Why I believe in God?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

01-15-2009, 01:02 AM
NikolaiI

Quote:

Originally Posted by datulakan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way does datulakan mean anything, for it seems familiar.
01-17-2009, 08:19 AM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me say this one thing. I am not trying to convert you or convert your thoughts about faith but just sharing my views. My views and so does all the religious, everything about God and His creations is completely opposite from being imaginary, like we humans are not imaginary.
01-17-2009, 08:23 AM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyjack

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

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

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

Religion is indeed the knowledge of the unknowable, the most uncomprehensive - God. However religion is also holds the knwoledge of morality, humanity, many aspects that we humans should follow everyday in our lives in earth.
01-17-2009, 08:35 AM
Pewnut

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

It's true that all religions have their own "moral codes", so to speak, but I'm one of those people who believe you don't need religion or a fear of God in order to be a moral person. I try to do good and be good without expecting a reward in the afterlife. For me, it's a matter of empathising with my fellow man.
01-17-2009, 09:25 AM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pewnut

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

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

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

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

Knowledge of the unknowable is quite misleading I admit, however it is just about gaining knowledge of God's will and following them.
01-17-2009, 04:58 PM
JacobF

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

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

We humans are not imaginary because we have senses. We are physical entities. God, however, does not fit into any of those categories.
01-17-2009, 07:18 PM
billyjack

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

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

so you know the unknowable via the bible. white noise
01-17-2009, 09:25 PM
Pewnut

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

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

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

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

Hmm... I'm not swayed by this logic. If you know ("by His words") that God is infinitely righteous, good, etc. and you know His intentions and His will, then you have knowledge of some of His qualities. Meaning, He is not "unknowable", just "knowable to a certain limited extent".
01-17-2009, 10:57 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

Science can't discover God - all it can do is keep uncovering evidence of His handiwork and then come up with absurd explanations as to how it developed all by itself through random chance and lots o' time.
01-17-2009, 11:22 PM
Pewnut

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

On a more personal note, I really hope that God does exist because there are many people who suffer a great deal in this world and they should be able to find peace, at least in the afterlife.
01-17-2009, 11:31 PM
JacobF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

The bible has gone through countless revisions. Plus, even if the old testament did prophecize events in Jesus' life, that's like prophecizing something that was most likely made up. I'll repeat: no record from the time Jesus lived indicates that he existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

I do see clearly, because I don't see a man in the sky named god, nor have I ever claimed to have experienced him with any of my senses. That's not an assumption on my part. Fear doesn't drive me to do this, at all. If I was afraid of god, I would worship him and go to church every Sunday. The worship of god is self-serving and totally fear-based -- people are afraid of death and hell, thus they want to go to heaven. People only say it makes their lives better because 1) they have the false comfort of knowing they are a 'good person' who is going to heaven and 2) ignorance is bliss. As an atheist, I do not fear death, and I'm happy for this. I know I'm not going to "get in trouble" when I die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

Um, fear can only destroy? No. Fear is why we walk on the side-walk instead of on the street. Fear is why we pour money into insurance. Fear is why we protect ourselves. That's why the bible and Christianity were conjured: to protect us from god. But, of course, he is as loving as he is vengeful. Makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

Well, those sources aren't contemporary to the time-period when he was crucified, are they? If so, please direct me to them. And as for the "go back and see it" thing, it was a response to skasian asking me if I went back to see the religions originating, which I found to be ironic on her part too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

You are straw-manning me here. I don't, nor does any atheist in the right mind, claim that I have an 'exhaustive knowledge of all that exists.' We don't know all that exists, and we probably won't anytime soon. But, to say that all things were created by god is a cop-out. I myself find it ironic that you are trying to use logic to support god's existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

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

1. So the book of genesis, where the world was created in 7 days wasn't trying to explain the scientific origins of Earth? Right...

2. Again, you misrepresent what I say. I said in my very post that no evidence is irrefutable. But, empiricism appeals to rationality, while the belief in god appeals to faith. The former is more rational to believe as a physical being with senses and logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

Science doesn't try to discover god. It doesn't try to discover what is not there. And the 'absurd explanations' are a lot better than what religion has to offer. "God did it" is an absurd explanation to me.

Explain to me this, though: Who says the norse god Odin doesn't exist? What about all the Hindu gods? What makes the bible more correct than norse mythology or the Rig Veda or even Scientology?
That's why I don't get theism. You worship one god, but then another god doesn't allow you to do that. Then when you worship that god, another set of gods scolds you for that. And so on and so forth. Logically, no religion is correct, because they all contradict the existence of one another.
01-18-2009, 12:24 AM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

The bible has gone through countless revisions. Plus, even if the old testament did prophecize events in Jesus' life, that's like prophecizing something that was most likely made up. I'll repeat: no record from the time Jesus lived indicates that he existed.

I won't bore you with the details, but textual studies of the Bible reveal that both the New and Old Testament are higly reliable in terms of consistency in what they say. The accuracy level is actually quite high. In the case of the New Testament, the 5300 extant copies in original language (dating from AD 70 - 120) show a 99.5% accuracy when compared to each other.

As far as no record of Jesus' life, here you go:

1. Josephus - Jewish Historian (AD 37 - 100): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man..."

2. Tacitus - Roman Historian (AD 55 - 117): Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, call Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."

Both of these men were neutral parties - neither one having anything to gain by writing that which was untrue - and if they had, they would have been confronted as lies by other writers of the time.

Give it up - Jesus was a real person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

I do see clearly, because I don't see a man in the sky named god, nor have I ever claimed to have experienced him with any of my senses.

Well, I don't see any man in the sky either; I'm glad you don't - I might wonder about your sanity if you said you did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

That's not an assumption on my part. Fear doesn't drive me to do this, at all. If I was afraid of god, I would worship him and go to church every Sunday.

My supposition is as reasonable as yours; plenty of people go into denial to make unpleasant realities "disappear." I do not diagnose you in particular, but the process of denying that which we find unpleasant or frightening is well documented in the literature of psychology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

The worship of god is self-serving and totally fear-based -- people are afraid of death and hell, thus they want to go to heaven.

If the very real consequences of smoking, crack-cocaine use, and unprotected sex aren't enough to stop many people from still indulging, what makes you think the fear of hell is that effective either? Worshipping God is "self-serving"? Have you read the Bible? The Christian life is actually rather demanding because it requires one to work against our normally selfish human nature. There's not much of anything "self-serving" about putting others first, loving my enemies, and forgiving those that wrong me. You oversimplify why people believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

People only say it makes their lives better because 1) they have the false comfort of knowing they are a 'good person' who is going to heaven and 2) ignorance is bliss. As an atheist, I do not fear death, and I'm happy for this. I know I'm not going to "get in trouble" when I die.

And exactly where did you get the divine/clairvoyant power to know why other people say Christianity has made their lives better? Or are you just assuming on a grand scale?

Christianity does not make one feel like a "good person" - the first step in becoming a Christian is realizing and accepting that we are sinners incapable of being "good" without the help of God in our lives. Atheists tend to thump their chests and talk about what "good" people they are - most Christians will tell you right off that they are sinners working on becoming better people.

My favorite part about talking to an atheist about death is this: if you are right, and God doesn't exist, neither you nor I will know it; if I'm right, and He does exist, then both of us will know it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Um, fear can only destroy? No. Fear is why we walk on the side-walk instead of on the street. Fear is why we pour money into insurance. Fear is why we protect ourselves. That's why the bible and Christianity were conjured: to protect us from god. But, of course, he is as loving as he is vengeful. Makes sense.

You're straw-manning here. I spoke of "fear" in the context of your statement - of religion being based upon fear. A belief system based upon fear does not change lives for the better.

Non-believers like to complain that God doesn't stop all the suffering, and then turn around and complain that He is just and will eventually administer justice. You can't have it both ways, you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Well, those sources aren't contemporary to the time-period when he was crucified, are they? If so, please direct me to them. And as for the "go back and see it" thing, it was a response to skasian asking me if I went back to see the religions originating, which I found to be ironic on her part too.

I just quoted a couple above. Look up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

You are straw-manning me here. I don't, nor does any atheist in the right mind, claim that I have an 'exhaustive knowledge of all that exists.' We don't know all that exists, and we probably won't anytime soon. But, to say that all things were created by god is a cop-out. I myself find it ironic that you are trying to use logic to support god's existence.

To claim that something doesn't exist without being in possession of an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists is absurd. That's the point. You cannot say God does not exist unless you have a complete knowledge of all reality. Trust me, you don't.

Well, come on - if I didn't use logic you'd be nailing me there too - you can't have it both ways, you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

1. So the book of genesis, where the world was created in 7 days wasn't trying to explain the scientific origins of Earth? Right...

No - because there is no "science" mentioned - God speaks and it exists. Genesis does explain the origin of the earth, but does not bother to give us the science of how God did it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

2. Again, you misrepresent what I say. I said in my very post that no evidence is irrefutable. But, empiricism appeals to rationality, while the belief in god appeals to faith. The former is more rational to believe as a physical being with senses and logic.

If one examines this world and the things in it closely enough, one realizes that only wishful and fanciful thinking can come up with explanations for the things that exist. I think evolution takes an incredible amount of faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Science doesn't try to discover god. It doesn't try to discover what is not there.

This strikes me as begging the question - you assume as truth something you have no empirical basis for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

And the 'absurd explanations' are a lot better than what religion has to offer. "God did it" is an absurd explanation to me.

Well, sure. You're entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Explain to me this, though: Who says the norse god Odin doesn't exist? What about all the Hindu gods? What makes the bible more correct than norse mythology or the Rig Veda or even Scientology?

Because the Bible features real people who actually were here on earth, and events that actually happened. Archeology continues to find things that confirm Biblical locations, people, and events. Scientology? That's funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

That's why I don't get theism. You worship one god, but then another god doesn't allow you to do that. Then when you worship that god, another set of gods scolds you for that. And so on and so forth. Logically, no religion is correct, because they all contradict the existence of one another.

There's only one God. You're partially correct: either all religions are wrong, or one is right. I prefer the latter explanation.
01-18-2009, 12:35 AM
NikolaiI

With all respect I disagree with you completely Jacob on several points. I was an atheist until I was 17... all my life I studied different philosophies and religions. You'd be surprised to find the similarities. For instance, Tukaram, a Hindu saint from the 17th century, wrote this:

Words are the only Jewels I possess
Words are the only Clothes that I wear
Words are the only food That sustains my life
Words are the only wealth I distribute among people
Says Tuka Witness the Word He is God
I worship Him With my words

So Tuka says the same thing which the Bible says in John, that the Word is God.

I guess the fundamental thing is, does God exist? That is what we are trying to figure out. So if God does exist, it is logical to believe in Him, and if He does not, then it is not.

Actually a lot of the arguments could be said for consciousness, for superconsciousness, for reality, for the universe... for all of these things. We all exist in God, and God exists in us. Similarly, we all exist in the universe, just as we all exist in reality.

Who can explain that they have seen reality? The most recent answer I got from an atheist on this was that everything they could see and touch was reality. I don't know what happened to this discussion with that person. My response to this I had intended to be - I am speaking of reality as a whole.

Reality is the whole reality. It cannot be seen or touched. When I am seeing a leaf, touching a leaf, I am not touching the Universe - well I am, but I am only touching a part. What I am asking about is the whole, the universe, and reality - the whole of reality. The whole of the universe, of reality, is inconceivable to us. But it is the most commonly accepted.

Understanding God is somewhat similar to this; except that God is the infinite. Einstein said one of the most fundamental questions everyone should answer is this; "is the universe a friendly or a hostile place?" Well, the answer of religion is that yes, it is. In fact, it is divine, because all belongs to the divine Lord.
01-18-2009, 12:51 AM
NikolaiI

About seeing clearly. . . Jacob I am not saying you are not seeing clearly. But as the universe is infinite, as life is infinite, we are also rooted in that infinite. W. Blake said, "If the doors of perception were cleansed, then all would appear as it is, infinite."

You said Hindus believe in many Gods and some do, but every Hindu I have ever met speaks about God as One. In fact I have been studying different scriptures for a while now; Sri Isopanisad is a great one. But with the Vedas, there are many interpretations, ranging from atheist to impersonalist to theist. I myself am a theist. And in my understanding religions are not exclusive.

Actually what I believe is that we are part and parcel of God. So it's not that we go to hell or anything like that -- and I would please request that since there is one thread which is called "Christian Hell," and one which is called "Why I believe in God?" Let's let there be at least some difference between the two, as I have refrained from posting about God in the Christian Hell but more speaking about Christianity.

But we are part and parcel of God - there is no great substance to bodily identifications. Even the idea "I am human" is one coming from ignorance, because I am not this body, I am not a human body - I am a spirit soul. I saw you write you did not believe in the soul and I would discuss that if you wish. In fact every living entity is a soul. Not just humans but animals, plants, insects, all of these have - are - a soul. The body we take on simply due to our karma and our desires. But all souls are part of the Supreme soul. It is not a question of body. The only question is one of consciousness. I have the consciousness, the desires, and the karma of a human, and so I am in a human body. But I am related to every other living entity in this way; that I am part of God and they are as well.

Being part of God does not mean one is God. Actually to think that one is God is a very false idea. I am part of God just as my hand is part of me. My hand serves my will, but if it was cut off from me, it would no longer be a hand (since it does not perform what a hand does) though it might appear like one.

Now there are certain things which we disagree on. I am not close minded and neither are you. As I said I used to be an atheist. But now I am not. I would gladly explain why I believe in the soul, and God.

After all this thread was created and is titled "Why I believe in God," so hopefully it can continue in that vein.
01-18-2009, 01:49 AM
JacobF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I won't bore you with the details, but textual studies of the Bible reveal that both the New and Old Testament are higly reliable in terms of consistency in what they say. The accuracy level is actually quite high. In the case of the New Testament, the 5300 extant copies in original language (dating from AD 70 - 120) show a 99.5% accuracy when compared to each other.

As far as no record of Jesus' life, here you go:

1. Josephus - Jewish Historian (AD 37 - 100): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man..."

2. Tacitus - Roman Historian (AD 55 - 117): Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, call Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate..."

Both of these men were neutral parties - neither one having anything to gain by writing that which was untrue - and if they had, they would have been confronted as lies by other writers of the time.

Give it up - Jesus was a real person.

1. Weren't the writings of Flavius Josephus deemed to be forgery? http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...in/jesus.shtml

2. I admit I'm speaking out of hearsay for this one, but I'm pretty sure Tacitus' writings were deemed to be added in by Christian scholars as well. Plus, Jesus died around 30-35 A.D. That account is decades after the life of Jesus.

There really aren't enough records to deem Jesus as a real person. Even if Jesus was a real person, there is no evidence, not even after his time, that he performed miracles or was at all divine. His identity was formed by later Christian scholars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Well, I don't see any man in the sky either; I'm glad you don't - I might wonder about your sanity if you said you did.

Interesting that you should say that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

My supposition is as reasonable as yours; plenty of people go into denial to make unpleasant realities "disappear." I do not diagnose you in particular, but the process of denying that which we find unpleasant or frightening is well documented in the literature of psychology.

The whole 'denying god out of fear' is ham-handed to me. People denying alcoholism because they don't want to quit. People deny their financial debt because they don't want to endure something that directly inconveniences them. The idea of god, however, is completely intangible, and really does not harness the immediate power to inconvenience someone enough to the point of denying god. If someone really was scared of god, there are churches and bibles everywhere. They could just get down on their knees and pray. In Islam for instance, all you have to do is say that you accept Allah and you are saved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

If the very real consequences of smoking, crack-cocaine use, and unprotected sex aren't enough to stop many people from still indulging, what makes you think the fear of hell is that effective either? Worshipping God is "self-serving"? Have you read the Bible? The Christian life is actually rather demanding because it requires one to work against our normally selfish human nature. There's not much of anything "self-serving" about putting others first, loving my enemies, and forgiving those that wrong me. You oversimplify why people believe.

In the grand scheme of things, people only carry out the tasks in the bible (well, ideally they do, but as history has shown that doesn't always happen) to get to heaven. There's no other motive. They only do it because god said so. I do good things in my life for others because I summon the motivation myself. The bible is altruistic.

As another side note, I don't see the goodness in 'loving your enemies.' How about just not having any enemies at all? I know I don't have any. We'd all be better off without holding grudges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

And exactly where did you get the divine/clairvoyant power to know why other people say Christianity has made their lives better? Or are you just assuming on a grand scale?

As I've already argued many times, Christianity is a remedy for fear. There's really nothing else to it. Sure, there's the allure of being closer to god, but that's only because when you are closer to god you won't go to hell. Here we see that "loving yet vengeful god" paradox again.

Sure, some people may enjoy Christianity for the aspect of community it provides, but that's a minor reason because community can be found in many other places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Christianity does not make one feel like a "good person" - the first step in becoming a Christian is realizing and accepting that we are sinners incapable of being "good" without the help of God in our lives. Atheists tend to thump their chests and talk about what "good" people they are - most Christians will tell you right off that they are sinners working on becoming better people.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I guess I meant 'better' person (even still the goal is to be good). When humanity subscribes to any organization that makes them feel better about themselves, doing the 'right thing,' they feel like they are a good person -- validated. As for sin, from a catholic perspective, all you have to do to rid yourself of your sins is go into the confession box X times per year. From a protestant perspective, you pray and go to church and read the bible. Isn't the only rule laid out by the New Testament "love god"? In the end, that's all it boils down to anyway. You can be a terrible person, commit horrible crimes yet when you 'accept god' you can still go to heaven.

And from my experience going to a protestant church for 13 years, Christians aren't all that modest. Some are I am sure, but a lot aren't. Even still, they're only sinners because God said so. A person should correct their faults because THEY think it's the right thing to do, not the bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

My favorite part about talking to an atheist about death is this: if you are right, and God doesn't exist, neither you nor I will know it; if I'm right, and He does exist, then both of us will know it.

I guess the favourite part of talking to a theist is knowing that they wasted so much time by subscribing to antiquated and transparent beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You're straw-manning here. I spoke of "fear" in the context of your statement - of religion being based upon fear. A belief system based upon fear does not change lives for the better.

You said "things created out of fear do not change peoples' lives." You did mention the bible and christianity but you were talking about fear very generally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Non-believers like to complain that God doesn't stop all the suffering, and then turn around and complain that He is just and will eventually administer justice. You can't have it both ways, you know.

When did I ever complain that god will stop all the suffering? When I referred to god being as loving as he is vengeful, I was poking at the paradox that Christianity seems to buy into.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

To claim that something doesn't exist without being in possession of an exhaustive knowledge of all that exists is absurd. That's the point. You cannot say God does not exist unless you have a complete knowledge of all reality. Trust me, you don't.

The concept of god is based on faith and faith alone. There is no rationality to it. I'll assume for a second that god does exist -- if he does, he would be unfathomable. No human or being would be able to conceive of his existence. No scripture could outline what god really is. To claim that you are in possession of the knowledge of something that is divine -- beyond human comprehension -- is absurd. So, as beings who are governed by logic and rationality, atheism is the best choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Well, come on - if I didn't use logic you'd be nailing me there too - you can't have it both ways, you know.

Well, that's the thing about theism -- it's governed by faith, not logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

No - because there is no "science" mentioned - God speaks and it exists. Genesis does explain the origin of the earth, but does not bother to give us the science of how God did it.

It didn't give us the science because the science has proven it wrong. We all know the world wasn't created in 7 days. They didn't know any better, so they just made it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

If one examines this world and the things in it closely enough, one realizes that only wishful and fanciful thinking can come up with explanations for the things that exist. I think evolution takes an incredible amount of faith.

Well, evolution has evidence. No scientist really denies evolution because of the sheer amount of evidence behind it. The only thing in science that comes close to faith are hypotheses. But after the tests and observations, the hypothesis doesn't matter. I'm not saying evolution is completely true -- no theory is -- but at least it's not supported by faith and faith alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Because the Bible features real people who actually were here on earth, and events that actually happened. Archeology continues to find things that confirm Biblical locations, people, and events. Scientology? That's funny.

So? There's no evidence that points to Jesus being the son of god. There's nothing that says biblical locations actually hosted the events which happened. And as I've previously mentioned, a lot of the stuff is forgery. Christianity was a tool of authority in its birth, and history always 'edits' history to its own advantage. Yes, Scientology is funny, because it's probably about as true as Christianity is. Aliens coming here and implanting stuff in our minds, that's totally silly... but a virgin birth and a talking snake, that's believable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

There's only one God. You're partially correct: either all religions are wrong, or one is right. I prefer the latter explanation.

And this is what I hate most about religion. The fact that everyone thinks their own is right. Religion was necessary to expand empires and give people hope in antiquity, but now it really just causes more problems than it solves. We don't need it anymore; in my opinion, it's just holding back humanity.

And Nikolai, thank you for contributing to the argument, but I'm pretty tired now and am probably going to bed. I'll read/reply to your post tomorrow.
01-18-2009, 04:21 AM
WanderingGirl

Well, I do believe in God. I'm not a strong believer or one of the most 'faithful', but I still believe because there is some things even science can't explain. Like what happens when you die, why did humans evolve the way they did (no scientist knows why we evolved the way we did because there was no factor to make us evolve), or what caused the big bang?

As humans we are the only creatures on planet Earth that has been given the ability to think or to see the Earth as we can see it. Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death. So why us out of billions of species that are alive or extinct are we able to do this or know this? And even the chances of us evolving the way we did is very slim. Really, there was a better chance of dinosaurs to be still alive now, then us being here. All these reasons make me believe there is some kind of 'outside' guidance.

And what is the point of life at all if everything just lives for a while and then dies? It makes me feel depressed at the thought of thinking that, not just humans, but everything from the smallest things like insects to the huge universe will just die and then there will be nothing left. What is the point of life at all if there is just that? Except maybe, there is something better out there after we die, which I believe there is. And in believeing that, I believe in God.
01-18-2009, 05:08 AM
billyjack

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

Well, I do believe in God. I'm not a strong believer or one of the most 'faithful', but I still believe because there is some things even science can't explain. Like what happens when you die, why did humans evolve the way they did (no scientist knows why we evolved the way we did because there was no factor to make us evolve), or what caused the big bang?

we know what happens when we die. you rot in a casket, get all ashy in an urn, or get churned through another animals digestive track.

we evolved like we did because it was copacetic with our environment. banana and the human hand argument anyone?

not knowing why or how things got put in motion isnt an excuse for superstition

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death.

na. replace "aware?" with "repress" and you've hit the nail on the head

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

And what is the point of life at all if everything just lives for a while and then dies?

ah, to live and then die. if you can't find a point between these two then perhaps a renegotiation of world views is in order

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

It makes me feel depressed at the thought of thinking that, not just humans, but everything from the smallest things like insects to the huge universe will just die and then there will be nothing left.

this reasoning doesnt correspond to reality. we know that when someone dies the rest of the world keeps on living. so goes with the universe when a star dies out. even if the universe ends up eventually becoming nothing again, you can be sure that it will eventually find its way towards something eventually. if its happened once, it can happen again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

What is the point of life at all if there is just that? Except maybe, there is something better out there after we die, which I believe there is. And in believeing that, I believe in God.

speak of heaven, ye disgrace earth (walden)--my favorite quote
01-18-2009, 05:12 AM
Pewnut

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

As humans we are the only creatures on planet Earth that has been given the ability to think or to see the Earth as we can see it.

Because we can't communicate with other animals as well as we can amongst ourselves, we don't really know how they "think" or "see the Earth". But that doesn't mean their experience in this world is any less complex to them. If you really think about it, we don't get to experience what it feels like to have an innate ability to fly like a bird or run like a cheetah. So essentially all living creatures experience the world in a limited way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

Also, we are the only animal on the earth that is aware of death.

I beg to differ.
01-18-2009, 05:38 AM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to correct on your opening paragraph. The bible accually do hold some contemporary evidences, such as the place where Jesus spent his life, Noah's remaining wooden pieces of the arh deep under the sea. Now let me ask you how does researching back up the big bang theory. Dont you realise new discovery hinders and alters each theories or articles and that every few years and then, researching on a common subject becomes different? Let me give you an example, food science, where in one time scientist declare something is bad for your health, and in another time that same food is good for you. Overall the judgement on that particular food is tossed around from being good and bad.

Sorry,but religion is not created out of fear. Let me say one thing. Religion is created for serving and following God or for self enlightment. It is true that religion helps followers to fight away from fear, however that is not the motive of having a religion.

The Bible made be made up by words, but its not just ordinary words. It holds the Words of God, and holds powerful wisdom and knowledge. It hold the Words that is like a guide to life. People who arent Christian read the Bible for self enlightment, and I dont see how they will be bothered to read "just words".

Acutally some science does appear in the Bible, like personal hygene, which appears in the Laws of moses. God forbids people to do certain things because it is considered as "unclean" for example drink blood from animals. Even though people back then wouldnt be able to come up with a reason why, modern science reveals that drinking animal blood should be avoided because it contains antibodies that affects our bodies, and it is concentrated from toxic wastes contained in plasmas.

Also, bible contains more merit than science that how we should live our lives. Science, especially in the medical field does help us to be our best in health, however the bible helps more as it shows the way of healthy spirit = healthy mind = healthy body. Because now in university I will be studying in the medical field, I will be able to fully appreciate God's Words and His intentions.

We being centre of the cosmos.. science doesnt reveal that to the full extent. What if we are centre of the universe, astromony havent discovered the beginning or the end of the universe, therefore it hasnt discovered the our position of the universe. Science hasnt discovered something yet? Other than God, the possibilities of being that something is infinite.

"We humans are not imaginary because we have senses. We are physical entities."
Rocks do not have senses yet they arent imaginary. You say to your pencil " you aint imaginary!" just because it doesnt have senses? Interesting.
01-18-2009, 05:45 AM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyjack

so you know the unknowable via the bible. white noise

Depends what you kind of knowledge you are thinking about. Knowledge can be grasping 100% about a subject but also as knowing only a small partial.

Knowledge of the unknowable can be like understanding a very insignificant small piece about God. However when knowledge is knowing 100% about the subject, we have no knowledge about the unknowable because we can never know 100% about God.
01-18-2009, 05:47 AM
WanderingGirl

Quote:

Because we can't communicate with other animals as well as we can amongst ourselves, we don't really know how they "think" or "see the Earth". But that doesn't mean their experience in this world is any less complex to them. If you really think about it, we don't get to experience what it feels like to have an innate ability to fly like a bird or run like a cheetah. So essentially all living creatures experience the world in a limited way.

You are talking about experiences, and I'm thinking about actual thinking. Like you were thinking about what you were going to say when you wrote above, and like I'm thinking about what I'm going to write now. A bird or a cheetah couldn't have have a conversation like this because their brains aren't as developed as ours, so they couldn't think about things like this.

Quote:

I beg to differ

.

I didn't mean what I said like that. You know that sometime in your life you are going to die, and I know that sometime I will die. An animal doesn't know that they can die. And when a child or a mate of an animal die that animal pokes or touches the animal that id dead, expecting it to wake. It doesn't realise that it wouldn't wake up, like that mother gorilla. While animals can feel the pain of someone they love dying, they have no idea that it will happen. They even have no idea that they, themselves, will die.
01-18-2009, 05:50 AM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pewnut

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

In a way yes, but knowing something can imply understanding 100% about something, like for me when I learn about a particular subject of chemistry, to have a knowledge about that topic, I regard it as knowing 100%about that topic because when there is an aspect I dont understand, I regard that topic as having lack of knowledge. In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.
01-18-2009, 06:12 AM
Pewnut

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

You are talking about experiences, and I'm thinking about actual thinking. Like you were thinking about what you were going to say when you wrote above, and like I'm thinking about what I'm going to write now. A bird or a cheetah couldn't have have a conversation like this because their brains aren't as developed as ours, so they couldn't think about things like this.

Let's not jump to conclusions.

Obviously they don't think like we do but it'll be quite remarkable for, say, bees to inhabit communities, build hives, distribute pollen, collect nectar, create honey etc. yet not have the ability to "think" in some rudimentary way. If humans behaved in such a way, we might call them communists. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by WanderingGirl

I didn't mean what I said like that. You know that sometime in your life you are going to die, and I know that sometime I will die. An animal doesn't know that they can die. And when a child or a mate of an animal die that animal pokes or touches the animal that id dead, expecting it to wake. It doesn't realise that it wouldn't wake up, like that mother gorilla. While animals can feel the pain of someone they love dying, they have no idea that it will happen. They even have no idea that they, themselves, will die.

Animals may not have the ability to worry about or fear death like we do but if they don't know that they will die, they wouldn't protect themselves or their offspring from predators.
01-18-2009, 06:14 AM
Ohmyscience

I don't understand why anyone of faith would need their scripture validated. It's faith. Whatever says in the book is infallible regardless of empirical evidence against it. So in my opinion treading the waters of whether holy books are verifible only hurts the believers. What can a religious person gain by offering scripture up to scrutiny?

As many have expressed, being conscious is living with angst. It is unbearable at times to know your existence and to understand that it has to end. Many brilliant minds have investigated and anyone remotely interested will engage in it as well. If its any consolation. instead of finding god, find peace and comfort at the fact that we all have to face it.

Another point that someone brought up was Pascal's wager. If you prescribe to god merely for a chance at redemption, isn't that cowardly. As Bertrand Russell said wouldn't god respect those that have integrity to just not believe due to the lack of evidence? If heaven exists surely a just god would not punish someone for having the rationale and conviction to believe what they think is correct rather than to do so only to gain passage to heaven.

To sum it up I think belief in god is just a mechanism to feel comfortable; the feeling that some intelligence in the universe cares about him or her. But consider this, why would a just god care about you more than those billions who suffer needlessly? I know some religious people would say that its gods plan or that its to test their faith but that is just degrading to humanity. Imagine a child suffering and your best answer is that its god's plan for him/her. Why can't we just be honest and say that there is no agent behind the suffering. Its a circumstance of luck and distribution and we should best try to alleviate it.

Thats the thing that bothers me the most about religion: solipsism. It isn't about you get it over your head.
01-18-2009, 06:26 AM
Pewnut

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

In a way yes, but knowing something can imply understanding 100% about something, like for me when I learn about a particular subject of chemistry, to have a knowledge about that topic, I regard it as knowing 100%about that topic because when there is an aspect I dont understand, I regard that topic as having lack of knowledge. In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.

See, I used the words "knowable to a certain limited extent" for a reason. You can have partial knowledge of X and the remainder will remain unknowable to you but X itself is not unknowable. If God is 100% unknowable, then you cannot possibly know anything about Him.
01-18-2009, 06:55 AM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pewnut

See, I used the words "knowable to a certain limited extent" for a reason. You can have partial knowledge of X and the remainder will remain unknowable to you but X itself is not unknowable. If God is 100% unknowable, then you cannot possibly know anything about Him.

God is not 100% unknowable, therefore agrees with your logic of X which can be substituted as God.
01-18-2009, 09:45 AM
Pewnut

Whaa?

Your exact words before:

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.

And your exact words now:

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

God is not 100% unknowable, therefore agrees with your logic of X which can be substituted as God.

:eek2:

OK, I'll make this easy for you because you're starting to confuse yourself. Is the word you're looking for unknown?

Unknown = (a) Not established or verified (b) Not identified or ascertained

Unknowable = Impossible to know
01-19-2009, 10:21 AM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pewnut

Whaa?

Your exact words before:

And your exact words now:

:eek2:

OK, I'll make this easy for you because you're starting to confuse yourself. Is the word you're looking for unknown?

Unknown = (a) Not established or verified (b) Not identified or ascertained

Unknowable = Impossible to know

It looks like you have misunderstood what I am saying.
Could you please read the WHOLE extract I wrote in each of these situations?
In this way, they dont mean the same thing. However maybe I am maybe using the wrong adjective.
01-19-2009, 12:30 PM
laidbackperson

I hope JacobF, you read this for I like the earnest way you put forward your points:

We first begin with the assumptions that there is no God.
So everything started with a Big Bang as Science says. A dense ball burst throwing matter in all directions. In course of time, galaxies were formed from this matter and these galaxies are still receding at a high speed. In one such galaxy, Milky way galaxy, there is our Sun with number of planets orbiting around it. In the third planet, known as earth, life forms begin to appear with time. Starting from coacervates, to unicellular life, to marine, to vegetation, higher forms (animals) of life begin to appear in earth. Eventually human beings came who were endowed with better thinking ability. From stone age where they moved unclothed and fed on animals, human being learnt to live in community, learnt to make fire, invented wheel, started agriculture and kept progressing. Then science started dominating some 150 years from now and how quickly we have progressed and where we have reached now. If in a time machine with some of our gadgets and AK47 rifle, we could go back to the old age we will be taken for God.:D

Here I question you.

Assuming that everything happened as Science says, does it not look wondrous that we are the outcome of a Big bang that occurred some 12-15 billions years ago. Do you feel that evolution is just a series of coincidences occurring in long term ( In long term, a remote coincidence can always occur as per theory of probability) and we are the product of all this trial and error.
Secondly, delve into any science subject: Physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, just anything. You will find an astonishing beauty. How non-living and living things work? The amount of complexity and planning in each work of nature and universe. As per science we have to assume that all this happened by itself. Science has only discovered these secrets which have been always there. And science has only used these discoveries to make its own inventions. Cell phone, aeroplanes, Edision’s bulb etc all are there because scientists and technologists are knowing some secrets of matter and nature. Many modern inventions may still pale in comparison of its counter part existing in nature.

It is the discoveries made by science that may make you ask the question: Is it all by chance or is there someone behind, guiding everything to the minutest detail. It looks mind boggling but here I turn towards God. Also you may come across many scientists and doctors believing in God – in existence of a Higher Power.

You need not believe in religious text, word by word. God has to be beyond all religions.

Each one of us have to find our own answer, believe our own heart and be really open minded, not just a pompous atheist seeking scientific proof of God like ‘gravity’.

Second picture is that let us assume that a God is there.
Let us also believe that God started the big bang and evolution occurred under his guidance and we have reached to our present level.
First question is what is the purpose of all this. I read an article which asked: what if you are given infinite power, all knowledge, all richness, everything that can be there, then what will you do. The answer given was that you would eventually like to share this with all others. May be God’s doing the same although no one is competent to read God’s mind. I like to think of it all as a play of God and live with following beliefs.
• We are not gone in time and space when we die but keep getting re births again and again, till we are ready for God consciousness.
• I believe as you sow, so you reap but the rewards and punishments I don’t restrict to a single lifetime.
• Though God do not reveal Himself openly but His signs you may find everywhere and in your day to day life, if you care to look closely enough.
• I believe God loves all of us more than anybody else is capable of loving us inspite of suffering the world sees. But He also work in the principle of ‘you reap what you sow’ so how we work with our free will is important.
• Also nobody is going to rot in hell for ever, if there is really a hell.
• I believe, you need not believe in the God till you are ready for it. If you are good, you will be taken care of. If you are bad, you will turn up becoming good after number of re-births. I believe all are going to be saved. All are going forward, some are more ahead, others are behind. But God is pushing everybody towards Him.
• Atheist may keep on harping for scientific proof and it may never come. So one has to think beyond science.
• I believe that God like simplicity, honesty and humility in humans to arrogance and the habit of pulling somebody down and gloating over it. God must be loving a humble atheist more than a crooked believer.

I recollect a monk’s words that I read years ago:

We (human beings) are like small children playing in a sea-shore. We are lost in our play with water, sand, pebbles, sand castles and other such things. But the moment we had our fill, the time we feel our play is over, we we will loose interest in everything and will go rushing towards the waiting arms of Mother ( God).
01-22-2009, 12:15 AM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

1. Weren't the writings of Flavius Josephus deemed to be forgery?

Not that I'm aware of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

2. I admit I'm speaking out of hearsay for this one, but I'm pretty sure Tacitus' writings were deemed to be added in by Christian scholars as well. Plus, Jesus died around 30-35 A.D. That account is decades after the life of Jesus.

That the account is decades later doesn't make the subject imaginary. History is rarely written the minute it happens. Since Jesus was 33 at the time of his death, it is possible the even 40 years later to have people writing who knew him personally. I don't think an attempt to make all historical documents refering to Jesus a Christian conspiracy theory will have much traction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

There really aren't enough records to deem Jesus as a real person. Even if Jesus was a real person, there is no evidence, not even after his time, that he performed miracles or was at all divine. His identity was formed by later Christian scholars.

One of the strongest arguments against your position is the Bible itself; the books about Christ's life (the Gospels) were written and disseminated while people who lived during Christ's lifetime were alive - if they were simply fabrications, there would have been refutations published during the time denouncing the veracity of the Bible. Such refutations do not exist - and certainly not for lack of people to do so. There are plenty of people who would have immediately come forward to challenge the gospels if they had been false - especially the Jewish leaders - who look pretty bad in terms of how they come across in the gospels. That there were no challenges to the published life of Christ suggest that it was accepted as true by his society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Interesting that you should say that...

The whole 'denying god out of fear' is ham-handed to me. People denying alcoholism because they don't want to quit. People deny their financial debt because they don't want to endure something that directly inconveniences them. The idea of god, however, is completely intangible, and really does not harness the immediate power to inconvenience someone enough to the point of denying god. If someone really was scared of god, there are churches and bibles everywhere. They could just get down on their knees and pray. In Islam for instance, all you have to do is say that you accept Allah and you are saved.

I'm not pursuing the argument that far - I'm simplying reminding you that the fear that you claim is behind believers' choices to believe ironically can be turned around as the root of many nonbelievers' attempts to deny the existence of God. It is well documented that human beings quite willingly deny that which they do not wish to be true. It is a viable explanation for at least some nonbelievers' choices to deny the existence of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

In the grand scheme of things, people only carry out the tasks in the bible (well, ideally they do, but as history has shown that doesn't always happen) to get to heaven. There's no other motive. They only do it because god said so. I do good things in my life for others because I summon the motivation myself. The bible is altruistic.

There you go again - making sweeping generalizations about what motivates believers. And how do you know this? How can you definitively say "there's no other motive"? What privileged knowledge do you have into the contents of the hearts of millions of Christians worldwide?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

As another side note, I don't see the goodness in 'loving your enemies.' How about just not having any enemies at all? I know I don't have any. We'd all be better off without holding grudges.

Not having enemies at all is virtually impossible. Even peaceful, nonviolent men like Ghandi had enemies (the British weren't real fond of him in his movement to liberate India). Enemies are inevitable - the only way to avoid them is to have no opinions and take no stands on any issues whatsoever - and at that point, you may have no enemies, but you probably won't have many friends either. You certainly won't have any respect. Hating one's enemies poisons your own heart and hurts you more than them. That doesn't mean that we must like them - love means doing what is in your enemies best interest - and that best interest might be in turning him into the authorities, or confronting him for something wrong he's doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

As I've already argued many times, Christianity is a remedy for fear. There's really nothing else to it. Sure, there's the allure of being closer to god, but that's only because when you are closer to god you won't go to hell. Here we see that "loving yet vengeful god" paradox again.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't see much to substantiate it beyond your opinion. If only humanity acted out the same principle in reality - you might have a stronger argument. In other words, desire for reward and fear of punishment has only limited success in controlling human behavior - and that is with consequences and rewards that are clearly tangible and "provable." Why should the intangible consequences and rewards of hell and heaven carry any weight if tangible ones have only limited success? The reality is that many people choose to believe because God answers the questions they have about life, about the universe, about reality, about human nature that no other philosophy or belief system properly answers. People come to Christianity by as many routes as those who leave it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Sure, some people may enjoy Christianity for the aspect of community it provides, but that's a minor reason because community can be found in many other places.

But not community that changes one's life for the better. Christianity doesn't just offer fellowship - it offers a new life and an eternal life to boot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I guess I meant 'better' person (even still the goal is to be good). When humanity subscribes to any organization that makes them feel better about themselves, doing the 'right thing,' they feel like they are a good person -- validated. As for sin, from a catholic perspective, all you have to do to rid yourself of your sins is go into the confession box X times per year. From a protestant perspective, you pray and go to church and read the bible. Isn't the only rule laid out by the New Testament "love god"? In the end, that's all it boils down to anyway. You can be a terrible person, commit horrible crimes yet when you 'accept god' you can still go to heaven.

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

And from my experience going to a protestant church for 13 years, Christians aren't all that modest. Some are I am sure, but a lot aren't. Even still, they're only sinners because God said so. A person should correct their faults because THEY think it's the right thing to do, not the bible.

There's always those who don't fly the flag well - no institution, group, organization, etc is immune to zealots and miscreants. They are sinners because they act contrary to the character of God. The problem with your supposition is that without a standard by which to evaluate our behavior, why should be think anything wrong? Why should we be motivated to do "the right thing" if the only weight it carries is from other flawed people like ourselves? The Bible doesn't create reality; it verifies it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

I guess the favourite part of talking to a theist is knowing that they wasted so much time by subscribing to antiquated and transparent beliefs.

Another grand assumption that cannot be proven in any way to be true - simply your biased evaluation of the value of Christianty - which carries zero weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

You said "things created out of fear do not change peoples' lives." You did mention the bible and christianity but you were talking about fear very generally.

People did not write the Bible or establish Christianity because they were fearful. There is nothing to substantiate your claims beyond your assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

When did I ever complain that god will stop all the suffering? When I referred to god being as loving as he is vengeful, I was poking at the paradox that Christianity seems to buy into.

You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

The concept of god is based on faith and faith alone. There is no rationality to it. I'll assume for a second that god does exist -- if he does, he would be unfathomable. No human or being would be able to conceive of his existence. No scripture could outline what god really is. To claim that you are in possession of the knowledge of something that is divine -- beyond human comprehension -- is absurd. So, as beings who are governed by logic and rationality, atheism is the best choice.

The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I'm sorry - the odds of abiogenesis are approximatley 1 in 10 to the 33, 133 power. That number is astronomical - especially considering that it has been calculated that the number of particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 60th power. (I'm quoting from memory, so I'm prepared to have those numbers challenged). Now, tell me that that number is a rational number - tell me that the those odds are believable - because in my mind, numbers that big become so unreal as to almost become as "unreal" as God is to others. Why is that incredible number more believable than a Divine Being? Tell me its rational to believe that the incredible complexity of this world "just happened" even though nothing in our world conforms to that principle - that in reality, matter grows less complex and less organized as time goes on - not more complex and more organized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Well, that's the thing about theism -- it's governed by faith, not logic.

Please - very few things in this life that make life worth living - relationships, love - follow the laws of logic. Our human hearts defy that logic on a daily basis - and not always to our detriment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

It didn't give us the science because the science has proven it wrong. We all know the world wasn't created in 7 days. They didn't know any better, so they just made it up.

You don't "know" anything about how the earth got here - you simply have what you believe to be true. Science can't prove its competing theory either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Well, evolution has evidence. No scientist really denies evolution because of the sheer amount of evidence behind it. The only thing in science that comes close to faith are hypotheses. But after the tests and observations, the hypothesis doesn't matter. I'm not saying evolution is completely true -- no theory is -- but at least it's not supported by faith and faith alone.

Most evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation requires the employment of a subjective interpretive framework - that's why evolutionists and intelligent design scientists can look at the same evidence and arrive at two different conclusions.

Abiogenesis cannot be tested or observed - it can only by hypothesized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

So? There's no evidence that points to Jesus being the son of god. There's nothing that says biblical locations actually hosted the events which happened. And as I've previously mentioned, a lot of the stuff is forgery. Christianity was a tool of authority in its birth, and history always 'edits' history to its own advantage. Yes, Scientology is funny, because it's probably about as true as Christianity is. Aliens coming here and implanting stuff in our minds, that's totally silly... but a virgin birth and a talking snake, that's believable.

You have no proof for your accusations - you are simply parroting the standard (and rather hysterical) arguments thrown against the Bible and Christianty. Archeology makes finds year after year that confirm people, locations and events that the Bible reports. This is all well-documented. Textual criticism of the Bible has esatablished that the original language copies have a 99.5% integrity rate - higher than any other ancient texts; the rules for copying texts in the Jewish community are incredibly exacting - the Dead Sea scrolls confirm the integrity of the Old Testament. Frankly, you're simply grasping at straws. And, if God can create the universe (whether it took 7 days or longer) and raise the dead to life - well, a virgin birth and talking snake are mere child's play - don't you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

And this is what I hate most about religion. The fact that everyone thinks their own is right. Religion was necessary to expand empires and give people hope in antiquity, but now it really just causes more problems than it solves. We don't need it anymore; in my opinion, it's just holding back humanity.

Well, Jacob, hate away - but religions are all mutually exclusive - not just Christianity. Islam and Judiaism do not say that all other religions are correct - no religion does that. In reality (look at the world around you) not everybody gets to be right. Sorry. That's kind of how reality works - at least that I've noticed.

Why don't you detail all the problems religion causes and then show me how those problems outweigh the benefits (which you should list in order to be fair). I'd be very interested in hearing you actually lay out the specifics of these charges instead of simply tossing out sweeping generalizations (which comprises the majority of your posts).
01-22-2009, 08:13 PM
JacobF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

One of the strongest arguments against your position is the Bible itself; the books about Christ's life (the Gospels) were written and disseminated while people who lived during Christ's lifetime were alive - if they were simply fabrications, there would have been refutations published during the time denouncing the veracity of the Bible. Such refutations do not exist - and certainly not for lack of people to do so. There are plenty of people who would have immediately come forward to challenge the gospels if they had been false - especially the Jewish leaders - who look pretty bad in terms of how they come across in the gospels. That there were no challenges to the published life of Christ suggest that it was accepted as true by his society.

It suggests it, but it doesn't confirm anything. Maybe there were challenges, and they were simply supressed/rewritten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I'm not pursuing the argument that far - I'm simplying reminding you that the fear that you claim is behind believers' choices to believe ironically can be turned around as the root of many nonbelievers' attempts to deny the existence of God. It is well documented that human beings quite willingly deny that which they do not wish to be true. It is a viable explanation for at least some nonbelievers' choices to deny the existence of God.

Maybe there's a few people who choose atheism just because they're denying their fear of god. But, like you said below about Christians, they generally aren't real atheists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

There you go again - making sweeping generalizations about what motivates believers. And how do you know this? How can you definitively say "there's no other motive"? What privileged knowledge do you have into the contents of the hearts of millions of Christians worldwide?

That's the only motive that, really, is present. There may be variations of that motive, subsects of it, but in the end that's the core motive. I don't know why you continue to think I project myself as someone who knows everything that a Christian is thinking about Christianity. Obviously I don't. And there's another part of that quotation where I said some may do it for the community, because it's true there a plenty of Christians who go to church to see their friends. But please outline more genuine motives other than the desire to go to heaven. Seems to me that's really all Christianity offers that you can't achieve without being Christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Not having enemies at all is virtually impossible. Even peaceful, nonviolent men like Ghandi had enemies (the British weren't real fond of him in his movement to liberate India). Enemies are inevitable - the only way to avoid them is to have no opinions and take no stands on any issues whatsoever - and at that point, you may have no enemies, but you probably won't have many friends either. You certainly won't have any respect. Hating one's enemies poisons your own heart and hurts you more than them. That doesn't mean that we must like them - love means doing what is in your enemies best interest - and that best interest might be in turning him into the authorities, or confronting him for something wrong he's doing.

Well, Ghandi was a martyr. He had adversaries -- but I wouldn't call them enemies. An enemy is someone for whom you'd go out of your way to annoy/ignore/harm et cetera. To me, enemies are mutual in their hate toward each other. Not everyone is going to like you, and many people will inconvenience you, but do they have to be your 'enemies'? I don't think so. But this, like your argument above, this isn't one I really put much weight on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't see much to substantiate it beyond your opinion. If only humanity acted out the same principle in reality - you might have a stronger argument. In other words, desire for reward and fear of punishment has only limited success in controlling human behavior - and that is with consequences and rewards that are clearly tangible and "provable." Why should the intangible consequences and rewards of hell and heaven carry any weight if tangible ones have only limited success? The reality is that many people choose to believe because God answers the questions they have about life, about the universe, about reality, about human nature that no other philosophy or belief system properly answers. People come to Christianity by as many routes as those who leave it.

Intangible rewards/threats can be more effective for the simple reason of fear again -- fear of the unknown. Hell is a place of eternal excruciation: you can barely imagine it, right? So when that threat is asserted, you can either say: 1) I don't believe it, or 2) I don't want to go there, help me avoid going there. The latter comprises of Christians and the former doesn't. It's the carrot-on-a-stick philosophy, as well, for heaven. I'm not really sure where you get that last part, that it teaches people many things about the universe/human nature/et cetera. All the bible really teaches is that 'god is love.' The moral of the story always is 'love god.' Much like in the Hitchhiker's Guide where the answer to everything is 42, it doesn't reveal a whole lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

But not community that changes one's life for the better. Christianity doesn't just offer fellowship - it offers a new life and an eternal life to boot.

Okay, but a lot of people have Christianity or any religion for that matter rooted into their upbringing that, even if they may or may not believe the religion, going to church is traditional. I've spoken to many church-goers and they say they enjoy church because they've met a lot of friends there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.

It isn't as obviously self-serving as, say, buying a huge mansion and laughing at the poor people from your 70-inch screen TV. But, it's still self-serving because 1) it legitimizes yourself as a person (the whole thing that you just said with not being worthy as an independent human being) and 2) you simply feel good about your own self-esteem for helping others. Some Christians may have better intentions than others but the fact still remains we are self-serving species, with Christianity or without.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

There's always those who don't fly the flag well - no institution, group, organization, etc is immune to zealots and miscreants. They are sinners because they act contrary to the character of God. The problem with your supposition is that without a standard by which to evaluate our behavior, why should be think anything wrong? Why should we be motivated to do "the right thing" if the only weight it carries is from other flawed people like ourselves? The Bible doesn't create reality; it verifies it.

Morals are not only extracted from religion, but nature too. We should be motivated to do the right thing because it's in the best interest of our race. For instance, killing each other for no reason is not in our best interest. At any rate, the 'right thing' is quite subjective and never absolute, and that's another gripe I have with the bible -- it attempts to solve everything with a quick fix that if you worship god, everything will be okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Another grand assumption that cannot be proven in any way to be true - simply your biased evaluation of the value of Christianty - which carries zero weight.

That wasn't an argument, by the way -- it was my belief, in response to yours which seemed kind of out of place anyway, or else I would have embellished on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

People did not write the Bible or establish Christianity because they were fearful. There is nothing to substantiate your claims beyond your assumptions.

There is nothing to substantiate many of your claims beyond faith, but here I am arguing with you about it. Do you know why they wrote the bible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.

I don't really see that as admirable, but to each his own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I'm sorry - the odds of abiogenesis are approximatley 1 in 10 to the 33, 133 power. That number is astronomical - especially considering that it has been calculated that the number of particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 60th power. (I'm quoting from memory, so I'm prepared to have those numbers challenged). Now, tell me that that number is a rational number - tell me that the those odds are believable - because in my mind, numbers that big become so unreal as to almost become as "unreal" as God is to others. Why is that incredible number more believable than a Divine Being? Tell me its rational to believe that the incredible complexity of this world "just happened" even though nothing in our world conforms to that principle - that in reality, matter grows less complex and less organized as time goes on - not more complex and more organized.

There are no traces of the divine in our universe. Therefore, it's only logical to pass it up as mythology. No evidence exists that proves the divine. We have scientific explanations for a lot of things, definitely not everything, and generally the only things we don't have explanations for (such as the origins of the universe) are deemed as unknown. Why does everything that we can't explain have to be carried out by a divine being? There's nothing that inclines us to believe that, except for our imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Please - very few things in this life that make life worth living - relationships, love - follow the laws of logic. Our human hearts defy that logic on a daily basis - and not always to our detriment.

Love is logical to reproduce. Relationships are logical because they give us our own identity, and therefore make us feel good. That doesn't make them valid, but they are logical. Theism is, in a way, logical, because it has proved to be a good mechanism to control civilizations and give easy answers, thus making life easier to deal with -- but the truth of theism isn't logical. It's faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You don't "know" anything about how the earth got here - you simply have what you believe to be true. Science can't prove its competing theory either.

I'm pretty sure we've disproven that, the mass amount of matter called Planet Earth, wasn't created in 7 days. I don't think it even needs to be disproven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Most evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation requires the employment of a subjective interpretive framework - that's why evolutionists and intelligent design scientists can look at the same evidence and arrive at two different conclusions.

Abiogenesis cannot be tested or observed - it can only by hypothesized.

They arrive at their conclusions not based on their status as a scientist, but due to their beliefs. A scientist will say: "this is how x happened," while an intelligent design scientists will say: "this is how x happened; plus, god helped." The raw evidence itself is the same, however. Since when can abiogenesis not be observed? There are many observations of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You have no proof for your accusations - you are simply parroting the standard (and rather hysterical) arguments thrown against the Bible and Christianty. Archeology makes finds year after year that confirm people, locations and events that the Bible reports. This is all well-documented. Textual criticism of the Bible has esatablished that the original language copies have a 99.5% integrity rate - higher than any other ancient texts; the rules for copying texts in the Jewish community are incredibly exacting - the Dead Sea scrolls confirm the integrity of the Old Testament. Frankly, you're simply grasping at straws. And, if God can create the universe (whether it took 7 days or longer) and raise the dead to life - well, a virgin birth and talking snake are mere child's play - don't you think?

Since when can archaeology excavate the evidence that there was a virgin birth, a talking snake, a man named Moses who received the 10 commandements, et cetera?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Well, Jacob, hate away - but religions are all mutually exclusive - not just Christianity. Islam and Judiaism do not say that all other religions are correct - no religion does that. In reality (look at the world around you) not everybody gets to be right. Sorry. That's kind of how reality works - at least that I've noticed.

Why don't you detail all the problems religion causes and then show me how those problems outweigh the benefits (which you should list in order to be fair). I'd be very interested in hearing you actually lay out the specifics of these charges instead of simply tossing out sweeping generalizations (which comprises the majority of your posts).

Not everyone gets to be right. But why must one religions assert that other religions are wrong? That's what I hate about it: fighting over mythology. You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore. A study was released that showed IQ rates to be higher as the dependancy on religion of a nation grew smaller (I don't have the link to it, but it's easy to find i'm sure). It's holding us back. But while I dislike the existence of religion, I can see why we still have it. Still, we don't need to.

I do, however, admire your tenacity at trying to support your faith with evidence and rationality -- I genuinely do. A lot of theists respond with the same stuff over and over again, but you've forced me to think about my responses. And that's why I'm going to step away from this debate now. I've said what I've needed to say. I guess you can use that against me in your next post (if there is one) but this argument, while I've learned quite a bit from it (i really have) is to the point where it is merely exhausting.
01-22-2009, 11:08 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

It suggests it, but it doesn't confirm anything. Maybe there were challenges, and they were simply supressed/rewritten.

In order to honor your "exhaustion," I'll keep responses brief.

First, the suggestion that all challenges to the life of Christ were suppressed by the church I find on par with just about any other conspiracy threory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Maybe there's a few people who choose atheism just because they're denying their fear of god. But, like you said below about Christians, they generally aren't real atheists.

Fear of God isn't what makes some people choose atheism: it is fear that they way they are choosing to live is not right. What better way to feel OK about the life you live than to get rid of the standard by which you are evaluated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

That's the only motive that, really, is present. There may be variations of that motive, subsects of it, but in the end that's the core motive. I don't know why you continue to think I project myself as someone who knows everything that a Christian is thinking about Christianity. Obviously I don't. And there's another part of that quotation where I said some may do it for the community, because it's true there a plenty of Christians who go to church to see their friends. But please outline more genuine motives other than the desire to go to heaven. Seems to me that's really all Christianity offers that you can't achieve without being Christian.

The core motive is to be in the presence of our creator - the Being from whom love and beauty are derived. Who wouldn't want to be in the presence of the source of all goodness, beauty and love in the universe?
What higher motive do people need than to be united with the Being who created them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Well, Ghandi was a martyr. He had adversaries -- but I wouldn't call them enemies. An enemy is someone for whom you'd go out of your way to annoy/ignore/harm et cetera. To me, enemies are mutual in their hate toward each other. Not everyone is going to like you, and many people will inconvenience you, but do they have to be your 'enemies'? I don't think so. But this, like your argument above, this isn't one I really put much weight on.

Hair-splitting. You're playing around with the definition of "enemy" in order to try and refute my point. Someone may consider me their enemy without me feeling likewise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Intangible rewards/threats can be more effective for the simple reason of fear again -- fear of the unknown. Hell is a place of eternal excruciation: you can barely imagine it, right? So when that threat is asserted, you can either say: 1) I don't believe it, or 2) I don't want to go there, help me avoid going there. The latter comprises of Christians and the former doesn't. It's the carrot-on-a-stick philosophy, as well, for heaven. I'm not really sure where you get that last part, that it teaches people many things about the universe/human nature/et cetera. All the bible really teaches is that 'god is love.' The moral of the story always is 'love god.' Much like in the Hitchhiker's Guide where the answer to everything is 42, it doesn't reveal a whole lot.

You dismiss "God is love" very easily - do you understand what that really means? It means that the greatest examples/experiences of love on this earth are mere shadows of the Being which is love embodied. Since our desire for love is one of the primary motivations and goals of most everybody on earth, I think you're dismissing pretty easily something amazing - who wouldn't want to be in the presence of love embodied, if we will do just about anything here on earth simply to experience even this highly flawed experience that we call "love" here? What answer need be given beyond God is love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Okay, but a lot of people have Christianity or any religion for that matter rooted into their upbringing that, even if they may or may not believe the religion, going to church is traditional. I've spoken to many church-goers and they say they enjoy church because they've met a lot of friends there.

Fine - but if that's all it offers, it won't keep people for long because the tenants of Christianity require much more out of an individual than other communities do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

It isn't as obviously self-serving as, say, buying a huge mansion and laughing at the poor people from your 70-inch screen TV. But, it's still self-serving because 1) it legitimizes yourself as a person (the whole thing that you just said with not being worthy as an independent human being) and 2) you simply feel good about your own self-esteem for helping others. Some Christians may have better intentions than others but the fact still remains we are self-serving species, with Christianity or without.

You are flat-out wrong. I have no idea how me acknowledging that I'm a sinner "legitimizes" me as a person. Second, the Bible teaches us that any good that we do comes from the presence of God in our heart - so the Christian who "feels good" about what she/he does is all wrong and is enjoying the sin of pride because the source of those good deeds is not me - it's God within me. Christianity is hard because it demands that we consciously work against the human tendency to be self-serving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Morals are not only extracted from religion, but nature too. We should be motivated to do the right thing because it's in the best interest of our race. For instance, killing each other for no reason is not in our best interest. At any rate, the 'right thing' is quite subjective and never absolute, and that's another gripe I have with the bible -- it attempts to solve everything with a quick fix that if you worship god, everything will be okay.

Sometimes what is in my best interest is to be selfish and manipulative. Killing someone to get his money or car might just be in my best interest. Once right/wrong becomes subjective, there is no reason for me to bow to any law but that which serves my best interest. Only a higher law above human revision can stop us from becoming tyrants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

There is nothing to substantiate many of your claims beyond faith, but here I am arguing with you about it. Do you know why they wrote the bible?

Playing "tit-for-tat" doesn't change the fact that your claim has nothing to substantiate it.

The Bible was written to reveal the character of God and His history with the Jewish people. The New Testament was written as the revelation of Jesus Christ - God's son - in order to offer all people redemption from sin and the chance to accept the free gift of eternal life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

I don't really see that as admirable, but to each his own.

Oh come on - are you telling me that you don't think justice being served - a murderer being put in prison for his crimes - isn't admirable? Don't you want a just society that punishes wrong-doers? Please don't ask me to believe that you're trying to make justice into some sort of fancy that not everybody believes in. Everybody wants justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

There are no traces of the divine in our universe. Therefore, it's only logical to pass it up as mythology. No evidence exists that proves the divine. We have scientific explanations for a lot of things, definitely not everything, and generally the only things we don't have explanations for (such as the origins of the universe) are deemed as unknown. Why does everything that we can't explain have to be carried out by a divine being? There's nothing that inclines us to believe that, except for our imagination.

What's your proof of no divinity in the universe? Because you can't find it? Because science hasn't found heaven or a big man in the sky it has decided that God doesn't exist? You're kidding, right? As if a Being who is capable of creating the universe from the atoms up could simply be found by our devices? You MUST be kidding...

Our sense of moral justice and the complexity of creation and the existence of love all point to a creator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Love is logical to reproduce. Relationships are logical because they give us our own identity, and therefore make us feel good. That doesn't make them valid, but they are logical. Theism is, in a way, logical, because it has proved to be a good mechanism to control civilizations and give easy answers, thus making life easier to deal with -- but the truth of theism isn't logical. It's faith.

No - you're talking about relationships and the logic of being in them; sure - but while in these relationships we will often make very illogical decisions; logic does not rule the heart - it rules the head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

I'm pretty sure we've disproven that, the mass amount of matter called Planet Earth, wasn't created in 7 days. I don't think it even needs to be disproven.

And how was that proved? By what standard do we establish that an almighty being couldn't create the universe in 7 days beyond the fact that we can't imagine that kind of power? Ancient civilizations couldn't imagine most of the simple devices we use today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

They arrive at their conclusions not based on their status as a scientist, but due to their beliefs. A scientist will say: "this is how x happened," while an intelligent design scientists will say: "this is how x happened; plus, god helped." The raw evidence itself is the same, however. Since when can abiogenesis not be observed? There are many observations of it.

Wrong again; the scientist's beliefs do not come into play until the scientist must answer the question as to the "first cause" - at that point both scientists choose their foundation; the creationist chooses to believe that the First Cause is God; the evolutionist chooses as his First Cause naturalism. Both CHOOSE the First Cause they wish to point to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Since when can archaeology excavate the evidence that there was a virgin birth, a talking snake, a man named Moses who received the 10 commandements, et cetera?

Those need not be proven for the Bible to be credible. It is sufficient to have people and events be shown to be true. If the miracles weren't true, where are the refutations (oh yeah, the conspiracy theory...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

Not everyone gets to be right. But why must one religions assert that other religions are wrong? That's what I hate about it: fighting over mythology. You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore. A study was released that showed IQ rates to be higher as the dependancy on religion of a nation grew smaller (I don't have the link to it, but it's easy to find i'm sure). It's holding us back. But while I dislike the existence of religion, I can see why we still have it. Still, we don't need to.

Any religion that claims to have the "truth" (that would be all of them) automatically brings the truthfulness of others into question simply by existing. It's only mythology to you - to us, its reality. I'm not impressed by the study on IQ - as if IQ is some sort of determination of the worth of people - let's not go down that road because we've already had plenty of exposure to people who thought in terms of "master race" - right? Do you choose your friends based upon IQ? Does IQ have some magical power to make someone better than someone else in a way that really matters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

I do, however, admire your tenacity at trying to support your faith with evidence and rationality -- I genuinely do. A lot of theists respond with the same stuff over and over again, but you've forced me to think about my responses. And that's why I'm going to step away from this debate now. I've said what I've needed to say. I guess you can use that against me in your next post (if there is one) but this argument, while I've learned quite a bit from it (i really have) is to the point where it is merely exhausting.

Understood and acknowledged.
01-23-2009, 12:58 AM
jon1jt

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobF

You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore.

Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time? I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance.

And when you say something like "we" you speak for the human race, and that's solipsistic, or should I say pretentious. You need to learn to temper that. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman. :thumbs_up
01-23-2009, 01:27 AM
JacobF

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1jt

Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time? I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance.

And when you say something like "we" you speak for the human race, and that's solipsistic, or should I say pretentious. You need to learn to temper that. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman. :thumbs_up

I don't claim to have it all figured out, and I don't know where you get that from, unless you're just using the prejudice of "I'm younger than him, therefore my arguments are less valid." I know have a lot to learn, and I've acknowledge that numerous times. And I'm not saying that simply to victimize myself by claiming ignorance, because I know it's true. When I called red patronizing I wasn't pointing to all his posts, I was pointing to a specific quotation... which is why I quoted it.

By the way, I've seen disrespectful/rude/"know-it-all" assertions of atheism which were bar none worse than mine (not on this board, though). Atheists would reply with "you're a moron, I hope you burn in the hell you've created," among other things which would get me banned.

And maybe I'll be a Christian in 10 years, I don't know. But these are the beliefs that I currently hold and I may as well throw myself in the ring and see how I do. That's how I learn sometimes. I'm not as mature or wise as older posters but I think I have the right to input my views. It's the internet after all.

Sorry you found my use of 'we' pretentious. It's a force of habit, and I'll duly note it. It's just a lot easier to refer to things as we, I guess.

I promised myself I wasn't going to re-engage in the debate but there's something I'd like to clear up. I don't think I trivialized the role or importance of religion or myth in society. Of course it plays a huge role, and I don't think it should. That was the basis of my argument.
01-23-2009, 12:50 PM
skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.

You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.

The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I would like to appreciate for sharing your thoughts and belief about God, it was spiritually refreshning.:)
01-23-2009, 01:14 PM
atiguhya padma

To act ethically dfor a Christian is much easier than it is for an atheist. A Christian can just look up the rules and regulations in his/her handbook and pull out some moral teaching that suits her/him. An atheist on the other hand has think things through and come up with fresh approaches to fresh problems.

Its all very easy to use scripture to support your actions. When there is no scripture to refer to, then you have to be creative, bold and act in the knowledge that, though you might be wrong, you've done your best to act in a good way.
01-24-2009, 12:17 AM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1jt

. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman. :thumbs_up

Thank you jon

Quote:

Originally Posted by skasian

I would like to appreciate for sharing your thoughts and belief about God, it was spiritually refreshning.:)

Thank you skasian

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

To act ethically dfor a Christian is much easier than it is for an atheist. A Christian can just look up the rules and regulations in his/her handbook and pull out some moral teaching that suits her/him. An atheist on the other hand has think things through and come up with fresh approaches to fresh problems.

Wrong. The Bible isn't a "rule book" we consult. It is the revelation of God's character and we are directed to "become" like God. As we grow in relationship, we voluntarily choose to engage in behaviors that mirror His character. Don't patronize us by making us sound like bean-counters who mindlessly parrot the behavior the Bible suggests we engage in. The atheist's philosophy of behavior isn't self-created; they consult their own "rule books" - whether that be conventional morality, social contract theory, utilitarianism, or other philosophies they have read or been exposed to. I don't buy this "Christians are parrots but atheists are creative" idea in terms of moral behavior. The supposed "freedom" of atheist ethics also makes their ethics unstable and unreliable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Its all very easy to use scripture to support your actions. When there is no scripture to refer to, then you have to be creative, bold and act in the knowledge that, though you might be wrong, you've done your best to act in a good way.

Pretending that atheists create their own "bold creative" response to the cirucumstances of the world strikes me as a bit self-aggrandizing. Atheists adhere to morality by-and-large that they inherited from Christian morality or other sources.
01-24-2009, 03:17 AM
blazeofglory

There are many disputations about God, creation, different gods, faiths, sources of faiths.

I do not think one God is greater and another smaller. Even paganism is also as good as Christianity.

At times Christians try to dodge paganism as a religion or cult of the savage but I hold it strongly that paganism is as complex and as advanced as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism.

People become so irrational and dogmatic when it comes to defend their particular sets of beliefs and now never than ever before we have fundamentalists and fanatics waging all kinds of wars.

They want to assert their ideas and religions at any costs
This is sheer foolhardy. Politics of religions is sheer politics and not religions at all.

Politicizing it as a religion is to debase it and rather to be interested in politics only.
01-24-2009, 04:51 PM
billyjack

[QUOTE=jon1jt;663077]Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time?/QUOTE]

he is right and he wasn't patronizing.

[QUOTE=jon1jt;663077] I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance. /QUOTE]

i've dabbled in campbell's "hero with a thousand faces". myth played a role. so did the stone age. we don't swing stone axes anymore but the beliefs of that time still hold, its a shame and a sham
01-24-2009, 06:17 PM
Niamh

Just a reminder for you all to discuss the topic, and not each other before you all get carried away..
:)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page