Atheists....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corlen

Atheists don't believe in a god. Like myself I only believe in materials processions. Of which I can personally see, touch, and feel. Unlike a god as many Christians believe in I do not see him. I have tried to pray to see some type of signs that to prove he exists, but as of now I have failed to get a reply. Therefore I don't believe there is a god, or ever will be one.

---

the actual feeling will tell you ..
the try does not carry any meaning of feeling ..
and the materials does not mean everythings ..

We wonder, thuraiya, how can you be so sure about Corlen's feelings about god? We understand that you are sure in your feelings and that you feel so, but how can one be sure that all people in the world have similar feelings?

ahhh! I do have a response to the eternity question, but I have to get off right now... :flare: well, I will answer be back soon!

Hi Thuraiya,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thuraiya

the actual feeling will tell you ..

---

What feeling? Could you please describe precisely what you are talking about. Is it a warm feeling of goodness? Is it awe inspiring? Please be as verbose and descriptive as you are able. These little cryptic, half-sentences are not very helpful, but they are typical of discussions of this nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thuraiya

the try does not carry any meaning of feeling ..

---

How do you know this? This seems a bit presumptive and arrogant on your part. Do you personally know Colren? Speaking for myself, my attempts at prayer have been loaded with sincerity. I suspect this is the case with Colren too. Folks would not be posting in this forum if their feelings were not powerful and sincere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thuraiya

and the materials does not mean everythings ..

---

Agreed. But, and this is a big but: this concept does not in any way prove or even imply an omnipoten, omnicient, eternal, multi-universal creator/judge. It just means that love is good. It means that baseball is fun and that happiness is to be cherished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

So, you are saying that science should just throw up their hands and stop trying to understand what is going on in the universe? Just accept without question that one partiuclar religion is right?? I'm sorry, but to me that is the definition of closed minded.

---

I in no way am trying to say that science should just accept that they can't know everything. I'm saying that instead of trying to prove we came from monkeys, and disprove everything else, maybe they should try proving religion and see if they can find enough facts. That would be less close-minded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Note: I have presented this question before in several posts and it seems to be unanswerable, but what the heck, perhaps somone has a theory?

What was god doing before it created the universe 14 billion years ago? What was it doing for infinity (much more than a 'gagillion') years? I mean many of you seem to find is so impossible for humans to have evolved from other primates. But the notion that some supreme being has just been existing for infinity and suddenly decided to create a universe a little while ago to be a perfectly rational idea!

Again, what do you think God was doing for eternity before it (he) decided to create the universe?

---

As someone has so kindly pointed out, I don't know physics very well. But still, I believe a key component of most of the equations have to do with time- seconds, minutes...months, years- am I correct? Because one thing everyone forgets is that day and night (by which we base all of our time measurements on) didn't exist until God created them on the first day of creation. Now, we can't say that God was out there for 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...etc. years, because years don't exist! However, most people would still call the period between when God created the world back to forever as "time", but we cannot measure it. There is a verse in the Bible that says that a thousand years are as one day to God. I don't believe this to mean an exact measurement, but meaning a long period of time. So the "time" that cannot be measured would be quick enough anyway.
One other thing is that we count certain periods of time as a long time. Being in school or work for a few hours is long, a 30 min. isnt. A year takes forever...etc. But I am sure God doesn't base long and short periods of time by our opinions. As He had lived, and lives, and will live, for eternity, I'm sure He doesn't get bored after half and hour.
Talliho! Good-bye! Hasta la Vista! Adios! C'ya! ...bye.

this would be a valid arguement if this were amongst a group of believers Bookworm, but you are not. There is much scientific proof of Christinity all you have to do is look :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

I in no way am trying to say that science should just accept that they can't know everything. I'm saying that instead of trying to prove we came from monkeys, and disprove everything else, maybe they should try proving religion and see if they can find enough facts. That would be less close-minded.



As someone has so kindly pointed out, I don't know physics very well. But still, I believe a key component of most of the equations have to do with time- seconds, minutes...months, years- am I correct? Because one thing everyone forgets is that day and night (by which we base all of our time measurements on) didn't exist until God created them on the first day of creation. Now, we can't say that God was out there for 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...etc. years, because years don't exist! However, most people would still call the period between when God created the world back to forever as "time", but we cannot measure it. There is a verse in the Bible that says that a thousand years are as one day to God. I don't believe this to mean an exact measurement, but meaning a long period of time. So the "time" that cannot be measured would be quick enough anyway.
One other thing is that we count certain periods of time as a long time. Being in school or work for a few hours is long, a 30 min. isnt. A year takes forever...etc. But I am sure God doesn't base long and short periods of time by our opinions. As He had lived, and lives, and will live, for eternity, I'm sure He doesn't get bored after half and hour.
Talliho! Good-bye! Hasta la Vista! Adios! C'ya! ...bye.

---

Howdy Book,

Just an fyi:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

Do you think a second is the same on say...Mars? I bet it is! If carried a caesium-133 atom to Mars, I bet it would vibrate 9.19 X 10e9 times/second just like on earth. Now, do you think a day and night are the same on Mars? Look it up if you have an open mind 8-)

Anyway, I can see when I'm beaten. You make a heck of an argument and I'd like to formally throw in the virtual towel. Be safe and happy my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

LOL-I have investigated the claims of Christianity, and I have found them to be false. For one, Christianity is terribly unoriginal. Large parts of Christianity are products of Pagan stories of the past. From a "flesh and blood savior" to the resurrection, though they called him Osiris-Dionysus. On top of that, every major Christian holiday has a pagan predecessor. Second, Christianity claims nothing that makes it more discernablly correct than any other system of belief. Testimony?, absolutely worthless as there are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Hindus who can tell you that their convictions are of equal value. The holy scriptures? The process of what is added or subtracted was nothing more than political scheming and the stories written were by the victorious tribes. Ethnic cleansing and all sorts of backwards behavior such as stoning children, clearly show this pattern IMHO.

---

Testimonies are not worthless. There were witnesses to Christs miracles, death, and rising, many witnesses. The process of adding and subtracting was written by the losers. Israel has been in and out of foreign control forever. The area's practices were quite cruel (the stoning children), but ethnic cleansing obviously failed, as the Jews (obviously the losers. The name Jew was actually applied to the people by the Persians who were occupying them at the time) are still there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

LOL-I have investigated the claims of Christianity, and I have found them to be false.

---

Could you qualify the extent and method of your "investigation," please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

For one, Christianity is terribly unoriginal. Large parts of Christianity are products of Pagan stories of the past. From a "flesh and blood savior" to the resurrection, though they called him Osiris-Dionysus. On top of that, every major Christian holiday has a pagan predecessor.

---

Easily countered. C.S Lewis convincingly argued in a number of essays that Christ was the fulfillment of all the other "symbolic Christs" before Him; the other myths were prefigurations of the Christ to come. If you examine Plato's Republic and peruse Socrates' description of the "totally righteous man" you will see a decription that resembles Christ perfectly. Lewis suggested that if Plato had been alive at the time of the crucifixion that he would have said "yes - that is the exact thing of which I was speaking." Lewis contends (rightly so) that Christ was the "myth made real." Secondly, that the early Christian church may have had holidays that resembled pagan festivals doesn't invalidate Christianity - it simply confirms that it can, on occasion, resort to pragmatics to deal with cultural shifts (hence the Christian church's use of "harvest festivals" as alternatives to Halloween celebrations).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

Second, Christianity claims nothing that makes it more discernablly correct than any other system of belief.

---

This too is false. The cosmological and design arguments show that God is necessary, powerful, transcendant, non-contingent, intelligent, and personal; the moral argument shows that God has a moral will, a purpose for how we are to live, that he is engaged with the world, and that the motives and actions of human beings matter to Him. No other belief system puts forth anything/body that meets the same criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

Testimony?, absolutely worthless as there are plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and Hindus who can tell you that their convictions are of equal value. The holy scriptures? The process of what is added or subtracted was nothing more than political scheming and the stories written were by the victorious tribes.

---

Fine - let's here your evidence, because I've heard this cliche a hundred times. Nobody who knows the history of the early church would agree with this. People do not die the horrible deaths early Christians did because of some made up book of lies. Please. The internal coherence of the Bible and numerous textual integrity studies absolutely trash-can these misinformed assertions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

Ethnic cleansing and all sorts of backwards behavior such as stoning children, clearly show this pattern IMHO.

---

I'm sorry - your out-of-context quoting won't work either. I could cut and paste enough statements out of your postings or take a few sentences of yours out of context and make you sound like you're saying something really bad too. Don't apply your 21st century politically correct lense on the Bible without knowing clearly what's inside it, the context within which these things occured, the the God whom it reveals. Doing so is reckless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

Look at our own politicas, for years, the "curse of Ham" theory was used to justify slavery and segregation. How laughable is it that a man seeing his drunken father is cursed, but the daughters who get their father drunk and sleep with him isn't?

---

Why don't you dig up an argument from the 20th century? Current Christian theology believes no such thing. Digging through the past doesn't do much to condemn modern Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

:lol: Now you could argue that those instances are different, however, that would be to admit the *relative* nature of things, and we now how *relativism* is the boogie-man for every known(or pretended) problem that there is.

---

There is no "relativism" required - both actions were sinful.

the why dont you use the 20th century arguement doesnt work. if the bible is how things should be then christians actions shouldnt change. what if you are wrong in some of your beliefs as well, and they change in the future? why is your intepretation right, anf the ones from the past wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

the why dont you use the 20th century arguement doesnt work.

---

Sure it does; allow me to explain how. You are a free agent in this world - whatever crimes your father may have committed (obviously I'm making this up to make a point) have zero to do with who you are today and what you do today. For me to say "because your father is bad and did bad things, therefore you are bad and do bad things" is equivalent to the historical attack on Christianity. Is that not sheer absurdity? If people in the 21st century are going to criticize Christianity, they need to show that it is still commiting atrocitites equal to those of mislead individuals of the past. Otherwise, you put the "sins" of the father on the son. Unfair, and unfounded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

if the bible is how things should be then christians actions shouldnt change.

---

The Bible is not "how things should be" (I'm not even sure I understand what that statement means) - it reveals God's character through the history of His chosen people (the Israelites); as such, the story it tells is not "how things should be" but how things were. Luckily, it does contain principles that tell us how we ought to be. That some people have gone off the deep end doesn't indict the Bible any more than some kid who machine-guns a high school campus after listening to heavy metal music indicts heavy metal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

what if you are wrong in some of your beliefs as well, and they change in the future? why is your intepretation right, anf the ones from the past wrong?

---

Why don't you clarify this wildly unclear statement and then I'll be happy to deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The cosmological and design arguments show that God is necessary, powerful, transcendant, non-contingent, intelligent, and personal;

---

The Cosmological argument is based on the idea of an 'uncaused cause' and neglects the idea of infinite regression. There's also no reason to believe the God of the conclusion, should you accept it, is anything like that of the God of any religion (personal for example).

My only understanding of ID is that it's based around the fact nature is too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed. This seems to be a great leap (of faith, so to speak), in that it appears to state because we have not seen evolution in progress, then it cannot be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EitherOr

The Cosmological argument is based on the idea of an 'uncaused cause' and neglects the idea of infinite regression. There's also no reason to believe the God of the conclusion, should you accept it, is anything like that of the God of any religion (personal for example)..

---

There is no such thing as "infinite regression." What is known as "actual infinities" do not exist in reality - only potential infinities exist. Explain your "no reason" statement, if you would, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EitherOr

My only understanding of ID is that it's based around the fact nature is too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed. This seems to be a great leap (of faith, so to speak), in that it appears to state because we have not seen evolution in progress, then it cannot be true.

---

No - it states nothing of the sort. ID deals with the idea that the universe betrays signs of a "designer." One of the arguments is the idea of "irreducable complexity." But your final statement also works to justify a belief in God: just because you haven't seen Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. How cool is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

But your final statement also works to justify a belief in God: just because you haven't seen Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. How cool is that?

---

Howdy Red,

I've noticed similar statements that apply to both trains of thought. For example:

Big Bang: what created it?
God: what created it?

If you accept that God is eternal, doesn't that imply infinity? Has God not been around for infinity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Sure it does; allow me to explain how. You are a free agent in this world - whatever crimes your father may have committed (obviously I'm making this up to make a point) have zero to do with who you are today and what you do today. For me to say "because your father is bad and did bad things, therefore you are bad and do bad things" is equivalent to the historical attack on Christianity. Is that not sheer absurdity? If people in the 21st century are going to criticize Christianity, they need to show that it is still commiting atrocitites equal to those of mislead individuals of the past. Otherwise, you put the "sins" of the father on the son. Unfair, and unfounded.

---

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

I agree that you don't automatically assume that the son is like the father, but you might want to keep an eye on him.

Again, its the absolute certainty that leads to zealotry which results in human agony. While you may not have a mean bone in your body Red, many do. And personally, one of my primary fears is that some zealoted religious nut-case will come to power, access old internet postings on forums like this, and hunt us heathens down in the name of his or her Lord. It's a deep rooted fear, and its real--it's happened in the past. And someone said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (or something similar).

Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

---

Hi Winter - SCR's potential benefit has been much touted - but it requires the destruction of an embryo - a potential human being. There are other ways to solve the problem. Humans are inventive. Simply because SCR is convenient, we argue to keep it - but something potentially human dies for an unproven theory. No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

I agree that you don't automatically assume that the son is like the father, but you might want to keep an eye on him.

---

No problem there. Watch us closely - but don't condemn us for what we personally could not condemn/prevent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Again, its the absolute certainty that leads to zealotry which results in human agony. While you may not have a mean bone in your body Red, many do. And personally, one of my primary fears is that some zealoted religious nut-case will come to power, access old internet postings on forums like this, and hunt us heathens down in the name of his or her Lord. It's a deep rooted fear, and its real--it's happened in the past. And someone said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (or something similar).

Just my two cents.

---

I don't think God (or our secular society) would let that happen. The hostility out in the world today is aimed at religion, and Christianity in general. It is I who worry about the future. Intellectual atheists like Dawkins have crossed the line from saying "Christians are confused and deluded" to "Christians are dangerous and their views are destructive."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

The point is an atheist doesn't belive IN deities. The way you put it sounds like 'to belive' has only a single meaning, that is 'having a theistic belief'.

---

well said. atheist are typically stonger believers than theist. and by believer i mean someone who is un-open to the unknown and thereby commits intellectual suicide by refussal to hear out other beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

well said. atheist are typically stonger believers than theist. and by believer i mean someone who is un-open to the unknown and thereby commits intellectual suicide by refussal to hear out other beliefs.

---

Care to clarify this statement a little? It kind of "loops around" itself and I'm not quite sure what it's saying. Thanks

something i would like to ask is why do atheists and other critics 95% of the time target Christianity whenever they have a problem with "religion"? Islam is just as big if not bigger than Christianity membership wise, yet I never hear boo about them. Would any atheist like to answer my question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by watkinsguy

something i would like to ask is why do atheists and other critics 95% of the time target Christianity whenever they have a problem with "religion"? Islam is just as big if not bigger than Christianity membership wise, yet I never hear boo about them. Would any atheist like to answer my question?

---

It could possibly be that the majority of people are more familiar with Christianity moreso than Islam.

But I probably shouldn't be answering this, I ain't an atheist.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Care to clarify this statement a little? It kind of "loops around" itself and I'm not quite sure what it's saying. Thanks

---

yeah, sure, i'll clarify. when someone truly believes in something, atheist or theist, they tend to make this belief (be it god, truth, ect.) the unquestionable benchmark of any incoming data. meaning, new things can be brought forth to our "believer" but their god or truth cannot be touched because the believer has put up an intellectual fence around their absolute with a no touch sign on it. and athiest are just as guilty of this as theist. the only difference is the name they give to their benchmark of belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

yeah, sure, i'll clarify. when someone truly believes in something, atheist or theist, they tend to make this belief (be it god, truth, ect.) the unquestionable benchmark of any incoming data. meaning, new things can be brought forth to our "believer" but their god or truth cannot be touched because the believer has put up an intellectual fence around their absolute with a no touch sign on it. and athiest are just as guilty of this as theist. the only difference is the name they give to their benchmark of belief.

---

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. ;) But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

---

Christians do not have a problem with stem cell research, however they do have a problem with research on embryo stem cells. Those who are advocated of embryonic stem cell research are becoming more close-minded. They are refusing to pursue other very good and in some instances certain and more effective stem cells. For instance, umbilical cords have an abundance of stem cells that are just as (and some believe to be more so) usable as those from embryos, and you don't have to kill any potential humans (nor clone them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. ;) But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. :thumbs_up

---

Well said.

As I said his attempt 2 find ALLAH does not mean anything at all !!
Surely
I respect his attmpt . *_*
*BUT*
Why did I said that"??

Simply:- If I ask u or him 2 solve a complicated equation !!;

But he did not find any solution 2 it ..
"HE TRIED "
Is that mean the equation does not have any
solution !!
My be u consider the equation as material …
OK
As you believe "everything in this life should be material 2 be acceptable 2 our mind"
I have one question 2 u ..
If everything should be material 2 be acceptable 2 our mind as u said …*
Could you describe my soul !!
How it looks... What its colour ?
Plz do not tell me that I have not soul because I will not believe u '

hi wintermut.*_*

as u asked:
what do you think God was doing ..... before it (he) decided to create the universe?
i think it is very good qustion ..:thumbs_up
as you know everything in this life should have place & time ..
ok ...
just imagine anything without them event or anything u like ..
surly u can not..
what that mean?plz*
are our minds limited or what ??:idea:
we can not know what ALLAH WAS DOING
with this limited mind...**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

We wonder, thuraiya, how can you be so sure about Corlen's feelings about god? We understand that you are sure in your feelings and that you feel so, but how can one be sure that all people in the world have similar feelings?

---

hi Taliesin :) :)
no i did not say iam sure in my feeling *at all*

and i did not say that that all people in the world have similar feelings..
you can return 2 my post*^*
may be it is misunderstanding...
i said by the actual feeling he will discover the existence of his god..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Hi Thuraiya,



What feeling? Could you please describe precisely what you are talking about. Is it a warm feeling of goodness? Is it awe inspiring? Please be as verbose and descriptive as you are able. These little cryptic, half-sentences are not very helpful, but they are typical of discussions of this nature.


How do you know this? This seems a bit presumptive and arrogant on your part. Do you personally know Colren? Speaking for myself, my attempts at prayer have been loaded with sincerity. I suspect this is the case with Colren too. Folks would not be posting in this forum if their feelings were not powerful and sincere.



Agreed. But, and this is a big but: this concept does not in any way prove or even imply an omnipoten, omnicient, eternal, multi-universal creator/judge. It just means that love is good. It means that baseball is fun and that happiness is to be cherished.

---

hi...Wintermute *_*

1) the feeling that can make connection between yuor heart & mind
not only with your mind ..

2)you will know the answer if you make comparison between your post & carolin's post what you are saying is completly diffrent with what carolin said *as i see*..


3)as you said it is just concept ...

Posted by Bookworm4Him
. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. _


it is very fantastic sentence...
also do not say i am athiest ..
say ... i am looking for truth..;) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. ;) But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. :thumbs_up

---

why is it that mystics of every religion after studying scripture and digging deep into the way of things always renounce dogma and create a new idea of what god is? this new idea usually consist in coming to the conclusion that god is everyone of us, playing hide and seek with himself. so i have to wonder, if the universal trends amongst devote scholars with an open mind is to deviate from their scripture and conventional ideal of god, what would make an open minded person not fall into this same trend? did the mystics of lore overlook something or have you? i beseech you to ponder this.

Living forever through one's children? A short distance from me there lived an old woman who lost all her sons in the war. Around me are bachelors and spinsters without children. The couple in the trees behind have none. Immortal work in the public sector? Does that knock out most people - who are after all not in the public sector. The cemeteries are full of the indispensible, whose toils now seem most obscure. Civic participation sounds neat - a hobby for the chattering classes could be synonomous. Truthfully I do not have enough irrationality to believe any of these things constitute any kind of immortality.
If by immortality you mean some historical record of your existence well it seems the World will longer remember Hitler's Nazi state than the millions of its anonymous victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

why is it that mystics of every religion after studying scripture and digging deep into the way of things always renounce dogma and create a new idea of what god is? this new idea usually consist in coming to the conclusion that god is everyone of us, playing hide and seek with himself. so i have to wonder, if the universal trends amongst devote scholars with an open mind is to deviate from their scripture and conventional ideal of god, what would make an open minded person not fall into this same trend? did the mystics of lore overlook something or have you? i beseech you to ponder this.

---

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... :alien: Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after studying thoroughly their religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... :alien: Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after studying thoroughly their religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

---

sorry if my last post was unclear...words have a tendency to put a vale over true meaning.

your interpretation was close, but it fell off somewhere. let me clarify: god is not within us like a liver or a brain. if that is what you mean by within us? we are god in that we, everyone of us, is the totality of existence. everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out.

this is what mystics tend to come up with; they reject the idea of a personified, all consciously powerful god. instead, mystics see god as the entire universe and every person as an expression of the entire universe like waves are experssions of the ocean. mystics still call themselves members of a religion, but enlightened members.

does this help, i know that questioning the ideal of our traditional self can get foggy sometimes, and for that, my apologies, but that is the nature of language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... :alien: Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after thoroughly studying religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

---

If it is, then first, Which religious texts are they studying? Is it the whole Bible, the Koran, a different text, or a mix of both? Because only studying one at a time would work. I will not vouch for the Koran. I do not believe what I know of it, and don't trust the rest. There could be some truth in it, but I am sure not all of it is. As for other religions, I don't believe those either. If they say that we are all God, then where were we when created the world (and ourselves, may I add :)
Second, I don't believe that every scholar with an openmind, Christian or not, arrives at that conclusion in the first place. I know many who started out Athiest, or agnostic (if that's the word), or some other religion, went to school for theology, and after studying the Bible in depth, realized it had to be true. For example, Lee Strobel was an Athiestic Journalist, a very intellegent man, who decided that once and for all, he would prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. He spent every minute when he was not on the job researching, and could not find any evidence against it. If you all are daring enough to try, read his book, The Case For Christ, and find on flaw in his arguement. (CS Lewis also has an amazing arguement, in Mere Christianity. It is amazing. Try to prove it wrong.) I have to say, most scholars who claim to read the Bible with an openmind usually had a side of bias against it. That is what I have found. And if someone really believes that they were fair but have evidence against it, then present it to me and I'll refute it! lol
If this wasn't your arguement in the first place, sorry. bye-bye!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

If it is, then first, Which religious texts are they studying? Is it the whole Bible, the Koran, a different text, or a mix of both? Because only studying one at a time would work. I will not vouch for the Koran. I do not believe what I know of it, and don't trust the rest. There could be some truth in it, but I am sure not all of it is. As for other religions, I don't believe those either. If they say that we are all God, then where were we when created the world (and ourselves, may I add :)
Second, I don't believe that every scholar with an openmind, Christian or not, arrives at that conclusion in the first place. I know many who started out Athiest, or agnostic (if that's the word), or some other religion, went to school for theology, and after studying the Bible in depth, realized it had to be true. For example, Lee Strobel was an Athiestic Journalist, a very intellegent man, who decided that once and for all, he would prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. He spent every minute when he was not on the job researching, and could not find any evidence against it. If you all are daring enough to try, read his book, The Case For Christ, and find on flaw in his arguement. (CS Lewis also has an amazing arguement, in Mere Christianity. It is amazing. Try to prove it wrong.) I have to say, most scholars who claim to read the Bible with an openmind usually had a side of bias against it. That is what I have found. And if someone really believes that they were fair but have evidence against it, then present it to me and I'll refute it! lol
If this wasn't your arguement in the first place, sorry. bye-bye!

---

C.S. Lewis did the same thing. He was born an atheist, studied theology, and then converted to christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

sorry if my last post was unclear...words have a tendency to put a vale over true meaning.

your interpretation was close, but it fell off somewhere. let me clarify: god is not within us like a liver or a brain. if that is what you mean by within us? we are god in that we, everyone of us, is the totality of existence. everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out.

this is what mystics tend to come up with; they reject the idea of a personified, all consciously powerful god. instead, mystics see god as the entire universe and every person as an expression of the entire universe like waves are experssions of the ocean. mystics still call themselves members of a religion, but enlightened members.

does this help, i know that questioning the ideal of our traditional self can get foggy sometimes, and for that, my apologies, but that is the nature of language.

---

lol. I was typing my response while you were typing your translation, but you posted it first. You are probably reading my post, and responding to it right now, but i will go ahead and respond to this, to see if it helps.
First, you said that god is not within us like a liver or a brain, but we still must have gotten the liver and the brain from somewhere. We still are missing the essential point that we must have come from somewhere. We can't be the "totality of existence, because we can't have existed without being made to exist. (if that makes sense.)
As for the "everything outside of us is the ideas of what is within us", and all that mumbo jumbo just convinces most people to believe it because it sounds confusing, and therefore people think it's right. (And before I get kicked off here, I can back that up with history and science. It's simply mob phsycology, or something like that. A perfect example is the lovely Friends, Romans, Countrymen speech. but enough of that) I will try to explain it with a little more detail oriented view, though I haven't studied this area of theology in particular. Earlier, I think starting on page 37, we talked about the neccesity for a supreme being. That was an awesome debate, and enough proof, I think, to tear the god within us belief apart; but i will continue anyway.
"everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out. " You know, there are a bunch of theories about how the world is new everyday, and each day we are recreated with a new set of memories, and what I find amazing is the idea that people sit around thinking up, and trying to prove this stuff when, according to them, it won't make one ounce of difference because they think they will be a different person the next day! But back to the subject. I am not a master of any subject. I love my God, I love debate, and if you put the two together, you better have a defense. I did not major in, or spend the time studying, brain-senses-mind connections. My answer is not some profound scientific thing. It is simple.
I know what a tree is, because I have seen one, touched one, and learned what one is (not that all of those are neccesary. Someone from the desert could have it explained to them, and still know what it is) My point is, I know what a tree is, because it exists. This is where some people say that reality is different for each person, yada yada yada, but that is a different discussion. (One I would be glad to discuss, though. I don't know much about it, but would still try. Someone start a thread on that) There is proof of such a thing as a tree. I don't think that I know a tree because the "god within me" installed a knowledge of what a tree is.
One quick thing to add on to that is that if reality was based on everyone's opinions, etc, there wouldn't be a reality. Everyone has different opinions, and they can't all be true, despite what certain people say. I say that there is one true God, and Jesus is his Son. Atheists say there is no God. We can't both be true.
I have a bunch more to say, but this post is long enough. If you actually read all of this, then congrats! :lol:

Believe, worship, pray or skoff; your prerogative. Evagelalize and you migrate to some degree or arrogance. My opinion. RJs

I'm an athiest and beleive in myself. However, I dont knock other peoples religions, thats just not fair.

Funny that I happened to encounter this thread just as a rerun of the Dawkins interview is being aired on NPR. Right now!

gotta love NPR...totally unbiased and oh so exciting to listen to...lol

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .shuu.

And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

---

And then God would say "Hey! Bertrand Russell already said that!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

And then God would say "Hey! Bertrand Russell already said that!".

---

He would too, and I might wonder why he didn't do something about it then....oh well. never question the "almighty" eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .shuu.

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

---

I ran two polls about four months apart on the Internet Infidels forum last year regarding absolutist atheism vs. non-absolutist atheism. Both times there was a 20/80 split between absolutists and non-absolutists.

So, there, you have a definitive answer. As to religionists, I suspect the per centages would be reversed, if not completely then to a great degree.