[deryk]

It seems just as likely.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Maybe you should read the rest of my posts in their entirety before responding. These loaded "religious" threads become encumbered with more banality than they can support simply because they attract people's emotions more than anything else.

[BienvenuJDC]

What "good pictures"? I saw drawings and sculptures that looked on par with what kindergarteners do, just like all caveman drawings. That is absolutely NO proof that they saw a dinosaur. More likely they saw a lizard, maybe even a big one like a Komodo Dragon (http://reptilis.net/index4/komodo.jpg) and either A. got *creative* or, (and just as likely) B. they were poor artists. You explain to me how that is credible proof.

You accuse me of dismissing your evidence off-hand without even considering it--a baseless assumption, especially since I watched and considered that whole video of yours. I can easily link troves and troves of evidence to suggest that dinosaurs indeed existed millions of years ago, and not with humans, but you'd dismiss it just as you accuse me of doing. Hell, you already dismissed it above before it was even posted!

Here's something I don't get. What does it matter? Are you a Bible literalist? Does the possibility of evolution and dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago somehow invalidate your faith? Isn't that what creationism was invented for, to give comfort to the religious as they are confronted with reality?

http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/af/Ica-triceratops.jpg

This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...

[deryk]

Well, that's scientific. :lol:
It wasn't intended to be. Read the posts at which it was directed. I'm not going to baby-sit your lack of sarcasm detection on a literary forum. Read the context. I'm sorry, this response originally confused me because I assumed you understood that I was making an argument for materialism. I didn't know where you were coming from.


http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/af/Ica-triceratops.jpg

This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...

Those particular burial stones are a hoax. Deinonychus skeletons are not, however. Dinosaurs are birds now.

Not that it matters in the slightest. If there was a god, I doubt it would disregard its own methods of creation.

I thought the purpose of this thread was whether or not a supreme being exists, I don't think creation by magic supports any argument.

[Darcy88]

http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/af/Ica-triceratops.jpg

This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...

That sure does closely resemble a triceratops. I understand why you would use it to confirm your beliefs. But really, do you think this resemblence, which could be attibuted to some combination of imagination and chance, should be sufficient cause to outright do away with all the science which indicates, if not entirely proves, that dinosaurs existed tens of millions of years before humans ever appeared on this earth? Scientists are after the truth. They come from many different backgrounds, atheist and religious. Here or there a scientist may have a hidden agenda, but, as a whole, science is an "objective" pursuit of the truth. Science itself is not inherently anti-Biblical, anti-religous. Its the facts which are.

Edit: After doing a little digging it seems that those stones are a hoax. They cannot be carbon-dated. The guy who found them has confessed to decorating them himself. Others show pictures of ancient astronauts. Not legitimate.

[OrphanPip]

Those particular burial stones are a hoax. Deinonychus skeletons are not, however. Dinosaurs are birds now.


Even if the stones were not a hoax, it requires quite a leap of the imagination to conclude they represent real animals. First of all, they would be a rather bad depiction of a triceratops since the horns are in the wrong place, and they didn't have back spines. Secondly, if we say this represented something Incans actually lived alongside, you'd have to agree that Greeks really did live alongside gorgons, hydras, and sphinxes. Moreover, given the tremendous amount of evidence about the age of dinosaurs, if we assumed these depicted things the Incans had seen, it would be more reasonable (but still ridiculous) to say they came across fossils and imagined them as alive. To say they actually lived alongside triceratops requires massive delusions about the amount of evidence out there.

But, of course, they have been admitted by the artist who created them that they are a hoax. Their veracity has been promoted by a man who has made quite a lot of money off of operating a tourist site based around them.

[MystyrMystyry]

This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...

That's interesting - I'd want to check that date first though (and it may still be a forgery).

But given the benefit of the doubt, most of Inca culture was wiped out when Cortez arrived around 1500, and why they couldn't have had a dragon belief when China and Europe both had one - all stable and ancient civilisations each - well, they may well have...

1500 to 500 hundred years ago (supposedly) is well within the timeframe that humans have been mining and finding fossil skeletons though. If that's a triceratops and not an extinct relative of an armadillo (Dodoes became suddenly extinct too - though because they and their eggs were tasty, perhaps these met a similar fate) I'd be surprised.

Third possibility is still that the artist simply imagined a beast that happened to resemble very much a particular dinosaur. And also the oral tradition for established tribes with limited written language is very powerful. I hope their ancestors were around at the time of the big lizards; that would truly be something incredible.

Still a bit Chariots of the Gods to me however