Why I believe in God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ohmyscience

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

---

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

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

---

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

That is the problem - to what extent can the law be applied to minorities, if the majority are theocratic? Where can justice be found?

---

I think most people in the US think the Bill of Rights and the admentments added over the years are adequate. I haven't heard either side complaining. We had one problem dealing with race. I can see issues in history over that. It took a good deal and a lot of blood shed to deal with it. Actually it was the religious institutions that pushed for the end of slavery and equal rights. Martin Luther King was a reverend. It was the northeast churches that pushed for the end of slavery.

Quote:

---

That is the problem which all advocates of democracy end up fighting - on what grounds do minority rights exist in democracy - most advocates argue for a respect of minority rights, but is that possible?

---

Are you advocating dictaorship? Or arstocracy? I will be glad to be your king or dictator. I bet you wouldn't want to live under my rules. ;) Seriously, what choice does one have but a democracy? Actually it's a republic, but we know what we mean.

Quote:

---

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

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

When right and wrong get thrown in, religion complicates things, because to the believer, in enough cases, the view of God is the only view, despite the obvious fallacy, and that is used as a tyrannical view over the non-believer.

---

It doesn't even have to do with religion. Religion is a basis of people's morality. Even if religion were gone tomorrow there would still be morality and contrasting views of morality. There are atheists who are anti abortion. It doesn't have to based on religion. If religion were gone tomorrow, you and I would still disagree on most things. I don't know what tyrannical laws you feel. I'm certainly not up on the laws of Canada. But I would think they would be more in tune with yours than mine. Even here there are no religious laws. Even if a state may still have sodomy laws on the books, I've never heard them being inforced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here comes the crucifixion.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathster

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ohmyscience

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laidbackpersone

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

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

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

---

What historical evidence would that be? The Romans, known for precise keeping of records, make no mention of the crucifixion of Christ. He probably existed, that's about as confirmed as any other historical figure, but he was just one of many Jewish teachers, in my opinion. Not a bad guy by any means, but not the messiah of anything.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

---

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Thanks for your eloquent assessment -

---

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

---

You have difficulty comprehending, I’ll elaborate.

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

Gettit? Maybe hand puppets need to be employed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

A verdict in my country is either guilty or innocent. The charges against a person are based on the law.

Quote:

---

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

---

Suing is essentially free for a person here. Lawyers take the case based on winning. If they lose they get nothing. As to getting better lawyeres for criminal cases, well, yeah. Better lawyers only exist because someone is willing to pay for them.

Quote:

---

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

---

They do not. What law is there that favors religious people? I can't think of any.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

You have difficulty comprehending, I’ll elaborate.

---

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

My vote is for #2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hisnibs

Gettit? Maybe hand puppets need to be employed?

---

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

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

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

From Gargantua, Chapter VI


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

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


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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

---

This is wonderful. :)

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

---

Your God is your father figure, a protector. He is your comfort zone and beyond that he is a sheer nothing.

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

Blaze, all this universe is the energy of God.

actually blaze is spot on.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

actually blaze is spot on.

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Today science has changed the way people live and think.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The poor farmer quietly returned to his home.

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

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

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

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

I see this story from three angles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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

---

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

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