# Reading > Religious Texts >  Why I believe in God?

## laidbackperson

I begin with why I think certain people do not believe in God. Then I will write about why I still believe in God.

One main reason why some people do not believe in God is that they do not find a direct proof of God. Today science has changed the way people live and think. People have tremendous faith in science and science shows concrete results, often magic like. Science goes by pure logical evidence and God does not seem to fit there as a loving father capable of performing any miracle. The idea that someone is controlling everything in the universe does not seem to ring true to these people.

Secondly, God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and omni-powerful, but the control of real world seems to be in hand of other people. Injustice, cruelty, corruption and poverty are often evident in social life and many times wrong people seem to be controlling affairs or enjoying life. At the same time, some good people undergo great sufferings without any fault from their side. However, the all-powerful and just God who is also said to be a benevolent father seems to pay no heed and appears completely passive and indifferent.

Now, why I begin believe in God.

When I was young, my parents believed in God and so we followed those religious practices and I thought that a God is there. As we grew up and gain experiences, we begin to reason and apply logic to God. I think believing in God provides a comfort. Believers, have something to fall back upon - something to cling to in case of adversity or after we die. However, is this comfort feeling has a basis in fear for unknown? Alternatively, can we apply some logic to it? 

If we consider things from scientific point of view, we find that everything in nature, right from a simple leaf to a blue whale or to just whatsoever else we can think of has a beautifully planned system. You can take an atom or nucleus of an atom or Sun or other stars or the galaxies in our universe, there seems intricate planning in everything. Science only has discovered this beauty of nature and scientists marvel at it. Here we have to choose: Whether it is God or some higher Power, or everything just evolved slowly with time by itself starting with a big bang, as whoever has heard about it keep saying. Choosing God as I did, many questions are still left unanswered but that is where the faith comes i.e. just going by what your heart says.

Coming to the second aspect, yes, I agree the real world is not exactly like we desire. But why does not God intervene then. Well, I think, if God starts intervening directly, smacking all the wrong persons, then world may improve very quickly but world would become very automated, dull and without spice. Second, if you believe your are eternal beings or in the reincarnation theory as I do, then eventually everything is going to fit- at its own pace. The world is a learning playground for us and God with his wild humor has His own plan for each one of us.

Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe or do not believe in God. 

I just hope that we do not go for one-anothers throat and keep our humor intact.  :Biggrin:

----------


## RG57

I believe in God because 'I do', I am unable to explain why it is something that I have done for the most of my life even as a child. Have you ever tried to deny that belief? It is harder than you think! Modern science and the Darwin theories (of which I accept within reason) prove the solid, but they can't answer the big question of what was before the 'big bang' and where did the atoms arise, no more than we can say how God became to exhist! This I think all would agree this is a stalemate situation.

----------


## erikwithAk

even then it still depends on your point of view even darwin himself said "with the detail and complexity of the human eye how can anyman say 'there is no God'" there is plenty of information that is evident in this world but i find it impossible to think that molecules, plants, animals, and human beings, the very things that make this world so amazing to look at and explore just came from some slime that "evolved" into a plankton like creature that turned into a fish that grew legs, etc. it just doesnt add up but thats when the beliefs and discernment of the human factor comes in we can all choose to believe whatever we want, becuase God gave us all free will to do so, he also said to never disrespect another mans opinion, and to love people as you would your-self. so you dont have to agree with a person and to agree with sombody on absolutly everything is kind of impossible to do so, becuase yet again were all uniqe in our own bodies, hearts, spirts, and minds and thats what i believe.

please forgive me for jumping around, its a habbit i just cant seem to break but i want you to know that i respect you and what you have to say and hope to converse with you all soon  :Smile:  

~erik~

----------


## Ohmyscience

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

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

----------


## laidbackperson

Hi, RG57. thanks for your post and following remark: 
_I believe in God because 'I do', I am unable to explain why it is something that I have done for the most of my life even as a child. Have you ever tried to deny that belief? It is harder than you think!_

Yes I understand that for some the belief in God comes easily.

Hi, erikwithAK.
I liked your following para:
_"I find it impossible to think that molecules, plants, animals, and human beings, the very things that make this world so amazing to look at and explore just came from some slime that "evolved" into a plankton like creature that turned into a fish that grew legs, etc. it just doesnt add up but thats when the beliefs and discernment of the human factor comes in we can all choose to believe whatever we want, becuase God gave us all free will to do so, he also said to never disrespect another mans opinion, and to love people as you would your-self. so you dont have to agree with a person and to agree with sombody on absolutly everything is kind of impossible to do so, becuase yet again were all uniqe in our own bodies."_

Although, I tend to believe that we evolved more or less as you have said, but i too find it amazing. 

Hi, Ohmyscience, I pondered carefully what to reply to your following remarks:
_"How can a benevolent God find humour in the suffering of his creations? To me if there is an all powerful God the he is sadistic. Any sensible being with the power to ease the suffering of others would chose to do so especially if it within their means"._
This is what I would like to say. Many points I borrow from articles/books I have read but I try to present what I also think could have been.:

Taking God is there, let us say initially, God was alone - the all powerful, all knower, omnipresent. So God decides to let us say, indulge in creative play. A universe is created, life forms keep springing in earth- unicellular life, vegetation, animal life, dinoausors, and ultimately stopping at human beings. If we see it in relam of time, all this probably took millions of years or may be more. But human being were endowed with more intelligence- from stone age when they moved unclothed, they learnt to make fire, invented wheel, made weapons, started agriculture and kept on moving forward. The kingdoms were formed and destroyed and emperors ruled the world and then died. Then Science started paving the way. In mere, shall we say one hundred and fifty years, the progress accelerated exponentially and see where we have reached. We have electric light in place of lanterns, planes and cars in place of horses, we have today so easy means of communications with internet, TV, cell phones etc. Longevity has increased, life as such have become more comfortable, we have more means of entertainment then we ever had before.
Taking God as master controller, we could owe it all to God though I know some people will scoff at it. But if we consider God is there, then we have also to consider that not a single leaf anywhere would move without His consent. Each ant and all ants, all birds/ animals in your houses and jungles, bacteria seen through microscope all are Gods creation and total universe and all that is contained in it is sustained by God. All-good as well as bad is Gods will and He knows us inside out completely. If we consider the totality and consider the entire time period that seemed to have elapsed by now, then in this in this mind boggling imagination, in this passing show, we may get a glance of humor in all this. We cant consider God like a big boss. Anyone who is sustaining all this has to be benevolent. 
Then why bad things happen. One reason I could think is they test us and make us become better persons. Unnatural deaths of innocents I can not explain but may only guess it as a part of longer plan of God for us. There is also a talk of free will. God as such do not interfere dramatically every now and then but works in a subtle way. As you sow, so you will reap. As taught in self help book, if we could actually apply it our lives, we can improve its quality.

----------


## mayneverhave

> I believe in God because 'I do', I am unable to explain why it is something that I have done for the most of my life even as a child.


The simple reason that you were brought up with the belief in God does not justify that belief. The belief is not innate - children are born atheists - you acquire the belief from your role models, or whoever instilled that belief in you.




> Modern science and the Darwin theories (of which I accept within reason) prove the solid, but they can't answer the big question of what was before the 'big bang' and where did the atoms arise, no more than we can say how God became to exhist! This I think all would agree this is a stalemate situation.


Yes but we have tangible, empirical reasoning for scientific theory. The universe exists, given that we live in it, and the effects of atoms can be seen chemically. God, on the other hand, has no real tangible manifestation. There is no reason why we should belief such a thing exists. Scientists did not come up with the big bang theory for kicks, they are trying to explain the creation of the universe. There would be no reason to come up with a theory if the universe did not exist. 

What empirical data do we have that would require the existence of a god?

----------


## JBI

What's your point? All I understood was you believe in god because you were brought up believing in god, and it seems to be a decent enough fall back plan. Good for you, I solute you, but what does this have to do with religious texts, or even the question of religion in comparison to science?

Most of the world believes in god - what does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to get a debate going on the validity in belief in god? If so, you kind of didn't offer much of an argument.

Honestly, I am more afraid of god existing, which I don't think he does, then he not existing. I am more comforted that when I die nothing exists than with the notion that I'm going to burn in hell for all of eternity.

----------


## laidbackperson

> Yes but we have tangible, empirical reasoning for scientific theory. The universe exists, given that we live in it, and the effects of atoms can be seen chemically. God, on the other hand, has no real tangible manifestation. There is no reason why we should belief such a thing exists. Scientists did not come up with the big bang theory for kicks, they are trying to explain the creation of the universe. There would be no reason to come up with a theory if the universe did not exist.
> 
> What empirical data do we have that would require the existence of a god?


As you rightly say that, the effects of atoms can be seen chemically. We can not see oxygen but by burning a candle in a closed transparent flask, we can make out that the candle burns for sometimes and extinguishes when the flask oxygen is used up. But with regards to God what type of tangible evidence we are seeking.

First, we have to define God:
I have not seen God myself, but then I am nowhere near a purest soul, which I feel should be one of the conditions to be face to face with God. With this admission, I first tell what I think God is:

As I see it, God is a benevolent power running the entire universe from time immemorial, in play with his creation, may be continuously evolving Himself. I also believe that there is only one God for all humanity though humankind keeps fighting for their different Gods. God is good, but ugly and evil (shall we say devil) too is His manifestation as part of this eternal play- as duality, or may be as a reason for testing a person or making of a better person. God controls absolutely everything, nothing moves without his will, be it any atom, or electrons, protons or neutrons inside the atom or anything else not discovered so far. In this regards, some say everything that we can see is God or all is God. So all of us are also God but living with a veil presently. God is our best friend and a permanent well-wisher. He has given human beings a free will to believe or not to believe on Him. We curse him or insult him, He is not affected. But He is subtly guiding all of us towards Him, through our numerous births and deaths. So good news is that all are going to be saved ultimately.

Does such a God needs to announce openly, 'Hey look, I am here'. Does He need to put Eiffel Tower of France in America in a split second and bring it back to its original position in half an hour or transform a dog into man and vice versa. Jokes apart, I dont think human being is ever going to find a tangible manifestation or a scientific proof that a thing like God exists, if God himself does not will it. It also seems God prefer to remain mum and in background from beginning to world at large rather than revealing Himself openly.

Still if we observe, we can see is that everything in nature is so beautifully planned. If we take a normal human body, then we have some 60 billion cells living in harmony, each minding its own business and efficiently performing its own task. Our heart is a pump that keeps pumping blood ceaselessly to all part of our body from the day we are born to the day we live, our eyes are sensors which automatically focuses for near and far distances and has an iris which shrinks or expands depending upon the ambient light conditions. We have a brain, which is like a super computer and has ability for analytical thinking and not like a computer which works as per logic or data stored on it beforehand. Examples of such marvels that scientists have discovered can just go on and on. But why nature is so logical, so marvelous. Is it just a random phenomenon or slowly evolved through long time periods available we can only guess. Or should we infer that there may be a God after all.

More importantly, we have also to ask believers for day to day examples in their lives or the blessings that they have come across or miracles in rare cases. Why without a scientific theory, they still believe in God.

With all this, it is still our choice whether to believe or not to believe in God.

----------


## laidbackperson

> What's your point? All I understood was you believe in god because you were brought up believing in god, and it seems to be a decent enough fall back plan. Good for you, I solute you, but what does this have to do with religious texts, or even the question of religion in comparison to science?
> 
> Most of the world believes in god - what does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to get a debate going on the validity in belief in god? If so, you kind of didn't offer much of an argument.
> 
> Honestly, I am more afraid of god existing, which I don't think he does, then he not existing. I am more comforted that when I die nothing exists than with the notion that I'm going to burn in hell for all of eternity.


God is above religion or religious texts, but I found this the only appropriate place to start the thread.


Ok, what I am trying to get through the thread is this: 

I want believers to come out with reasons with what makes them believe in God even when there is no clear cut scientific basis.

I want non-believers to come out with reasons why they dont believe in God and counter the believers.

I may be presumptuous in thinking that there is going to be stalemate because believers cannot explain God scientifically as non-believers desire.

I like to indulge myself with a wish that at least a non-believer may end up becoming believer after reading the reasoning of believers in this thread. 



As for my believing in God, I said I believe in God primarily because I find nature so beautifully planned that I think a God has to be involved somewhere. Sitting outside in a harsh sunlight troubled by world and personal affairs, the faith about a benevolent God is shaken at times. But I tell myself I can not comprehend the ways of God and if I take everything as a will of God and just do the work as I can do best, that is probably the right way of living.

Also, personally I dont believe that there is a hell and if it is there then man is condemned to be there till eternity. A God that condemns a man to hell for eternity can not be God.

Lastly, my replies will come slow in the thread but they will come nevertheless.

----------


## Nathster

I do not believe in God, however I do believe what God and Religion itself has stood for since the Birth of Religion itself.
I find the Bible to be one big Parable, a story to keep the masses in line. What I personally believe is Religion to be a 'social security' mechanism. 

Before I go on, I just want to say, I do not aim to talk anyone out of their faith. If they wish to believe, they may. I may be wrong, you may be right. There is no concrete evidence for this, but this is what belief is all about.
This is simply my story, with my views.

Biological families, for the most record have been tight-knit which each other, protecting each other, loving each other. What if that was applied to the global scale, were we are all One family under one God? This is what I think is the idea with Religion, to unite people together, to help people love each other. However I do not find religion to be as clear-cut loving as it seems.

Religion has been commercialised in some senses which just disgusts me, an example of this can be some evangelical TV stars. Taking advantage of the unwell to gain money off them. However when I watched a TV programme on this once, I could sense that the disabled child's family only had faith left. It was what they clung onto. And I could feel for them, it made me feel upset. 
So I do see both sides of the field here.

I haven't always been an agonostic, I was a practising Catholic at one point. But what got rid of that belief was 9/11, the castrophe that befell America, seemed so tragic and I felt so strongly against it towards God, to which I questioned "Are you real? If so, why let this happen?" That day forward, I stopped believing in the power of prayer, and began beleving in the power of action.

----------


## JBI

It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically. It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god. In other words, believers argue (and here I am talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian tradition note, not eastern or world religions) that their belief is a product of faith, which is virtuous. That's rhetoric for they are too afraid to change their minds, when faced with overwhelming evidence against god.

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

----------


## NikolaiI

Hi I just wanted to say bravo and great posts, laidbackperson. I would be more than happy to share my reasons for believing in God. 




> As I see it, God is a benevolent power running the entire universe from time immemorial, in play with his creation, may be continuously evolving Himself. I also believe that there is only one God for all humanity though humankind keeps fighting for their different Gods. God is good, but ugly and evil (shall we say devil) too is His manifestation as part of this eternal play- as duality, or may be as a reason for testing a person or making of a better person. God controls absolutely everything, nothing moves without his will, be it any atom, or electrons, protons or neutrons inside the atom or anything else not discovered so far. In this regards, some say everything that we can see is God or all is God. So all of us are also God but living with a veil presently. God is our best friend and a permanent well-wisher. He has given human beings a free will to believe or not to believe on Him. We curse him or insult him, He is not affected. But He is subtly guiding all of us towards Him, through our numerous births and deaths. So good news is that all are going to be saved ultimately.


First I would say that I have had a solid and growing faith in God for about three years now, although I've learned the most about Him in the last year. I agree with you that God is the Supreme Lord, maintaining all of the universe through His different potencies. He is our best well-wisher and loves us more than we could imagine. I would not say that we are God- we are like God in qualitiy but not as powerful as He- all is not God, all is God's energy. This world is mostly material energy. There's nothing spiritual if it isn't from and connected to God. For instance, if you were out on a mountain top, all alone, you would still be surrounded by the material energy? Why? Nature, the rocks and wind and sky and sun, all of this is the material energy. Human beings-- all living beings, for that matter-- are transcendental to this, because they have a soul. However, we are conditioned to accept material bodies due to our unfulfilled desires. For this reason we suffer birth, old age, sickness and death. Before we came to the material world, and if, as you say, we can become pure, we were and will be in the spiritual world. 

Now what of God's love for us? Well, as I am trying to say, we are not actually God, but if we became God-conscious, then our problems would cease. God-consciousness is the highest consciousness that a soul can attain. God-consciousness is divine consciousness. Every soul is potentially divine, not in power but in nature. Our natural state is full of bliss, knowledge, and eternal. This can be realized but only through God's mercy. God is always with us, and He is sort of the "Way Out" of this material universe. We can always accept this highest way. It's necessary to acknowledge God. God created everything, all is His energy; and so it all belongs to Him. 

It's a good thing you say that we have to be pure to see God, I believe that's true. 

For why I believe in God, I will simply say this, and it's the most important statement I'll ever make. I, as a limited, living entity, can recognize the existence of the infinite in my life. I can recognize that I am limited, and I exist between two poles, which I call the infinite, and nothingness. Now I know with everything in me that I am part of this infinite. I can turn towards it and become like it; yet even if I did not, I could not escape it, since it is my source. Thus, no one can or will ever die. Not that we will necessarily have memory of our past lives, so don't worry aobut perpetual torment. But in fact, everything dissolves into this infinite. It makes sense according to reason. There is reason, but reason exists in the same way. All things are forms, which have their Ideal and Perfection in the Infinite. 

This is the only tenable philosophy. And it's a joyous one. For when you truly understand this, then you'll get any philosophy that people can write about. There's nothing higher than this, simply recognizing the infinite in one's life, and turning toward it to try to understand it. We experience deja vu and coincidence, but there's no such thing as either; they are merely indications or clues to a higher plan. But we can turn toward the infinite and discover it within ourselves, discover that we are eternal; and this is basically the basis of all metaphysics or mysticism.

An individual cannot have divine consciousness, because divine consciousness is conscious of all individuals. But an individual can _dovetail_ their actions to the divine consciousnes, and that is, without peer, the imperative issue for humanity.

----------


## dzebra

In my experience, the most important thing in life is Love. The most wonderful thing in the world is Love. The worst thing to be without is Love. The most sought-after commodity is Love. Nothing can change a person like Love can. When a person has Love, he will tell you he needs nothing more.

A God whose entire teachings can be summed up as "Love everyone" has clearly recognized this. A God who is the embodiment of Love must, by nature, be worthy of worship.

I believe God is Love. Love is an easy God to believe in.

----------


## planet earth

I believe and love and witness His presence, and His light in my sight, hearing, all his blessings , all his tests and what appear to be hardships but are nothing but a grant from Him to me to bring me closer to Him. He teaches me the more I a dragged out of His Presence, the more I will sense the gravity of earth, and the more I incline to Him, I will transcend. 

Human Beings are the true cause of catastrophe's. I do not know if I should say this, but now I know how the sky, earth and mountains feel. In the Holy Quran, He Says:
Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son, (Mariam Chapter verses 90 and 91). I know the agony I feel, when I find that just because there are some troubles in this day or part of a day ( the mortal life), some of us don't believe He is here and now. In a cup of tea including sugar we do not see the sugar, but we know that there is sugar in the cup, and that is why its sweetened. If someone denies there is sugar in the cup because they don't see the sugar, or because they don't like the colour of tea, then it is not because the tea does not contain sugar, it is just that they can't feel the taste. Allah gives the taste to everything

And because He is just, the source of happiness to everyone is the same; in reverting to Him. Who look for others cannot find it. 

Imagine if we assume there is not software propgrammer behind this forum, and we believe that the forum was just there, with all the smiles, the features, and so on. How would the programmer that took so much effort to allow us use this forum feel?

Allah is just and He cares and Loves, and His Mercy is everywhere in whichever form it looks like, we are here in a guest house upon the road, if we forget that Home, is there with Him, we would never rest in the guest House, but will rest within Him, His Power, His Love and His Mercy.

I really wish this makes sense.

----------


## laidbackperson

> It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically. It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god. In other words, believers argue (and here I am talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian tradition note, not eastern or world religions) that their belief is a product of faith, which is virtuous. That's rhetoric for they are too afraid to change their minds, when faced with overwhelming evidence against god.
> 
> I can respect religion to an extent, but this "I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," is pure rhetoric. That isn't a reason to believe in something, it just shows the inner cowardice of the believer.


Hi, JBI. I think I am understanding what you are trying to get at.. People of certain regions say that they are only correct and that their faith is only right. When these people say about God, I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," you find it ridiculous. I guess you see cowardice there. The sentence as it is, smells of a shaky belief. A good believer would say, I believe because that is how I feel it should be. And let the grace of God be with us in all hard and smooth situations. And when this person is put in tough spot, he/she takes it as his/her fate or fight with whatever best way. He may grumble, curse, even his faith get shaken sometimes, but he/she keep going back to God.

or
probably you are talking about people who loud mouth their religions, use sugar coated words but in reality are phony type.

When we talk about God, we have to go beyond religious texts.
We should also understand that religious texts, whatever they are , they must have been written by someone in the beginning, may be persons with great wisdom. These books always preach about love for humanity, compassion, justice, selflessness, peace and other good ideas. But these books also may contain texts which you feel are unconvincing- may be a narrow minded attitude somewhere, or God directly intervening, or lots of miracles occurring etc. 

I think we have to try to look at everything from our own angle. For e.g. I too find it unconvincing to believe in the Adam-and-Eve and Earth-was-built-in-5-days story of Bible and tend to believe more in evolution theory. But then I really dont know. I tell myself that may be this story is only symbolic wherein 1 day is equal to say 10 million years. But there is not much point many times in arguing in matter of ones beliefs or faith.

The important point is, we have not to mix religion with God and can we still believe that there is a God or supreme Power in background controlling everything occurring in universe and our earth from the beginning of time or we are all just a product of chance.
One more reason , why I think people dont believe in God ( the first reason being that they dont find a scientific proof of God) is that we do not know what happens after we die. A good believer I suppose should have a tranquility of mind during his/her last days and should not feel rattled by his/her impending death. Surely, one day both of us as also all those who are reading these words are also going to die. You may like to think that we will merge into nothingness, like all the earlier caveman, ape man, dinosaurs, kings, queens, sinners, saints etc.etc who perished before us. You may think our bodies are only a chemical composition and once we die, our body will decay or get burned or fed to vultures, and thus merge with the elements of earth.

We think so because dead people dont come back to tell their tales. But not knowing does not mean that there is definitely nothing after death
There are only few stray cases wherein people die and come back to tell a Gods story (Dr Raymond Moodys book on near death experience.) Then there are rare cases of children recounting their lives in previous birth very accurately. There are also books by Dr Brian Weiss telling about past life experiences of his patients.

But again we have to analyze things from our own angle. We have to argue, we only hear or read these things, but never experience such cases ourselves. There must be money involved or fame, when such books become a best seller Or is the person really telling truth.
If we assume that a God is there, and He decides to control everything from backstage, how life would have been if he had granted human beings eternal youth. The way human beings have been living over the ages; I think it would have been a worst curse. Human beings would have stopped thinking about God at all. Even today, person in power struts with an ego as if they own the world. At least now after their death they are completely forgotten but what power games they would have indulged in if they were not to die ever. So personally, I find that death is a gem of Gods master plan. The slate is wiped clean and all are brought to the same level. I go one step further as I believe in reincarnation theory, and like to think that we come again in earth as a new person-man or woman with no memory of past. What you carry forward from your previous birth is your good or bad karma., may be good or bad habits, your attitude and such things. By taking birth and rebirths, through hundreds and thousands of times and repeatedly indulging in same play, a human being start getting purified, real knowledgeable and become desireless towards worldly pleasures. Person is now ready for God consciousness, as Nikolai say in his post in this thread. I live with a belief that some day in some life, I am going to know all secrets, How exactly things happened and and everything that happened so far. Such theory is proposed in some books and it looks logical to me, though it has no scientific base. If you try to observe you may find that some kids dont take on their parents at all. Intelligent people may have dull child and vice versa, Bold may have timid child and vice versa and other such contrasts. Here no amount of the environment conditioning or genetics seems to have any effect. Of course, scientists may attribute this to a certain changed chemical composition of brain or some genetic anomaly or things like that. But I put it as a part of Gods plan for us, a sort of normalization. Likewise, assuming a God is there, we may start to see some logic or reasoning behind day-to-day events. When we fail, we have to tell ourselves: Well, God is too great, too wise and we cant comprehend His ways. However, God sees everything in long term whereas we see everything in terms of few years or a hundred years. Therefore, God must have a better plan for us. Believeing God, I don't see it as cowardice but I see it as a type of reasoning- yes, that is how it should be.

Yes, Believers simply cannot give a proof of existence of God in the manner scientists want. All I can say that there are clues all around in nature. Science knows that everything around is so logical, precise, so meticulously planned. However, why it is really like this, can science really answer this?

I dont know if I could satisfy your doubts but that is all I have to say. Still I would like to know what you meant when you wrote there are plenty of proofs against God


P.S: When I wrote your answer I asked myself whether I am being hypocrite for many a times I accuse myself of being hypocrite in such serious matters. However, I think that realization of ones being hypocrite, is still a step towards becoming less hypocrite.

----------


## laidbackperson

> I haven't always been an agonostic, I was a practising Catholic at one point. But what got rid of that belief was 9/11, the castrophe that befell America, seemed so tragic and I felt so strongly against it towards God, to which I questioned "Are you real? If so, why let this happen?" That day forward, I stopped believing in the power of prayer, and began beleving in the power of action.


Hi! Nathster.
Well, 9/11 was really a bad thing and a monumental event in the history of mankind. But if we look back clinically, then there have been worse happenings in terms of numbers of deaths for e.g. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atom bombs, world war I and II to just name the few. Also these are events actually caused by human beings and OK, I concede God remained passive. His reasons for this I really do not know but guess it for greater goodness.

Just to loose faith in God because of 9/11, I dont know how far it is correct. I just wonder whether all those families who were directly affected by the event have lost faith in God or some still continue to have faith. It will make for an interesting survey.
I remember reading a true story Alive wherein a plane carrying sportspersons of a nation crashed in snow capped mountains. Many died but there were survivors also who remained alive for a period of over a month. On what food does these surviors live on. Well, they ate from the bodies of their friends because that is all what was there for them to survive. These survivors believed in God and were also close to their dead pals. I recall reading something like. When we get up in the morning in midst of these huge mountains, everything was so quiet so beautiful, so still that you could feel the presence of God. The sentence sent a current through my whole body.

I think when first human beings came on earth with nobody to tell them about God, then in the magnificence of nature, their own smallness, their helplessness, or gratefulness for small miracles, they must have felt the urge to look upwards for a superior power. Sometimes I think God has conditioned our minds to believe that there has to be a God. 

Still, it is very good thing for you say you believe more in power of action than in God. If you also remain a decent sort of guy, God may again approach you through His strange ways and make you believe in Him.

----------


## laidbackperson

Hi, NikolaiI.
Thanks for a nice solid reply. I read what you write in other threads and found it very impressive from a young person like you. I just hope that with passing of years, your faith remain rock solid and help others around you. I believe God in the same sense as you do. Even when I wrote we are also God, I also wrote about a veil separating us and yes, our realizing a God consciousness state is a more appropriate expression.

----------


## laidbackperson

> In my experience, the most important thing in life is Love. The most wonderful thing in the world is Love. The worst thing to be without is Love. The most sought-after commodity is Love. Nothing can change a person like Love can. When a person has Love, he will tell you he needs nothing more.
> 
> A God whose entire teachings can be summed up as "Love everyone" has clearly recognized this. A God who is the embodiment of Love must, by nature, be worthy of worship.
> 
> I believe God is Love. Love is an easy God to believe in.


Well, dzebra. I think you have hit the bulls eye. It is said that realizing God is being in eternal bliss state  free of hate, anger, jealousy, ego, fear, ignorance, sadness etc.etc. What should be left after filtering all this has to be love and joy.

----------


## laidbackperson

Thanks, planet earth for the beautiful reply for your believing in God. I just wish there are more readers telling why they believe or don't believe in God.

----------


## JBI

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

Religious people like to attribute all the good things in the world to god, but why not atribute the bad ones? If someone you know contracts HIV, according to the believer, god wanted it. If someone gets hit by a car and dies, according to the believer, god wanted it. According to the believer, if a child gets kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and brutally murdered, god wanted it.

Alright, have it your way, god wanted it. All the bad in the world, if god exists, is a reflection of god. All the bad things in human kind are reflections of god, as he is the creator. Marry Shelley didn't get her Frankenstein from nowhere. She stole it right out of the Bible.

For all the preaching of the good of Jesus and Christ, I have seen no preaching of the bad. The only consultation given is that in Job, which tells us that god can do whatever he wants, make us suffer whatever he wants, and despite that, we are not aloud to question them. I say **** that, I'd rather keep my money than toss it into that idiotic coffer the church calls charity (and by church I mean synagogue too).

----------


## planet earth

JBI

I think you are actually looking for perfection, and that is why you want everything in this world to be perfect, but why don't you look a little bit further, the perfect world is present, and had been prepared even before we ever existed. That is the simple reason why this very short limited world is non-perfect. If we seek perfection, we must seek The PERFECT. He has actually intentionally made of this world a place that is not perfect to make us strive for him who is Perfect. If we find him we will find perfection even in this world and will sure meet with THE PERFECT, in His Mansion, The Mansion of Peace, soon as he allows this to happen

----------


## NikolaiI

I believe in God but I believe we have the power to make this earth a place of suffering or not. We are completely responsible for our actions. I think we should keep in mind, however, that the earth is a very small percent of the whole universe, much less God. Beyond the earth is infinite worlds. We have the power to take earth to anywhere in that system.

----------


## laidbackperson

Hi, JBI I have been thinking what to reply to your post.

You say._ Religious people like to attribute all the good things in the world to god, but why not atribute the bad ones? If someone you know contracts HIV, according to the believer, god wanted it. If someone gets hit by a car and dies, according to the believer, god wanted it. According to the believer, if a child gets kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and brutally murdered, god wanted it._

I am not sure whether God, wanted it is a right phrase but yes God was definitely aware of all this and He did not intervene. Why? I guess it as a long-term plan, and not as a ten, twenty or hundred years plans, we human being are conditioned to think. But yes, if a fallen person tries to get up, shake off his dust and move on in life, then he may find Gods help coming.
While thinking out your answer, I tried to find out, what famous Helen Keller who was deaf, dumb and blind person thought about God? She could be more authentic representative than us who lead easier life. I just pray that all this is correct and hope that you find some answer here. 
The link is as given:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4536329


NPR.org, April 4, 2005 · This essay aired circa 1951. 
It is Helen Keller who salutes you. You are not familiar with my voice, but my friend Polly Thomson will interpret the belief I have written from my soul.

I choose for my subject faith wrought into life apart from creed or dogma. By faith, I mean a vision of good one cherishes and the enthusiasm that pushes one to seek its fulfillment, regardless of obstacles. Faith is a dynamic power that breaks the chain of routine, and gives a new, fine turn to old commonplaces. Faith reinvigorates the will, enriches the affections, and awakens a sense of creativeness. Active faith knows no fear, and it is a safeguard to me against cynicism and despair. 
After all, faith is not one thing or two or three things. It is an indivisible totality of beliefs that inspire me: Belief in God as infinite goodwill and all-seeing Wisdom, whose everlasting arms sustain me walking on the sea of life. Trust in my fellow men, wonder at their fundamental goodness, and confidence that after this night of sorrow and oppression, they will rise up strong and beautiful in the glory of morning. Reverence for the beauty and preciousness of the earth, and a sense of responsibility to do what I can to make it a habitation of health and plenty for all men. *Faith in immortality because it renders less bitter the separation from those I have loved and lost, and because it will free me from unnatural limitations, and unfold still more faculties I have in joyous activity.* 
Even if my vital spark should be blown out, I believe that I should behave with courageous dignity in the presence of fate, and strive to be a worthy companion of the beautiful, the good, and the true. But fate has its master in the faith of those who surmount it, and limitation has its limits for those who, though disillusioned, live greatly. 
It was a terrible blow to my faith when I learned that millions of my fellow creatures must labor all their days for food and shelter, bear the most crushing burdens, and die without having known the joy of living. My security vanished forever, and I have never regained the radiant belief of my young years that earth is a happy home and hearth for the majority of mankind. But faith is a state of mind. The believer is not soon disheartened. If he is turned out of his shelter, he builds up a house that the winds of the earth cannot destroy.
*When I think of the suffering and famine, and the continued slaughter of men, my spirit bleeds. But the thought comes to me that, like the little deaf, dumb and blind child I once was, mankind is growing out of the darkness of ignorance and hate into the light of a brighter day.
*
Related NPR Stories
Aug. 10, 2004
Playwright Reflects on 'The Miracle Worker'

----------


## Sonofjohn

What I am about to say is next to word for word from a book of which I treasure, All the Kings Men, written by Robert Penn Warren. Rather than read everyone's post here and smash my face through a wall, I will produce a post of why I don't believe in god.

"God cannot be fullness of being. For life is motion. [] For life is Motion towards Knowledge. If God is Complete Knowledge then He is Complete Non-Motion, which is Non-Life, which is Death. Therefore if there is such a God of Fullness of Being, we would worship Death. [] For Life is a fire burning along a piece of string---or is it a fuse to a powder-keg which we call god?---and the string is what we don't know, our Ignorance, and the trail of ash, which, if a gust of wind does not come, keeps the structure of the string, is History, man's Knowledge, but it is dead, and when the fire has burned up all the string, then man's knowledge will be equal to god's knowledge and there won't be any fire, which is Life. Or if the string leads to a power-keg, then there will be a terrific blast of fire, and even the trail of ash will be blown completely away. [] If the object which a man looks at changes constantly so that knowledge of it is constantly untrue and therefore is non-knowledge, then motion is possible. And Eternal Life. Therefore we can believe in Eternal Life only if we deny god, who is complete knowledge"(Robert Penn Warren, All the Kings Men).

This is quoted from a conversation in the book. The "[]" are to show where I jumped around on the page in the conversation.

----------


## NikolaiI

I meant to post this yesterday but my internet blinked out right before I could... anyway

"Trust in my fellow men, wonder at their fundamental goodness, and confidence that after this night of sorrow and oppression, they will rise up strong and beautiful in the glory of morning."

This is very beautiful! I believe the same thing. Morning always follows night...

I think the sharpest suffering we can experience is simply being separated from God, or turning against Him. I think surrendering to God is the only way to grow, to begin the progress of awakening our divine nature. Since God is unlimited, life in Him is unlimited.

----------


## Dr. Hill

I personally think anyone with religious thoughts or feelings is delusional. Not an insult, as the majority of the world is this way. The human mind is VERY subject to delusions, and when someone experiences a feeling or delusion they can't explain, it's very easy to credit it to something that bases its whole philosophy on figures being too great to be explained. It makes sense, but it is a delusion.

----------


## Riesa

"magic like.."

ugh.

----------


## blazeofglory

This question merits a lot of reckoning and in point of fact God is not something we can fully understand. From time memorial so many questions have been asked and but sadly we never had the answer of this. All answers about God's existence well up in man's mind. It is really exciting to ask questions with respect to God. 
It is really romantic to ask questions about God and more romantic to try to answer out of the fabrics of your imaginations. You can weave beautiful supernatural stories out of imagination and can tag answers to them, and this will be followed by posterity.

In fact if I argue for or against the existence of God I will tell lies to myself. For I have nothing to substantiate this fact other than back up it thru what I have heard from others, thru my conditioned mind.

Let everyone have his or her idea about God. Theism or atheism everyone can have his or her independent idea.

----------


## chasestalling

> I believe in God but I believe we have the power to make this earth a place of suffering or not. We are completely responsible for our actions. I think we should keep in mind, however, that the earth is a very small percent of the whole universe, much less God. Beyond the earth is infinite worlds. We have the power to take earth to anywhere in that system.


if i may, where precisely is this place beyond earth?

----------


## NikolaiI

> if i may, where precisely is this place beyond earth?


Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.

----------


## Dr. Hill

You sound like a brainwashed cultist, I don't think I'd like to meet you.

----------


## Taliesin

> Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.


I truly wonder, from where did you obtain those numbers?

----------


## Guinivere

I was brought up without religion. I didn't know who this Jesus fella was until I found him in a story book in Kindergarten. I felt sorry for him but didn't actually have a concept of him and what he supposedly did for me. And I guess he didn't seem that interesting to me because I didn't plague my parents with questions about him.

Today in my early twentys I believe in God. I can honestly say I really do. Of course believing doesn't mean knowing. But I'm willing to wait and see. And after that's why the whole thing is called "faith" of "belief" and not "knowledge". And in a way this feeling I have, when I pray to God or yell at him depending on what's currently happening in this mad world of ours, is one I know I couldn't live without. It's like never being alone. 

And as a memebr of the RCC no matter what my church is up to and how much I disagree with their actions I still feel that I can take all that anger to Him and just tell Him to deal with it. And it doesn't feel wrong to hate what is happening around me. After all how could I not. After all I don't know why it is happening. And I have to live with the hope that in someway it makes sense to him as my only consolation. 

I guess all this rambling means that I have a concept of hope. Hope for a better place and better times. Being a Christian for me it's not about righteousness or pride or moral highground. It's about hope. 

And I see how people find meaning through other ways. Science or otherwhise. Don't matter to me. 
As long as we can all find some meaning in life and our purpose in life.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I truly wonder, from where did you obtain those numbers?


http://ezinearticles.com/?Vedic-Cosm...erse&id=759892

----------


## chasestalling

> Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.


if i ever get there, i'm gonna kick his *** for giving us such a hard time.

----------


## planet earth

> if i ever get there, i'm gonna kick his *** for giving us such a hard time.


There is there, and if you believe that there is only 0.1 percent of having a there, then please hope to meet Him. He is God, who created you. 

Let me tell you something. The great theories of human development and coping with change that everyone learns in order to change their lives. The principle in these theories that in order to change your life, is that you must see something you cannot.

If you are aware with who moved my cheese for example. Hem and Haw were two examples of someone that could not see there and someone that searched for there, and found it. The cheese store they knew ran out of cheese. It was only then that they had to choose whether to suffer and complain that there is no more cheese, or to search for something else in a different place. During his Quest he found clues; different types of cheese. Finally he found the cheese. It is this idea of coping with change that I mean.

First, if the world is not a good place, search for what is good within yourself and others who were created in this world only to love you and care for you.

Look at the sky which serves us a preserved ceiling. Imagine if we do not happened. Don't you ever think what is beyond these skies, there has to be something. Suffering, how bad it is , is very short, do not give it longer than it should take by choosing not to look at anything but suffering.

The positive energy you will possess through meditation and contemplation will lead you. God deserves to be worshipped. Any so called suffering in this very short world, diminishes when you Love Him, Mention His Names and visualize his blessings. Isn't there anything at all sweet in your life. If there is it is from Him and if there is not then it because you are blindfolding yourself.

Don't be like Hem, be like Haw
Search like Him until you see what he saw.

I am addressing myself before you. We are all undergoing sufferings, but when you are in love, you endure for your beloved until you meet him, and receive eternal ecstasy. 

Please think before you reply. Believe I am not trying by any means to preach, because who am I to preach you. I am sure you and everyone else is better than me but it was only thinking and discussing with you, and trying to earn faith.

----------


## planet earth

> I meant to post this yesterday but my internet blinked out right before I could... anyway
> 
> "Trust in my fellow men, wonder at their fundamental goodness, and confidence that after this night of sorrow and oppression, they will rise up strong and beautiful in the glory of morning."
> 
> This is very beautiful! I believe the same thing. Morning always follows night...
> 
> I think the sharpest suffering we can experience is simply being separated from God, or turning against Him. I think surrendering to God is the only way to grow, to begin the progress of awakening our divine nature. Since God is unlimited, life in Him is unlimited.


Great Nikolai, You know one of the greatest punishments in the next life is to be veiled from God. In a beautiful verse in the Quran this is mentioned clearly.

I want to add something as well. Not only morning follows night but even night has the stars and the moons, which are sufficient light to those who wish to be guided. Even dark has light, and will lead to light. The Quran says " wa alamaat wa binnajmi hom yahtatdoon" meaning " And signs and by stars the become guided".

----------


## Dr. Hill

I'm baffled that anyone could believe such nonsense.

----------


## Virgil

> I'm baffled that anyone could believe such nonsense.


and earlier you said:



> You sound like a brainwashed cultist, I don't think I'd like to meet you.


I thought you said you didn't insult people.

----------


## Dr. Hill

It's not insulting. I'm telling the truth. I think it's absolute nonsense and dangerous to believe in these sorts of fantasies and to credit your life to becoming closer to an imaginary friend of yours. It's genuine concern!

----------


## NikolaiI

> It's not insulting. I'm telling the truth. I think it's absolute nonsense and dangerous to believe in these sorts of fantasies and to credit your life to becoming closer to an imaginary friend of yours. It's genuine concern!


I don't know if you are interested in philosophy or religion -- you may have some conditioned aversion to religion; you called me brainwashed when I said "God-consciousness." Hopefully you'll keep searching... I am not brainwashed, that's actually a really mean thing to say... 

You're more than welcome to put forth ideas, but actually calling someone brainwashed doesn't comply with the forum rules here. In response to your post, I would urge you to study philosophy. Read Plato. It's very illuminating. Read Nietzsche, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Ken Wilber, Alan Watts, Abraham Maslow, study Buddhism, Hinduism, Christainty, Sufiism... read atheists and theists. Read whatever seems like it's really great writing. Then come back to me and tell me your opinions.

My philosophy is rather simple. I believe in the soul, which is what we are. It's not very penetrating to call this nonsense, or call it... dangerous???-- and then leave without a thought. Because I said I believe in the spirit soul, the living spark which is in the heart??? You have lost me completely at this point. I won't ask you to retract this but if you wish to insult people on here, they're not likely to respond to you.

Anyway I'd more than willing to discuss the soul, God, atheism, or anything else, but again not if you say things like that. And please don't think that because I wrote this post, I would like to meet you. Trust me, I would _not._

----------


## adwara1

The concept of god was necessary for primitive human beings. It was helpful in making them human and helped the progress of human civilisations all over the world. Right now in the world I dont think many people believe in god as much as they used to, I am not talking about the atheists but the hypocrites are the ones that worry me. How can a person who truly believes in god do bad things. Mankind needs to learn live and let live. We should learn to respect and help each other as humans not because we wont go to heaven after death.

----------


## Guinivere

> Right now in the world I dont think many people believe in god as much as they used to, I am not talking about the atheists but the hypocrites are the ones that worry me.


You do know that non-believers are a minority. Most people on this planet are spiritual and believe in a God or Gods. And I'm not talking about the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists alone. Only in the Western World has atheism had such an uprising in the last decades.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It's not insulting. I'm telling the truth. I think it's absolute nonsense and dangerous to believe in these sorts of fantasies and to credit your life to becoming closer to an imaginary friend of yours. It's genuine concern!


A few clarifications:
1. You _believe_ you're telling the truth; in reality you're simply giving _opinions_ about the things other people here have said - opinions based upon _your vision of the world_ (which may be no more correct than the view of those whom you criticize).

2. Calling an insult "truth" makes the assumption that what you say is objective in nature - it's not. Your assessment of people as "brainwashed cultists" and that certain spiritual beliefs are "nonsense" are far from objective "truths" - they are (once again) merely your _opinion_ - and you substantiated your opinion with great amounts of _nothing_ as far as I can see.

3. If by "imaginary friend" you mean God, He may only seem "imaginary" to YOU because you don't know Him; if you did, you might not feel as you do. Don't make the mistake that children do of "if I can't see it it's not real." Much of what we believe in this world cannot be seen.

4. The only real concern I see are people like yourself who wish to see threats where none exist, to raise a semi-hysterical alarm-call in response to someone believeing in a higher spiritual power, to imply that there is some sort of mental deficiency involved in spiritual belief. Trust me when I say the most violent and anti-life movements on earth have always been athiestic in nature (Stalin, Pol Pot, et al).

Your case will be made stronger (and less shrill) if established by evidence, rather than vitriol. Good luck.

----------


## Petronius

Although I believe Dr. Hill is capable of defending himself, I'm bringing my own counter to your attacks out of respect for his right to call something rotten rotten.




> 1. You believe you're telling the truth; in reality you're simply giving opinions about the things other people here have said - opinions based upon your vision of the world (which may be no more correct than the view of those whom you criticize).


I don't know if I should laugh or cringe at the believer's numerous attepts to put faith and knowledge on the same pedestal by branding them both as opinions. You're basically forcing us in a statistic worldview, where even the most absurd notion has an infinitessimal chance of being true, with the purpose of making _your_ beliefs stand firm. 
You do understand, of course, that statistics isn't a true science, as it does not measure actual chances, but the observer's lack of knowledge in a certain field. Your lack of knowledge in secular sciences may be what makes you think the existence of God is actually probable.




> 2. Calling an insult "truth" makes the assumption that what you say is objective in nature - it's not. Your assessment of people as "brainwashed cultists" and that certain spiritual beliefs are "nonsense" are far from objective "truths" - they are (once again) merely your opinion - and you substantiated your opinion with great amounts of nothing as far as I can see.


Any opinion, acknowledge as such, is an objective statement. You must deal with the fact that rational people regard certain world-views and stupefied spiritual nonsense in a certain manner, and wonder why they consistently think that.




> 3. If by "imaginary friend" you mean God, He may only seem "imaginary" to YOU because you don't know Him; if you did, you might not feel as you do. Don't make the mistake that children do of "if I can't see it it's not real." Much of what we believe in this world cannot be seen.


There's a diference between visible and actually interacting with the world. God, as seen in the Bible (where he vividly interacts with his subjects) does not manifest in the world, and has not been manifesting for long enough to assimilate the original stories with other mythological beliefs and place it where it belongs, in fiction. This may or may not affect certain parts of Christian philosophy and individual practitioners.




> 4. The only real concern I see are people like yourself who wish to see threats where none exist, to raise a semi-hysterical alarm-call in response to someone believeing in a higher spiritual power, to imply that there is some sort of mental deficiency involved in spiritual belief. Trust me when I say the most violent and anti-life movements on earth have always been athiestic in nature (Stalin, Pol Pot, et al).


I, for one, am not concerned about your belief just as I'm not concerned about the choices of a die-hard Star Wars fan. However, permit me to worry if widespread religiousness leads to deeming acceptable some social habits that threaten my values and my right to live by them.

And no, I don't "trust" that claim. You casually forget the Inquisition, the Jihads, the Crusades, aztec blood sacrifices (also religious in nature) and other evils born of narrow-minded mass psichologies. Stalin was no more a true atheist than he was a true comunist.
Besides, you don't see any atheists around here being fanatical extremist, and since atheism isn't an organised cult but rather a title meaning "without religion", I don't see how un-religiousness particularly develops anti-life inclinations.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Any opinion, acknowledge as such, is an objective statement. You must deal with the fact that rational people regard certain world-views and stupefied spiritual nonsense in a certain manner, and wonder why they consistently think that.


Are you serious? I don't think you realize how long or respected the list that completely invalidates that is.

Plato, Descartes, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Fichte, Karl Jaspers, Ken Wilber, Alan Watts, Thomas Cleary, Sri Aurobindo, Srila Prabhupada, Einstein...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Although I believe Dr. Hill is capable of defending himself, I'm bringing my own counter to your attacks out of respect for his right to call something rotten rotten.


No one challeneged his "right" - what was being challenged was the nature of his claims. Mine was not an attack - it was a clarification of some of the points his claims suggest.





> I don't know if I should laugh or cringe at the believer's numerous attepts to put faith and knowledge on the same pedestal by branding them both as opinions.


Stop. Hill's claim that someone is a "brainwashed cultist" and that spiritual things are "nonsense" do not belong to the realm of faith or knowledge - they are simply his glib dismissals of things that carry powerful meanings to others. That's all I was pointing out. You seem intent on making this some sort of "faith vs knowledge" debate (but the two terms aren't in conflict, by the way - surely that it clear?).




> You're basically forcing us in a statistic worldview, where even the most absurd notion has an infinitessimal chance of being true, with the purpose of making _your_ beliefs stand firm.


My good man/woman/person: I'm forcing nothing of the sort. I challenged Hill's misuse of the word "truth." I don't know what you're doing right now.




> You do understand, of course, that statistics isn't a true science, as it does not measure actual chances, but the observer's lack of knowledge in a certain field. Your lack of knowledge in secular sciences may be what makes you think the existence of God is actually probable.


What are you talking about? Why are you bringing up statistics? Huh?

You know nothing of my knowledge of so-called "secular science" (which, by your usage, correctly suggests that science takes a "secular world view" [ie naturalism] as its basis, and by doing so, automatically limits itself in its ability to understand the world) - so your assumption is unfounded. You do not know what I lack in terms of science because I've said nothing in reference to it - how can you judge my proficiency in something I've not demonstrated? Do you possess God-like powers of clairvoyance? Wait until I talk about science and then decide if I'm ignorant. Thanks.





> Any opinion, acknowledge as such, is an objective statement. You must deal with the fact that rational people regard certain world-views and stupefied spiritual nonsense in a certain manner, and wonder why they consistently think that.


Your use of the word "rational" to describe non-believers is laughable at best. It reveals the silly assumption that many nonbelievers carry that they are more intelligent and rational than those who believe in the spiritual. What you really mean is "I've limited my world to the things that I can see and measure" - which is fine, but there's more to life than that. There are many aspects of athiestic belief that defy logic and rationality even more than the idea of a divine being (like the odds of abiogenesis - ever seen those?). Your use of "stupefied" reveals that any discussion with you on the matter will be fruitless because - like Hill - you think it justifiable to insult that which you choose not to believe, do not understand, or both.





> There's a diference between visible and actually interacting with the world. God, as seen in the Bible (where he vividly interacts with his subjects) does not manifest in the world, and has not been manifesting for long enough to assimilate the original stories with other mythological beliefs and place it where it belongs, in fiction. This may or may not affect certain parts of Christian philosophy and individual practitioners.


God did not manifest Himself in the Bible to the entire world - He did so to certain people during certain events. Don't be sure He still doesn't do so today.





> I, for one, am not concerned about your belief just as I'm not concerned about the choices of a die-hard Star Wars fan. However, permit me to worry if widespread religiousness leads to deeming acceptable some social habits that threaten my values and my right to live by them.


Your comparison of a fictional movie to a belief system that has profoundly changed lives is absurd and shows not only your lack of respect, but your almost complete ignorance of the contents of the Bible. Nobody who reads it with an open mind (and the guidance of the Holy Spirit) would come to such ridiculous conclusions. Your comparison is an insult to those who find great meaning and inspiration from holy writings. Your arrogance is stunning. How interesting that you are not required to be at least tolerant or minimally respectful of those who believe differently than you.

Which of your rights are being affected by believers? How has your freedom been limited in a way that has degraded your quality of life?




> And no, I don't "trust" that claim. You casually forget the Inquisition, the Jihads, the Crusades, aztec blood sacrifices (also religious in nature) and other evils born of narrow-minded mass psichologies. Stalin was no more a true atheist than he was a true comunist.


If you count up the numbers of people killed, you will find that the athiestic regimes of the 20th century alone have amassed larger numbers than all the misguided religious wars of history. Stalin was athiest enough.




> Besides, you don't see any atheists around here being fanatical extremist, and since atheism isn't an organised cult but rather a title meaning "without religion", I don't see how un-religiousness particularly develops anti-life inclinations.


I hear plenty of athiests who - rather than tolerate religious people and their views - advocate religious belief as a dangerous sort of mental illness (cf. Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) as well as a number of posters in these threads. Christians don't post things about how athiesm is some sort of dangerous mental illness - Christians don't tell athiests they're stupid, ignorant, etc... (those Christians who do ought not wear the name).

I didn't equate athiesm as a belief system with anti-life - I simply indicated that historically, the most anti-life movements have been athiestic in nature.

----------


## Petronius

> Are you serious? I don't think you realize how long or respected the list that completely invalidates that is.
> 
> Plato, Descartes, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Fichte, Karl Jaspers, Ken Wilber, Alan Watts, Thomas Cleary, Sri Aurobindo, Srila Prabhupada, Einstein...


So I presume you have studied and understand each of them, yet you can not understand my simple statement?

When a person says about proposition A "I think proposition A has characteristic X", this is not an objective remark on proposition A. It is, however, implicitly, an objective remark on the person's mental response to proposition A, self-observed and comunicated. Now, this can either say something relevant about the person, or the proposition - granted that we have enough information about the other in order to work through the ecuation defined by the remark. 
In our case, if we know that many rationalists have a reaction to religion similar to Dr. Hill's, we can conclude, though for now through simplistic and general relationing, that religiousness is irrational.

Am I more clear and less offensive to your list of names now?


Red, apparently we posted at the same time.

You bring up respect of other's beliefs. I don't value such pleasentries in a serious debate, because to me they are nothing more than pretense. Don't think that I don't find your dismissal of my rational conclusion to abandon religion, or your association of atheism with Stalin and anti-life movements as implicitly offensive. Just as well, never for a moment think that my considering religion to be a narrow-minded world-view makes me disregard the believer's person and intelligence in its entirety. But I don't see why, having some honest opinion, I need to feel humiliated to share it.

Just as much, my intentionally cheap irony is meant to mirror the contempt and frustration a genuine non-beliver finds in overly spiritual and unfocused rethorics. To me, it's the most appropriate, playful, and meaningful tone.  :Wink:  I simpathized with Dr. Hill because I presumed his motives for word-choosing to be similar.

Why I bring up statistics? Because even inadvertently you rely on chances, odds and posibilities... you do so by bringing up abiogenesis in this very post, as a stochastic process rather than a deterministic one. Again, counting up people killed is only relevant when put in context to the mass-murderer's possibilities - not that counting villains is a good way of ascertaining truth.

I'm sorry if I've offended you by making assumptions about your scientific knowledge. Still, you failed to say anything more than I _may_ be wrong. We still don't know if I was or not.  :Wink:

----------


## billyjack

a good rationalist would have to admit that his reasoning is irrational at root, in that reason always leaves out more variables in its formulation than it includes.
making the good rationalist's conclusions irrational indeed.

300 yipee

----------


## Petronius

> a good rationalist would have to admit that his reasoning is irrational at root, in that reason always leaves out more variables in its formulation than it includes.
> making the good rationalist's conclusions irrational indeed.


Wouldn't that be undermining the whole basis of reason, since it is based on an irrational decision? Rather than thinking his reasoning irrational, a good rationalist should take his blank spots of knowledge into consideration before reaching a conclusion.

In any case, here I was not talking about the rationalist's reasoning against religion, but rather his primary aversion to it, which would lead a neutral observer to conclude an incompatibility of basic premises in the two worldviews.

----------


## NikolaiI

> So I presume you have studied and understand each of them, yet you can not understand my simple statement?
> 
> When a person says about proposition A "I think proposition A has characteristic X", this is not an objective remark on proposition A. It is, however, implicitly, an objective remark on the person's mental response to proposition A, self-observed and comunicated. Now, this can either say something relevant about the person, or the proposition - granted that we have enough information about the other in order to work through the ecuation defined by the remark. 
> In our case, if we know that many rationalists have a reaction to religion similar to Dr. Hill's, we can conclude, though for now through simplistic and general relationing, that religiousness is irrational.
> 
> Am I more clear and less offensive to your list of names now?


Yes, some from all of them.

You haven't said much in your statement, just that since some people claim atheism is rational, therefore religion is irrational. This doesn't mean anything, except that it's what you believe.

It's moot to argue; but then I am not saying anything against atheism. I'm here to discuss ideas, not to argue really.

My philosophy is basd on the fact that we are not this body. Everything you say is based on the idea that we are this body. Therefore your philosophy seems like nonsense to me and mine seems like nonsense to you. The difference is I am not trying to convince you your philosophy is nonsense, nor in a rude way.

I mentioned those writers although I have read more than them; I am trying to bring some of the energy spent on this thread to go into discussion; at least some. We can easily discuss the issues as they relate to any one of those persons philosophy. Or others, but I don't know all of them.




> When a person says about proposition A "I think proposition A has characteristic X", this is not an objective remark on proposition A.


No one said it was. Redzeppelin said that it wasn't-- isn't this what you are trying to tell him? This is so absurd, Red was simply saying that an opinion about someone like the one given was not absolute truth; and you are telling him the same thing, accusing him of this error, which he warned about!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You bring up respect of other's beliefs. I don't value such pleasentries in a serious debate, because to me they are nothing more than pretense.


Some people come to discuss a position; others come just to attempt to slam their opponent. Those who come to discuss are aware of the truth that people - when insulted - pull into a defensive position and shift their concerns from hearing the opposing position to simply defending their own against attack. The rudimentary laws of debate and discussion suggest that a hostile attack on an opponent pretty much reduces the ability to persuade the opponent to see the error in his/her position because now the ego is involved. What you dismiss as "pleasantries" are actually key characteristics of being persuasive. So, clearly, rather than try to convince others that your position is strong and theirs is weak, you instead simply attack and assume that your insults speak for themselves - they do, but not to the use you intend. 




> Don't think that I don't find your dismissal of my rational conclusion to abandon religion, or your association of atheism with Stalin and anti-life movements as implicitly offensive.


First, your make the assumption that your conclusion about religion is "rational." That's debatable. Second, I did not "dismiss" your conclusion so much as challenge its validity. Surely you can see that (perhaps on a second read)? Thirdly, Stalin *is* associated with atheism (not simply by me). From WikiAnswers: 
Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940 

Once again, I simply made the point that the largest collective killings in history were undertaken by ostensibly atheist regimes. No more, no less. If you wish to be offended by _facts_, do so. 




> Just as well, never for a moment think that my considering religion to be a narrow-minded world-view makes me disregard the believer's person and intelligence in its entirety. But I don't see why, having some honest opinion, I need to feel humiliated to share it.


Irony alert: classsifying someone's adherance to religion as "narrow-minded" absolutely questions the individual's intelligence by implying that it is inappropriately limited - but the obverse of that coin is the atheist - the truly narrow-minded because - without having any empirical proof as to the non-existence of God - has decided that his view of the world/universe will be LIMITED only to that which can be measured, observed, quantified, seen, etc (i.e. naturalism); all world-views - whether religious or naturalistic - exclude - so why is your exclusion not narrow-minded, but the religious person's exclusion is?




> Just as much, my intentionally cheap irony is meant to mirror the contempt and frustration a genuine non-beliver finds in overly spiritual and unfocused rethorics. To me, it's the most appropriate, playful, and meaningful tone.  I simpathized with Dr. Hill because I presumed his motives for word-choosing to be similar.


_Presumed._ 




> Why I bring up statistics? Because even inadvertently you rely on chances, odds and posibilities... you do so by bringing up abiogenesis in this very post, as a stochastic process rather than a deterministic one. Again, counting up people killed is only relevant when put in context to the mass-murderer's possibilities - not that counting villains is a good way of ascertaining truth.


A pointless red herring. What is at debate here is not the numbers (but I can quote them later if you like), but Hill's inaccurate (read: wrong) use of the word _truth_ to defend his insulting language.




> I'm sorry if I've offended you by making assumptions about your scientific knowledge. Still, you failed to say anything more than I _may_ be wrong. We still don't know if I was or not.


You've not offended me - you've simply revealed that you draw conclusions without any empirical evidence that would establish the truth of your conclusions - and yet you accuse the religious of being non-rational? What I did was simply point out the faulty nature of your assumptions - you may be right, you may be wrong; what I take issue with is your _assumption_ of the quality and contents of my knowledge without a _shred_ of evidence (evidence: the _holy grail_ of the atheist in determining the nature of what is real, what exists, what isn't real, what does not exist) upon which to base your conclusion.

----------


## Petronius

Nikolai, if I came a bit on the offensive, it is because, even spiritually, I consider the idea of God as redundant, and somewhat perverted if you will allow. I too like to discuss, but I wonder how that can be done constructively if we accept from the start that both our worldviews are relatively true unchalengeable, although they would seem to exclude eachother. Cease interaction and live in these separate worlds maybe? 
You've made the following statements:




> Of all creation, the materal universe or realm is only about 1/4th of it. The other 3/4ths is taken by the spiritual realm, which is beyond the material sky. We're all here in the material realm because we wished to enjoy separate from God, but when we got here we realize it's like a prison. Our natural state is service to God, and if we remember this and awaken our transcendental God-consciousness, then we go back to Godhead after we die. The only way out of the material universe is to serve and worship God.


There is no causality here, no reasoning, just claims. What were they meant to demonstrate? Where do they come from? (I presume a compilation of ideas from philosophers you've read, but sending me to retrace your path of knowledge negates my own and may very well prove a wild goose chase) How are they linked to our knowledge of this realm if there is no evident bilateral correlation between them? I know some will say that God reveals himself to chosen ones or believers (am I allowed to laugh?), but really, the history of mythos has had all too many boys who cried wolf, and all too many strutting naked emperors. 
More questions I will want answered, if I am to not be derrisive:
What do you understand by material? Is it anything more than wave particles, light, quarks (all of which I would classify as material myself), perhaps something entirely unknown? Then how can you measure it, and if measuring is irrelevant by what laws or in what form do you relate to it and how would an outsde observer describe the transition between these phases? Your notion of "material sky" suggest there is such a definable boundry.
How is our natural state service to God, when we are obviously either not doing it or doing it unwittingly, and too insignifiant to even matter as such? Why isn't God in our service the way a government is?
Is it something wrong with me if I do not feel imprisoned by mortality? Why would we have wished separation if we are so revulsed by it? 
What if our transition into our current form was in truth the natural course of our evolution, and we are meant to be stirred in the cauldron of life and leave the spirit realm behind as a preferable option?
Finally, what makes your mythos better than any other, small scale or universal? Is lack of imagination and pop triteness the only thing that makes the ideas of reincarnation in a Start Wars universe or having our bodies replaced, stolen and revived by an underground Hobbit race after burial, to live an eternity of heraldry as either orcs or elves, offensive when compared to christian/buddhist spirituality of ascension? What if we still need human sacrifices to be made by a remote and hidden cast of south-american natives for the Earth to keep spinning and the Sun to rise?




> No one said it was. Redzeppelin said that it wasn't-- isn't this what you are trying to tell him? This is so absurd, Red was simply saying that an opinion about someone like the one given was not absolute truth; and you are telling him the same thing, accusing him of this error, which he warned about!


Perhaps I'm not so good at nuancing my speech in english, but what Red seemed to be doing was dismissing the opinion etirely on said basis, while I consider one's expressed opinion quite relevant, because it has both internal and external reasons for being voiced in that form. Thinking something is "stupid" is entirely different than thinking something is "unconvincing". Dismissing rude statements is to claim that starkly negative reaction are ever unfounded in relation to the subject and this is not an honest way at gaining credibility.  :Wink:

----------


## NikolaiI

> ...


No, that got too long. 

Notice how I write a couple or more lines and you write these long paragraphs -- saying nothing except that you do not believe in God.

For a moment ignore the 1/4th to 3/4ths number. I trust you a number is not perverted, nor am I. And I won't tolerate -- that is, respond -- if you keep writing like this. There's nothing to be benefitted from this and I will not be insulted.

Now, what is material you ask? The material universe is the one science knows about. It is energy, as well as matter. It's temporary and it's based on the laws of birth and death, cause and effect.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Perhaps I'm not so good at nuancing my speech in english, but what Red seemed to be doing was dismissing the opinion etirely on said basis, while I consider one's expressed opinion quite relevant, because it has both internal and external reasons for being voiced in that form. Thinking something is "stupid" is entirely different than thinking something is "unconvincing". Dismissing rude statements is to claim that starkly negative reaction are ever unfounded in relation to the subject and this is not an honest way at gaining credibility.


But that's part of the problem, Pet: opinions are relevant - in argument they are often what we must use to make our case - but Hill's defense of his opinons as _truth_ is the heart of the matter. Secondly, I did not _dismiss_ insulting language: I _questioned_ its appropriateness; as well, I question the validity of such language in reference to a group to which I belong (since the insulting language suggests something about the unsoundness of the position being attacked). I get to do that - when people insult me, I get to take issue with that. If you or Hill would like to present an _argument_ in your favor, do so - an argument will speak far stronger than tactless, insulting language; good debaters make their case not through antagonism, but through well-wrought arguments. "Starkley negative reactions" are neither valid nor invalid by nature - but they are not condusive to _real_ discussion; they merely antagonize one's opponent, which results in egos coming out on both sides, and the intellectual issue at hand disappears amongst the sparring (this sequence of postings being evidence enough of that).

----------


## Petronius

> Some people come to discuss a position; others come just to attempt to slam their opponent. Those who come to discuss are aware of the truth that people - when insulted - pull into a defensive position and shift their concerns from hearing the opposing position to simply defending their own against attack. The rudimentary laws of debate and discussion suggest that a hostile attack on an opponent pretty much reduces the ability to persuade the opponent to see the error in his/her position because now the ego is involved. What you dismiss as "pleasantries" are actually key characteristics of being persuasive. So, clearly, rather than try to convince others that your position is strong and theirs is weak, you instead simply attack and assume that your insults speak for themselves - they do, but not to the use you intend.


Oh, but since this is so obvious, I expect people to shield their egos in a serious debate, enjoy the irony or even the self-irony in flamboyant strikes, or simply ignore them (as you will see me ignore your Stalin rethoric), and lunge into equally intelligent and rewarding replies.
I do not mean to persuade you, so I will not try to get under your skin or even earn unwarranted respect from you. I'm indulging myself in a clash of ideas. If we're lucky, something worthy will arise, if not, it was all in good fun.




> Irony alert: classsifying someone's adherance to religion as "narrow-minded" absolutely questions the individual's intelligence by implying that it is inappropriately limited - but the obverse of that coin is the atheist - the truly narrow-minded because - without having any empirical proof as to the non-existence of God - has decided that his view of the world/universe will be LIMITED only to that which can be measured, observed, quantified, seen, etc (i.e. naturalism); all world-views - whether religious or naturalistic - exclude - so why is your exclusion not narrow-minded, but the religious person's exclusion is?


Hats off to irony! We drink to it.

As you may have been told countless times before, it is impossible to come up with empirical evidence _against_ the existance of anything. Find me empirical evidence against a flying pink elephant from space (who must also be from earth since it's called an elephant)!
My existance is not at all limited, since I have been christian at a time and gradually let it disperse into oblivion. My life experience does include dashing through this popular superstition, and since I now view it from outside a box, and am still aware of some principles and symbolic refferences, I don't feel limited at all... nor would I feel if I hadn't heard about the Bible until this very day.
I don't live solely in the world of measurable things, since economy is a growing science with lots to philosophise about, especially right now, and writing's an exrecise in originality... very spiritual-a whole, I'd say.




> A pointless red herring. What is at debate here is not the numbers (but I can quote them later if you like), but Hill's inaccurate (read: wrong) use of the word truth to defend his insulting language.


Now that's a shame... Bashing statistic's a favourite occupation of mine.  :Frown:  It's even sillier than religion! 




> You've not offended me - you've simply revealed that you draw conclusions without any empirical evidence that would establish the truth of your conclusions - and yet you accuse the religious of being non-rational? What I did was simply point out the faulty nature of your assumptions - you may be right, you may be wrong; what I take issue with is your assumption of the quality and contents of my knowledge without a shred of evidence (evidence: the holy grail of the atheist in determining the nature of what is real, what exists, what isn't real, what does not exist) upon which to base your conclusion.


You're pretty obsessed aboult proofs for a religious person. Did I ever claim you need a plethora of refference for everything you say?  :Rolleyes:  They're even more pointless if they come from religious sources. What happened to free thinking? All I ask is for claims to make sense. "X said so" isn't even evidence, not even with scientists, let alone philosophers.  :FRlol:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Oh, but since this is so obvious, I expect people to shield their egos in a serious debate, enjoy the irony or even the self-irony in flamboyant strikes, or simply ignore them (as you will see me ignore your Stalin rethoric), and lunge into equally intelligent and rewarding replies.
> I do not mean to persuade you, so I will not try to get under your skin or even earn unwarranted respect from you. I'm indulging myself in a clash of ideas. If we're lucky, something worthy will arise, if not, it was all in good fun.


Defend your lack of tact if you will. It's difficult to enter into discussion with someone whose diction is geared to belittle your position. You can excuse yourself and trivialize my objections if you want - but good debators are called so by the arguments - not by their insults. I'll assume from your constant defense that you do not intend to raise the level of your game. So be it.





> My existance is not at all limited, since I have been christian at a time and gradually let it disperse into oblivion. My life experience does include dashing through this popular superstition, and since I now view it from outside a box, and am still aware of some principles and symbolic refferences, I don't feel limited at all... nor would I feel if I hadn't heard about the Bible until this very day.


If you have chosen to see the world only through the lens of naturalism, you have limited the possiblities of understanding the world. That's pretty simple, I think.




> I don't live solely in the world of measurable things, since economy is a growing science with lots to philosophise about, especially right now, and writing's an exrecise in originality... very spiritual-a whole, I'd say.


Then what makes the spiritual world invalid, if you acknowledge that not all that is real is measurable or possesses empirical proof for its existence?





> You're pretty obsessed aboult proofs for a religious person. Did I ever claim you need a plethora of refference for everything you say?  They're even more pointless if they come from religious sources. What happened to free thinking? All I ask is for claims to make sense. "X said so" isn't even evidence, not even with scientists, let alone philosophers.


Not obsessed - simply asking empiricists to be something resembling consistent in their position. Atheists/naturalists/empricists insist that there is no evidence for God, therefore He cannot possibly exist. I'm just asking for consistency, that's all.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about and why we're still going on. Hill made an error in logic in his claim, I criticized it, you charged in and defended it and here we still are - why? What's left to discuss?

You've made it clear that you think being rude is a legitimate debating tactic and I acknowledge that you can do so if you wish. You are perfectly within your rights to argue in an obnoxious, disrespectful way - but understand that to belittle people's religious beliefs is to ridicule what is -for many - something deep, profound, and personal. If I spoke as you have about something for which you felt similarly, you would probably come roaring out of the gate as well. The inability to at least understand that what you insult is very special and profound to others suggests nothing flattering about your character.

----------


## Petronius

> ...defense of his opinons as truth is the heart of the matter


Isn't belief in God also and _opinion_ called absolute truth?




> Then what makes the spiritual world invalid, if you acknowledge that not all that is real is measurable or possesses empirical proof for its existence?


"It is not measurable by our means" is more what I meant. Either because it is too complex, or we are part of the system and such unreliable observers. 

What makes the spiritual world invalid isn't actual lack of proof... intelligent theories can be extrapolated without the means of producing any tangible result. It is the misuse of observation that challenges spirituality. It's usually games of shadows, leaps of faith and generalization that lead to claims of deep complexity and claimed accuracy, which when traced back don't cast logically at all back on the real world. 

Similar things can be said about social sciences, which classify, simplify and build around themselves their own quaint universe. You try to throw poor squirming me into the empiricist jar, or the naturalist jar, up there on the Atheist shelf (and I admit, I call myself atheist, but am I reduced to it? - no) inside my box so to speak, with you looking down and prompting whenever I skirt outside these imaginary boundries. 
If you feel you have to be ofended by my attitude, then I apologize and will have nothing against ending this argument. But I would mention society is always irreverent and offensive toward's one's individuality. Your religion is no more personal and profound than undefined worldviews we may attack inadvertently.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Isn't belief in God also and _opinion_ called absolute truth?
> 
> "It is not measurable by our means" is more what I meant. Either because it is too complex, or we are part of the system and such unreliable observers. 
> 
> What makes the spiritual world invalid isn't actual lack of proof... intelligent theories can be extrapolated without the means of producing any tangible result. It is the misuse of observation that challenges spirituality. It's usually games of shadows, leaps of faith and generalization that lead to claims of deep complexity and claimed accuracy, which when traced back don't cast logically at all back on the real world. 
> 
> Similar things can be said about social sciences, which classify, simplify and build around themselves their own quaint universe. You try to throw poor squirming me into the empiricist jar, or the naturalist jar, up there on the Atheist shelf (and I admit, I call myself atheist, but am I reduced to it? - no) inside my box so to speak, with you looking down and prompting whenever I skirt outside these imaginary boundries. 
> If you feel you have to be ofended by my attitude, then I apologize and will have nothing against ending this argument. But I would mention society is always irreverent and offensive toward's one's individuality. Your religion is no more personal and profound than undefined worldviews we may attack inadvertently.


Look, I already said you're entitled to argue in whatever way you want. I do not need a lecture about what the real world is like. I do not expect all of reality to speak respectfully or deal with issues in a mature matter; however, in intellectual debate, I do challenge what I perceive to be immature, hostile, and disrespectful language because debate is supposed to be a forum where parties present their ideas and challenge other ideas; those who decide that their respect only need be extended to ideas that they support reveal a distrubing lack of sophistication. 

If I - as an American - go to a foreign country and dismiss or mock the traditions of the people (traditions they take seriously and I see no point in), how will I be perceived by that country? A response of "Who cares what they feel? Their customs are stupid, life isn't always nice, f___k 'em" may be how you feel, but is always the best response? Or, out of respect for the _people_ there, should I choose to respect their customs because respecting others' beliefs (or at least _tolerating_ them) shows respect for people? So that's probably my primary point: mocking and insulting what people deeply believe in is essentially an attack upon an aspect of that person. You may not see it this way - but again, it's easy to defend your position until someone steps on something for which you hold high esteem or reverence. Our beliefs are a part of us; insult them and you have insulted us. Is that your goal? To insult people? 

I'm done with this conversation - it's not really going anywhere. If Hill would like to defend his use of langugage, fine; but you've made it clear that you think you're entitled to yours. I'll assume that he's cut from pretty much the same cloth. 

Good luck to you -

----------


## weltanschauung

> You sound like a brainwashed cultist, I don't think I'd like to meet you.




_ next thing they'll be dancing!!!_

----------


## NikolaiI

> Isn't belief in God also and opinion called absolute truth?


No, the opinion is not called absolute truth. _God_ might be called absolute truth, but not the opinion that he exists. Our opinion can never be anything more than what we are, and actually it has to be less. And what are we? We are simply parts of the whole. Every one of us interconnected. Dependent on others' observation, just as others are dependent on ours. That is, if one existed alone, he would not even really exist. But realizing one is a part of the whole, one is part of the absolute, that opinion itself is not infinite or supreme. Nothing like that. The living entity is fallible, prone to mistakes, etc.

----------


## Dr. Hill

I hadn't realized I had started such a fuss. I was being honest in my beliefs, I feel that religion is a danger to the world. I didn't call THAT fact, I called the fact that I believe it fact, which is true, I can attest.

And I don't believe it was right to attack (which you did) Petronius like you did, Redzeppelin and Nikolai to a lesser extent. He was arguing for arguments sake, debating on a forum is not a crime. The fact is, science has proof, religion has zeal. The proof is disregarded by the religious and the zeal is seen as silly by the rationalists, so nothing gets accomplished. I felt that Nikolai's post made him sound as if he didn't come up with that himself, but was merely repeating it as absolute truth because others had told him (hence, brainwashed) and he sounded like he belonged to a cult (which, in my opinion, differs only slightly from a religion). It was not an insult, and my intention is all that matters in distinguishing it from an insult and a statement; the fact that he got offended and that others got offended reflects on their nature, and how easily they are offended, which is something that only causes more problems.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And I don't believe it was right to attack (which you did) Petronius like you did, Redzeppelin and Nikolai to a lesser extent. He was arguing for arguments sake, debating on a forum is not a crime. The fact is, science has proof, religion has zeal. The proof is disregarded by the religious and the zeal is seen as silly by the rationalists, so nothing gets accomplished.


Science has "proof" of what, exactly? And what kind of "proof" does it have? You make tremendously vague and general claims. Religion, for one, does not try to "prove" anything. Religion is not a counterpart of science - it deals with en entirely different aspect of life than does science. The two are not in competition. You oversimplify the believer's position - a typical attitude of the non-believer.

Pet got called out because he - like you - lack basic courtesy in referring to other peoples' beliefs; it's one thing if you don't like the way the people present it - that's fair - but mocking the beliefs shows a lack of maturity in intellectual discussion. It is less that I'm "offended" and more that your language is disrespectful. Your assent on that point, by the way, is not required.




> I felt that Nikolai's post made him sound as if he didn't come up with that himself, but was merely repeating it as absolute truth because others had told him (hence, brainwashed) and he sounded like he belonged to a cult (which, in my opinion, differs only slightly from a religion).


You "felt" that his words indicated something about the depth (or lack thereof) of his religious experience? That doesn't sound very empirical or rational or scientific to me - it sounds a lot like the rationaliztion given by religious people for what they believe: "I _feel_ like God is directing me to.." Your "feelings," sir, are not reliable indicators of reality. Most empiricists rely upon facts.

Judging the sincerity of someone's belief systems off of a bulletin-board forum post is highly _presumptive_ - what it speaks of is YOUR attitude towards religion more than the sincerity or depth of Nilolai's spiritual experience. You have no way of knowing the truth, so you use your _misunderstanding_ of religion to categorize him. 




> It was not an insult, and my intention is all that matters in distinguishing it from an insult and a statement; the fact that he got offended and that others got offended reflects on their nature, and how easily they are offended, which is something that only causes more problems.


You need not agree with my assessment of your words in order for your words to have a certain effect. Your attitude - like many who disbelieve - is insulting and attempts to degrade into psychosis or wishful thinking something that is profound, meaningful, and life-affirming to a great many people in this world. Your defense of such an attitude speaks badly in your favor.

----------


## Virgil

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

----------


## JBI

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


To some extent, though I think it is safe to say that the sun didn't stop moving, or that one can disprove things within the text. Either way though, that is no "proof of god" Agnosticism of that sort allows only for one option - if God cannot be proven or disproved, than he cannot be used for any argument in regards to morality, or the law, since the validation of the "divine morality" is faulty. That Protagorian Sophism, and I mean that in the denotative form, leads essentially to the conclusion that anyone who says that God does exist, is merely a rhetorician, a liar, as the proof is non-existent, whereas anyone who denies God cannot be 100% sure, and therefore is relying on rhetoric to prove the non-existence. 

By that reckoning, those who believe have naturally been duped by the rhetoric of the Church, and of scripture, whereas those who haven't have been duped by perhaps another sophist. Either way, the agnosticism that this equates to, assuming one doesn't go either way, and believe either sophist, leads to a conflict with in many times, the religion itself, as scripture and the tradition dictate punishment for infidels or apostates. It then becomes impossible to fence sit, as you either, for instance, burn in hell, or say your Hail Marys.

That being said, I don't doubt you can disprove some facets of religion, or disprove a majority of theological work, or interpretation of scripture. The fact that there is debate on these things shows us that there is no "one truth" even within religious dogma. I'm just pointing out that the agnostic approach is rather conflicting with various religions, and will lead nowhere for someone who really isn't sure.

----------


## Joreads

Do you need a reason to believe on God? I don't know why I believe in God but I do. Some would cal that faith I guess.

----------


## Dr. Hill

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

----------


## Riesa

"Do you need a reason to believe on God? I don't know why I believe in God but I do. Some would cal that faith I guess."


growl.

----------


## Virgil

> To some extent, though I think it is safe to say that the sun didn't stop moving, or that one can disprove things within the text. Either way though, that is no "proof of god" Agnosticism of that sort allows only for one option - if God cannot be proven or disproved, than he cannot be used for any argument in regards to morality, or the law, since the validation of the "divine morality" is faulty. That Protagorian Sophism, and I mean that in the denotative form, leads essentially to the conclusion that anyone who says that God does exist, is merely a rhetorician, a liar, as the proof is non-existent, whereas anyone who denies God cannot be 100% sure, and therefore is relying on rhetoric to prove the non-existence.


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

----------


## Petronius

> No, the opinion is not called absolute truth. God might be called absolute truth, but not the opinion that he exists. Our opinion can never be anything more than what we are, and actually it has to be less. And what are we? We are simply parts of the whole. Every one of us interconnected. Dependent on others' observation, just as others are dependent on ours. That is, if one existed alone, he would not even really exist. But realizing one is a part of the whole, one is part of the absolute, that opinion itself is not infinite or supreme. Nothing like that. The living entity is fallible, prone to mistakes, etc.


God can be called absolute truth, or you decided to call absolute truth God? Important difference. When I say God, I refer to a mythological entity described in the bible, that may be synonymous to Allah. If you refer to something else entirely, then you deny that which introduced the term.
Of course we are part of a whole, we can never escape it, but this applies very well to the material world. We feed, we burn energy. Different elements of matter pass through us in a changing flux. In the end, be it still a part of us or not, everything transforms. 
How do you link this to the idea of a unitary soul? 

I don't subscribe to the idea that we don't exist in solitude. That's the "tree falling in the forest" rethoric. The world spins by the same rules, and we are not important enough for it to trick us or to perish without our perception.

All in all, what you say sounds paradoxal to me, as I believe universal laws to be etirely deterministic, yet I do not believe in God.


Red, you sound like a lawyer. You also sound like you think it's wrong for people to have impressions, especially negative ones, and that intuitive thinking is reprehensible. I'd like it more if we didn't make debates into a didactic competition of form, or a collective pat on the back for our variety. 
There were ideas I considered relevant to the subject at hand in my posts, but you chose to focus on my defense of form and tell me what I aim at with my choice of words. You were quite presumptive yourself.

In truth, as I am more often an observer here than a participant, I have seen many sensible arguments (such as JBI's in this very thread) dismissed in unsatisfactory ways by believers. When reason doesn't work, some are only naturally tempted at humour.  :Wink:

----------


## Redzeppelin

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


Science can prove certain things; some things are evident by themselves and can be retested (gravity, for example); other things are not so - they require that the "evidence" be _interpreted_ (especially if the actual event - the beginning of life - cannot be observed); in order to interpret something, we must apply an interpretive scheme of some sort. The intelligent design theorist applies a different interpretive device to the same "evidence" a secular scientist does (who is applying a different interpretive device - namely, naturalism) and they wind up with two different interpretations of the "evidence." Lots of evidence doesn't necessarily speak for itself.




> Red, you sound like a lawyer.


Far from it. I do this for fun.




> You also sound like you think it's wrong for people to have impressions, especially negative ones, and that intuitive thinking is reprehensible.


Nope - impressions and assumptions are very normal - they are impossible to avoid. But - since many empiricists/atheists/evolutionists like to dismiss creation or God because of a "lack of evidence," I simply like to point out that their logic, applied rigorously to all of life, makes almost all claims of "what is" into nonsense because much of what we believe to be true is based upon feelings, assumptions, impressions, etc. I simply point out the contradiction in the empiricist's position. You can't disslove God out of existence due to a "lack of evidence" and then talk about the "truth" of something you believe when that "truth" (Hill's idea that Nikolai is a "brainwashed cultist" for example) is based upon a subjective impression. Consistency is what I'm asking for.




> I'd like it more if we didn't make debates into a didactic competition of form, or a collective pat on the back for our variety. 
> There were ideas I considered relevant to the subject at hand in my posts, but you chose to focus on my defense of form and tell me what I aim at with my choice of words. You were quite presumptive yourself.


My friend - you chose to take up a cause that wasn't yours - namely Hill's unseemly disrespect pointed towards believers by his silly (and very subjective) terminology. His langugage opened himself up for attack; you stepped in; don't blame me that you stepped into a discussion with me - I didn't twist your arm and challenge _you_. You took up my argument about terminology. I _presumed_ nothing: I took your language to task. Make it clear what I presumed and I'll gladly retract if my presumption is in error.




> In truth, as I am more often an observer here than a participant, I have seen many sensible arguments (such as JBI's in this very thread) dismissed in unsatisfactory ways by believers. When reason doesn't work, some are only naturally tempted at humour.


But humor that degrades what people feel deeply about isn't funny; name-calling ("brainwashed cultist") isn't funny either.

----------


## NikolaiI

> To some extent, though I think it is safe to say that the sun didn't stop moving, or that one can disprove things within the text. Either way though, that is no "proof of god" Agnosticism of that sort allows only for one option - if God cannot be proven or disproved, than he cannot be used for any argument in regards to morality, or the law, since the validation of the "divine morality" is faulty. That Protagorian Sophism, and I mean that in the denotative form, leads essentially to the conclusion that anyone who says that God does exist, is merely a rhetorician, a liar, as the proof is non-existent, whereas anyone who denies God cannot be 100% sure, and therefore is relying on rhetoric to prove the non-existence. 
> 
> By that reckoning, those who believe have naturally been duped by the rhetoric of the Church, and of scripture, whereas those who haven't have been duped by perhaps another sophist. Either way, the agnosticism that this equates to, assuming one doesn't go either way, and believe either sophist, leads to a conflict with in many times, the religion itself, as scripture and the tradition dictate punishment for infidels or apostates. It then becomes impossible to fence sit, as you either, for instance, burn in hell, or say your Hail Marys.
> 
> That being said, I don't doubt you can disprove some facets of religion, or disprove a majority of theological work, or interpretation of scripture. The fact that there is debate on these things shows us that there is no "one truth" even within religious dogma. I'm just pointing out that the agnostic approach is rather conflicting with various religions, and will lead nowhere for someone who really isn't sure.


Why can nothing be said for God? Because nothing needs to be said for God. There mere name of God includes everything He symbolizes. Eternal time, Absolute Truth, the source of beauty, love, strength, truth, in fact the source of everything. Nothing exists separate from His will, yet the majority of the matter is completely involved and it acts only inanimately. This isn't dogma, it's simply an idea about God. All are, fortunately, welcome to come upw it and share their ideas, thanks to Lit-net, without fear of being insulted for them. (I hope.)




> God can be called absolute truth, or you decided to call absolute truth God? Important difference. When I say God, I refer to a mythological entity described in the bible, that may be synonymous to Allah. If you refer to something else entirely, then you deny that which introduced the term.
> Of course we are part of a whole, we can never escape it, but this applies very well to the material world. We feed, we burn energy. Different elements of matter pass through us in a changing flux. In the end, be it still a part of us or not, everything transforms. 
> How do you link this to the idea of a unitary soul? 
> 
> I don't subscribe to the idea that we don't exist in solitude. That's the "tree falling in the forest" rethoric. The world spins by the same rules, and we are not important enough for it to trick us or to perish without our perception.
> 
> All in all, what you say sounds paradoxal to me, as I believe universal laws to be etirely deterministic, yet I do not believe in God.
> 
> 
> ...


I wanted to answer this on another thread recently. My understanding of God is similar to my understanding of the soul. The soul is more than a little mysterious since we cannot see the soul, yet it has been a fascinating subject for writers, poets, and philosophers since the beginning of written thought. Why believe in the soul, when we cannot see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it? The people who have ideas about it, are they just liars, or can anything really be known about it? They are not liars. The soul is mysterious, and we'll never know it completely, written down in a few paragraphs or something like this; first and mainly because we will never have consensus about it.

Now first of all, is it illogical to believe in the soul? Is it not rational to believe in the soul? I would like to answer "no" to each of these questions. The soul is more sublime than reason. The soul cannot go against reason, because reason cannot go against the soul; the soul being more appealing to us in terms of beauty, which cannot go against terms of truth. I am not saying anything against reason; in fact reason is very important. If it were not for reason, we would never come to the soul. The reason for this is that since the soul is pure, sublime, it also means it is very rare. By first knowing about the soul, it makes things like reason, morality more important because otherwise, the glimpse of the soul is lost.

----------


## Petronius

Red, what I did was find myself a way into the conversation, hoping it will eventually evolve. You claim Dr. Hill's remark was rude, I thought it witty. This thread after all is partially targeted at "opening the minds" of non-believers, as it looks from the original post (he does begin with why he thinks people don't believe and moves on to saying why he still does), so a non-believer is entitled to honest commentary. How is it fair to me if you call me out as narrow-minded for not feeling spiritually enlightened by something I viscerally percieve as trite, yet I have to give it response worthy of great wisdom - otherwise I'm a jerk? Is engaging the conversation not respect enough? I don't think claiming something important on a personal level would get you any attention on academic level. 

This is a debate. I consider people who participate mature enough to deal with stark oposition. I have no doubt you and Nikolai are educated and you seem to have firm beliefs. Same here. I think this thing you said sounded crazy... Move on or ignore the idiotic troll that I am, but don't use subjective moral arguments to divagate on my behaviour and what it says about my arguments. If you still want to continue, and I don't blame you if you don't, I told you that for me, the lack of proof you insist about is secondary. 
What is your stand on _misuse of evidence_ in the consolidation of the believer's interpretation? 




> I wanted to answer this on another thread recently. My understanding of God is similar to my understanding of the soul. The soul is more than a little mysterious since we cannot see the soul, yet it has been a fascinating subject for writers, poets, and philosophers since the beginning of written thought. Why believe in the soul, when we cannot see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it? The people who have ideas about it, are they just liars, or can anything really be known about it? They are not liars. The soul is mysterious, and we'll never know it completely, written down in a few paragraphs or something like this; first and mainly because we will never have consensus about it.
> 
> Now first of all, is it illogical to believe in the soul? Is it not rational to believe in the soul? I would like to answer "no" to each of these questions. The soul is more sublime than reason. The soul cannot go against reason, because reason cannot go against the soul; the soul being more appealing to us in terms of beauty, which cannot go against terms of truth. I am not saying anything against reason; in fact reason is very important. If it were not for reason, we would never come to the soul. The reason for this is that since the soul is pure, sublime, it also means it is very rare. By first knowing about the soul, it makes things like reason, morality more important because otherwise, the glimpse of the soul is lost.


But if we assign souls to human beings, then a soul is created or forced into the material world each time a person is born or concieved. If that person's life decides the future path of the soul (ascension, damnation), then souls are bound to the material world and in theory their flux can even be controlled by mortals. So why argue that the soul is not part of this body?
Can't the soul be merely an expression of identity? I don't believe in morality as something preternatural either, but as choices given the imperative of survival in the context of social cooperation. It makes sense without the implication of deities and additional realms.

----------


## billyjack

> The intelligent design theorist applies a different interpretive device to the same "evidence" a secular scientist does (who is applying a different interpretive device - namely, naturalism) and they wind up with two different interpretations of the "evidence." Lots of evidence doesn't necessarily speak for itself.


sounds like you're saying evolution is god's way of creation, a bit pantheistic i'd say. 





> But humor that degrades what people feel deeply about isn't funny; name-calling ("brainwashed cultist") isn't funny either.


i take it you dont watch south park. if you can't laugh at your views, you betray them

----------


## Dr. Hill

I thought I had explained that I genuinely believe the overzealous to be brainwashed cultists, and was not poking fun at anything.

----------


## JBI

One cannot say there is no direct proof against God without acknowledging that the same can be applied towards God. I'm sorry Virgil, but you can't simply reject that argument. There is no way a logical assumption can be created in the sense that "because there isn't proof against, there is". That's pure fallacy. 

The point is, since a total proof cannot be found, the use of a God in any argument becomes fallacious. One cannot say God created the world, without saying "I believe God created the world". One cannot say "it is wrong to do this" when the grounds for the "wrong" are all scripture based. One cannot use religion as a justification of anything, without acknowledging that those opinions are a faith-based belief, without any actual conclusive evidence, or concrete justification.

With that notion, Religion becomes personal only, and isn't logically allowed to pass beyond the person, without entering the grounds of fallacy. All arguments that rely on god simply become fallacious, and crumble, since there is no proof or disproof of God, and naturally one must be skeptical, or conservative enough to not grant them any say. 

In that sense, if someone is engaged in a holy war, they are using God, fallaciously, as a justification of a human war. If one is engaged in God's duty, one is engaged in a fallacy, and is really engaged in one man's duty.

----------


## Virgil

> One cannot say there is no direct proof against God without acknowledging that the same can be applied towards God. I'm sorry Virgil, but you can't simply reject that argument. There is no way a logical assumption can be created in the sense that "because there isn't proof against, there is". That's pure fallacy.


No, no I'm not say because there is no proof there has to be. All I'm saying is that one can't use the word proof for God's non-existence. If one goes through all the possiblities and comes to a conclusion that there is no God, fine. I accept that and that can be perfectly logical. But it's still not a proof.




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


I agree if one is having a philosophic discussion. If one is having a theological discussion then it's a matter of what the two parties agree on.




> One cannot say "it is wrong to do this" when the grounds for the "wrong" are all scripture based. One cannot use religion as a justification of anything, without acknowledging that those opinions are a faith-based belief, without any actual conclusive evidence, or concrete justification.


I guess that would also recieve the same answer as above with the only qualification that morality is not only interlinked with religion but with cultural norms and traditions. Of course they can be in flux and traditions get challenged and evolve. we've never had such a mixture of cultures come together as in the present day, so there is a readjustment going on.




> With that notion, Religion becomes personal only, and isn't logically allowed to pass beyond the person, without entering the grounds of fallacy. All arguments that rely on god simply become fallacious, and crumble, since there is no proof or disproof of God, and naturally one must be skeptical, or conservative enough to not grant them any say.


I don't advocate a theocracy, if that's what you're thinking. But in a democracy the number of people with a particular set of values matters. Given of course certain civil rights. 




> In that sense, if someone is engaged in a holy war, they are using God, fallaciously, as a justification of a human war. If one is engaged in God's duty, one is engaged in a fallacy, and is really engaged in one man's duty.


The individual has a right to pursue his beliefs as long as they follow the social laws. Would you agree?

----------


## JBI

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I thought I had explained that I genuinely believe the overzealous to be brainwashed cultists, and was not poking fun at anything.


If I told you that I "genuinely believed" that you were a styrofoam cup, a child molester, or a sub-human life form, would that make my views valid? Would that make them less offensive to you? Would you accept my views as reasonable or acceptable simply because I "genuinely believed" them to be true? 

And since when is "genuine belief" a basis for empirical truth?

----------


## Dr. Hill

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

----------


## Redzeppelin

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


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

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

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

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

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

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

----------


## Hisnibs

> How can a benevolent God find humour in the suffering of his creations? To me if there is an all powerful God the he is sadistic. Any sensible being with the power to ease the suffering of others would chose to do so especially if it within their means. 
> 
> The posit that just because everything is logical and complex in the universe does not imply that intelligence guided every step of the way. Its possible that god existed before the creation of the universe and employed in his equations the possibility of forming self replicationg molecules through chemical reactions. Therefore even if this god exists "He" does not have to present anymore and nor does "He" have to care.


Good point. Does that mean then that if this god thing exists that he doesnt need to be revered or worshipped?




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


That all depends on what you mean by proof though. By definition, atheists dont postulate the existence of god. If atheists believe anything it is the logical disproofs of the logical proofs of god, i.e. omnipotence, for one. If one can make a disproof of it (and oh boy lol there are plentiful!) then theres your proof right there. If you mean by proof in the material sense then no one has to bother trying to provide material proof of gods non-existence seeing as there is none for his existence.




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


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




> Science is based solely on trying to prove things, and succeeding or failing. Evolution is proven through fossils and observing the evolution of bacteria and viruses, which evolve very quickly in comparison to multi-cellular organisms. Science IS proof, what do you mean what proof? They use actual, tangible experiments to prove things. Evolution may just be a "theory", but so is gravity, and I don't see anyone denying that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
> 
> Science can prove certain things; some things are evident by themselves and can be retested (gravity, for example); other things are not so - they require that the "evidence" be interpreted (especially if the actual event - the beginning of life - cannot be observed);


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




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


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




> Yes, I would not be offended. I don't need proof that he is a brainwashed cultist for my concern to be valid, as concern is a part of my interior thoughts, thus opinion. I would not be offended at anything you could formulate about me, because I have confidence that I am not that, or, if I am that, then I admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
> 
>  I guess I'm bothered because what you've done is the equivalent of "racial profiling" or, worse, sheer stereotyping. In other words, if you drew such conculsions about someone based upon their ethnicity or gender, you would be severly attacked for your judgmental and bigoted attitude - primarily because you decided who someone based upon a limited (and unfair) idea as to who certain kinds of people are. In this case, you decide upon very limited information (a post or two in a discussion forum) that someone's religious beliefs equal "brainwashing" - as opposed to other legitimate options. You could never get away with such generalizations about someone based upon their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation - so why is it OK for you to do so based upon religious belief? How are you any different from the racist, sexist, homophobe in that you have - without bothering to even consider other options (i.e. deep religious belief could be due to study, profound experience or other means than "brainswahing") - decided the character of someone and his/her beliefs?
> ...


That is one great, big, smelly, giant sh!t sandwich of an association fallacy that youre forcing Dr. Hill to take a bite of if Ive ever seen one!

----------


## Virgil

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


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




> The Law itself reflects naturally a moral code, as prescribed by a constitution, and in the American case, especially the Bill of Rights.
> 
> That is the problem - to what extent can the law be applied to minorities, if the majority are theocratic? Where can justice be found?


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




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


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




> The problem rests in the separation of religion and morality, which to date hasn't been done. 
> 
> To what extent can your so called "social laws" exist outside of religion. To what extent are they formed based on the fallacies of religion? Should, for instance, something like Sodomy be illegal in certain states, and if so on what grounds?
> 
> When right and wrong get thrown in, religion complicates things, because to the believer, in enough cases, the view of God is the only view, despite the obvious fallacy, and that is used as a tyrannical view over the non-believer.


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

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

----------


## JBI

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

Here comes the crucifixion.

----------


## ShoutGrace

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

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




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


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

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

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

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




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


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

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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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

----------


## Dr. Hill

> With regard to the opening post, I believe in God primarily for the following intellectual and (as far as I can tell) emotional reasons:
> 
> 1  The absolute beginning of the Universe out of nothing a finite time ago. (This is evidenced not only by the overwhelming majority of scientific data on the subject, but also through philosophical reasoning.) 
> 2  The fine tuning of the physical constants in our Universe, which is necessary for any kind of life permitting Universe at all. (This fact really isnt disputable anymore  the cause of the fine tuning of physical constants is disputable, but the fact that it exists is not. I recognize also that the term fine tuning may be seen to be imprecise.)
> 3 - The existence of objective moral values.
> 4  The historical evidence regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.


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

----------


## weltanschauung

"we believe in nossssing, lebowski! NOSSSING!"

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain of a molehill-- he knows that himself, he he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness."
> 
> -The Brothers Karamazov (a great book I've had the pleasure of beginning not two days ago).
> 
> Learn from that. My mistake in words, my unfair judgment of Nikolai, was nothing but an opinion and perhaps a bias of mine. But I have explained that I meant not to insult, and yet, no one will get over it. It was tactless of me, not malicious.


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




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


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





> That is one great, big, smelly, giant sh!t sandwich of an association fallacy that youre forcing Dr. Hill to take a bite of if Ive ever seen one!


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

----------


## Hisnibs

> What an intelligent design theorist has in his arsenal as “evidence” is not actually what could characteristically be described as evidence by the way. What evidence are you postulating? Stories from the bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
> 
>  You're not really familiar with intelligent design theory, are you? ID does not use the Bible for any "evidence" - the Bible was not written to provide any evidence. ID scientists look at that same fossils, the same whatever that evolutionary scientists look at - and when they examine the evidence, they arrive at different conclusions. That's all I meant to say. Evidence does not always speak for itself.


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




> That is one great, big, smelly, giant sh!t sandwich of an association fallacy that you’re forcing Dr. Hill to take a bite of if I’ve ever seen one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
> 
>  Thanks for your eloquent assessment -


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




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


You have difficulty comprehending, I’ll elaborate.

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

Gettit? Maybe hand puppets need to be employed?

----------


## NikolaiI

> "You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain of a molehill-- he knows that himself, he he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness."
> 
> -The Brothers Karamazov (a great book I've had the pleasure of beginning not two days ago).
> 
> Learn from that. My mistake in words, my unfair judgment of Nikolai, was nothing but an opinion and perhaps a bias of mine. But I have explained that I meant not to insult, and yet, no one will get over it. It was tactless of me, not malicious.


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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Virgil

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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

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

----------


## NikolaiI

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

----------


## Redzeppelin

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


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





> You have difficulty comprehending, Ill elaborate.


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

My vote is for #2




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


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




> Gettit? Maybe hand puppets need to be employed?


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

----------


## JBI

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

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

From Gargantua, Chapter VI


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

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


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

----------


## skasian

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

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

----------


## NikolaiI

> In order to believe in God, you must experience his power. How His hand can move every single piece of your heart, soul and spirit. In order to believe in God, you must feel and taste His love. Simply, be with Him in His presence. Why I believe in God? Because I experience everyday that He is with me.
> For example, in order to believe in love, you must experience love. If you never loved someone or been loved, you do not know it, hence cannot believe in love. In order to believe that you are loved, you must feel and taste love from that person no matter the distances. My point, God is the same as love. In fact we hear that God is love. We cannot see or touch love, but we can feel love. We cannot see or touch God, but we can feel God.
> 
> That last statement is quite invalid actually, we can see, hear and touch God. There have been many miracles occuring in the world, and God is in charge of it. People are speaking in tongues, having visions of the future, healing the physically and mentally sick. We are God's people and He wants us to stop being skeptical and believe that He is our God and that He loves us unconditionally.


This is wonderful.  :Smile: 

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

----------


## skasian

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

----------


## NikolaiI

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


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

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

----------


## skasian

> One thing I wonder is- atheists say they don't believe in the power of God, but if you have spent the last 5 years of your life speaking and trying to convince people that God does not exist, you will not probably see any of his power. God is something worth searching for. George Harrison said, and I know I probably quote this too often, "Many things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot wait."
> 
> But anyway I agree absolutely that our function is to serve God. Our natural position is service. If we serve God, we benefit everyone and everything, just like watering the roots of a tree is the way to benefit the whole tree.


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

----------


## blazeofglory

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

----------


## skasian

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

----------


## blazeofglory

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


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

----------


## skasian

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

----------


## NikolaiI

Blaze, all this universe is the energy of God.

----------


## billyjack

actually blaze is spot on. 

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

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

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

----------


## NikolaiI

> actually blaze is spot on. 
> 
> also. i'm tired of hearing that God " is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords." 
> 
> sure its poetic and powerful. but when ideas need to be put down on paper poetically in order for the meaning to stick in folks minds', you can bet your jiblets someone is passing off sweet lies as truth.


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

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

> Today science has changed the way people live and think.


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

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

----------


## skasian

> also. i'm tired of hearing that God " is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords." 
> 
> sure its poetic and powerful. but when ideas need to be put down on paper poetically in order for the meaning to stick in folks minds', you can bet your jiblets someone is passing off sweet lies as truth.


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

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

----------


## skasian

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


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

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

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

----------


## billyjack

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





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


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

----------


## laidbackperson

I will tell a story that I read many years ago but which has stayed with me since then. The story I write from memory and some sentences I have made up as I dont exactly remember what was written, but the gist of the story remain unchanged:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The poor farmer quietly returned to his home.

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

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

Hearing this the farmer was suddenly filled with a blind rage. He looked around and saw an axe for cutting wood in Gujguj Gods hut. Picking it up and in one mad blow he chopped one hand of the Gujguj God. Gujguj God cried in pain. Oh! My hand. What are you doing?
The farmer replied. Dont worry about a lost hand. You still have one hand with which you can perform all the necessary functions.
Then he lunged again at the Gujguj God and with another mighty blow cut off his one leg. The Gujguj God cried with unbearable pain. Oh! My leg. Have you gone mad?
The farmer replied, Dont worry about your lost leg. Look at the sun set. See, how beautiful the setting sun and the scenery all around is looking.

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

I see this story from three angles.

First, I see it written by a writer with an atheist outlook. The writer is sneering at the Gods lofty concepts and theories and is probably trying to say- the real world runs on its own style and God sermons and concepts dont play much role in peoples lives. Unpredictable may happen and leave you devastated and no God is coming to help you in the manner you want.

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## skasian

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


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

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

----------


## skasian

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


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

----------


## billyjack

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


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




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


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




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


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

----------


## NikolaiI

> na uh. for instance. i dont think a great writer would put himself above his masterpiece. rather, he'd probably think the masterpiece above him in that he was "in the zone" (to use a michael jordan phrase) and he himself was not so much responsible for the finished product, but rather a median through which the product, in this case a book, found its completion.
> 
> appeal to the past and an appeal to an unreliable authority. people were throwing around stone tools when that line of reasoning worked
> 
> alpha males allow their status as "alpha" to be challenged. when they get old and brittle, such as the christian ideal of god, they lose their status as alpha and typically get thrown out of the pack. this isnt to say that god is dead, but i am saying that old ideas about god have become unbelievable (to paraphrase Nietzsche)


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

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

----------


## billyjack

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


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

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

----------


## NikolaiI

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


This "God!" you speak of only is disagreeable to you because of attachment or aversion to it. Basically it is disagreeable to you. Am I at least correct in this? It is a completely pointless discussion if you reject everything out of hand, but then I am not going to randomly abandon my position because you disagree with it. We can discuss and it doesn't have to be a bad thing. I hope you don't think I am a "Crazy believer," or something like that. That's part of my reason for discussing these things, is to defend believers. 70% of the world believes in God, or something like this; and if you simply open yourself to the communication with people, and then expand your base of people you know... get to know them you will find they don't speak of these things lightly, but they speak of what is deeply sacred to them. If you simply travel and look at people to learn something from them you will see there is always a great deal to learn - between anyone, be it believer or atheist or anything else.

I am speaking of a source and relating it to witchcraft does not make it so. Of course this is philosophy - yes, of course we are not going and making a living or something, we are discussing and so the point of it is inquiry - who am I? What is existence? This is simply philosophy and if it disgusts you, you can pursue something else, but this is philosophy. 

The "Source" I am speaking of, which you seem to be against, is very valid. You have said nothing in response to my statement which was that all forms are existing in the original source. Everything in this life in this universe has a source! Every river has a source. Every being has a source. Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. Yes it is fluid. But yes there are perfections, sources, forms like this. There is infinite life. After all is there any form which will not appear once, again, three times, and infinitely?

You haven't said anything of value or substance you've simply dismissed everything I said without indication of reason - you just said "all your talk of sources, it's nonsense."

The words I am using such as source and form are valid philosophical, they are valid _linguistical_ terms, and unless I am using them wrong or stupidly, It's not wrong or stupid to use them. They've been used since Plato and yes thought has evolved, but no not everything Plato said was stupid and wrong.

----------


## billyjack

> This "God!" you speak of only is disagreeable to you because of attachment or aversion to it. Basically it is disagreeable to you. Am I at least correct in this? It is a completely pointless discussion if you reject everything out of hand, but then I am not going to randomly abandon my position because you disagree with it. We can discuss and it doesn't have to be a bad thing.


god is not disagreeable to me. its ideas about the guy that i'm somewhat intolerant of.




> I hope you don't think I am a "Crazy believer," or something like that. That's part of my reason for discussing these things, is to defend believers. 70% of the world believes in God, or something like this; and if you simply open yourself to the communication with people, and then expand your base of people you know... get to know them you will find they don't speak of these things lightly, but they speak of what is deeply sacred to them. If you simply travel and look at people to learn something from them you will see there is always a great deal to learn - between anyone, be it believer or atheist or anything else.


a local talk radio show host i listen to, the common man, has a theory that 7 out of 10 people walking around are lacking in common sense. funny that you're percentage of believers should line up with the common man's observations so well




> I am speaking of a source and relating it to witchcraft does not make it so. Of course this is philosophy - yes, of course we are not going and making a living or something, we are discussing and so the point of it is inquiry - who am I? What is existence? This is simply philosophy and if it disgusts you, you can pursue something else, but this is philosophy.


i majored in philosophy nik. not that this makes me an authority. but i do enjoy it and i know what it is. question everything. including philosophy itself




> The "Source" I am speaking of, which you seem to be against, is very valid. You have said nothing in response to my statement which was that all forms are existing in the original source. Everything in this life in this universe has a source! Every river has a source. Every being has a source. Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause. Yes it is fluid. But yes there are perfections, sources, forms like this. There is infinite life. After all is there any which will not appear once, again, three times, and infinitely?


an analogy: you say a river has a source. well yes it does. and the common held belief is that the source is something like Lake Itaska in regards to the mississippi. however, lake itaska's source has a source--underground springs that feed it. and these springs have a source--rainwater, which also has a source--clouds, ad infinitum. 

source is circular when you get down to the nitty gritty. so goes with cause and effect.




> You haven't said anything of value or substance you've simply dismissed everything I said without indication of reason - you just said "all your talk of sources, it's nonsense."


not so much nonsense as arbitrary




> The words I am using such as source and form are valid philosophical, they are valid _linguistical_ terms, and unless I am using them wrong or stupidly, It's not wrong or stupid to use them. They've been used since Plato and yes thought has evolved, but no not everything Plato said was stupid and wrong.


so defensive. yes plato said many things that still hold true. he also didn't say a lot of things, and therein lied his wisdom (again, a nietzsche paraphrase)

----------


## NikolaiI

> an analogy: you say a river has a source. well yes it does. and the common held belief is that the source is something like Lake Itaska in regards to the mississippi. however, lake itaska's source has a source--underground springs that feed it. and these springs have a source--rainwater, which also has a source--clouds, ad infinitum.


Yes, and as I've said before, the universe itself, nevermind God, is pretty much more vast than anything we can imagine. You can't see the logical nature of the argument; since everything has a source - yes all is interconnected and arises, ceases, and things are always moving and flowing - this is my point as well. And God is the source of everything. In God are the forms of everything which exists. This entire material manifestation, which is actually a reflection of the spiritual world, are all forms which are made up in the source. Of course you may not understand this. It doesn't matter if you're a philosophy major or not. I am not trying to be particularly defensive, but yes I am defending belief against this onslaught of quips. You don't say anything except dismiss belief or faith or God and you only repeat over and over the negative that has been done in the past. You don't understand anything about psychology or human nature if you spout this perspective - if you think you've attained the last word on God, and that those who believe are wrong. If you did anything other than dismiss faith and belief with condescension, then there would be more to discuss. I apologize if I seem harsh. I will probably drop this because I don't think it's constructive to argue, but your posts do plead some opposition.

----------


## billyjack

all i was trying to do in my previous post was question one thing you said: "everything has a source." 

i can't just shrug this off. close observations tell me that saying something is the "source" will always be a random statement. I think it important to question these little points because like a small hole in a dam, they can lead to tidal waves if left unchecked.

----------


## Mr. Vandemar

_Our_ capabilities of living? Remember that in order to join this forum you must own a computer, a specific-to bourgeois gadget. The bourgeoisie are the strong, the rest are the weak. Strong in a capitalist sense, not strong intellectually speaking.

These advances in medicine and in "conditions of life" are only given to us. Are they given to the aboriginal living on a reserve in northern Saskatchewan? What about the refugee in the middle east? Or the AIDS infested child in Sudan? No.

All of these advances make our lives easier, because we can afford them (or we associate ourselves with those that can...if you live in a country with public health care). Not everyone has these. You need to see that only the bourgeoisie have them. Making our lives easier, and others harder, is what drains the people to become the weak. Once they are the weak and have to deal with these problems that _we_ can easily solve, they are no longer a threat to the stability of our capitalist system.

----------


## skasian

> _Our_ capabilities of living? Remember that in order to join this forum you must own a computer, a specific-to bourgeois gadget. The bourgeoisie are the strong, the rest are the weak. Strong in a capitalist sense, not strong intellectually speaking.
> 
> These advances in medicine and in "conditions of life" are only given to us. Are they given to the aboriginal living on a reserve in northern Saskatchewan? What about the refugee in the middle east? Or the AIDS infested child in Sudan? No.
> 
> All of these advances make our lives easier, because we can afford them (or we associate ourselves with those that can...if you live in a country with public health care). Not everyone has these. You need to see that only the bourgeoisie have them. Making our lives easier, and others harder, is what drains the people to become the weak. Once they are the weak and have to deal with these problems that _we_ can easily solve, they are no longer a threat to the stability of our capitalist system.


I assume that you are directing at me. Yes, the weak cannot utilise science but not only when you are describing the level of wealth but also age and intelligence. A person that is aged 2 and has an IQ of 50 can be also identified as weak as they cannot utilise science. 

Actually you are wrong about how advances of medicine and other science cannot upgrade the conditions of life without being given firsthand. For instance, some antibodies that enables our body to be immune to certain diseases are inherited directly from the mother to the unborn child. Because of many years of development of medicine, it has helped our immune system to be stronger against diseases. The medicine that you may be recalling is a picture of a small white bottle with numerous capsules however because of years of development of medicine that is passed through our ancestor's veins, it has become flesh and blood in our bodies, enabling us to improve our standards of living by increasing the chances of our survival. 

Your last paragraph indicates that the bourgeoisie do receive medicine in benefit of the creation of science to improve the standard living condition of our lives. It is evident that people, regardless of the people who doesnt receive them or not, have their lives improved by medicine/science. This contradicts to the post that you have stated that you do not believe that science improve our capabilities of living. Please note, even though there are people that miss out (but are constantly approached with medicine by "us") WE are infact receiving its benefits therefore it can be concluded that "people"'s capability of life is indeed improved by science.

----------


## NikolaiI

> all i was trying to do in my previous post was question one thing you said: "everything has a source." 
> 
> i can't just shrug this off. close observations tell me that saying something is the "source" will always be a random statement. I think it important to question these little points because like a small hole in a dam, they can lead to tidal waves if left unchecked.


I wish you could explain that more, because I sincerely did not intend it as random at all, or it is not to me. If I consider it, it does not seem random to me at all, rather it seems useful as something to always keep in mind. No thing exists separate from other things. Every object that anyone uses is dependent on at least one, and probably many, many other factors. For instance my clothes, everything I would ever use, not to mention a computer.

It seems absolutely valid to me to consider everything to have a source, and yes, be of the same nature as a river, that is, a flux of events. Since you actually say this yourself, that everything is in flux, I don't know why you disagree with my statement. Another way of thinking about this is like considering every living entity to be like a drop in a waterfall. They were together, as one, in the river above the falls, and separate for a short time, and then together as one afterwords. This is a Buddhist parable, and the time before and after is when we are unmanifest, then we are manifest for a short time, and afterwords we are unmanifest again. But being unmanifest is like being "at one" with everything, or at least it is basically eternal compared to the manifest.

Albert Einstein said this..




> "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."


And there have been many western philosophers which studied eastern and western religion and did work in the field of connecting them. Ken Wilber is one of these.

----------


## billyjack

> I wish you could explain that more, because I sincerely did not intend it as random at all, or it is not to me. If I consider it, it does not seem random to me at all, rather it seems useful as something to always keep in mind. No thing exists separate from other things. Every object that anyone uses is dependent on at least one, and probably many, many other factors. .


huh. i was talking about the decision to say, "this or that is the source of something," as a totally random, or better yet, conventional decision. telling me that all things are interrelated affirms this and disproves your idea of sources. so what are you speakin about? 




> It seems absolutely valid to me to consider everything to have a source, and yes, be of the same nature as a river, that is, a flux of events. Since you actually say this yourself, that everything is in flux, I don't know why you disagree with my statement.
> .




well you said it yourself, the world is in flux and repeats itself like a circle. (you spoke of the circular reptition of existence above somewhere) no point on a circle can be deemed its beginning, source. so again, where's the source.

----------


## NikolaiI

> huh. i was talking about the decision to say, "this or that is the source of something," as a totally random, or better yet, conventional decision. telling me that all things are interrelated affirms this and disproves your idea of sources. so what are you speakin about? 
> 
> well you said it yourself, the world is in flux and repeats itself like a circle. (you spoke of the circular reptition of existence above somewhere) no point on a circle can be deemed its beginning, source. so again, where's the source.


First of all, I don't wish for you to accept anything without thinking. I'm not trying to hammer anything at you, but at the same time I don't think you're understanding me at all.

I probably fail in communicating with you because I don't know where to begin or end on this topic, as really it cannot be exhausted. What does it mean to be in flux? Let's take water as our example, as it illustrates perfectly. We look at water and the same water is recycled over and over, as it has been for billions of years. The water is always being used, running down hill, being evaporated, and going through so many other changes. It is eternally running this very complex course.

Now you disagree with my saying that everything is like this, everything is like this water. But you agree that all is in flux. This is exactly what in flux means - fluid. We observe the water and it is eternally flowing. In fact other things are like this too. The sun and moon may not be eternal, but we can assume the governing forces behind them are. 

Now, the universe as a whole, I would like to point out, is greater than I will ever imagine. So in a way this prohibits me from attemting to understand it with certainty. But simply realizing how vast the universe is also make it very clearly absurd to say something like it cannot have a source.

Going to our example of water - do we agree that it's eternally fluid? It's hard to find myself agreeing with you with anything because you don't wish for my points, which are logically "holes"?.. But anyway, you said we are interdependent. Do you know what this means? One thing it means is that we are the same as the water we were talking about. Not the same exactly - but our natures reflect each other, since we and the water are both inderdependent. That means we are nothing apart from each other, but together we reflect each other and make up a reality between us. Existence is reflected with non-existence.

Except - you cannot get something from nothing. The universe can't come from nothing. It has to come from a source, in which all the forms in the universe already exist. So there is a source of all sources. And I would appreciate it if you'd be able to make some constructive point - or if you are not able to, then simply continue to act like I am somehow missing the obvious... when in fact I am not in the least... or at least tell me why I am wrong.

----------


## blazeofglory

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

This is a great thought. I do not care whether Einstein was an atheist or theist. I am really moved and this spirit is beyond anything. This is the philosophy I totally unreservedly subscribe to. 

This is a path to enlightenment, a road map to understand the self and its relationship with all, both animates and inanimates. This in essence imbibes in us a feeling that rises above all philosophies, syllogisms, sciences and the like. This is the Gita, the Vedas, the Koran, the Tripitika, the Dhmma pada, the Torah, the Bible and all. If one can understand the subtlety and depth of it no things more to be understood. When our feelings, understandings and sense of oneness or togetherness can permeate all layers, peripherals or externals we become enlightened.

Of course this difference has created a gulf or void, and of course this difference has distanced us. This difference has created gulfs, remoteness, geographies, borderlines, economic and social ills, vacuums and the like and needless to say such narrow feelings wall us against truth and incarcerate us.

Of course we must rise above all narrow feelings, and sentiments to take the entire universe as our home. Time and space are sheer illusions. And Einstein has understood this truth and with this realization I liken him to a great Rishi, something of sainthood.

----------


## B-Mental

I wish I were more eloquent...perhaps like Nikolai or BlazeofGlory (two of my favorite philosophers). The inability of one to have faith (acceptance of something that cannot be proven) prevents one from understanding the nature of God. The more one understands compassion for all things, the closer one comes to enlightenment. It is surprising to me that those who are truly enlightened are so few, but then again the journey to enlightenment requires one to release themselves from their ego. This is obviously easier said than done.

----------


## laidbackperson

> I wish I were more eloquent...perhaps like Nikolai or BlazeofGlory (two of my favorite philosophers). The inability of one to have faith (acceptance of something that cannot be proven) prevents one from understanding the nature of God. The more one understands compassion for all things, the closer one comes to enlightenment. It is surprising to me that those who are truly enlightened are so few, but then again the journey to enlightenment requires one to release themselves from their ego. This is obviously easier said than done


I think you have explained quite well.

----------


## Delta40

blazeofglory I have replied to some of your posts without reply. I have a spiritual identity which means that I have a deep seated belief in God. Can you tell me what difference it would make to me if I am not enlightened? That is to say, if I do not seek to self-examine or understand that which I believe throughout my existence? Do you think it is relevant and if it is, in what way would I be disadvantaged? I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.

----------


## skasian

Believing in the existance of God is not the same thing as believing that God is your one and true God, having confidence in Him and having faith that He is your saviour and creator.

----------


## Delta40

That notwithstanding. Even if I have complete faith and confidence in God. This means that I put myself in His hands utterly. Please, you don't need to focus at the belief vs faith level to address this question which is if I don't seek to understand or self-examine that which I believe, is it relevant?

----------


## skasian

Even the thread specifically recalls the question why people may believe in God, there is no barrer that is limiting me to express my opinions in the word believe. I no I am going indepth however I am just giving my input as a Christian and I believe that it causes no harm.

----------


## Delta40

I respect you completely. I don't mean to sound abrupt.

----------


## skasian

Thank you, and please let me add that your comments did not seem abrupt, as it is natural for us to question.

----------


## blazeofglory

In point of fact God is a term that interests most, for man seeks a pattern, a system or wants to be a comfort zone and going out of or beyond the zone he feels unsafe.

As such man seeks God to take refuge in, to feel comfort and live happily.

God attracts most as people want to know something about their existence and the beleif in God only enables him to understand the meaning of this universe and God in it as a creator.

----------


## skasian

Like father to his children, God also attracts his children so they will acknowledge that He is their father, and praise Him as their only Father they love and honour.

----------


## laidbackperson

In college magazine, I once wrote an article  _God Exists_, wherein I wrote about how life slowly spring in earth from a Big bang as per the scientific theory and how I still felt that there is some guiding Power behind all this. 

Over the years, I have pondered over the mystery, and the right and clear answers I seem to get when I started reading books about Avtar Meher Baba. It surprised me that nobody in lit net seems to have heard about Him.

On first instance, it would look utterly stupid when He says that He is Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha amd in this age Avtar Meher Baba. You will feel like stopping even before starting.
I have to listen to comments like, Well, he looks like a thug. I will never believe in Him.  :Biggrin: 
Well, he too dont look to me at all radiating like the other beautiful Gods. 
In the sometimes callous world I often get my own doubts, but when I read and try to think then I feel, if a God were to be there, then He should be like Him. 

I will not tell you to follow Him, but just read what He says what people close to Him tell about Him, try to think and form your own unbiased opinions. The two starting links are as given.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba
www.avatarmeherbaba.org

Another book that really impressed me was  Gaelic Manuscritpts by Betty White. This also look a very good book although I have only run through its pages and it looks much different from other more popular religious books.

http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/Glasto...c/bwgaelx.html

----------


## Zee.

If there indeed is a God ( i believe that our existance is to reach enlightenment, and that we, like everything else in life, are forms of energy that are constantly moving )

then i believe she or he, did no more than create us. 
Why? because we have freewill. We choose to do what we please and the consequence is a result of that exercising of freewill.

----------


## Zee.

If there indeed is a God ( i believe that our existance is to reach enlightenment, and that we, like everything else in life, are forms of energy that are constantly moving )

then i believe she or he, did no more than create us. 
Why? because we have freewill. We choose to do what we please and the consequence is a result of that exercising of freewill.

----------


## skasian

> If there indeed is a God ( i believe that our existance is to reach enlightenment, and that we, like everything else in life, are forms of energy that are constantly moving )
> 
> then i believe she or he, did no more than create us. 
> Why? because we have freewill. We choose to do what we please and the consequence is a result of that exercising of freewill.


May I ask, where is this energy constantly moving towards? Does energy also have a purpose to reach enlightenment? And if you do reach this, what occurs?

Now I want to ask you why God created us in the first place if He does not do anything else. You speak of freewill, but what about destiny, your act of freewill also has a meaning. Everything does.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If there indeed is a God [...]then i believe she or he, did no more than create us. Why? because we have freewill. We choose to do what we please and the consequence is a result of that exercising of freewill.


How does free will negate God's continuing interaction with His creations? That I can choose evil doesn't mean that God is disconnected from me and the entire earth I inhabit. I don't follow the logic here.

----------


## Zee.

Who says that God has any other form of interaction with us?
Sure, there are instances in life where things happen and we'd like to believe it's a connection with God, but we have no proof, perhaps its something different.

Logic?
you're looking for logic in a religious discussion? 

Who says he isn't disconnected from you? if indeed god gave you life, does he have a responsibility to you? we all seem to be talking about God as if he is a person - creating us in his image, etc etc. 

Anyway, Red and Skasian, i am not christian, so my views differ greatly from yours.

----------


## Zee.

> May I ask, where is this energy constantly moving towards? Does energy also have a purpose to reach enlightenment? And if you do reach this, what occurs?
> 
> Now I want to ask you why God created us in the first place if He does not do anything else. You speak of freewill, but what about destiny, your act of freewill also has a meaning. Everything does.


See now you're talking as if you know for a fact. And you're misunderstanding me. 
I'm not saying we don't have our different paths, perhaps yours will lead you to Heaven, and mine to enlightenment. Perhaps we are not all creations of one particular God, and when we die, we reach a level of spirituality we couldn't obtain on earth. But like i said, destiny can still exist, why must god hold our hand for us to fulfill it? Perhaps this is a test, right here right now. Perhaps he gave us free will to obtain our destiny on our own grounds.

Energy never remains still, you said in one of your posts you had studied science at school, if so, you would know this. Energy is never lost, it is recycled in many different forms.
I have many different beliefs, i've pulled from many different ideas. One i have always had is that we are god like creatures. We only use a small percentage of our brain, this has been proven, i belief the rest of it, is at a level that is almost god like - im not too sure what that means, but i think that we have the chance of being closer to a god by finding the divinity in ourselves - i believe that all the answers to such religious questions can be found in the existance of our being.
I'm not going to explain my beliefs here - if you're interested in buddhist views, look them up, but i've had enough of this forum.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Who says that God has any other form of interaction with us?


Who's to say He doesn't? He may be speaking to you on a weekly basis - you just may not recognize it as God; recognizing God's voice requires a relationship with Him - but He doesn't just communicate with those who have chosen Him; we are all His creations, and therefore He is free to communicate with any of us in any way He feels fit.





> Sure, there are instances in life where things happen and we'd like to believe it's a connection with God, but we have no proof, perhaps its something different.


The standard atheist bunker within which to hide: "proof" - as if your entire life is based on things you can empirically verify - you know that is not so. The majority of things human beings accept as true cannot be verified factually.




> Logic?
> you're looking for logic in a religious discussion?


As a matter of fact I am; I assume that's OK with you? A sheerly emotional discussion wouldn't get us very far.




> Who says he isn't disconnected from you? if indeed god gave you life, does he have a responsibility to you? we all seem to be talking about God as if he is a person - creating us in his image, etc etc.


Do artists owe their creations anything? Am I not free to do as I wish with the thing I create? What responsibility does the artist owe His creations?




> Anyway, Red and Skasian, i am not christian, so my views differ greatly from yours.


Well, yeah - I assume that's why we enter into discussions of this nature - to learn, to hear, to express, to understand.

----------


## Zee.

Nor am i an atheist, sometimes, quite often actually - i come off as one.

----------


## NikolaiI

> In college magazine, I once wrote an article  _God Exists_, wherein I wrote about how life slowly spring in earth from a Big bang as per the scientific theory and how I still felt that there is some guiding Power behind all this. 
> 
> Over the years, I have pondered over the mystery, and the right and clear answers I seem to get when I started reading books about Avtar Meher Baba. It surprised me that nobody in lit net seems to have heard about Him.
> 
> On first instance, it would look utterly stupid when He says that He is Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha amd in this age Avtar Meher Baba. You will feel like stopping even before starting.
> I have to listen to comments like, Well, he looks like a thug. I will never believe in Him. 
> Well, he too dont look to me at all radiating like the other beautiful Gods. 
> In the sometimes callous world I often get my own doubts, but when I read and try to think then I feel, if a God were to be there, then He should be like Him. 
> 
> ...


If he is saying he is God, then I would also say he's a rascal. God is not affected by illusion, and God is also Supreme and omniscient. If someone says they are God, just ask them to tell you what you had for breakfast last Tuesday. God would know but any rascal saying "I am God" is only a jiva, a living entity. To say one is God is only cheating them.

----------


## blp

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


Now there's a holiday I can get on board with. But the pole. Don't forget the pole!

----------


## skasian

> See now you're talking as if you know for a fact. And you're misunderstanding me. 
> I'm not saying we don't have our different paths, perhaps yours will lead you to Heaven, and mine to enlightenment. Perhaps we are not all creations of one particular God, and when we die, we reach a level of spirituality we couldn't obtain on earth. But like i said, destiny can still exist, why must god hold our hand for us to fulfill it? Perhaps this is a test, right here right now. Perhaps he gave us free will to obtain our destiny on our own grounds.
> 
> Energy never remains still, you said in one of your posts you had studied science at school, if so, you would know this. Energy is never lost, it is recycled in many different forms.
> I have many different beliefs, i've pulled from many different ideas. One i have always had is that we are god like creatures. We only use a small percentage of our brain, this has been proven, i belief the rest of it, is at a level that is almost god like - im not too sure what that means, but i think that we have the chance of being closer to a god by finding the divinity in ourselves - i believe that all the answers to such religious questions can be found in the existance of our being.
> I'm not going to explain my beliefs here - if you're interested in buddhist views, look them up, but i've had enough of this forum.


You never answered my question and I know that energy cannot be distroyed or created. My question is where is this energy directed towards. But since maybe you cannot answer, I will ask some one else. 

And please, you are contradicting your self yet again. Once you said you dont believe in a god where most Buddhist do not believe in a higher spirit. But now you are explaining that you believe our brains are almost god like and it gives us the chance to be closer to god? Please set yourself in one belief, you either believe in god or you do not.

----------


## skasian

> Well, yeah - I assume that's why we enter into discussions of this nature - to learn, to hear, to express, to understand.


I completely agree, limajean I dont know why you are remarking that I have all the facts, I am simply expressing my own belief and views, if you have your own sets, then I doubt there would be any reason to be so disagreeable as you can stick to your own. The bottom line is we want to get to know other peoples religion and philosophy that will increase our knowledge about the diversity of the people living in the world today.

----------


## Zee.

> You never answered my question and I know that energy cannot be distroyed or created. My question is where is this energy directed towards. But since maybe you cannot answer, I will ask some one else. 
> 
> And please, you are contradicting your self yet again. Once you said you dont believe in a god where most Buddhist do not believe in a higher spirit. But now you are explaining that you believe our brains are almost god like and it gives us the chance to be closer to god? Please set yourself in one belief, you either believe in god or you do not.



i think youre misunderstanding me.
My beliefs - i take from certain aspects of life. God like was a term i used for a lack of a better one.

----------


## Zee.

I mean to say, that i think we dont reach our full potential in this lifetime - and perhaps spend this lifetime reaching it, im not sure.

----------


## skasian

> I mean to say, that i think we dont reach our full potential in this lifetime - and perhaps spend this lifetime reaching it, im not sure.


Yes, you are confusing me, especially when as you regard God as not a being but as "a lack of a better one." I beg your pardon but I dont understand your definition of God.

"I mean to say, that i think we dont reach our full potential in this lifetime - and perhaps spend this lifetime reaching it, im not sure"

What are you trying to discuss here? How are you linking your ideas together? If you dont believe in a God, then could you possibly please remove the term altogether as what you are describing is a bit incoherent.
Thanks.

----------


## blazeofglory

In point of fact when we have no answers of many questions we turn to God.

----------


## JBI

> In point of fact when we have no answers of many questions we turn to God.


Who's we? I merely float in aporia. I turn, I think, to poetry, notably Leopardi, not to god.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Who's we? I merely float in aporia. I turn, I think, to poetry, notably Leopardi, not to god.


Of course different people turn to different sources for answers.

----------


## mellsom

Hi.

You all make probably good points and for me there isn't either something wrong with people who believe in a god or who know science. In the following I want to share briefly my attitude towards religion.

I am baptized and confirmed, I was altar server and my father is quite religious.
Growing up I started thinking why we believe in a God. It may seem provoking but to me, man makes a God up as an excuse for things happening around us we cannot explain yet. 
What is interesting, is that the more science reveals, the less is a God, whom we can substitute for the question marks in our minds, necessary. 
Nevertheless I do not oppose spirituality at all and affirm the strengthening ideals Christianity for instance teaches us. 
Still, I dislike, how religion is used to stop process and progress of our understanding of nature. As far as I know, is creationism taught instead of the theory of evolution in many states of America. 
There is a big difference between faith and knowledge. All theories, in order to be scientific, must be proven by experiments (or mathematics), anything else is philosophy. Thus we know that all discovered theories hold true and among us, isn't the excitement of science way more interesting than simply leaving it all to a "God" that is a variable for future discoveries? 
Science and spirituality, and therefore religion, will always stay essential for humans to heed but the latter shall never get the upper hand over the other.

Thank you,

mellsom

----------


## Zee.

Couldn't have said it better mellsom

----------


## Zee.

> Yes, you are confusing me, especially when as you regard God as not a being but as "a lack of a better one." I beg your pardon but I dont understand your definition of God.
> 
> "I mean to say, that i think we dont reach our full potential in this lifetime - and perhaps spend this lifetime reaching it, im not sure"
> 
> What are you trying to discuss here? How are you linking your ideas together? If you dont believe in a God, then could you possibly please remove the term altogether as what you are describing is a bit incoherent.
> Thanks.


No Skasian, i cant remove it altogether. Sometimes i feel like i should refrain from using the term God as i don't want you to think i'm talking about the God from your faith or making references to christianity. I dub a "higher power" "God" because i find no other name for it.

And yes, i do believe there is some kind of higher power - specifically a form of energy. But when i use/used the term "god like" i only used it to describe something greater than us, thus applying it to my belief that we don't reach that point in this life time, but it is my belief that we can achieve a higher state of mind that is GOD like.

Also God like is a term. I'm not trying to make it sound like we can all be rulers of the universe.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Hi.
> 
> You all make probably good points and for me there isn't either something wrong with people who believe in a god or who know science. In the following I want to share briefly my attitude towards religion.
> 
> I am baptized and confirmed, I was altar server and my father is quite religious.
> Growing up I started thinking why we believe in a God. It may seem provoking but to me, man makes a God up as an excuse for things happening around us we cannot explain yet. 
> What is interesting, is that the more science reveals, the less is a God, whom we can substitute for the question marks in our minds, necessary. 
> Nevertheless I do not oppose spirituality at all and affirm the strengthening ideals Christianity for instance teaches us. 
> Still, I dislike, how religion is used to stop process and progress of our understanding of nature. As far as I know, is creationism taught instead of the theory of evolution in many states of America. 
> ...


Unless I am wrong, creationism isn't taught in any states of America. Unless you mean private or religious schools, in those it may be. But in any public school it should not be.




> No Skasian, i cant remove it altogether. Sometimes i feel like i should refrain from using the term God as i don't want you to think i'm talking about the God from your faith or making references to christianity. I dub a "higher power" "God" because i find no other name for it.
> 
> And yes, i do believe there is some kind of higher power - specifically a form of energy. But when i use/used the term "god like" i only used it to describe something greater than us, thus applying it to my belief that we don't reach that point in this life time, but it is my belief that we can achieve a higher state of mind that is GOD like.
> 
> Also God like is a term. I'm not trying to make it sound like we can all be rulers of the universe.


I think if God exists, then no human term such as atheist or Christian matters. If God exists then all is in the will of God. Nothing, ultimately, would experience eternal suffering, or anything like that. We suffer for our own actions long before we have the right to point the finger at anyone else, let alone God, for our sufferings.

But also the existence of God indiciates that we should seek God out. If something is beautiful, seemingly truthful, and also satisfies your soul at the same time, can it be bad? No, we are interested in whatever is beautiful and truthful to us. God is the same as truth, and within God are the forms of all else. So whatever is beautiful or truthful which we see always comes from God.

----------


## skasian

> No Skasian, i cant remove it altogether. Sometimes i feel like i should refrain from using the term God as i don't want you to think i'm talking about the God from your faith or making references to christianity. I dub a "higher power" "God" because i find no other name for it.
> 
> And yes, i do believe there is some kind of higher power - specifically a form of energy. But when i use/used the term "god like" i only used it to describe something greater than us, thus applying it to my belief that we don't reach that point in this life time, but it is my belief that we can achieve a higher state of mind that is GOD like.
> 
> Also God like is a term. I'm not trying to make it sound like we can all be rulers of the universe.


Believing in a higher power especially in a form of energy can be defined as God, as God made energy and he can communicate with us by energy. God doesnt necessarily mean a being that looks like an oversized human with long white beard. He is anything pure, all righteous and clean.

----------


## Zee.

Yes Skasian I know that, of course I know that - i just want to make sure that you know when i am talking of God, i'm not talking about the Father of jesus - though i'm not saying that's not who God may be.

I'm not silly, of course i know its not a man with a long white beard..

----------


## kandaurov

It's the 9th of January and quite sunny and cool in London.

----------


## skasian

> Yes Skasian I know that, of course I know that - i just want to make sure that you know when i am talking of God, i'm not talking about the Father of jesus - though i'm not saying that's not who God may be.
> 
> I'm not silly, of course i know its not a man with a long white beard..


I do know you wouldnt picture God like this, I was just giving an example that God can be in form of anything as you said higher energy.

----------


## skasian

> It's the 9th of January and quite sunny and cool in London.


I am happy for you. It's 10th of January and far too scorching and dry in New Zealand.

----------


## kandaurov

You did read the reason for editing, right? Well what the hey, I'll just ask the question anyway: what do you mean when you say God is all that is 'clean'? And do you find the fact that God chose a people over all others righteous?

(Right, you have summer in New Zealand now, eh? Lucky!)

----------


## skasian

> Skasian, there's something in your definition of God which I don't understand very well, and would like to have it explained. Because I can understand people when people believe in God as a creative energy which didn't exactly say 'There be Oceans! There be trees!', but somehow is life, and is the matrix of all living things. But when you say God is 'all righteous and clean', it seems you are attaching anthropomorphic attributes to him. What do you mean by 'clean'? Isn't that a prejudice of civilisation, that things that are 'clean' are 'good'?
> 
> Now here come some sadly predictable questions, but I'm interested in your thoughts on the subject. If he's 'all righteous', how come he allows evil to exist? Is it because in order to be good there must be evil? If so, wouldn't it be better were there no good nor evil so that people didn't have to die in genocides? And how do you conciliate 'all righteous' with the Old Testament?
> 
> If this is somehow the wrong thread to post these questions in, please show me the way.


Actually I have no idea if there is a specific thread that discusses these kind of questions, but there are on going discussions between the religious and atheists and in betweens in this thread and other threads, so I dont think it matters. 

As you know I am a Christian, I will respond to your enquires with my thoughts as a Christian. First, in the Bible, first few chapters of Genesis indicates God did say 'There be Oceans! There be trees!'

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the *gathered waters he called "seas."* And God saw that it was good. 

11 Then God said, *"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."* And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day. 

If you read the first page of the bible you would know that God definitely created trees and oceans :Smile: 

When I said God was clean and good, I was talking about clear of impurities, and evil. In other words, SOURCE of good and light. For example, in a light bulb, it cannot emit darkness, only pure light.

Now here comes my thoughts as I am so insignificant to explain the nature and intention of God, as we mankind cant ever understand God. 
I will take reference that in Garden of Eden, there was evil, as one of the Trees in the middle was Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Evil was obviously existed before The Fall of Man. I am not God, so I do not know why evil existed. My thought, evil existed in Earth to serve God. As we all know good overpowers evil, therefore evil can serve good. I think that earth is like a test for all mankind, the weighing of the righteous and good decisions of their freewill, ie accepting and believing in Jesus. Evil serves God by tempting individuals and testing if these people will fall for them or resist to look upwards to God. I think God gives us a choice to choose good or evil by giving us freewill, and hopes for everyone of His creation to choose good, and rightfully take the title of God's Children. 
People dying from genocides: God cannot be held responsible. It was human's choice and freewill that lead to these conflicts, not God, so it cant wrong the fact that God is truely all righteous.

----------


## skasian

> You did read the reason for editing, right? Well what the hey, I'll just ask the question anyway: what do you mean when you say God is all that is 'clean'? And do you find the fact that God chose a people over all others righteous?
> 
> (Right, you have summer in New Zealand now, eh? Lucky!)


Yep I did read the foot notes, I just wanted to express the diversity of the weather in different regions of the world :Smile: 

Clean, by clear from impurities, simply pure and all truth. I should consider my choice of adjectives in the future as it is causing a bit of a confusion.

Choosing some people over others. The reason why it seems that He "chooses" people I think is because He knows the future. A person may have freewill and free choice of all the decision of His life however as God knows every future move of every man, He will know who responds to His call, therefore to Him, these people who respond to Him in the future are "chosen" ones. Choosing may seem that He picks out by hand, but I think its just that He already knows who will follow Him.

(Yep! Summer all right! :Biggrin:  pity where I live I cant see snow in winter thou)

----------


## kandaurov

Right, just wanted to know what a Christian though about these matters. Thanks!

(been often told NZ is amazing, will visit it whenever I can. Must be odd to have summer at Christmas though!)

----------


## skasian

> Right, just wanted to know what a Christian though about these matters. Thanks!
> 
> (been often told NZ is amazing, will visit it whenever I can. Must be odd to have summer at Christmas though!)


Thats alright! Happy to share my views :Smile: 
(Oh yes, please visit, you can have a tour of the Lord of The Rings set in Wellington, if you are fan that is.. Yeah, sun sand surf and barbie in Christmas all good :Smile:  Our Christmas cards have pot bellied half naked santa surfing with sunglasses on, not the traditional covered up sleighing big red santa.. Seems we are getting a bit off topic, maybe I should link with Christmas and Christ.. 



I believe in God because Jesus Christ was born in a food bowl for cows and horses on Christmas day, born as Son of God, all pure, perfect. He was born to teach us with wisdom, correcting the old laws for our own convenience, born as a healer to cure the sick and give hope to the one suffering from darkness. He was born to be spat on, mocked and sworn on, born to suffer and die with nails being hammered in his hands and feet, to be slung by an arrow, crowned nailed thorns and be laughed at while he cried for us mankind in a cross. 
Jesus Christ was born on Christmas day to be sent to earth to sacrifice Himself and be punished by us when He did nothing wrong. But we forget that on Christmas day, Christ was born to suffer for us, for our sins and for giving us the opportunity to live with God forever. Yet on Christmas day we rather focus on spending money for self indulgence and self satisfaction. On Christmas day, we forget that Christ sacrificed Himself simply because He loved us. Lest we forget His love. Lest we forget to love Him back and thank Him for being born on Christmas day. 
I believe in God because He rose from death in three days, giving us a mission to spread the Word about God, and His works and words while in earth. I believe in God because He gives us hope and light in the darkest times in our world. I believe in God because He gave us meaning in the world, giving us the choice to thank Him for His time in earth, and spread the Word about Him. I believe in God because He is with us all the time. I believe in God because as He had done His painful work in earth, I want to repay His love for us by following His Words, and serving Him and His people.

----------


## Cat_Brenners

So a big bang made this wonderful earth? Formed all those lovely planets and the skies and lined them up just so? Made them lovely? I don't think so. That was planned and done by God.
Cat

----------


## billyjack

> So a big bang made this wonderful earth? Formed all those lovely planets and the skies and lined them up just so? Made them lovely? I don't think so. That was planned and done by God.
> Cat


feel free to believe irrational notions. but leave em at that. no need to defend your creationist view with an appeal to beauty argument

----------


## Ohmyscience

I think I jumped in too late here but to answer the original question isn't more reasonable to say you believe in God due to an environment that promotes the idea? Anyone can be indoctrinated into any religion. Cultures have a wide variety of how they view God. Since we live in the west I guess its more likely the conception of God is along the lines of the Abrahamic religions.
What makes this conception more superior? Doesn't the fact that religions and conceptions of god(s) are not uniform make you ponder at least a little on whether you could be incorrect?

----------


## Cat_Brenners

Sounds like I might have hit a nerve. lol. I believe in what I know in my heart to be true. No one will convince me that it's irrational notions. Beauty and the formation of our earth and universe is as much an argument as anything I have heard here. 
Hugs, Cat

----------


## skasian

Cat, good on you to link God with beauty. I believe that God is beauty because as He is immaculate, clear from any flaws, He is beautiful. The universe and everything in it is beautiful and that is becuase God has created them. Everything in the world are created by purpose with His intricate care and love.

Try and study the most insignificant feature you can find in nature, and there is no doubt that you will appreciate its complex beauty. Reason is that they are footprints of God, and every footprints made by God are inexplicably beautiful.

----------


## NikolaiI

I agree with you whole-heartedly Cat and skasian. I also believe that all comes from the divine. Within everyone is that divine. This world only looks to be material because we cannot see beyond that. But actually everything is beautiful, everything is spiritual - not because it is all divine but because it all belongs to the divine. In fact you can see that the divine is within everything only if you really focus on it, even as you walk down the street or sidewalk. Life is eternal, and as William Blake said, if the doors of perception were cleansed, then we would see all as it is, infinite. Saints and rishis all supported this, they said that all is a play of the infinite, or in other words divine. I follow Hinduism more than anything else, but Christ taught the same thing, that there is life within you, the Kingdom of God... it is difficult to explain but it is the destination of the self.

----------


## JacobF

> Cat, good on you to link God with beauty. I believe that God is beauty because as He is immaculate, clear from any flaws, He is beautiful. The universe and everything in it is beautiful and that is becuase God has created them. Everything in the world are created by purpose with His intricate care and love.
> 
> Try and study the most insignificant feature you can find in nature, and there is no doubt that you will appreciate its complex beauty. Reason is that they are footprints of God, and every footprints made by God are inexplicably beautiful.


Well, nature has its flaws. Humanity itself is a flawed species -- while other animals obtain satisfaction just by eating, sleeping and breeding, our intellect gives us the inspiration to achieve much more. It's why we have art, literature, science, and civilization in general. While that all sounds like a good thing, it just makes us self-serving wastes of space in the context of the natural world. We contribute basically nothing to it. We try and give back to nature by planting trees and constructing animal shelters, but that's really just an act of cleaning up our huge mess. Humans are just a scab on Earth's backside. I don't see any divinity in that. 

Humanity tends to personify what they are not aware of or what they fear. I say that because you mentioned the "footprints" of God on everything he created. If a god or gods did in fact exist, we could not possibly fathom their existence. We can try to by creating Bibles and religions, and painting pictures of saints and prophets, but in the end it really wouldn't make a difference. 

I kind of stumbled into this thread at a late time so if I am intruding on some other discussion then ignore me. But, still, I don't see how anyone can believe anything based on faith, even if it's a question that science hasn't completely answered yet.

----------


## Dr. Hill

Considering that it wouldn't matter what this earth looked like, that as humans, living in the environment our entire lives, we would find beauty in whatever it was, I doubt the earth is beautiful. The earth is beautiful to us, and its inhabitants, because they've lived on it for billions of years.

----------


## billyjack

> I believe in what I know in my heart to be true.


sure but its the arrogance of thinking one knows (through belief--which is blasphemy of the word "know") the random, weird, contradictory whims of this dude named god, then making threats about hell when the only proofs lie in arrogance and ignorance, and finally admitting that you can't wait to throw the end of the world party with jesus---both of you toasting all the sinners into non-existence. 
again, i've said it before on these forums. belief needs to be put on trial. 




> No one will convince me that it's irrational notions.


this is because faith is constantly given more value/virtue than open mindedness. 




> Beauty and the formation of our earth and universe is as much an argument as anything I have heard here. 
> Hugs, Cat


 stone age homo sapiens also liked to attribute things they didnt understand, like thunder and lightning for an example, to a god. seems like, as a species, we cant seem to shake this archaic tendency. this doesnt prove the existence of god. it just proves that old habits are hard to break and that we like to name the unknown. makes us feel like we know it

----------


## Cat_Brenners

I said on another board that I keep getting quoated but misinterpreted. I pray for everyone and hope no one burns in hell. I think sometimes people finally have to say " Let's agree to disagree and I will pray for you and love you anyways". God bless.
Hugs, Cat

----------


## Zee.

Er, I deleted this post because it was irrelevant.

----------


## Cat_Brenners

By that I mean I hope everyone makes their peace with God but I know it won't happen. Just wish it could be so.
Hugs, Cat

----------


## skasian

> Well, nature has its flaws. Humanity itself is a flawed species -- while other animals obtain satisfaction just by eating, sleeping and breeding, our intellect gives us the inspiration to achieve much more. It's why we have art, literature, science, and civilization in general. While that all sounds like a good thing, it just makes us self-serving wastes of space in the context of the natural world. We contribute basically nothing to it. We try and give back to nature by planting trees and constructing animal shelters, but that's really just an act of cleaning up our huge mess. Humans are just a scab on Earth's backside. I don't see any divinity in that. 
> 
> Humanity tends to personify what they are not aware of or what they fear. I say that because you mentioned the "footprints" of God on everything he created. If a god or gods did in fact exist, we could not possibly fathom their existence. We can try to by creating Bibles and religions, and painting pictures of saints and prophets, but in the end it really wouldn't make a difference. 
> 
> I kind of stumbled into this thread at a late time so if I am intruding on some other discussion then ignore me. But, still, I don't see how anyone can believe anything based on faith, even if it's a question that science hasn't completely answered yet.


So it seems you are a fan of science - abit of a too much believer in science? I ask you, can science touch the spiritual level? I see you are relying on science to answer your interrogations about faith and belief however I am sorry to point out, it just never will.

There are differences between the physical world we live here and now and the eternal worlds in afterlife. As you, an atheist do not accept God in your life, you admitted "We contribute basically nothing to it." it being the world. This is natural, since you have no sense of spiritual motivation dedicated to a living God. The religious however is the opposite; we have a fixed motivation in our lives in earth and life in heaven. We do not think that we ourselves contribute nothing to the world. That my friend, is the difference between you and I, even though we may be compromised and surrounded by the same matter of the world.

----------


## skasian

> sure but its the arrogance of thinking one knows (through belief--which is blasphemy of the word "know") the random, weird, contradictory whims of this dude named god, then making threats about hell when the only proofs lie in arrogance and ignorance, and finally admitting that you can't wait to throw the end of the world party with jesus---both of you toasting all the sinners into non-existence. 
> again, i've said it before on these forums. belief needs to be put on trial. 
> 
> 
> 
> this is because faith is constantly given more value/virtue than open mindedness. 
> 
> 
> 
> stone age homo sapiens also liked to attribute things they didnt understand, like thunder and lightning for an example, to a god. seems like, as a species, we cant seem to shake this archaic tendency. this doesnt prove the existence of god. it just proves that old habits are hard to break and that we like to name the unknown. makes us feel like we know it


Belief needs to be put on trial? For what offense? What did belief ever do to upset you? Belief is something personal; I have a sense of belief, you have a sense of belief in something completely different. We are all human, unique and no two are the same. Each individuals holds on to a belief that does not require the other to hold the same. What does it matter for you when you dont have to believe in someone elses belief? If someone has a completely contrasting belief than yours, then dont rebuke and disagree it too seriously - everyone in the world has a right to have a belief and no one should dare stop one from having that belief.

----------


## JacobF

> So it seems you are a fan of science - abit of a too much believer in science? I ask you, can science touch the spiritual level? I see you are relying on science to answer your interrogations about faith and belief however I am sorry to point out, it just never will.


Well, you can't "believe" in science, because science is not a belief. It is a procedure of collecting evidence, researching, investigating and observing. Plus, science does give us spirituality. You feel happy when you think of religion, and you feel things you can't explain, am I correct? That's your brain giving you those feelings. There's no rationality in faith. Logic and rationality is what places humans on top of the food chain, and when we build our lives around faith we discredit those traits. Of course all humans have a sense of wonder, and they question whether a god exists or not. But why should we subscribe so heavily to the belief in a god based on pure faith? You probably don't believe in Norse gods such as Odin and Thor. I don't think you believe in scientology either -- yet there's about as much truth to scientology being correct then there is Christianity (or any monotheistic religion for that matter). So who says the Judeo-Christian god is the right one? Irrational conclusions, i.e. faith. 




> There are differences between the physical world we live here and now and the eternal worlds in afterlife. As you, an atheist do not accept God in your life, you admitted "We contribute basically nothing to it." it being the world. This is natural, since you have no sense of spiritual motivation dedicated to a living God. The religious however is the opposite; we have a fixed motivation in our lives in earth and life in heaven. We do not think that we ourselves contribute nothing to the world. That my friend, is the difference between you and I, even though we may be compromised and surrounded by the same matter of the world.


And by the world, I meant the natural world, because you kept harping on how everything in nature is somehow divine. If you look in the context of OUR world, the one we created, then yes, we have contributed great things. We have a civilized system of government, currency, language, architecture, et cetera. But that means nothing when nature is involved. We are not even a dot on the map in regards to the universe. I don't see how you can argue that. Our intellect gives us a superiority complex and is easily explainable with science. 

But let me make my stance clear -- I understand people who believe in god because I have wondered that so many times myself. Although I'm an atheist I don't trot around pretending like that's the absolute truth because we can never know. However, I don't see how someone can believe so heavily in the idea of a god existing. Nothing makes the bible more important than the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or even Norse mythology, and vice versa for all those.

----------


## atiguhya padma

JacobF,

I admire and agree with most of what you say. But one line I find rather bemusing. You say that "Although I'm an atheist I don't trot around pretending like that's the absolute truth because we can never know". Does that statement not make you an agnostic rather than an atheist? 

I call myself an atheist, because, for me, neither knowledge or truth have to be absolute. If they did, we would all have to call ourselves solipsists. But just as the solipsist goes too far with his or her quest for certainty, so does the aspiring agnostic. We CAN say we know there is no god with as much certainty as we can say we know anything else, that we know the sun will rise tomorrow. In fact, our observations and experiments show that the existence of god is as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow: ie there is no evidence to suggest either to be the case, and all our observations suggest the contrary.

----------


## dzebra

> We CAN say we know there is no god with as much certainty as we can say we know anything else, that we know the sun will rise tomorrow. In fact, our observations and experiments show that the existence of god is as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow: ie there is no evidence to suggest either to be the case, and all our observations suggest the contrary.


What sort of experiments and observations suggest that there is no God? I can understand how someone could say there is _no evidence that must necessarily be attributed to the existence of God_, but I don't know what tests have been run that show that _God probably does not exist._

----------


## JacobF

> JacobF,
> 
> I admire and agree with most of what you say. But one line I find rather bemusing. You say that "Although I'm an atheist I don't trot around pretending like that's the absolute truth because we can never know". Does that statement not make you an agnostic rather than an atheist? 
> 
> I call myself an atheist, because, for me, neither knowledge or truth have to be absolute. If they did, we would all have to call ourselves solipsists. But just as the solipsist goes too far with his or her quest for certainty, so does the aspiring agnostic. We CAN say we know there is no god with as much certainty as we can say we know anything else, that we know the sun will rise tomorrow. In fact, our observations and experiments show that the existence of god is as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow: ie there is no evidence to suggest either to be the case, and all our observations suggest the contrary.


I call myself an atheist because that's my subjective belief. I really don't think there is a god or gods. What I said, that we can never know if there is a god, was more against the notion that there _absolutely_ is no god, because how can we ever know that? I'm simply inclined to believe there is no god because there has never been any evidence or inklings toward one existing. It is, to me, the most rational and truthful stance. I suppose that makes me a weak atheist, but so be it.

----------


## Ohmyscience

As an atheist I just want to point out that were not anti-theists. There is a difference. I agree with the atheists here and what our opinion is, hopefully not being too presumptious here, while we do not believe in the spiritual world our only objection is when scripture or dogma makes assertions about the physical universe that are incorrect. Even if they were correct an appeal to dogma would halt progress. Atheists believe in the scientific method not scientific theories that exist today. We only use the ones we have currently because they are the best. We're expecting better.

As for the spiritual I think most of us here nailed it. I think most of us have some wonder and appreciation for the universe only because we are conscious observers. Like other posters have said its only beautiful to us. 

There might exists a god or gods beyond the universe but after all the millenia of billions of people begging for "His" appearance "He" is at best sadistic.

----------


## NikolaiI

Everything we do and everything we hear -- everyone we are around, all this has effect on us. I am going to leave these forums for a little while at least, because I am not helping anyone I think, and I am not being helped myself because I think I care too much about all you people. When I am trying to tell people about the divine, I am not trying to get people to be irrational. The divine is not irrational. But I am not trying to convince you of this, I am merely trying to give you an alternate option, an alternate route, to atheism. Cat and skasian have said things well. Christ said he was teaching a well-spring which was inside us, and which did not ever end. I have partly realized this is love of God, dormant within us. You cannot have this randomly or for no reason, or if you just wish to demand it. Everything in our life is made up of our own intentions, of what we hear, what we say, what we do, eat, breathe, what we read, etc; it's a vast conglomorations of intention and suggestion and will. Godhead is not irrational, actually Godhead is supreme and infinite. This may seem foreign -- especially in our society which revolves around the desire for sex enjoyment. But actually we are souls, we are spirit, we are not just matter. We can't derive happiness from squeezing it out of matter - it doesn't work. And so we should seek for God, seek out the soul - Harrison said this often. And this is what I was trying to discuss. I was trying to discuss the divine. But it does not work if people do not come with any kind of open mind. If they wish to start a war on belief -- on faith. This is actually something like nihilism. Anyway I just wished to say that I wish you all peace -- and God is not saddistic He is the source of love, beauty, truth, etc. You do not see it but if you search for it you will find it. This is part of the infinte source from which you are sprung. It is your right. It is much better than living for material life. But while it is not offensive to me for someone to say they are atheist -- trust me, it is not -- it is offensive for believers -- devotees -- to be insulted, to be called delusional, and this has happened. 

Actually there are traditions from all around the world which go very far back -- philosophical traditions, religious traditions... I say tradition but i don't mean dogma, because these traditions are made up of the lives and contributions of so many people. There is not a place you can go on this earth where you will not find love and beauty.

Um, so yeah, peace and good health. Bye.

----------


## JacobF

> Everything we do and everything we hear -- everyone we are around, all this has effect on us. I am going to leave these forums for a little while at least, because I am not helping anyone I think, and I am not being helped myself because I think I care too much about all you people. When I am trying to tell people about the divine, I am not trying to get people to be irrational. The divine is not irrational. But I am not trying to convince you of this, I am merely trying to give you an alternate option, an alternate route, to atheism. Cat and skasian have said things well. Christ said he was teaching a well-spring which was inside us, and which did not ever end. I have partly realized this is love of God, dormant within us. You cannot have this randomly or for no reason, or if you just wish to demand it. Everything in our life is made up of our own intentions, of what we hear, what we say, what we do, eat, breathe, what we read, etc; it's a vast conglomorations of intention and suggestion and will. Godhead is not irrational, actually Godhead is supreme and infinite. This may seem foreign -- especially in our society which revolves around the desire for sex enjoyment. But actually we are souls, we are spirit, we are not just matter. We can't derive happiness from squeezing it out of matter - it doesn't work. And so we should seek for God, seek out the soul - Harrison said this often. And this is what I was trying to discuss. I was trying to discuss the divine. But it does not work if people do not come with any kind of open mind. If they wish to start a war on belief -- on faith. This is actually something like nihilism. Anyway I just wished to say that I wish you all peace -- and God is not saddistic He is the source of love, beauty, truth, etc. You do not see it but if you search for it you will find it. This is part of the infinte source from which you are sprung. It is your right. It is much better than living for material life. But while it is not offensive to me for someone to say they are atheist -- trust me, it is not -- it is offensive for believers -- devotees -- to be insulted, to be called delusional, and this has happened. 
> 
> Actually there are traditions from all around the world which go very far back -- philosophical traditions, religious traditions... I say tradition but i don't mean dogma, because these traditions are made up of the lives and contributions of so many people. There is not a place you can go on this earth where you will not find love and beauty.
> 
> Um, so yeah, peace and good health. Bye.


Well, I tried to be as respectful as I could. And to be honest, I thought I approached this thread with a pretty open mind. I simply posed general questions to believers in the thread (I think I asked skasian about the Old Testament, I'll have to look back and see) and it continued from there. 




> But while it is not offensive to me for someone to say they are atheist -- trust me, it is not -- it is offensive for believers -- devotees -- to be insulted, to be called delusional, and this has happened.


Once again, I see no inklings of insult or animosity from any atheist or believer in this thread. Compared to other religious threads I have seen on other forums, this one is pretty civil.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Well, I tried to be as respectful as I could. And to be honest, I thought I approached this thread with a pretty open mind. I simply posed general questions to believers in the thread (I think I asked skasian about the Old Testament, I'll have to look back and see) and it continued from there. 
> 
> Once again, I see no inklings of insult or animosity from any atheist or believer in this thread. Compared to other religious threads I have seen on other forums, this one is pretty civil.


I apologize sincerely if you thought I meant this at all about you, I didn't. And looking back a couple of pages I see you are right about this thread. So perhaps it is just a delayed reaction to people being called "delusional." In this case I wrote it on the wrong thread... I apologize and withdraw what I said. I guess in that light it isn't helpful. But if anyone calls anyone delusional, I am gone.

----------


## 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.

----------


## skasian

> Well, you can't "believe" in science, because science is not a belief. It is a procedure of collecting evidence, researching, investigating and observing. Plus, science does give us spirituality. You feel happy when you think of religion, and you feel things you can't explain, am I correct? That's your brain giving you those feelings. There's no rationality in faith. Logic and rationality is what places humans on top of the food chain, and when we build our lives around faith we discredit those traits. Of course all humans have a sense of wonder, and they question whether a god exists or not. But why should we subscribe so heavily to the belief in a god based on pure faith? You probably don't believe in Norse gods such as Odin and Thor. I don't think you believe in scientology either -- yet there's about as much truth to scientology being correct then there is Christianity (or any monotheistic religion for that matter). So who says the Judeo-Christian god is the right one? Irrational conclusions, i.e. faith. 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the world, I meant the natural world, because you kept harping on how everything in nature is somehow divine. If you look in the context of OUR world, the one we created, then yes, we have contributed great things. We have a civilized system of government, currency, language, architecture, et cetera. But that means nothing when nature is involved. We are not even a dot on the map in regards to the universe. I don't see how you can argue that. Our intellect gives us a superiority complex and is easily explainable with science. 
> 
> But let me make my stance clear -- I understand people who believe in god because I have wondered that so many times myself. Although I'm an atheist I don't trot around pretending like that's the absolute truth because we can never know. However, I don't see how someone can believe so heavily in the idea of a god existing. Nothing makes the bible more important than the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or even Norse mythology, and vice versa for all those.


There are people that believe in science, especially in evolution. They BELIEVE that they come from a long line of cave men and apes etc.

Science does not touch the spirit. Science cannot form an equation of the spirit because it cannot explain what it is. Religion making us happy? Being happy is just a response from a stimuli, which in this case is God. Other than this basic idea, science doesnt explain religion or spirit all together.

Try and define faith. Easy right? But try to understand faith and try for yourself to have faith in something. Not easy. You may have hard time trying to have faith that you cant see, but when you open your heart and be WILLING to accept a God, then faith forms.

Everything in nature that is not human made, ie organic is divine and beautiful in everyway,and yes we are a dot in the universe, we have a since of direction and space, therefore as we may look very insignificant in the universe, we are all important in the universe regardless of size.

----------


## Ohmyscience

The theory of evolution comes out often in these debates and I think its being unfairly judged. Does it have flaws? Yes. However until science has a better theory on the development of life on this planet its the best answer based on empirical evidence we have. 

If this theory were on trial today and you were the jury consider this: If God created all the organisms just as they were would you expect all the animals to remain the same as they were or change over time? Evidence such as new strains and mutations in genes suggests that every form of life is evolving. More evidence includes genetic make up mammals close to the human and a large extent of the genes match. At the forefront of modern medicine the theory of evolution is being applied to every recess of research from stem cells to mapping the DNA of life forms and recognizing mutations in genes which can cause diseases. And its working.

So in light of this evidence one can suppose two possible answers. That evolution occured previously and will continue to do so, or evolution occured after God created all life. To say evolution doesn't not occur is blatantly incorrect. If you wish to believe theory B thats okay however I believe it is more reasonable to assume the first considering if you extrapolate this theory back to the beginning you would have small handful of life forms evolving to more varieties.

This isn't an attact on faith however an appeal for the "God did it theory" is an appeal to ignorance because it is not a scientific theory, does not improve modern medicine and halts the well being of those who will one day need it.

You can have faith in whatever you want. Everyone is entitled to that. However science improves lives physically and of course you need to be physically well before you can appreciate anything right?

----------


## JacobF

> There are people that believe in science, especially in evolution. They BELIEVE that they come from a long line of cave men and apes etc.
> 
> Science does not touch the spirit. Science cannot form an equation of the spirit because it cannot explain what it is. Religion making us happy? Being happy is just a response from a stimuli, which in this case is God. Other than this basic idea, science doesnt explain religion or spirit all together.
> 
> Try and define faith. Easy right? But try to understand faith and try for yourself to have faith in something. Not easy. You may have hard time trying to have faith that you cant see, but when you open your heart and be WILLING to accept a God, then faith forms.
> 
> Everything in nature that is not human made, ie organic is divine and beautiful in everyway,and yes we are a dot in the universe, we have a since of direction and space, therefore as we may look very insignificant in the universe, we are all important in the universe regardless of size.


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.

----------


## billyjack

> Science does not touch the spirit. Science cannot form an equation of the spirit because it cannot explain what it is.


 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

----------


## NikolaiI

> 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.  :Smile:  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.

----------


## skasian

> 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.

----------


## skasian

> 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## skasian

> "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.

----------


## JacobF

> 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.




> 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. 




> 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.




> 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. 





> 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.








> 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.

----------


## billyjack

> 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

----------


## Pewnut

> 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".

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 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.





> 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.





> 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.




> 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.




> 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"?




> 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.




> 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.

----------


## Pewnut

> 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:




> 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.

----------


## JacobF

> 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. 





> 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.





> 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. 





> 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. 






> 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. 






> 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. 






> 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.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 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.




> 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.




> 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.




> 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. 




> 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._





> 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.





> 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.




> 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.





> 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.




> 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.




> 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.




> 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.




> 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.




> 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## JacobF

> 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.
> ...


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. 




> 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...





> 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. 





> 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. 





> 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. 




> 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. 





> 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. 





> 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. 




> 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. 





> 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.





> 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.





> 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. 





> 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.





> 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. 




> 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## billyjack

> 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




> 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




> 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




> 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.




> 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

----------


## Pewnut

> 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.




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


I beg to differ.

----------


## skasian

> 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. 
> ...


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.

----------


## skasian

> 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.

----------


## WanderingGirl

> 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. 




> 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.

----------


## skasian

> 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.

----------


## Pewnut

> 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.  :Biggrin: 




> 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## Pewnut

> 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.

----------


## skasian

> 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.

----------


## Pewnut

Whaa?

Your exact words *before*:




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


And your exact words *now*:




> *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

----------


## skasian

> Whaa?
> 
> Your exact words *before*:
> 
> 
> 
> And your exact words *now*:
> 
> 
> ...


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.

----------


## 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. :Biggrin: 

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).*

----------


## Redzeppelin

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


Not that I'm aware of.




> 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.




> 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.





> 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.





> 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?




> 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.




> 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.




> 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.




> 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.




> 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.




> 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. 




> 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.




> 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.




> 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.





> 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.




> 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. 




> 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.




> 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?




> 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).

----------


## JacobF

> 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. 







> 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. 





> 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. 




> 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. 




> 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.





> 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. 




> 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. 




> 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. 




> 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. 




> 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? 




> 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.




> 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. 





> _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.




> 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. 




> 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. 





> 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? 




> 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.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 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. 




> 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?





> 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?





> 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. 





> 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?




> 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.





> 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.





> 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.




> 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.





> 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.




> 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.




> 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.





> 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.




> 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.




> 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...)




> 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?




> 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.

----------


## jon1jt

> 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:

----------


## JacobF

> 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.


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.

----------


## skasian

> 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. :Smile:

----------


## 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.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> . Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman.


Thank you jon




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


Thank you skasian




> 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.




> 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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

----------


## Niamh

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

----------


## Dr. Hill

> Thank you jon
> 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.


Christian morality? Morality has been around, and almost exactly the same as it is now, for much longer than Christianity has. If we were following Christian morality we would be going around casting plagues at infidels and killing our children.

----------


## Sk8ynat

I believe in God because there are good things and good people in the world. 
I believe that if God didn't exist no one would ever act beyond their own natural instinct. They would live for the purpose of producing healthy offspring then die. 
But because God exists, and because we are made in his image, we think, we feel, we learn, we create, we love. We have a purpose in life.

I just can't believe that we are all a coincidence, an accident. When you see a beautiful painting, or read an inspiring book, or hear an incredible song. How can the people who created these things - whether they believe in God or not - have simply been an accident? 

Can you really look at someone you love dearly and tell them that they're here by accident, that it's all just a coincident that you ever met them?

That's why I believe in God, because any other concept just makes me feel worthless and hopeless.

----------


## NikolaiI

> 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. 
> ...


I was really glad to read this, you wrote very well, and I would like to reply to your points. My understanding is very similar to yours. First I believe the entire material universe is actually manifested in Brahman. This is the first reason why so many sages throughout the world have identified a transcendent level being free from attachment or illusion, and thus being free; also free from pain and any kind of suffering. Plato identified this and called it coming into the light, from as if being chained in dark cave. There is more to his analogy, and if you follow it you see it is similar to Buddhist and Hindu ideas of maya, illusion, and enlightenment. Each of us is playing a role, but the role is an illusion, and we are illusioned to think that everything is acting upon us, giving us suffering, etc. I know it is an unpopular thing to say things are an illusion, but the illusion is this; we are illusioned into thinking we are matter, only material bodies, but actually we are spirit. Actually we come from spirit and God.

And so since we are illusioned, we have desires, and these desires make us come back into this world for birth and death.

So this talk of illusion, maya, and the material universe, but what does it mean, and is any of it true? I know there are those who may read this who will never agree with me, and that is fine. But since this is a public forum, I can only speak to everyone here. Since I am, I will ask a question of all of you. What is consciousness? Who am I? What is there? This last question I mean to explain as, "what is there in terms of the possible states of consciousness?" If we decide that we are consciousness, then we cannot know any existence other than consciousenss. And then comes the question, what exists besides consciousness? If nothing exists besides consciousness, then there is never anything besides consciousness. There is never "No consciousess." For if there is "No consciousness," then there is nothing at all, and it cannot be that there was never not anything. Time is a construct which comes from consciousness which has divided things into qualifications. Since time came after consciousnes; consciousness came before time and will remain after time. Consciousness before time would be the vegetative consciousness, but actually all consciousness came before time and exists after. Thus we see that consciousness is actually not affected by time.

The other part of the question is "what consciousness is there?" We know there is the consciousness of we, the humans, although we can tell that this does not mean anything, since there are infinite varieties or shades of this consciousness. We can delude our consciousness into more physical or vital consciousnesss, or we can come to the mental platform, or we can ascend into the spiritual or divine consciousness. Generally we are ignorant of the spiritual side, and we are only in the mental, which we dull to some degree in order to better enjoy physical consciousness. But actually we are eternal because although there infinite degrees of consciousness, all of them exist and none of them are unique or separate, and they all exist eternally.

We can know there are levels of consciousness above and below our own. On this website communicating with language, we are on a mental level. The other states would differ in what we designate them, but we generally see them coming from nothing and going toward the infinite. No consciousness would be rocks and other inanimate things. Notice that 99% of anything which exists is inanimate and not conscious. Then we know of bacteria and the most basic lifeforms, these are the lowest type of consciousness. Notice that this accounts for 99% of the variety and diversity of life on earth. Then after that there is vegative consciousness, plants, which covers a similar percentage of the complex life forms of consciousness. After plants are animals and then, most refined of all are humans. But is final premise correct? How do we know. In all our knowledge we have finally come to the conclusion that life is subjective. Have you ever seen a star-nosed mole? Have you seen geckos? There are near infinite varieties of life on earth and they understand the world with a similar array of devices, senses, or "windows." No wonder the most common operating system is "Windows."

Consider that dolphins have a greater brain than humans, in relationship to their body size. So why again do we think we are all-superior? It is a blindness. A separation from reality. There is no reason which we need to lord it over the whole world, and destroy other species'. I know I participate in it and I do not keep myself above or separate, but I am trying to explain another point. We are part of a collective consciousness of sorts; we are not supreme but we are only a part of the myriad, beautiful, collection. 

Now, I come to one problem in what I am saying, which this. I am mixing and going interchangably between my own views and ideas, and those which I have picked up from others. When I speak of God or spirituality, I am being honest when I say I believe it is what exists, it is what is out there. I cannot emphasize any more when I say that I do believe all of this is true. 

I used to be an atheist and I cannot imagine how I would guess if someone approached me this way, and asked me to try to understand what consciousness was, in this way. What I am trying to say is that there is divine consciousness. If there is supreme consciousness, then all comes from that supreme consciousness. We are not supreme, not in consciousness or within life on earth; although we are part of the supreme. We can only be conscious of ourselves individually, and cannot know what God knows. And yet-- we can dovetail our lives to the will of the supreme if we follow that will with love and devotion. There are specific modes for that path, which result in a reawakening of our divine consiciousness. 

What is the divine? This has been discussed and worked out for the entire history of our race, perhaps even more. I have for a long time searched about spirituality and different things of this nature. Plato, perhaps, and Emerson, and many others have studied the Vedic scriptures from India, I have also studied these; and yet there are other mystics from all cultures who have understandings of the divine. They do not all speak the same language but if you understand them enough, they are communicating the same message. The first step in understanding the divine, which is the source of everything; including reason  :Wink: ... is to understand that we are not matter, but spirit. I would perhaps get into this more but this is already lengthy enough, I realize...and there is time of course for this more.

One last point, and I know I will think more before I post again, is this... just because we do not understand the divine with our normal perceptions and thought consciousness, does not mean it does not exist. This is the primary point I would wish to press. In fact the divine cannot be understand with normal perceptions and consicousness. But just because we are particular consciousness - and that consciousness must be fully understood before anything else - this does not mean consciousnesses such as the divine do not exist. The spectrum of consciousness could be compared to the spectrum of light. We cannot see all light on the spectrum, but only certain kinds. In fact if we could see all of them we could not make any sense of it. The same is true with consciousness. We are socially required to follow a very rare path which is always afraid not to seem to conform. But actually we are connected to the same source of everything. We are not supreme at all but we are merely an infinitesimal part of a much greater, divine, supreme. I agree with laidbackperson in saying that our conceptions of time and space are way off, and they main came to exist after our associations with the body, based on desire for sense gratification.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I believe in God because there are good things and good people in the world. 
> I believe that if God didn't exist no one would ever act beyond their own natural instinct. They would live for the purpose of producing healthy offspring then die. 
> But because God exists, and because we are made in his image, we think, we feel, we learn, we create, we love. We have a purpose in life.
> 
> I just can't believe that we are all a coincidence, an accident. When you see a beautiful painting, or read an inspiring book, or hear an incredible song. How can the people who created these things - whether they believe in God or not - have simply been an accident? 
> 
> Can you really look at someone you love dearly and tell them that they're here by accident, that it's all just a coincident that you ever met them?
> 
> That's why I believe in God, because any other concept just makes me feel worthless and hopeless.



I've studied many philosphers, poets, writers, etc., and I will never stop learning; and I also believe in God. I wrote a very long post which you may or may not wish to read any part of, but I also believe in God, the divine, who I think is both the supreme lord, and also the source of all the forms in the universe. All comes from the divine and it is only by misconceptions or perception that we think we doubt its existence. People are scared of the idea of God, but actually God is simply the divine Godhead, the source of love, perfection, and truth.

As I said in the other post; the general conception is that "rationality" reigns supreme, and there is nothing such as the soul or God; but in actuality, we are not supreme but rather we are part of the divine supreme; our efforts deny the divine are not denying something which is somehow not existant, but rather it is turning our back on the divine. I know I repeated that word because it is something which actually exists; the source of all love and all the material manifestation. Yes, when we look into what exists, and don't actually see a personal supreme god, we think that god may be unintelligent. But actually God, who is the divine source of everything, is way more powerful than an impersonal spiritual effulgence. But if we discovered that all was part of the spiritual effulgence we should not quit looking for it, actually we should be comforted and spread the message as much as possible that " You are not separate from the world, you will not cease to exist when you die, but rather you are part of that supreme whole and source, and you cannot have any shorter lifespan than the lifespan of the Whole. "

Cheers.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Christian morality? Morality has been around, and almost exactly the same as it is now, for much longer than Christianity has. If we were following Christian morality we would be going around casting plagues at infidels and killing our children.


And what established this morality that has existed for so long, good Dr.?

Your absurd final sentence is almost beyond comment. Care to substantiate it a bit? Or would you rather just have it sit as it is - incomprehensible?

----------


## JacobF

I said I wouldn't return to this debate but I am. I am fickle.

Morality is generally inherited from a mixture of emotion and logic. Doesn't have to be from the bible, although it's impossible to ignore the bible as a massive cultural influence.

----------


## skasian

> 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.


The bible does contain rules and regulations that God wants us to live, I believe it is one of the most important guide to life, the guide to how we can make most of life, and make it worthwhile. The bible contains also wisdom and virtue, something we should learn to become better people. The bible is a source of inspiration, strength, confidency and also of happiness and relief.

An Atheist cant be remarked as more creative than a Christian or any other religious follower. The only difference between a religious and an atheist is the choice of having faith or belief in God.

What do you mean by fresh approaches to fresh problems? How often does an atheist come across a fresh problem that the believer doesnt? There arent much choices for an atheist to solve a problem that a Christian cant do. Maybe committing sin to solve a problem may be one however, arent they the least of people that can recognise that leaving the problem the way it was is worthwhile than committing sin in attempting to solve it?

----------


## zado_k

> [...]
> An Atheist cant be remarked as more creative than a Christian or any other religious follower. The only difference between a religious and an atheist is the choice of having faith or belief in God.


There is no "choice" involved: I can no more choose to believe in god(s) than I can shoose to believe in the tooth fairy. The only thing I suppose I could choose to do is to lie about it and say that I believe in god(s) when I don't.




> [...]Maybe committing sin to solve a problem may be one however, arent they the least of people that can recognise that leaving the problem the way it was is worthwhile than committing sin in attempting to solve it?


Atheists don't have the notion of sin as a moral category as you seem to do. Atheists adhere to different moral codes or none (I know of at least people who claim to be nihilists). Since they don't recognise sin, they don't worry about committing it.

Peace and loving kindness,

Z

----------


## NikolaiI

> Atheists don't have the notion of sin as a moral category as you seem to do. Atheists adhere to different moral codes or none (I know of at least people who claim to be nihilists). Since they don't recognise sin, they don't worry about committing it.


I am sure there must be atheists who believe in sin. I am not saying the majority. But that it is not really important. But I agree with you. Atheists' moral code can vary from anything between nihilist and er, well, obviously anything.

----------


## Dr. Hill

> And what established this morality that has existed for so long, good Dr.?
> 
> Your absurd final sentence is almost beyond comment. Care to substantiate it a bit? Or would you rather just have it sit as it is - incomprehensible?


I like to think that basic human nature established the morality we now hold.

----------


## Scheherazade

*W a r n i n g

Posts containing inflammatory comments and ad hominem attacks will be deleted without any further warning.*

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I like to think that basic human nature established the morality we now hold.


Human nature is generally self-serving. It's primary goal is "taking care of #1." The default position for human nature is selfishness, not selflessness. Selfishness comes naturally; selflessness must be taught.

----------


## billyjack

taking care of #1 naturally involves taking note of #2,3,4,5,....in that being good to others brings good my way by way of people treating me dandy since i did them dandy. smart selfishness mirrors selflessness.

----------


## zado_k

> I am sure there must be atheists who believe in sin. I am not saying the majority. But that it is not really important. But I agree with you. Atheists' moral code can vary from anything between nihilist and er, well, obviously anything.


I can't make sense of an atheist believing in sin at all I'm afraid. I suppose you might make "sin" just mean "doing wrong" and that would work. I don't think an atheist's moral code can include _anything_ - at least not coherently. It can't include "This is wrong because god said so" for example, without being nonsense.

Peace and loving kindness

Z

----------


## blp

> I don't think an atheist's moral code can include _anything_ - at least not coherently. It can't include "This is wrong because god said so" for example, without being nonsense.


Well, if it's just a matter of having a higher authority to tell you what's right or wrong, most of us live in country's that do that for us through their legal systems. 

The question is, if you're just doing things because a higher authority told you to, does that constitute a moral code? I would have thought a moral code would be something based on your sense of what was actually right and wrong, not just what you'd been told was right and wrong. This sense of right and wrong can be worked out through reason of the sort billyjack was engaging in in the post above yours and through empathy, e.g. I don't like to hurt others because I know what it's like to feel bad.

----------


## MissyRobbins

This world is full of people who do evil things, but it's also full of people who do only good. God gave all of humanity the ability to choose his/her own way. Science, though needed, doesn't supply all the answers. Only God in his infinate wisdom knows everything.
If you believe and trust in him you'll eventualy find the trueth.
May God Bless you all.

----------


## blp

> I believe in God because there are good things and good people in the world. 
> I believe that if God didn't exist no one would ever act beyond their own natural instinct. They would live for the purpose of producing healthy offspring then die. 
> But because God exists, and because we are made in his image, we think, we feel, we learn, we create, we love. We have a purpose in life.
> 
> I just can't believe that we are all a coincidence, an accident. When you see a beautiful painting, or read an inspiring book, or hear an incredible song. How can the people who created these things - whether they believe in God or not - have simply been an accident? 
> 
> Can you really look at someone you love dearly and tell them that they're here by accident, that it's all just a coincident that you ever met them?
> 
> That's why I believe in God, because any other concept just makes me feel worthless and hopeless.


Once again, go to 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

and click *2.8 the design argument*

all the best.

----------


## Il Penseroso

Reading threads like this I come to the conclusion that atheists are the only optimists left out there. Are humans really so bad that without some outside force intervening and supplying us with "morals" we would be chomping at one another's throats? Can we not be credited with anything? 

Isn't that sort of reasoning dangerous, when even ourselves, as well as others, become animal or thinglike?

----------


## blp

> Isn't that sort of reasoning dangerous, when even ourselves, as well as others, become animal or thinglike?


Yes, it can look like a self-fulfilling prophecy at times - supposedly sinful desires are suppressed until finally they explode in a televangelist 'love' scandal or similar. 

That's the flipside of this idea that we need a God to supply us with morals. Many of the morals supposedly supplied by her, him, whatever, appear arbitrary, illogical and painful rather than to spring from the real needs we see around us.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Thank you jon
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you skasian
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> ...


You mean the same morality that christians inherited from the ancient Greeks. Don't kid yourself that there is anything original about christian morality. There isn't.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Sometimes I hear believers say that without their faith, they wouldn't know what is the right thing to do. In fact, I've even heard a minister saying that the bible tells him what to do, and whenever he is unsure about how to act, he asks god for advice. That seems to me to be tantamount to admitting an ignorance of morality and having to live life from a rule book because of moral incompetence. If you don't know the difference between a right action and a wrong one, then you need to study ethics. The last thing you need is to have a list of do's and don't's like some automaton responding to command. Think about what is right, don't just respond because a book, some arrangment of words tells you what to do.

----------


## billyjack

interesting stuff folks.

i wonder why a benevolent god would give us the ability to think for ourselves and then have us neglect this gift and dwell within the confines of a rulebook he created. seems, um....sort of evil--- like giving a kid the sweetest toy ever, say the hoverboard from back to the future 2, and then commanding him that he can only use it as a place to sit while he reads.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You mean the same morality that christians inherited from the ancient Greeks. Don't kid yourself that there is anything original about christian morality. There isn't.


I implied nothing of the sort. I asked where the atheist's idea of morality comes from. I'm still waiting for an answer.




> Sometimes I hear believers say that without their faith, they wouldn't know what is the right thing to do. In fact, I've even heard a minister saying that the bible tells him what to do, and whenever he is unsure about how to act, he asks god for advice. That seems to me to be tantamount to admitting an ignorance of morality and having to live life from a rule book because of moral incompetence. If you don't know the difference between a right action and a wrong one, then you need to study ethics. The last thing you need is to have a list of do's and don't's like some automaton responding to command. Think about what is right, don't just respond because a book, some arrangment of words tells you what to do.


The Bible gives good advice. Remember: we believe it's divinely inspired - as such, assuming that God inspired it, why wouldn't we seek counsel from a Being far wiser than we? Don't most people seek counsel from those wiser and more experienced? 

And where does our "knowledge" of morality come from? What do YOU follow in making your moral choices? Weren't you taught it from somewhere?

Not everybody seeks the Bible's counsel because they are automatons: many of us consult it because we try to understand why so many of our own choices ended up causing such problems in our lives.

----------


## billyjack

> I implied nothing of the sort. I asked where the atheist's idea of morality comes from. I'm still waiting for an answer.


if i might jump in since its not a secret. here's a few:

*secular law: cops, judges, prisons, fines
*enlightened self interest (treat well, be treated well)
*Kant's categorical imperative: Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.
*humanism: compassion and altruism for self and others
*rejection of moral absolutes (bc there are none)
*rejection of a creator and his word (frees us up from holy wars)
*rejection of the apacolyspe mentality bread by religion (makes our planet's health important to us, since we want it to last as long as it can, thereby makes us green to some extent)
*rejection of jesus' vicarious repentance of sin (personal responsiblity should be placed on oneself, not on another)
*not to mention the morals of some atheist philosophers: Hume, Bacon, Ayn Rand, Russel, Nietzche, Freud, Feuebach, epircurus, buddhist texts, lao tsu, chung tzu, socrates (he believed in spirits, but not a god), thoreau (i know he didnt believe in any idea of god), same could be said of emerson.

i think there's plenty more too, but its late

----------


## Ohmyscience

The atheists get it the like everyone else. It's inherent. Without an idea of justice, and ethocentricity societies could never congeal. Doesn't the uniform devlopment of the golden rule prompt you to believe that humans even prior to recorded history were already pretty much moral. Highly developed mammals also have morality so asking the atheists where they get their morals would be the equivalent of asking higly developed mammals. Its inherent to them. The individuals with a lesser sense of morality and social awareness were castigated and probably did not breed. You really have no need for a divine being to institute it.

Of course what I think you're saying Redzep is that being inclined to something good does that mean you have to by some absolute decree. I will have to agree with you in that case because for atheists or anyone for that matter you do not have to do whats best for your or society. You are only inclined to do so.


However even if God existed that doesn't you have to act morally as well. Technically you or anyone is not physically prohibited to harm others even with existence of God. I've never seen God stop a murder. Unless of course you want to qualify Him letting the murder proceed only to serve as a warning on earth. In that case what about the victim? Doesn't God owe him/her anything?

----------


## NikolaiI

> I can't make sense of an atheist believing in sin at all I'm afraid. I suppose you might make "sin" just mean "doing wrong" and that would work. I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything - at least not coherently. It can't include "This is wrong because god said so" for example, without being nonsense.
> 
> Peace and loving kindness
> 
> Z


Basically that is what I meant, yes, that sin is doing wrong. Atheists as you said are not restricted by a belief system, so there could be an atheist which believed in anything, unless that belief would make him a pantheist, deist, theist, etc.




> However even if God existed that doesn't you have to act morally as well. Technically you or anyone is not physically prohibited to harm others even with existence of God. I've never seen God stop a murder. Unless of course you want to qualify Him letting the murder proceed only to serve as a warning on earth. In that case what about the victim? Doesn't God owe him/her anything?


You ask why does anyone die? Why do they suffer? Do you know they actually die?  :Smile: 

But would you argue with the existence of suffering against ANY other good thing, any other holy or sacred thing such as love, family, happiness, virtue? To use the argument of suffering against the existence of the divine is very similar to use it against the existence of anything such as love, virtue, goodness, etc. The divine does not exist because we NEED the divine to exist, although we do. The divine is the complete whole of the universe... we think of it is as spiritual only because we find some spiritual or mystical nature to that which is infinite to us, to that which is perfect to us in all respects - the complete whole, the natural universe, which to us is entirely supreme. We don't know anything outside it. If we do then it is still not farther than reality from us, so it is included in "reality". This means that we cannot know if there is a super-being or not, but we do know that there is an "infinite reality." The understanding of this reality comes in infinite forms, and they are all equally valid, they are just part of reality. No part needs to be justified, no part needs more power, less suffering, no part needs to be any more or any less, because all is part of all.

----------


## blp

> I asked where the atheist's idea of morality comes from. I'm still waiting for an answer.


Then you seem not to have been paying attention. I gave an answer at the bottom of the previous page.




> And where does our "knowledge" of morality come from? What do YOU follow in making your moral choices? Weren't you taught it from somewhere?


Yes. When I was about six or seven, I asked my Dad (an atheist) why we couldn't just imprison or kill the people he was always grumbling about while reading the newspapers. He explained that if you could imprison or kill people just because you disagreed with them, then at some point someone who disagreed with you might have the power to do the same to you. 

I would say this was the beginning of my moral education, and that it was, in some ways, in conflict with the moral absolutism of religion. The democratic code that recognises a diversity of opinion, must, by definition, allow a diversity of moral codes to coexist. The governing principle is something like JS Mill's idea that individuals ought to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - which, as my dad's explanation shows, is, in a large measure, a matter of practicality. We agree this overall code as a society - and enforce it when it breaks down - as a means of allowing the greatest possible benefit and freedom to the greatest possible number. 

To be fair, similar ideas are found in certain versions of religious morality: Augustine's 'Love and do what thou wilt.' and the Wiccan, 'an it harm no one, do what thou will.' There seems no reason for this code of freedom to come into conflict with religion in practice (though it frequently does), but, likewise, there seems to be no requirement for religion to derive the principle since it's based on a practical assessment of what will be fair and cause least trouble.

----------


## zado_k

> Well, if it's just a matter of having a higher authority to tell you what's right or wrong, most of us live in country's that do that for us through their legal systems. 
> 
> The question is, if you're just doing things because a higher authority told you to, does that constitute a moral code? I would have thought a moral code would be something based on your sense of what was actually right and wrong, not just what you'd been told was right and wrong. This sense of right and wrong can be worked out through reason of the sort billyjack was engaging in in the post above yours and through empathy, e.g. I don't like to hurt others because I know what it's like to feel bad.


No, it's to do with having a _god_ as the higher authority. Of course there are/have been atheists who submit to authority - even for moral guidance and whether this is a good or a bad thing is a different question. But an atheist submitting to god as moral authority is being incoherent.

I can see prefering an moral code that people worked out for themselves but I don't see any reason to deny that any other kind is really moral. It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine an authoritarian dictator of morality who makes perfect moral choices for his subjects and ask is that good?

----------


## blp

> No, it's to do with having a _god_ as the higher authority. Of course there are/have been atheists who submit to authority - even for moral guidance and whether this is a good or a bad thing is a different question. But an atheist submitting to god as moral authority is being incoherent.


Where would god get her or his morality from? 

Just to be clear, I never said anything about atheists submitting to god as anything at all. 




> I can see prefering an moral code that people worked out for themselves but I don't see any reason to deny that any other kind is really moral.


Well, I agree it might be a little early to consider the question settled. I can't help pointing out however, that it was you who said you couldn't imagine how one could have morality without god. Ergo, you were denying non-religious moralities. I'm glad to see you've changed your opinion.  :Wink: 




> It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine an authoritarian dictator of morality who makes perfect moral choices for his subjects and ask is that good?


It's a big question. I would say volition is a key component of morality - not necessarily that all morality must be innate, but that, in committing moral acts, one must, at least, understand the reasons for them. This is not just because, without that understanding, it's hard to really qualify the acts as moral.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then you seem not to have been paying attention. I gave an answer at the bottom of the previous page.


Well, b, that may be true. The other option available is that I saw your post and did not find that it sufficiently answered my question. I'll let you decide which one is true.




> Yes. When I was about six or seven, I asked my Dad (an atheist) why we couldn't just imprison or kill the people he was always grumbling about while reading the newspapers. He explained that if you could imprison or kill people just because you disagreed with them, then at some point someone who disagreed with you might have the power to do the same to you.


Your father was very practical in his outlook. So what philosophy does his answer point to? From where I'm standing, his answer suggests that the only thing that controls our behavior is fear of retaliation. But isn't that fear predicated on the idea that the other has the power to retaliate? What if I'm stronger? Then what need I fear? Why do the right thing if the other whom I wrong doesn't have the power to return evil upon me? Now what stops me?




> I would say this was the beginning of my moral education, and that it was, in some ways, in conflict with the moral absolutism of religion. The democratic code that recognises a diversity of opinion, must, by definition, allow a diversity of moral codes to coexist.


While there will certainly be cultural norms that come into play, once we entertain the idea of "a diversity of moral codes" we now step into ethical quicksand because not all moral codes will agree - and without a transcendant moral code that exists beyond human establishment and manipulation, how do we adjudicate conflicts between moral codes? If they're all equal, then who are we to criticize those inflicting genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation in Africa, piracy in Somalian seas?




> The governing principle is something like JS Mill's idea that individuals ought to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - which, as my dad's explanation shows, is, in a large measure, a matter of practicality. We agree this overall code as a society - and enforce it when it breaks down - as a means of allowing the greatest possible benefit and freedom to the greatest possible number.


Doesn't Mills idea require that we have some sort of frame of reference in deciding what "harm" is? Just because someone says they're "harmed" by my behavior, are they really? And, conversely, just because someone tells me their behavior really doesn't hurt anybody, can't that also be denial in action? How do we decided the nature of "harm" and whether or not it's legitimate?




> To be fair, similar ideas are found in certain versions of religious morality: Augustine's 'Love and do what thou wilt.' and the Wiccan, 'an it harm no one, do what thou will.' There seems no reason for this code of freedom to come into conflict with religion in practice (though it frequently does), but, likewise, there seems to be no requirement for religion to derive the principle since it's based on a practical assessment of what will be fair and cause least trouble.


But that's part of the problem, b - how do we - selfish and self-interested humans - fairly decide on our own what is "fair" and "causes the least trouble"? History has shown that human law can be bent to serve the will of a tyrant. Without the higher law of nature/God, who can look at the legal slaughter of people under Hitler and Stalin's regime and challenge it? They were LEGAL as judged by society. That is the ultimate end of humanly established law and morality - it can be tweaked to serve power.

----------


## blp

> Well, b, that may be true. The other option available is that I saw your post and did not find that it sufficiently answered my question. I'll let you decide which one is true.


I get to decide? Gee that's nice. Not much of an argument, was it, just saying your question hadn't been answered when it had. OK, I'm going to decide you didn't see it.  :Wink: 




> Your father was very practical in his outlook. So what philosophy does his answer point to?


Pragmatism? Libertarianism? 




> From where I'm standing, his answer suggests that the only thing that controls our behavior is fear of retaliation. But isn't that fear predicated on the idea that the other has the power to retaliate? What if I'm stronger? Then what need I fear? Why do the right thing if the other whom I wrong doesn't have the power to return evil upon me? Now what stops me?


I don't think fear of retaliation is really the main thing that's going on here. My question was based on a childish, solipsistic assumption that we, as a family, represented an unquestionably right-thinking majority and it should be a simple matter for the right-thinking people of the world to put a stop to what we thought was wrong. What I really began to understand at this point was that other people held different opinions and our own moral superiority wasn't guaranteed. The further insights that flow from this make it clear that it's not even a desirable position to be able to oppress and silence the opposition because then you don't learn anything. Anyway, from families to governments, tyranny creates instability. 

This is all still in the realms of the practical, but I don't see that that necessarily implies it's not also a philosophy. If it's not, I don't see why that should lessen its validity.

Of course, situations do arise constantly in which one individual or group oppress and silence all opposition. Many of these situations are driven and supported by philosophies of one sort or another. The practice of religion is, sadly, no bulwark against this and, in a number of these situations, the religion has actually been the driver of the oppression: the Spanish Inquisition, say. And in others, religion has been a constituent of the oppression or religious leaders have been collusive in it. Please note, I'm not saying this to designate religion the _only_ driver of oppression - Stalinism was dogmatically atheistic, to give a notable example - just to suggest that using a too coherent philosophy may not be the best method of creating a stable society. 

The philosophy that drives European and American-style democracy may be a little more ethereal, but it does, to use your term, _lead_ to philosophy. Richard Rorty, with his attempts to come to terms, philosophically, with the multiple voices of modern democracies, might be said to be an example. 




> While there will certainly be cultural norms that come into play, once we entertain the idea of "a diversity of moral codes" we now step into ethical quicksand because not all moral codes will agree - and without a transcendant moral code that exists beyond human establishment and manipulation, how do we adjudicate conflicts between moral codes? If they're all equal, then who are we to criticize those inflicting genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation in Africa, piracy in Somalian seas?


I'm a bit surprised at this question since I'd already laid out, if not a philosophy, a governing principle. I'll use the Wiccan version: 'An it harm no one, do what you will.' 




> Doesn't Mills idea require that we have some sort of frame of reference in deciding what "harm" is? Just because someone says they're "harmed" by my behavior, are they really? And, conversely, just because someone tells me their behavior really doesn't hurt anybody, can't that also be denial in action? How do we decided the nature of "harm" and whether or not it's legitimate?


These discussions are ongoing in democracies, which, as a founding principle, allow freedom of speech to navigate just such conundrums. However, I must say, your examples seem to me to be pretty unambiguous instances of 'harm'. Shucks, maybe I'm just a victim of cultural conditioning. 

Wow I'm being mocked by synchronicity. Darfur's on the news right now and they're talking about the difficulty of establishing someone's guilt as a war criminal. 

But the difficulties of these kinds of question are the precise reason we need room to manoeuver without overly strict dogma, freedom to judge each instance on its merits and try to arrive at the fairest outcome. Yes one can certainly have discussions about what words like 'merit' and 'fairness' should properly mean and philosophers since Socrates have, at millennial length, but even the religious ones, such as Socrates, have not found that religion helped decide the argument. 




> But that's part of the problem, b - how do we - selfish and self-interested humans - fairly decide on our own what is "fair" and "causes the least trouble"? History has shown that human law can be bent to serve the will of a tyrant. Without the higher law of nature/God, who can look at the legal slaughter of people under Hitler and Stalin's regime and challenge it? They were LEGAL as judged by society. That is the ultimate end of humanly established law and morality - it can be tweaked to serve power.


See my remarks above. However, the designation of humans as selfish, at least as a defining characteristic, is highly open to question and both philosophers and scientists have been busy questioning it. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek has referred to the way in which humans are frequently 'spontaneously moral'. Richard Dawkins, though he posited the theory of the selfish gene that does everything it can to survive, states emphatically that this must not be assumed to apply in human personality, suggesting that qualities such as empathy, compassion and the desire for social interaction and cooperation are genetically embedded and a big part of what has allowed us to survive as a race. 

Perhaps that's why philosophical approaches to morality such as Aristotle's _Nicomachean Ethics_ so often seem, rather than laying down the law, to be telling us what we already know implicitly. What this points to, obviously, is a sense of morals that goes beyond the practical - but still without the need for a divinely imposed moral law.

----------


## zado_k

> Where would god get her or his morality from? 
> 
> Just to be clear, I never said anything about atheists submitting to god as anything at all. 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I agree it might be a little early to consider the question settled. I can't help pointing out however, that it was you who said you couldn't imagine how one could have morality without god. Ergo, you were denying non-religious moralities. I'm glad to see you've changed your opinion.


When did I say this? Please quote or retract.




> It's a big question. I would say volition is a key component of morality - not necessarily that all morality must be innate, but that, in committing moral acts, one must, at least, understand the reasons for them. This is not just because, without that understanding, it's hard to really qualify the acts as moral.


Volition seems a precondition of morality. We don't ascribe moral judgment or blame non-volitional entities usually. To be responsible for a thing morally you have to be at least able to will it should be so, no? No idea what this has to do with morality being innate. I suspect that behaviours that might be subject to moral judgment could be innate - aggression, nurturing for example - but I doubt that morality as such could be. Which morality would be innate? Kantian? Sartrean? Rule Utilitarianism? Is a child born Mill's moral calculus?

By moral acts you mean acts that are properly the subject of moral judgments? (Rather than say acts of morally judging). I'm reading you this way: to say that one is only subject to moral judgment if one could understand the reasoning by which an act is determined to be moral or immoral and that if you can't understand that reasoning then you are incapable of morality (which is _not_ a criticism or slur: infants are lovely in all ways but are clearly not moral persons for a long while after birth).

I am unsure about the relation between understanding and moral responsibility - it's an age old question: is a man capable of some monstrous action (say, genocide) sick or evil? I want to say that there is evil on the one hand but my sympathies for the human condition make it nearly inconceivable to me that somone who does a truly wicked thing is not in fact in some way damaged and perhaps not fully responsible. Theoretically I'm clear: there is moral responsibility in competent people.

Z

----------


## blp

> Originally Posted by blp
> 
> Where would god get her or his morality from?
> 
> Just to be clear, I never said anything about atheists submitting to god as anything at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I agree it might be a little early to consider the question settled. I can't help pointing out however, that it was you who said you couldn't imagine how one could have morality without god. Ergo, you were denying non-religious moralities. I'm glad to see you've changed your opinion.
> ...


Zado, it wasn't that hard to find. It was the point I was responding to in the first place. 




> I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything - at least not coherently. It can't include "This is wrong because god said so" for example, without being nonsense.

----------


## blp

> Volition seems a precondition of morality. We don't ascribe moral judgment or blame non-volitional entities usually. To be responsible for a thing morally you have to be at least able to will it should be so, no? No idea what this has to do with morality being innate.


Other than getting morality from God, the options seem to be, getting it from other people and getting it from yourself. As I said in my long reply to RedZeppelin, there do seem to be reasons for imagining that some morality is genetically inherited. You go on to mention Kant and, from what I can gather, yes, there's a suggestion of innate morality in Kant too. In _The Dignity of the Moral Will_ from _The Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morality_ he argues, what he hopes, I think, will be conclusively, for 'autonomy', by which he means moral freedom, stating (after some painstaking proofs) '...it is evident that all moral conceptions have their seat and origin in reason _a priori_ [by which he means prior to any experience], and are apprehended by the ordinary reason of men...' In other words, he thinks each individual is privy to a shared, innate sense of morality. Further, he doesn't really think a coherent system of morals is possible unless this is the case. It's a rather beautiful argument, but I wasn't even trying to go that far. I was saying, even without innate morality, it seems to be possible to have a morality without God or belief in God. 

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the other philosophers and philosophies you mentioned to say whether they had any belief in innate morality. I suspect not from what I do know about them. 




> By moral acts you mean acts that are properly the subject of moral judgments? (Rather than say acts of morally judging). I'm reading you this way: to say that one is only subject to moral judgment if one could understand the reasoning by which an act is determined to be moral or immoral and that if you can't understand that reasoning then you are incapable of morality (which is _not_ a criticism or slur: infants are lovely in all ways but are clearly not moral persons for a long while after birth).


Perhaps it's best if you define your terms. You began by saying




> I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything - at least not coherently.


Perhaps you should explain what your conception of a moral code was, just so there's no misunderstanding. 




> I am unsure about the relation between understanding and moral responsibility - it's an age old question: is a man capable of some monstrous action (say, genocide) sick or evil? I want to say that there is evil on the one hand but my sympathies for the human condition make it nearly inconceivable to me that somone who does a truly wicked thing is not in fact in some way damaged and perhaps not fully responsible. Theoretically I'm clear: there is moral responsibility in competent people.


Well, speaking of innate morality, here's a bit of moral philosophy I favour, from the I-Ching, Richard Willhelm edition, hexagram 61, Inner Truth: 

'Wind stirs water by penetrating it. Thus the superior man, when obliged to judge the mistakes of men, tries to penetrate their minds with understanding, in order to gain a sympathetic appreciation of the circumstances. In ancient China the entire administration of justice was guided by this principle. A deep understanding that knows how to pardon was considered the highest form of justice. This system was not without success for its aim was to make so strong a moral impression that there was no reason to fear abuse of such mildness. For it sprang not from weakness, but from a superior clarity.'

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I get to decide? Gee that's nice. Not much of an argument, was it, just saying your question hadn't been answered when it had. OK, I'm going to decide you didn't see it.


Just pointing out that your conclusion was one of _two_ possiblilities. I didn't read your post - but once I did, I didn't find its answer convincing.




> Pragmatism? Libertarianism?


Probably the former.




> I don't think fear of retaliation is really the main thing that's going on here. My question was based on a childish, solipsistic assumption that we, as a family, represented an unquestionably right-thinking majority and it should be a simple matter for the right-thinking people of the world to put a stop to what we thought was wrong. What I really began to understand at this point was that other people held different opinions and our own moral superiority wasn't guaranteed. The further insights that flow from this make it clear that it's not even a desirable position to be able to oppress and silence the opposition because then you don't learn anything. Anyway, from families to governments, tyranny creates instability.


Part of our conception of the roots of morality come from our idea of human nature; you can be a Rousseau and think we're inherently good, or a Hobbes and believe that we're inherently bad. I - because of my Christian world view - tend to be more Hobbesian: human nature's default behavior is selfishness. Our views of morality are directly linked to that.




> This is all still in the realms of the practical, but I don't see that that necessarily implies it's not also a philosophy. If it's not, I don't see why that should lessen its validity.


Certainly.




> Of course, situations do arise constantly in which one individual or group oppress and silence all opposition. Many of these situations are driven and supported by philosophies of one sort or another.


At a collective level, yes; on an individual level, self-interest will generally be the primary motivating factor.




> The practice of religion is, sadly, no bulwark against this and, in a number of these situations, the religion has actually been the driver of the oppression: the Spanish Inquisition, say.


A fair statement applied to history - however, most examples of Christian misbehavior on a large scale can only be found by going back a _few hundred years_. Radical Islam now wears that crown proudly. I don't think America's prior history with slavery makes it a terrible country now.





> And in others, religion has been a constituent of the oppression or religious leaders have been collusive in it. Please note, I'm not saying this to designate religion the _only_ driver of oppression - Stalinism was dogmatically atheistic, to give a notable example - just to suggest that using a too coherent philosophy may not be the best method of creating a stable society.


I appreciate your fairness; both examples suggest that ideology ultimately can be warped to serve flawed and self-interested human beings who also happen to agree with a certain ideology. 




> I'm a bit surprised at this question since I'd already laid out, if not a philosophy, a governing principle. I'll use the Wiccan version: 'An it harm no one, do what you will.'


The Wiccan ethical admonishment sounds nice, but I'm uncomfortable with its emphasis on _will_ - on what I _desire_, what I _want_. It provides a mitigating condition, but its primary thrust deals with doing what one wants. That is very different from Christian theology which pretty much bypasses what an individual wants to what an individual _should_ do. There's a difference. Acting in a way that "harms" nobody is very different than acting in a way that benefits other people. I'm not dismissing the validity of the Wiccan assertion - I'm pointing out how different it is from Christian ethics which says _avoiding evil_ is not enough - one must actively _do good_.




> These discussions are ongoing in democracies, which, as a founding principle, allow freedom of speech to navigate just such conundrums. However, I must say, your examples seem to me to be pretty unambiguous instances of 'harm'. Shucks, maybe I'm just a victim of cultural conditioning.


But that's the point, b: YOU see them as harmful - but the governments/groups enacting these atrocities have defenses for them - and without a stable moral frame - a transcendant morality that exists beyond cultural differences - we have no ground from which to condemn them. If we do condemn them, we are automatically implying a standard of morality that they should acknowledge as well - but if it's simply OUR morality, what gives us the authority to condemn/judge at all?




> Wow I'm being mocked by synchronicity. Darfur's on the news right now and they're talking about the difficulty of establishing someone's guilt as a war criminal.


Don't you love it when that happens? 




> But the difficulties of these kinds of question are the precise reason we need room to manoeuver without overly strict dogma, freedom to judge each instance on its merits and try to arrive at the fairest outcome. Yes one can certainly have discussions about what words like 'merit' and 'fairness' should properly mean and philosophers since Socrates have, at millennial length, but even the religious ones, such as Socrates, have not found that religion helped decide the argument.


I will - to an extent - agree with you. The Biblical injunction against lying - IMO - is suspended if my telling the truth (here comes the cliched "Jews in the cellars, Nazis at the door" scenario) will end up in the suffering and death of an innocent person. But in that instance, I have violated a "smaller" restriction in favor of the greater good - because the saving of a human life outranks truth-telling (especially truth-telling that cooperates with evil). That said, we cannot make all ethics situational - but we should clearly be using a set of noncompromising _principles_ to guide us. 




> See my remarks above. However, the designation of humans as selfish, at least as a defining characteristic, is highly open to question and both philosophers and scientists have been busy questioning it. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek has referred to the way in which humans are frequently 'spontaneously moral'. Richard Dawkins, though he posited the theory of the selfish gene that does everything it can to survive, states emphatically that this must not be assumed to apply in human personality, suggesting that qualities such as empathy, compassion and the desire for social interaction and cooperation are genetically embedded and a big part of what has allowed us to survive as a race.


Scientists can argue away - our day to day decisions and behaviors suggest otherwise (notwithsanding random acts of morality that occur - with far less frequency I would suggest than in decades past).




> Perhaps that's why philosophical approaches to morality such as Aristotle's _Nicomachean Ethics_ so often seem, rather than laying down the law, to be telling us what we already know implicitly. What this points to, obviously, is a sense of morals that goes beyond the practical - but still without the need for a divinely imposed moral law.


But the Bible does that as well - most people who follow the Biblical commands to give to the poor, to offer compassion to the suffering, to serve the community rather than the self - find that they are more satisfied and fulfilled than when they serve themselves.

Divinely inspired law has one unbeatable advantage over human-made law: it cannot be manipulated by those in power; it cannot be changed by fickle masses. Therefore, its stability is considerably higher than law established by human beings.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Human nature is generally self-serving. It's primary goal is "taking care of #1." The default position for human nature is selfishness, not selflessness. Selfishness comes naturally; selflessness must be taught.


That's absolute nonsense. How did culture, society and civilization develop if we are all programmed towards selfishness? This is the kind of tired weary cliched response that believers trot out when they are too lazy to think about human development. Co-operation is as much inherent in us as is selfishness. Although some choose not to see it that way, as it spoils their treasured view of humanity and its assumed needs

----------


## atiguhya padma

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



So what can be known about God?

----------


## zado_k

> Zado, it wasn't that hard to find. It was the point I was responding to in the first place.


*you were denying non-religious moralities*

Not in anything you quote I'm not.

Peace and loving kindness,

Z

----------


## blp

> *you were denying non-religious moralities*
> 
> Not in anything you quote I'm not.


Oh for...

You can deny it all you want, but I don't see how you can logically claim that 




> I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything


is not a denial of non-religious moralities. Care to elucidate? 

The remark quoted above was the sum total of what I set out to answer. 

When I had, you appeared to retreat to the following more equivocal/relativist position:




> I can see prefering an moral code that people worked out for themselves but I don't see any reason to deny that any other kind is really moral.


As if to suggest that it was I and I alone who had a narrow sense of what could constituted a moral code, when it was you who had begun the exchange by saying, I'll quote it again, lest there be any confusion or doubt:




> I don't think an atheist's moral code can include anything

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That's absolute nonsense. How did culture, society and civilization develop if we are all programmed towards selfishness? This is the kind of tired weary cliched response that believers trot out when they are too lazy to think about human development. Co-operation is as much inherent in us as is selfishness. Although some choose not to see it that way, as it spoils their treasured view of humanity and its assumed needs


Hmmm..."nonsense," "weary," "cliched," "lazy." Well, don't hold back now, OK?

You'll note - or at least I hope you'll note - that I said selfishness is the "default" position of human nature. That doesn't mean we are incapable of rising above it - it means that we will - especially under certain circumstances - drop into that mindset quite easily, quite naturally. Selfishness is not a behavior that most cultures claim to value; as such, most cultures teach their children the idea that selfishness is not conducive to harmonious relationships - but understand that _they need to be taught that_. Children will not generally grow up to share and put others first without explicit instruction to do so. 

Under moments of stress, fear and duress, human beings will generally default to taking care of #1. There is no shortage of examples from history or contemporary society of individuals who callously abandoned those in need in order to preserve their own property, their own lives, their own interests. Call it "nonsense" if you wish - human behavior throughout history flatly contradicts you. 

The "lazy" comment merely reflects your _opinion_ of why others do what they do - but unless you're God and know the contents of all hearts, you have no such knowledge as to why believers believe as they do. As such, your opinion is largely groundless.

----------


## zado_k

> Oh for...
> 
> You can deny it all you want, but I don't see how you can logically claim that 
> 
> 
> 
> is not a denial of non-religious moralities. Care to elucidate?


Well, "this bag can't contain anything" doesn't have to mean that "this bag must only contain nothing" it just means "there are somethings this bag can't contain". I suppose it's ambiguous - I had thought the meaning obvious in context and didn't reflect on whether it should be phrased more carefully. I was after all, an atheist writing about morality!




> The remark quoted above was the sum total of what I set out to answer.


In which case I apologise both for causing confusion and for challenging your recall. You were perfectly entitled to interpret what I wrote as you did. We have been talking at cross purposes. I simply meant by the sentence you quote that "there are somethings an atheist's morality can't contain".

Peace and loving kindness,

Z

----------


## blp

> In which case I apologise both for causing confusion and for challenging your recall. You were perfectly entitled to interpret what I wrote as you did. We have been talking at cross purposes. I simply meant by the sentence you quote that "there are somethings an atheist's morality can't contain".


Okeedoke. No hard feelings.

----------


## skasian

> So what can be known about God?


Read the bible and that will answer your enquiry.

I'll make a start for you. What do we learn from the first passage of the first page of the bible? 
God is the Creator. 

I'll leave the rest to you.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Well thanks for that Skasian, but you see, I have read the whole of the bible and find it totally unconvincing. It is neither credible nor even compelling. It is a mish-mash of stories that over the ages have come to be interepreted literally by people with a certain mindset. However, they are really inadequate attempts to explain what the primitive society of those times found baffling.

----------


## skasian

> Well thanks for that Skasian, but you see, I have read the whole of the bible and find it totally unconvincing. It is neither credible nor even compelling. It is a mish-mash of stories that over the ages have come to be interepreted literally by people with a certain mindset. However, they are really inadequate attempts to explain what the primitive society of those times found baffling.


So you feel that the idea human should be aiming for perfection, for purity is unconvincing? Ah no worries, theres millions out there that feels just as you. The word faith comes between the line that sets the people apart. Thats one of the things that I like about God. He gives us freewill, we are free to enjoy what we want in life, and take own decisions and full responsibility.

Could you please elaborate in your thoughts about your last statement?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well thanks for that Skasian, but you see, I have read the whole of the bible and find it totally unconvincing. It is neither credible nor even compelling. It is a mish-mash of stories that over the ages have come to be interepreted literally by people with a certain mindset. However, they are really inadequate attempts to explain what the primitive society of those times found baffling.


Well, then, if you've read the whole thing, then certainly you came across the verse that explains your failure to understand the Bible, didn't you?

*"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14*

That, in a nutshell, is why the Bible makes no sense to those who read it only to discredit it.

----------


## skasian

> Well, then, if you've read the whole thing, then certainly you came across the verse that explains your failure to understand the Bible, didn't you?
> 
> *"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14*
> 
> That, in a nutshell, is why the Bible makes no sense to those who read it only to discredit it.


Brilliant. I should be memorising this verse. :Smile:

----------


## blp

> Part of our conception of the roots of morality come from our idea of human nature; you can be a Rousseau and think we're inherently good, or a Hobbes and believe that we're inherently bad. I - because of my Christian world view - tend to be more Hobbesian: human nature's default behavior is selfishness. Our views of morality are directly linked to that.


Your reasoning seems somewhat circular here, or, at least to be risking circularity. You don't believe it's possible to have morality without God because you take a Hobbesian view of humanity because you believe in a Christian God. 

Just out of interest, how do you square this version of the Christian view with the parable of the Good Samaritan? 

I haven't read Hobbes or Rousseau, except, the latter, in a pinch, so I don't want to damn either of them without a hearing, but their positions, at least as you lay them out here, seem simplistic and excessively polarised. All yin or all yang. In practice, don't we see evidence for both altruism and selfishness as innate, even in very young children. It always seems to me it's the very small kids, the ones who aren't self-interestedly watching the budget perhaps, who want to give money to beggars. 

OK, I realise this doesn't exactly constitute a philosophical proof.  :Biggrin:  I've been mulling over your question about what philosophy my Dad's starter explanation of democratic freedom led to. For reasons that go beyond point-scoring pedantry, the question seems clearly to require a working definition of philosophy itself or of 'a philosophy', at least. Break it down to its Greek roots to 'love of knowledge' or 'love of wisdom' and you've got something that seems clearly weighted to epistemology. This is limited, obviously, but this is where I feel your inquiry is leading, to whit, yes we don't really like the idea of murder, we wouldn't want anyone to do it to us or our loved ones, even to strangers, but how do we _know_ it's wrong, absolutely, in such a way as allows us to legislate against it? To put it in, I think, Kantian terms, we think we know this, but how? How is this knowledge given to me? Note that Kant was a Christian, but never felt able to resort to God as an explanation. From his philosophical perspective, it isn't one because it simply removes the question to a transcendent, inexplicable realm, an unknowable realm. God is one of Kant's noumena - an unknowable, something about which we cannot have any certain knowledge. Hence, it has nothing to do with _philo-sophy_. 

Of course, lots of religious people don't require Kant's proofs. They know what they know because they know it in their hearts, have faith etc. - even if, up to the point where proof broke down, they were quite happy to use proofs. This is, of course, the point where non-believers have very little option to throw up their hands and leave the field. 




> At a collective level, yes; on an individual level, self-interest will generally be the primary motivating factor.


If you'll forgive me, zep, to say this statement lacked rigour would be kind.  :Wink:  No evidence, no rational deduction. What am I supposed to do? Just say, _oh right, yeah, of course_? 

As it happens, I actually agree, if this was the implication, that in extreme situations such as tyranny, acts of self-interest predominate. Anyone in doubt about this just needs to read Primo Levi's accounts of life in Auschwitz. However, part of the point about those accounts, I think, is that the memories of those acts of self-interest in extremis are part of the emotional burden that concentration camp survivors carry. In other words, they feel bad about having behaved selfishly, even in this situation where they had very little choice - which implies a conscience and a deep-seated desire to do good. Not for nothing are situations like this described as 'dehumanising', I think. 




> A fair statement applied to history - however, most examples of Christian misbehavior on a large scale can only be found by going back a _few hundred years_. Radical Islam now wears that crown proudly. I don't think America's prior history with slavery makes it a terrible country now.


Let's not get sidetracked. I'm not citing instances of past or present misdeeds in order to simply trash religion completely - even if that was my intention when I did it in a certain previous thread. The matter at hand, I think you'll agree, is the question of how we derive our morality. All I'm trying to show is that religion, far from being our only possible hope of having a moral code, is no _guarantor_ of moral behaviour at all. 




> I appreciate your fairness; both examples suggest that ideology ultimately can be warped to serve flawed and self-interested human beings who also happen to agree with a certain ideology.


Possibly. Or possibly, and, yes, I admit it, this is my view, the idea that an ideology guarantees rightness makes it much more likely that oppression will occur. Look at the Stalinist purges. At a certain point, they reach an almost comical pitch of the nonsensical in which the mere idea of this rightness is enough to drive murder and imprisonment on a massive scale - even as the precise notion of what it was people were supposed to be right about becomes indistinct. Zizek tells a story about Shostakovitch being badgered by a Kremlin official to admit certain information that could be used to condemn a friend of his as traitorous - or be condemned himself. Shostakovitch didn't have the information and went home to spend an agonising weekend imagining his time was nearly up. On Monday, as requested, he went in to see the official and was told that the man had, himself, been arrested as a traitor. 

It's this kind of excess of certainty that Christopher Hitchens is talking about when he tries to claim that apparently atheistic phenomena such as Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge were actually implicitly religious. He doesn't make a very convincing case for this at all in my view, but the point does touch on something interesting, which is the way that, at precisely the point in the nineteenth century where it's becoming harder and harder to sustain religious belief philosophically, a powerful move towards certainty asserts itself, like the return of the repressed, in the form of Hegelian dialectics and, thence, Marxist dialectical materialism. It's a sign of the shift taking place that Marx went so far as to justify his system by calling it 'scientific', indicating clearly that the certainty he believed he was offering had nothing metaphysical about it. But it's a last gasp, nonetheless, one that, one might hope, utters its uncanny last post-mortem squeak with Francis Fukuyama's _End of History_, an attempt to justify capitalism and democracy as absolutely right on the same dialectical terms at a point when everyone really should have known better. 




> The Wiccan ethical admonishment sounds nice, but I'm uncomfortable with its emphasis on _will_ - on what I _desire_, what I _want_. It provides a mitigating condition, but its primary thrust deals with doing what one wants. That is very different from Christian theology which pretty much bypasses what an individual wants to what an individual _should_ do. There's a difference. Acting in a way that "harms" nobody is very different than acting in a way that benefits other people. I'm not dismissing the validity of the Wiccan assertion - I'm pointing out how different it is from Christian ethics which says _avoiding evil_ is not enough - one must actively _do good_.


But, as your own line of questioning seems to me to apply, how do we know what's good? 

It's a bit of a sideline, but I disagree about your interpretation of 'will'. It's not necessarily synonymous with 'want'. It could just imply the future tense - do what you are going to do. This, to me, seems the right degree of ambiguity. Whether it's 'want' or 'are going to do', it's only a problem if you think that, off the leash, people are just going to go around committing acts of destructive self-indulgence (well you would think that as a Hobbesian, I guess). I think it allows a lot of room for doing good, but, crucially, doesn't insist on it. Insisting on it seems too rigid, a repression that will ultimately result in a backlash and it also removes volition in moral acts. You asked how my father's schema amounted to anything other than 'fear of retaliation', but how does a religious morality that absolutely insists on acts of virtue amount to anything other than fear of punishment and desire for reward? Where are our good Samaritans in that? The ones who actually have empathy and a moral sense, rather than just a moral rulebook? The ones who do good because they want to? 




> But that's the point, b: YOU see them as harmful - but the governments/groups enacting these atrocities have defenses for them - and without a stable moral frame - a transcendant morality that exists beyond cultural differences - we have no ground from which to condemn them. If we do condemn them, we are automatically implying a standard of morality that they should acknowledge as well - but if it's simply OUR morality, what gives us the authority to condemn/judge at all?


Actually, you virtually never see these guys trying to defend their atrocities. Usually they just try to say, it wasn't me, someone else did it. That's what was being described on the news last night. The guy was either the leader of a Lords Resistance Army that had forced women to murder their own babies (I know. WTF?) or, in his version, an unwilling conscript. 




> Don't you love it when that happens?


Yeah, it's almost like God talking to me.  :Wink: 




> I will - to an extent - agree with you. The Biblical injunction against lying - IMO - is suspended if my telling the truth (here comes the cliched "Jews in the cellars, Nazis at the door" scenario) will end up in the suffering and death of an innocent person.


Or Kant's notorious murderer at the door after your children example, in which he says that the obligation to tell the truth is _not_ void. Uh oh. 




> But in that instance, I have violated a "smaller" restriction in favor of the greater good - because the saving of a human life outranks truth-telling (especially truth-telling that cooperates with evil). That said, we cannot make all ethics situational - but we should clearly be using a set of noncompromising _principles_ to guide us.


OK, maybe, but we're on more solid, potentially universal ground if we make those principles practical. If I say to a war criminal, who might, for the sake of argument, also be a member of a sect that sacrifices virgins, 'You are a criminal because God says murder is wrong.' he'd reject my argument on his own moral terms. The ground is no more solid than if I say 'You are a criminal because I just know somehow that murder is wrong.' since this man has a different conception of God from mine. 

He might still try to reject it if I said, 'You are a criminal because you took the lives of people who were no threat to you and who were not willing to give up their lives', he might try a moral defense, but he'd have a harder time. The principle at work: possession is nine tenths of the law. In terms of maintaining social stability, it's a good 'un. He can recognise the terms because he can see that, if the situation was reversed, he wouldn't want the acts he committed to be committed against himself and might even consider them unjustified. 

You might say, OK, but this doesn't really imply a morality, just a practical governing framework. And I might agree. I might even go on to say, what's the need for a morality at all as long as we know that we are protected from unprovoked harm? i.e. from injury or removal of our property by another person to whom we've done nothing wrong. As long as that is in place, why shouldn't people 'do what they will' and practice any moral code that suits them? 

Roughly the same governing principle also occurs, of course, in the Bible: 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you.' At which point, it does rather look like a (wonderfully simple) guideline for moral action, but one that is, very much, grounded in the practical. No need for a deity to impose such a law. One can see the logic of it immediately and could derive it without reference to a deity. 

Of course, to take an unHobbesian view, if you were to accept that morality is innate, the matter would be different. I'll get back to this...




> Scientists can argue away - our day to day decisions and behaviors suggest otherwise


Sorry, but, once again, you're on shaky ground philosophically, not because you're obviously wrong, but because you're simply making a bald statement without any kind of evidence. 




> (notwithsanding random acts of morality that occur - with far less frequency I would suggest than in decades past).


I don't think we've got space to get into this. We'll have to agree to disagree.

"'History', said Stephen, 'is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.'" - _Ulysses_




> But the Bible does that as well - most people who follow the Biblical commands to give to the poor, to offer compassion to the suffering, to serve the community rather than the self - find that they are more satisfied and fulfilled than when they serve themselves.


Good. Yes, the Bible can instill morality, but that's not the point of the argument. The point is, do we absolutely _need_ religion to give us morality? 

And where are your Hobbesian monsters of self-interest now? Why are these people more satisfied and fulfilled? Why does it feel good to do good? Because God rewards good deeds with an immediate sensory kickback? Or because of an innate moral sense to which altruistic action speaks? 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think we're all just Rousseauian noble savages who will be more moral the _less_ we learn of society's ways. People do seem to require moral guidance at times. But the point is, something in them responds to this, often with a kind of relief. 

This is what I said I'd get back to. Do you want to say, 'How can we have morality without a God to impose it externally?' which seemed to be your initial question, or, 'How can we have the moral sense we do, internally without a God having put it there?' I don't mind if you want to switch to the latter, but please be aware that it would seem to contradict the terms of the previous question, which depend on humans having no innate morality and therefore requiring guidance. 




> Divinely inspired law has one unbeatable advantage over human-made law: it cannot be manipulated by those in power; it cannot be changed by fickle masses. Therefore, its stability is considerably higher than law established by human beings.


I'm actually slightly at a loss as to how an intelligent person such as yourself can make a statement like this. When has religion ever possessed this degree of monolithic certainty? When has Christianity? Many, but not all Christians agree that the Bible is the word of God, but doctrinal debates have continued _among them_ long after its writing, often with very specifically moral implications. 

Even if you could somehow get the entire world to agree a set of supposedly divinely imposed moral dogmas, though how you'd do this even God doesn't seem able to imagine, do you really really think that would prevent manipulation by the powerful? What about the Borgias? Selling of indulgences? Jim and Tammy Bakker? etc. etc. Why do you think Lutheranism even happened if not, in part, because of and in opposition to perceived manipulation by the existing powers that were? 

Unlike you, with your sense that spontaneous acts of morality occurred more frequently in the past, I rather think we've moved on somewhat. However, that's not to say that the limited moral framework I outline is foolproof. Abuses, especially by the powerful (some of them avowedly religious people) continue to an almost incalculable extent. But, unlike you, I'm not arguing that an all-encompassing morality that will absolutely ensure nothing but moral acts is possible, let alone derived from God. 

Quite the contrary. I think it's an imperfect world people by imperfect people, most likely because it was not created by a god. But, even if you don't accept this lack of a god, as you don't, you surely admit that the evidence of moral imperfection is all around, some down to the complexity and ambiguity of issues, some down to out-and-out, fully self-aware corruption. 

What is the proper _moral_ response to this imperfection? Gleeful acceptance? I think we can agree that won't do. 

But I also think the assumption of a divine moral certainty is inadequate. It's not that, in the end, it allows us too much space not to continue thinking, not to take each case on its own merits. I wouldn't argue that because, as I've said, the debates continue even when one thinks one has got the word of God. It's just that, far from being our only possible source of morality, it doesn't seem necessary, for all the reasons I've given.

----------


## blp

> Well, then, if you've read the whole thing, then certainly you came across the verse that explains your failure to understand the Bible, didn't you?
> 
> *"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14*
> 
> That, in a nutshell, is why the Bible makes no sense to those who read it only to discredit it.


So we can't accept the things of the Spirit unless we have the Spirit? How are we supposed to get the Spirit in the first place if, without it, its 'things' seem foolish? 

It's interesting that even when Corinthians was being written, there were people who thought this kind of thing was 'foolishness'.

This would seem to apply to more than just people who read the Bible 'only to discredit it'. It would also seem to apply to people who just can't see the sense in it, even if they wanted to.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So we can't accept the things of the Spirit unless we have the Spirit? How are we supposed to get the Spirit in the first place if, without it, its 'things' seem foolish? 
> 
> It's interesting that even when Corinthians was being written, there were people who thought this kind of thing was 'foolishness'.
> 
> This would seem to apply to more than just people who read the Bible 'only to discredit it'. It would also seem to apply to people who just can't see the sense in it, even if they wanted to.


Since I'm at work (and students will be here soon) I'll have to answer the shorter of your two responses.

I am working off of a couple assumptions, based upon what the Bible says.

1. God created all of us, and He loves us.
2. Because He loves us, He seeks to be in relationship with us.
3. Whether we acknowledge Him or not, He still works to bring us into relationship with Him. 
4. This is generally accomplished through the Holy Spirit's influence upon us - the Holy Spirit convicts us of our need for God. 
5. Depending upon our circumstances, and the "softness" of our hearts, we will hear that conviction in "louder" or "softer" volumes.

Often-times, the only way for our heart to become softened is for God to allow us to see our need of Him - which may come in the form of a failure, a loss, a trial of some sort.

Either way, it is the heart that truly wants to understand that is given the insight. The attitude with which you approach scripture determines whether or not you'll understand it. Even if you don't know God at all, but you approach the scriptures with an open mind and a heart willing to listen, He'll open your eyes. But if you come looking only for "proof" of some position, if you only come looking to discredit, or to scoff - well, that's what Paul is talking about. You won't get anywhere and it will strike you as nonsense. But I tell my students something similar when they poo-poo great literature: their dismissal of it may be due to the failure of the book - but it may also be due to their immaturity, and perhaps their lack of wisdom/experience to appreciate the profound nature of the book. _King Lear_ - for instance - becomes much more powerful to read once you've had children. As a teen, the play is interesting, but not the harrowing and devastating examination of family dynamics that it is to a parent. The Bible operates similarly.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Your reasoning seems somewhat circular here, or, at least to be risking circularity. You don't believe it's possible to have morality without God because you take a Hobbesian view of humanity because you believe in a Christian God.


It's not that morality is impossible without God, it is that without God morality has not true, stable force upon us. Since I believe that people generally function on self-interest, without a transcendant morality, we risk becoming a law unto ourselves.




> Just out of interest, how do you square this version of the Christian view with the parable of the Good Samaritan?


I'm not sure I understand the question.




> I haven't read Hobbes or Rousseau, except, the latter, in a pinch, so I don't want to damn either of them without a hearing, but their positions, at least as you lay them out here, seem simplistic and excessively polarised. All yin or all yang. In practice, don't we see evidence for both altruism and selfishness as innate, even in very young children. It always seems to me it's the very small kids, the ones who aren't self-interestedly watching the budget perhaps, who want to give money to beggars.


I use the two as sort of rough sketches of the two views of humanity - Rousseau believing that human nature is basically good, Hobbes believing that human nature is basically evil. 

Those altruistic children were raised by parents who - more than likely - instilled within them something pointing towards the moral action of taking care of the less fortunate.




> OK, I realise this doesn't exactly constitute a philosophical proof.  I've been mulling over your question about what philosophy my Dad's starter explanation of democratic freedom led to. For reasons that go beyond point-scoring pedantry, the question seems clearly to require a working definition of philosophy itself or of 'a philosophy', at least. Break it down to its Greek roots to 'love of knowledge' or 'love of wisdom' and you've got something that seems clearly weighted to epistemology. This is limited, obviously, but this is where I feel your inquiry is leading, to whit, yes we don't really like the idea of murder, we wouldn't want anyone to do it to us or our loved ones, even to strangers, but how do we _know_ it's wrong, absolutely, in such a way as allows us to legislate against it? To put it in, I think, Kantian terms, we think we know this, but how? How is this knowledge given to me? Note that Kant was a Christian, but never felt able to resort to God as an explanation. From his philosophical perspective, it isn't one because it simply removes the question to a transcendent, inexplicable realm, an unknowable realm. God is one of Kant's noumena - an unknowable, something about which we cannot have any certain knowledge. Hence, it has nothing to do with _philo-sophy_.


But Kant ignored the fact that - even if God is ultimately unknowable, we can know - from the Bible - what he expects of us in terms of moral behavior.




> Of course, lots of religious people don't require Kant's proofs. They know what they know because they know it in their hearts, have faith etc. - even if, up to the point where proof broke down, they were quite happy to use proofs. This is, of course, the point where non-believers have very little option to throw up their hands and leave the field.


But what about the other option: that the morality that God provides us with makes sense and is the one that benefits humanity the most? What if part of our faith in God is based on the logical cohesion of things like His moral framework?




> If you'll forgive me, zep, to say this statement lacked rigour would be kind.  No evidence, no rational deduction. What am I supposed to do? Just say, _oh right, yeah, of course_?
> 
> As it happens, I actually agree, if this was the implication, that in extreme situations such as tyranny, acts of self-interest predominate. Anyone in doubt about this just needs to read Primo Levi's accounts of life in Auschwitz. However, part of the point about those accounts, I think, is that the memories of those acts of self-interest in extremis are part of the emotional burden that concentration camp survivors carry. In other words, they feel bad about having behaved selfishly, even in this situation where they had very little choice - which implies a conscience and a deep-seated desire to do good. Not for nothing are situations like this described as 'dehumanising', I think.


I think our default position is self-interest. It takes a heroic effort to be selfless in such situations as those you describe above.





> Let's not get sidetracked. I'm not citing instances of past or present misdeeds in order to simply trash religion completely - even if that was my intention when I did it in a certain previous thread. The matter at hand, I think you'll agree, is the question of how we derive our morality. All I'm trying to show is that religion, far from being our only possible hope of having a moral code, is no _guarantor_ of moral behaviour at all.


Religion cannot guarantee moral behavior because moral behavior must be acted out by human agents - and human beings will always struggle with morality (which always deals with how we treat others) because of our innate self interest. Religion is irrelevant - it is God that matters; unless morality come from a basis that humans cannot manipulate, it is liable to be abused by our self-interest.





> It's this kind of excess of certainty that Christopher Hitchens is talking about when he tries to claim that apparently atheistic phenomena such as Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge were actually implicitly religious. He doesn't make a very convincing case for this at all in my view, but the point does touch on something interesting, which is the way that, at precisely the point in the nineteenth century where it's becoming harder and harder to sustain religious belief philosophically, a powerful move towards certainty asserts itself, like the return of the repressed, in the form of Hegelian dialectics and, thence, Marxist dialectical materialism. It's a sign of the shift taking place that Marx went so far as to justify his system by calling it 'scientific', indicating clearly that the certainty he believed he was offering had nothing metaphysical about it. But it's a last gasp, nonetheless, one that, one might hope, utters its uncanny last post-mortem squeak with Francis Fukuyama's _End of History_, an attempt to justify capitalism and democracy as absolutely right on the same dialectical terms at a point when everyone really should have known better.


The issue at hand, though, isn't so much religion and its zealots as it is the basis or morality. Religious people do immoral things - sometimes cloaking it in a very sincere belief that it is God's will to do something really immoral (the Inquisitions come to mind, as does the psychopath Fred Phelps and his vicious anit-gay stance). Despite the missteps by religious people, the moral framework of God IS valuable.




> But, as your own line of questioning seems to me to apply, how do we know what's good? 
> 
> It's a bit of a sideline, but I disagree about your interpretation of 'will'. It's not necessarily synonymous with 'want'. It could just imply the future tense - do what you are going to do. This, to me, seems the right degree of ambiguity. Whether it's 'want' or 'are going to do', it's only a problem if you think that, off the leash, people are just going to go around committing acts of destructive self-indulgence (well you would think that as a Hobbesian, I guess). I think it allows a lot of room for doing good, but, crucially, doesn't insist on it. Insisting on it seems too rigid, a repression that will ultimately result in a backlash and it also removes volition in moral acts. You asked how my father's schema amounted to anything other than 'fear of retaliation', but how does a religious morality that absolutely insists on acts of virtue amount to anything other than fear of punishment and desire for reward? Where are our good Samaritans in that? The ones who actually have empathy and a moral sense, rather than just a moral rulebook? The ones who do good because they want to?


There are certain "goods" that are universally accepted. Life, family, friendship, work, play, the experience of beauty, knowledge, integrity.

Although your discussion of "will" is very good, I don't think it applies. If the Wiccan dictum uses "will" as "in the future," then it is merely saying "do what you plan to do" which really isn't even worth saying. If "will" is used as I take it - desire, want - now we have a statement that deals with morality because I'm being told that I can do as I wish as long as no one is harmed.

The Bible's insistence that we do good, I think, is an inunction from God that is meant to nurture our souls; He created us to be in loving relationships; every immoral act we do does a violation to our hearts that has consequences both in our relationship with him and each other.




> Actually, you virtually never see these guys trying to defend their atrocities. Usually they just try to say, it wasn't me, someone else did it. That's what was being described on the news last night. The guy was either the leader of a Lords Resistance Army that had forced women to murder their own babies (I know. WTF?) or, in his version, an unwilling conscript.


Fair enough - but do you really think they believe they're doing something wrong? Why would a group assent to do something they believe is wrong? Or is their lack of a defense simply a way to avoid entering into a dialogue they know they will not fare well in? Either way, the actions are being taken, and the censuring from other sources has little effect. Only monetary sanctions seem to speak. Moral ones go unheard - because if morality is humanly established, what hold does it have on me?




> Yeah, it's almost like God talking to me.


I love those moments (depending on what He's telling me).




> Or Kant's notorious murderer at the door after your children example, in which he says that the obligation to tell the truth is _not_ void. Uh oh.


That's where Kant is wrong. The Categorical Imperative is WAY more rigid than Christian morality. 




> OK, maybe, but we're on more solid, potentially universal ground if we make those principles practical. If I say to a war criminal, who might, for the sake of argument, also be a member of a sect that sacrifices virgins, 'You are a criminal because God says murder is wrong.' he'd reject my argument on his own moral terms. The ground is no more solid than if I say 'You are a criminal because I just know somehow that murder is wrong.' since this man has a different conception of God from mine.


But here's the thing: morality is a reflection of God's character - they aren't random rules He arbitrarily picked to enforce. That is largely why I believe most of us have an innate sense of moral behavior imparted to us because our creator implanted within our hearts a certain way of interacting with the world around us. We were created to love - because that is the primary characteristic of God. I'm not suggesting that saying "God says so" carries moral force to someone who doesn't believe in Him. I'm arguing that from a philosophic position that once we start agreeing with the criminal, we lose our moral high ground. 




> He might still try to reject it if I said, 'You are a criminal because you took the lives of people who were no threat to you and who were not willing to give up their lives', he might try a moral defense, but he'd have a harder time. The principle at work: possession is nine tenths of the law. In terms of maintaining social stability, it's a good 'un. He can recognise the terms because he can see that, if the situation was reversed, he wouldn't want the acts he committed to be committed against himself and might even consider them unjustified.


The fact that the criminal wouldn't want his actions perpetrated upon himself suggests his awareness that what he did was wrong. Because if behavior has no moral content, then why should he fear reciprocation?




> You might say, OK, but this doesn't really imply a morality, just a practical governing framework. And I might agree. I might even go on to say, what's the need for a morality at all as long as we know that we are protected from unprovoked harm? i.e. from injury or removal of our property by another person to whom we've done nothing wrong. As long as that is in place, why shouldn't people 'do what they will' and practice any moral code that suits them?


Because, although avoiding evil is a basic minimum, but I don't think it goes far enough in producing good people. Think about raising children - should we apply that dictum to parenting? To our relationships? I'm not sure avoiding evil/harm is sufficient.




> Roughly the same governing principle also occurs, of course, in the Bible: 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you.' At which point, it does rather look like a (wonderfully simple) guideline for moral action, but one that is, very much, grounded in the practical. No need for a deity to impose such a law. One can see the logic of it immediately and could derive it without reference to a deity.


Unless the diety implanted such an idea in us in the first place. Genesis says we were created in the "image" of God - this refers not to likeness, but to characteristics. I take this to mean that He gave us His attributes - love, kindness, compassion, justice - a sense of morality. Those things can be corrupted, but He gave us those things in the first place by making us like Him.




> Of course, to take an unHobbesian view, if you were to accept that morality is innate, the matter would be different. I'll get back to this...


Morality is innate, but not because of evolution. See comments directly above.




> Sorry, but, once again, you're on shaky ground philosophically, not because you're obviously wrong, but because you're simply making a bald statement without any kind of evidence.


How much evidence do I need to prove that human beings generally base much of their behavior around what they think is best for them? How many marriages have fallen apart because one of the partners is "unhappy"? How many babies have been aborted because people didn't want to deal with the consequences of their actions? How many people are currently suffering in this financial disaster because of self-interested banks? How many people have lost their savings or retirement because of ruthless CEOs? Come on - do you really want me to go on?




> I don't think we've got space to get into this. We'll have to agree to disagree.


No argument there.




> Good. Yes, the Bible can instill morality, but that's not the point of the argument. The point is, do we absolutely _need_ religion to give us morality?


We don't need religion to provide morality; we need to acknowledge that its source is divine so that it has binding power. Otherwise our only choices are moral relativism, utilitarianism (which leads to totalitarianism), or "might makes right."




> And where are your Hobbesian monsters of self-interest now? Why are these people more satisfied and fulfilled? Why does it feel good to do good? Because God rewards good deeds with an immediate sensory kickback? Or because of an innate moral sense to which altruistic action speaks?


Self-interest never completely goes away - but we can choose a higher course of duty. Many people, I think, are surprised that serving others, that doing good, that making an altruistic sacrifice - feels good. Perhaps it lacks the immediate gratification of choosing selfishness, but it provides a quieter, yet deeper, feeling of satisfaction. That doesn't mean it's always easy to choose. Doing good doesn't feel good because of anticipation of reward: it feels good because God designed us to love each other. Sin warps that into self-love - which - like any drug - tastes really good, but hurts you later. Doing good to others doesn't always feel good at the time (like eating well or exercising) but you feel better later.




> Don't get me wrong. I don't think we're all just Rousseauian noble savages who will be more moral the _less_ we learn of society's ways. People do seem to require moral guidance at times. But the point is, something in them responds to this, often with a kind of relief
> 
> This is what I said I'd get back to. Do you want to say, 'How can we have morality without a God to impose it externally?' which seemed to be your initial question, or, 'How can we have the moral sense we do, internally without a God having put it there?' I don't mind if you want to switch to the latter, but please be aware that it would seem to contradict the terms of the previous question, which depend on humans having no innate morality and therefore requiring guidance.


God doesn't need to "impose" morality from the outside; it's already inside us, but sin has corrupted it so that the Bible exists to remind us of what we innately know but either have forgotten or choose to twist around until it serves us.




> I'm actually slightly at a loss as to how an intelligent person such as yourself can make a statement like this. When has religion ever possessed this degree of monolithic certainty? When has Christianity? Many, but not all Christians agree that the Bible is the word of God, but doctrinal debates have continued _among them_ long after its writing, often with very specifically moral implications.


Remember: I'm not talking about religion or Christianity as much as I'm talking about the Bible. There's a difference. The Bible does not cover all moral issues (like slavery, abortion, euthanasia, etc) - but it does provide us with principles to use in our assessment as to how to respond to these issues. The certainty is not placed in particular denominational dogmas, but the basic principles of morality that the Bible acknowledges - which would be easier to attack if they weren't things that are generally acknowledged as being good.




> Even if you could somehow get the entire world to agree a set of supposedly divinely imposed moral dogmas, though how you'd do this even God doesn't seem able to imagine, do you really really think that would prevent manipulation by the powerful? What about the Borgias? Selling of indulgences? Jim and Tammy Bakker? etc. etc. Why do you think Lutheranism even happened if not, in part, because of and in opposition to perceived manipulation by the existing powers that were?


The fact that God had to use human language to communicate His character to us automatically means that His word is liable to be manipulated. That is unavoidable. I'm not suggesting that returning to a God-based morality would solve all problems - I'm suggesting that without it we are caught in ethical quicksand because our platform for making ethical judgments is seriously compromised.




> Unlike you, with your sense that spontaneous acts of morality occurred more frequently in the past, I rather think we've moved on somewhat. However, that's not to say that the limited moral framework I outline is foolproof. Abuses, especially by the powerful (some of them avowedly religious people) continue to an almost incalculable extent. But, unlike you, I'm not arguing that an all-encompassing morality that will absolutely ensure nothing but moral acts is possible, let alone derived from God.


I'm not arguing that in the least. My post above pretty much gives my position. I don't believe in a moral utopia - but disconnecting God from morality loosens morality's power to hold us in check. A good book on Natural Law philosophy ravels this out better than I can.




> Quite the contrary. I think it's an imperfect world people by imperfect people, most likely because it was not created by a god. But, even if you don't accept this lack of a god, as you don't, you surely admit that the evidence of moral imperfection is all around, some down to the complexity and ambiguity of issues, some down to out-and-out, fully self-aware corruption.


We are morally corrupted - but the Bible explains that; we were created by a perfect God and we existed initially as perfect beings; however, we were given freewill, and we used it - and because of that, our perfection disappeared and we have become corrupted in our ability to apprehend God and obey Him.




> What is the proper _moral_ response to this imperfection? Gleeful acceptance? I think we can agree that won't do.


We must look to something higher than our corrupted selves to guide us.




> But I also think the assumption of a divine moral certainty is inadequate. It's not that, in the end, it allows us too much space not to continue thinking, not to take each case on its own merits. I wouldn't argue that because, as I've said, the debates continue even when one thinks one has got the word of God. It's just that, far from being our only possible source of morality, it doesn't seem necessary, for all the reasons I've given.


Perhaps. But morality's force largely comes from what stands behind it. Just like a parent who carries out threats with consequences, the moral law must have something behind it that gives it authority. If the parent never consequences, his threats become meaningless to the child. If the authority is us, then we can revise it at will until it bends to our will. If the authority behind it is God's, then we have to acknowledge its authority and act accordingly to the best of our ability.

----------


## blp

> It's not that morality is impossible without God, it is that without God morality has not true, stable force upon us.


My point is, how do you propose to make this stable force work, given that you admit that believers still fail, often quite egregiously, to live up to your god's moral code? 




> Since I believe that people generally function on self-interest, without a transcendant morality, we risk becoming a law unto ourselves.


You're still predicating your entire argument on something you don't seem to think it's necessary to prove - this dominance of self-interest. You do need to prove it. It's not apodictic or axiomatic. 




> I'm not sure I understand the question.


The question was how you square your idea that we are driven by self-interest with the parable of the Good Samaritan, the story, said to have been told by Jesus, of someone offering help without either fear of punishment or desire for reward, i.e. without being governed in any obvious way by self-interest. By the by, the Samaritans were people whom the Jews, to whom Jesus was primarily preaching, regarded as enemies, which increases the sense that the act was purely altruistic. 




> Those altruistic children were raised by parents who - more than likely - instilled within them something pointing towards the moral action of taking care of the less fortunate.


Just because you say it's so, doesn't mean it is. Again, to recap, I was talking about children who want to give to beggars, even when their parents _don't_ want to. 

I don't know what to say to your response, Red. Are you seriously trying to suggest you've never _felt_ these kinds of altruistic impulses without being told to? I'll do you the credit of simply saying I don't believe you. Other than that, all I can tell you is, some of us have. 




> But Kant ignored the fact that - even if God is ultimately unknowable, we can know - from the Bible - what he expects of us in terms of moral behavior.


He ignored this because he was in pursuit of philosophical certainty, not, as he makes clear in an early work, _Dreams of a Spirit Seer_, superstition or hearsay. My point, in bringing him up, was only that - that his project was philosophical. I made this point in direct response to your question about what 'philosophy' my father's explanation of democratic freedoms led to. 

My overall point in doing so was that, yes, it is indeed difficult to justify our values on strict philosophical grounds, however, if you want to make this point, you have to go all the way with it. 'Because God says so', is not accepted as a philosophical proof, because it doesn't prove anything. 

I'll anticipate a possible retort: _it would be if we all accepted the Bible as God's word_. This self-evidently won't do, for reasons I've already given. Christianity was the dominant belief system in Europe from the Middle Ages almost to the present, but has been riven, throughout the period, with theological debates and disagreements. The word of God appears to be open to interpretation, even interpretations that have allowed popes to sanction holy wars against unbelievers. 




> But what about the other option: that the morality that God provides us with makes sense and is the one that benefits humanity the most?


If it makes sense in itself, we don't _need_ a God to tell it to us. That's the main point I've been trying to argue. Everything I've written has been in response to your question, stated as follows:




> I asked where the atheist's idea of morality comes from. I'm still waiting for an answer.


There you go. It's comes from the fact that it makes sense - it's something that can be worked out logically. The only thing left for you is to retreat back to your idea that we need God to impose this logical framework through reward and punishment and/or a transcendent gaurantee of perfect rightness. In fact, if it makes sense, we don't even need the transcendent gaurantee, just the sense. 




> What if part of our faith in God is based on the logical cohesion of things like His moral framework?


Your faith in God. Just to be clear, I don't have one. 

I don't know, Zep. To some extent, what your faith is based on is up to you, but this, again, is hopelessly circular. Presumably, this is the 'moral framework' laid down in the Bible, which you believe is the word of God. To even believe it is His moral framework you're being convinced by, you'd have to have faith in his existence first, so I don't see how the moral framework could, in itself, be the basis for your faith. 




> I think our default position is self-interest.


So you keep saying. Without doing any work to prove it. 




> It takes a heroic effort to be selfless in such situations as those you describe above.


Yes, and people make that effort frequently without being religious, or without believing in the God from whom you believe you get your morality. 

Are you saying that the effort required for selfless action implies we're _always_ overcoming our default position of self-interest? You can just as easily argue it the other way: that really selfish action also requires a huge effort to suppress one's conscience. I'm guessing you'll say, well, that's because we've been told by some higher authority that sefishness is bad. 

All I can say is, you really haven't proved the point. You're just saying what you believe and what you appear to believe defiantly in the face of overwhelming evidence that human beings are capable of both extraordinary selfishness and extraordinary selflessness. 

But what about situations where no one would begrudge the self-interest morally and yet conscience still comes into play? Why did some concentration camp survivors, for instance, feel 'survivor's guilt'?




> Religion cannot guarantee moral behavior because moral behavior must be acted out by human agents - and human beings will always struggle with morality (which always deals with how we treat others) because of our innate self interest. Religion is irrelevant - it is God that matters; *unless morality come from a basis that humans cannot manipulate, it is liable to be abused by our self-interest.*


More unsubstantiated insistence, but I'll go along with it. I'd just like you to show me a basis that humans cannot manipulate. The Word of God, as it appears in the Bible, seems not to provide that. 




> The issue at hand, though, isn't so much religion and its zealots as it is the basis or morality. Religious people do immoral things - sometimes cloaking it in a very sincere belief that it is God's will to do something really immoral (the Inquisitions come to mind, as does the psychopath Fred Phelps and his vicious anit-gay stance). * Despite the missteps by religious people, the moral framework of God IS valuable*.


And another bald statement without anything to back it up. Earlier you suggested the possibility that




> that the morality that God provides us with makes sense and is the one that benefits humanity the most


to which I retorted, yes, and if it does make sense, we can work it out ourselves logically. So, in that sense, I might concede that the moral framework you think God provides us with is valuable, it's just that there's no need for a god either to provide it, since we can work it out, or to guarantee it absolutely, because the sense it makes is its own guarantee of validity. 




> Although your discussion of "will" is very good, I don't think it applies. If the Wiccan dictum uses "will" as "in the future," then it is merely saying "do what you plan to do" which really isn't even worth saying. If "will" is used as I take it - desire, want - now we have a statement that deals with morality because I'm being told that I can do as I wish as long as no one is harmed.
> 
> The Bible's insistence that we do good, I think, is an inunction from God that is meant to nurture our souls; He created us to be in loving relationships; every immoral act we do does a violation to our hearts that has consequences both in our relationship with him and each other.


You're arguing now almost as if I'm trying to set up Wiccan morality in opposition to Christian morality. I'm not, I'm just trying to show that we don't need a God, Christian or otherwise, to instill morality in us. I'll admit your point that morality probably requires a little more of us than simply not doing harm, to whit, it probably requires that we do good. 




> Fair enough - but do you really think they believe they're doing something wrong? Why would a group assent to do something they believe is wrong?


Er.... I'd have thought you'd be able to answer this one yourself: self-interest, the thing you believe is our default position; either, in this case, the desire to commit sadistic acts for themselves or to win in battle even by unfair means. 




> Or is their lack of a defense simply a way to avoid entering into a dialogue they know they will not fare well in? Either way, the actions are being taken, and the censuring from other sources has little effect. Only monetary sanctions seem to speak. Moral ones go unheard - because *if morality is humanly established, what hold does it have on me*?


Its own internal sense. 

You said above that 'Religious people do immoral things - sometimes cloaking it in a very sincere belief that it is God's will to do something really immoral'. It seems then, for the nth time, that divinely established morality doesn't have a stable hold on believers either. 




> That's where Kant is wrong. The Categorical Imperative is WAY more rigid than Christian morality.


As far as I understand this concept so far, I agree. 





> But here's the thing: morality is a reflection of God's character - they aren't random rules He arbitrarily picked to enforce. That is largely why I believe most of us have an innate sense of moral behavior imparted to us because our creator implanted within our hearts a certain way of interacting with the world around us. We were created to love - because that is the primary characteristic of God.


Well, then you've answered your own question:




> I asked where the atheist's idea of morality comes from.


In your schema, it comes from God because you believe God imparts an innate sense of moral behaviour to us. But I guess what you're trying to say, now, is that, yes, we have this innate moral sense, but we need to believe in God and read his word in order to bring it out and overcome our desire to sin. Is that accurate? 




> I'm not suggesting that saying "God says so" carries moral force to someone who doesn't believe in Him.


No, but you seem to have been saying, despite my proofs against, that it does, in the same way, for all the people who believe in Him. 




> I'm arguing that from a philosophic position that once we start agreeing with the criminal, we lose our moral high ground.


The only reason I started talking about _convincing_ criminals that what they'd done was wrong was because you seemed to be concerned with how we might arrive at a universal moral code that allows us to condemn them: 




> If we do condemn them, we are automatically implying a standard of morality that they should acknowledge as well - but if it's simply OUR morality, what gives us the authority to condemn/judge at all?


This seemed to me to suggest that we _should_ agree with criminals, in that they should understand what they were being punished for in order to, like, imply 'a standard of morality that they should acknowledge as well'. Something I would agree with. Now I see that you want us to agree with God, but not with the criminals. Is that what you meant? 




> The fact that the criminal wouldn't want his actions perpetrated upon himself suggests his awareness that what he did was wrong. Because if behavior has no moral content, then why should he fear reciprocation?


I can't really see what you're getting at. I'm not talking about reciprocation, for one thing, I'm talking about _understanding_ that an action is wrong because you wouldn't like it if it was done to you. You surely don't need a God or a transcendent morality to tell you that you'd find being robbed, injured or murdered unpleasant?




> Because, although avoiding evil is a basic minimum, but I don't think it goes far enough in producing good people. Think about raising children - should we apply that dictum to parenting? To our relationships? I'm not sure avoiding evil/harm is sufficient.


It's a big question. The doctrine of 'no harm' is frequently evoked in child-rearing, e.g. 
Authority figure A: Small boy, will you please stop picking at that/making that noise/getting yourself dirty? 
Authority figure B: Oh, leave him alone. He's not doing any harm. 

This is just a massive subject. From what I can gather, but it's all pretty much fragments picked up hear and there from chit chat, TV etc. child-rearing experts believe that the way you treat a child, from a moral point of view, is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. Assume they're basically decent and treat them with respect and they'll be decent and respectful. There also seems to be a strong emphasis on praising their good actions and being very clear about explaining why they're wrong actions are unacceptable. 

I don't have kids, but various friends of mine do. I don't see them actively telling their kids to do good deeds or anything, but I do see the kids, frequently, being spontaneously kind. 

Again, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of _telling_ people to do good because then there's nothing of themselves in it, they're really just acting as the instrument of the person who told them to do it'; they're not giving anything of themselves etc. and the idea that they need to be told fails to recognise any good impulses they have of their own. 




> Unless the diety implanted such an idea in us in the first place. Genesis says we were created in the "image" of God - this refers not to likeness, but to characteristics. I take this to mean that He gave us His attributes - love, kindness, compassion, justice - a sense of morality. Those things can be corrupted, but He gave us those things in the first place by making us like Him.
> 
> How much evidence do I need to prove that human beings generally base much of their behavior around what they think is best for them? How many marriages have fallen apart because one of the partners is "unhappy"? How many babies have been aborted because people didn't want to deal with the consequences of their actions? How many people are currently suffering in this financial disaster because of self-interested banks? How many people have lost their savings or retirement because of ruthless CEOs? Come on - do you really want me to go on?


No, I just want you to

a) see that, just as there are, indubitably, countless acts of extreme inhumanity and selfishness, there are countless acts of kindness and decency too. What about all the people who regularly give to charity, risk their lives to save others, protest, in huge numbers, against what they perceive to be unjust wars and dictators, take in foster children, provide free medical services to the poor etc.? A guy in South Africa is currently on a 21 day hunger strike to try to get his country and others to take decisive action against Robert Mugabe. 

b) explain to me precisely how, if God imparts an innate morality to us, our 'default' position can be said to be one of self-interest. Are you saying God imparts the innate morality and then the devil immediately takes control? 




> We don't need religion to provide morality; we need to acknowledge that its source is divine so that it has binding power.


But, as I say above, if, as you suggest, it just makes sense, isn't that binding enough? 




> Otherwise our only choices are moral relativism, utilitarianism (which leads to totalitarianism), or "might makes right."


More unsubstantiated argument. How does utilitarianism lead to totalitarianism? How do you know it always would? I'm not denying that it would, but you can't honestly be hoping to convince me by just saying whatever you happen to think is true without any kind of proof? 

Anyway, as I said before, those aren't the only options. There's also 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you', a perfectly good principle that is so obvious in its sense that we hardly need a God to provide us with it. As you say, it just makes sense. 

And you say, yourself




> There are certain "goods" that are universally accepted. Life, family, friendship, work, play, the experience of beauty, knowledge, integrity.


and 





> Self-interest never completely goes away - but we can choose a higher course of duty. Many people, I think, are surprised that serving others, that doing good, that making an altruistic sacrifice - feels good. Perhaps it lacks the immediate gratification of choosing selfishness, but it provides a quieter, yet deeper, feeling of satisfaction. That doesn't mean it's always easy to choose. Doing good doesn't feel good because of anticipation of reward: it feels good because God designed us to love each other. Sin warps that into self-love - which - like any drug - tastes really good, but hurts you later. Doing good to others doesn't always feel good at the time (like eating well or exercising) but you feel better later.


I might quibble with the details, especially the religious ones, but I'm happy to agree with the substantive point that doing good feels good, love feels better than hate etc. You say this comes from God. I say it's the evolved tendency that holds societies together and allows for perpetration of the human race. Potato Potahto. 





> God doesn't need to "impose" morality from the outside; it's already inside us, but sin has corrupted it so that the Bible exists to remind us of what we innately know but either have forgotten or choose to twist around until it serves us.


sin has corrupted our innate moral sense at what point? The moment of conception or birth? 




> Remember: I'm not talking about religion or Christianity as much as I'm talking about the Bible. There's a difference. The Bible does not cover all moral issues (like slavery, abortion, euthanasia, etc) - but it does provide us with principles to use in our assessment as to how to respond to these issues. The certainty is not placed in particular denominational dogmas, but the basic principles of morality that the Bible acknowledges - which would be easier to attack if they weren't *things that are generally acknowledged as being good*.


Right, because they make sense to people even without a religious framework or a belief in God. 




> The fact that God had to use human language to communicate His character to us automatically means that His word is liable to be manipulated. That is unavoidable.


Oh. Poor God, doing his best, but it's not good enough, to be clearly understood. Are you saying he's not all-powerful? 




> I'm not suggesting that returning to a God-based morality would solve all problems - I'm suggesting that without it we are caught in ethical quicksand because our platform for making ethical judgments is seriously compromised.


By what? By what that doesn't appear to be just as able to compromise a God-based morality? 




> I'm not arguing that in the least. My post above pretty much gives my position. I don't believe in a moral utopia - but disconnecting God from morality loosens morality's power to hold us in check.


But it doesn't. The only extra leverage God would seem to have is eternal punishment/reward. But you can get the reward and dodge the punishyment just by repenting. (Also, as an aside, as Rozzy's posts in the Christian Hell thread suggest, the original gospels may not actually have communicated anything about an eternal punishment.)




> We must look to something higher than our corrupted selves to guide us.


You haven't yet given one good reason why. 

Would you agree, at least, that, as the example of Stalinism indicates, when humans believe themselves to be guided by something higher, they run a serious risk of losing touch with the reality of their imperfection and acting as if they do have perfect understanding? 




> But morality's force largely comes from what stands behind it. Just like a parent who carries out threats with consequences, the moral law must have something behind it that gives it authority. If the parent never consequences, his threats become meaningless to the child. If the authority is us, then we can revise it at will until it bends to our will. If the authority behind it is God's, then we have to acknowledge its authority and act accordingly to the best of our ability.


No. Authority based solely on punishment or power is tyranny. The check on that in democracies is reason. Authority figures of any kind gain respect by behaving rationally and giving reasons for the things they do that are understood by the people over whom they have authority. 

It's clear you understand this because you've already argued against 'might is right' as a governing principle. You've also suggested several times that the value in Christian morality is that it just makes sense. What makes sense does not require a powerful authority figure to be 'behind' it, nor can _we_ be said to be behind it. Its authority derives from its internal logic.

----------


## blp

BUMP *weeks later*

So, did I win then?

----------


## Redzeppelin

Ummm...No.




> My point is, how do you propose to make this stable force work, given that you admit that believers still fail, often quite egregiously, to live up to your god's moral code?


I'm not discussing whether the system "works" - I'm philosophically stating that without a transcendant base, morality becomes more susceptible to manipulation by humans. Yes - God's morality can be manipulated, but since the morality exists to be verified (His word), it's harder to twist into unrecognizable shapes.





> You're still predicating your entire argument on something you don't seem to think it's necessary to prove - this dominance of self-interest. You do need to prove it. It's not apodictic or axiomatic.


How do you suggest I "prove" this? What would convince you I'm right?




> The question was how you square your idea that we are driven by self-interest with the parable of the Good Samaritan, the story, said to have been told by Jesus, of someone offering help without either fear of punishment or desire for reward, i.e. without being governed in any obvious way by self-interest. By the by, the Samaritans were people whom the Jews, to whom Jesus was primarily preaching, regarded as enemies, which increases the sense that the act was purely altruistic.


Our "default" behavior is selfishness, unless overridden by something "higher" (like a moral framework). The Samaritan's act was altruistic - so? I never said we were helplessly selfish - I said it's the default position unless something higher intervenes - a moral code, fear of punishment, desire for the good opinion of others, etc.




> Just because you say it's so, doesn't mean it is. Again, to recap, I was talking about children who want to give to beggars, even when their parents _don't_ want to.


Exceptions exist, yes. No statement of human behavior can ever be 100%.




> I don't know what to say to your response, Red. Are you seriously trying to suggest you've never _felt_ these kinds of altruistic impulses without being told to? I'll do you the credit of simply saying I don't believe you. Other than that, all I can tell you is, some of us have.


Yes - I have those impulses. But more often than not my first instinct is to take care of me. 




> He ignored this because he was in pursuit of philosophical certainty, not, as he makes clear in an early work, _Dreams of a Spirit Seer_, superstition or hearsay. My point, in bringing him up, was only that - that his project was philosophical. I made this point in direct response to your question about what 'philosophy' my father's explanation of democratic freedoms led to.


OK. Point noted.




> My overall point in doing so was that, yes, it is indeed difficult to justify our values on strict philosophical grounds, however, if you want to make this point, you have to go all the way with it. 'Because God says so', is not accepted as a philosophical proof, because it doesn't prove anything.


God's morality isn't about "philosophical proof" - it's about how human nature works vs. how He designed it to work. The Bible tells us that the law exists to show humanity their need of God - that without Him we cannot be "good" in any way, shape or form. But that's a tangent: I'm not suggesting that God's morality is any more valid than another "morality" except that it is more stable because it exists beyond human creation; because it is established by a divine being, it has more authority than humanly-created law.




> I'll anticipate a possible retort: _it would be if we all accepted the Bible as God's word_. This self-evidently won't do, for reasons I've already given. Christianity was the dominant belief system in Europe from the Middle Ages almost to the present, but has been riven, throughout the period, with theological debates and disagreements. The word of God appears to be open to interpretation, even interpretations that have allowed popes to sanction holy wars against unbelievers.


OK - and I'm not asking the world to accept God's moral law. I'm simply saying that the consequences of the reality that you've described is that totalitarianism becomes easier once man becomes his own arbiter of right and wrong because then law can be made to serve the state's will - whether the state is just or not.




> If it makes sense in itself, we don't _need_ a God to tell it to us. That's the main point I've been trying to argue. Everything I've written has been in response to your question, stated as follows:


Sure - but just because it's "common sensical" doesn't give it the same authority. Common sense can be challenged or bypassed by circumstances. God cannot.




> There you go. It's comes from the fact that it makes sense - it's something that can be worked out logically. The only thing left for you is to retreat back to your idea that we need God to impose this logical framework through reward and punishment and/or a transcendent gaurantee of perfect rightness. In fact, if it makes sense, we don't even need the transcendent gaurantee, just the sense.


Addressed above. I'm talking about the power _behind_ the law. A police officer can order 20 people what to do (though he's only one man) because people know that the entire law of the state stands behind him. If the only authority a cop had was him/herself, why listen if there's more of us than him/her? It's the authority _behind_ the officer that gives him/her their power. The same is true for moral law.




> Your faith in God. Just to be clear, I don't have one.


Understood.




> I don't know, Zep. To some extent, what your faith is based on is up to you, but this, again, is hopelessly circular. Presumably, this is the 'moral framework' laid down in the Bible, which you believe is the word of God. To even believe it is His moral framework you're being convinced by, you'd have to have faith in his existence first, so I don't see how the moral framework could, in itself, be the basis for your faith.


God's moral framework is not the basis of my faith, and I'm not sure I've ever indicated that to be so. My faith in God is based upon my upbringing, my study of His word, and my personal experience as a Christian. The moral framework actually took a while to accept and understand.




> So you keep saying. Without doing any work to prove it.


Give me some parameters and I'll see what I can do.




> Yes, and people make that effort frequently without being religious, or without believing in the God from whom you believe you get your morality.


True - but the Bible tells us that all good comes from God - so that any "good" behavior by anybody - believer or not - is a result of God's presence in that person's life. Since God created us all, He doesn't need to ask permission to be a part of someone's life, though He will - with continued rejections, eventually withdraw from an individual. But this takes a long time and many, many rejections.




> Are you saying that the effort required for selfless action implies we're _always_ overcoming our default position of self-interest? You can just as easily argue it the other way: that really selfish action also requires a huge effort to suppress one's conscience. I'm guessing you'll say, well, that's because we've been told by some higher authority that sefishness is bad.


Yes I am. 

Do you have children? I do - and I work with teen-agers for a living. Raising kids generally is a revelation as to how human nature works.




> All I can say is, you really haven't proved the point. You're just saying what you believe and what you appear to believe defiantly in the face of overwhelming evidence that human beings are capable of both extraordinary selfishness and extraordinary selflessness.


Humans are _capable_ of both - but you seem to want to paint me into an "either/or" corner and that's not what I'm saying. Without the intervention of something mediating, I believe we will tend to look out for ourselves. If our first inclination was to take care of those around us, I would suggest a much lower divorce and abortion rate. Not every decision to terminate a marriage or a life is done for justifiable reasons. As well, the incidence of extramarital affairs suggests that doing the right thing isn't as compelling as you'd like to make it seem. That's just a few examples.




> But what about situations where no one would begrudge the self-interest morally and yet conscience still comes into play? Why did some concentration camp survivors, for instance, feel 'survivor's guilt'?


Could be the moral framework that they were raised with. Christians are taught to believe that "there, but for the grace of God, go I." That's one explanation.




> More unsubstantiated insistence, but I'll go along with it. I'd just like you to show me a basis that humans cannot manipulate. The Word of God, as it appears in the Bible, seems not to provide that.



God's word can be manipulated, but not permanently because someone else can examine it and challenge the interpretation taken by another individual/group. It exists to be referenced. But humanly-established law can be changed so that there is not standard to check it against.




> And another bald statement without anything to back it up. Earlier you suggested the possibility that...to which I retorted, yes, and if it does make sense, we can work it out ourselves logically. So, in that sense, I might concede that the moral framework you think God provides us with is valuable, it's just that there's no need for a god either to provide it, since we can work it out, or to guarantee it absolutely, because the sense it makes is its own guarantee of validity.


Already addressed already.





> You're arguing now almost as if I'm trying to set up Wiccan morality in opposition to Christian morality. I'm not, I'm just trying to show that we don't need a God, Christian or otherwise, to instill morality in us. I'll admit your point that morality probably requires a little more of us than simply not doing harm, to whit, it probably requires that we do good.


Just pointing out the difference between the two.





> Er.... I'd have thought you'd be able to answer this one yourself: self-interest, the thing you believe is our default position; either, in this case, the desire to commit sadistic acts for themselves or to win in battle even by unfair means.


Good point.




> Its own internal sense. 
> 
> You said above that 'Religious people do immoral things - sometimes cloaking it in a very sincere belief that it is God's will to do something really immoral'. It seems then, for the nth time, that divinely established morality doesn't have a stable hold on believers either.


Whether believers adhere to it doesn't change its stability - because ultimately, we will be held accountable for our behavior as measured by that law. That's the difference. If human law changes to allow random murder, how could anybody be held accountable? It would be "right" because it's "legal" (the reality of positive law) which is different from divine (or natural) law - which allows us to evaluate the justness of the positive law. God's law allows us to validate the justness of human law.

[QUOTE=blp;667320]As far as I understand this concept so far, I agree. [//QUOTE]

Phew!




> In your schema, it comes from God because you believe God imparts an innate sense of moral behaviour to us. But I guess what you're trying to say, now, is that, yes, we have this innate moral sense, but we need to believe in God and read his word in order to bring it out and overcome our desire to sin. Is that accurate?



Yes. But that innate moral sense has been corrupted by sin (the fall in Eden) which now gives us a predisposition towards self-interest that conflicts with that innate moral sense (kind of the angel and devil on our shoulder cartoon).




> No, but you seem to have been saying, despite my proofs against, that it does, in the same way, for all the people who believe in Him.


It should - but being a Christian doesn't mean the battle against self-interest simply disappeared. We struggle with that selfishness too. Christians aren't that different from those who aren't - we're simply supposed to be working on those things.




> The only reason I started talking about _convincing_ criminals that what they'd done was wrong was because you seemed to be concerned with how we might arrive at a universal moral code that allows us to condemn them:


The postive law is sufficient to condemn a criminal. We need divine law to validate the justness of the positive law that condemns the criminal.




> This seemed to me to suggest that we _should_ agree with criminals, in that they should understand what they were being punished for in order to, like, imply 'a standard of morality that they should acknowledge as well'. Something I would agree with. Now I see that you want us to agree with God, but not with the criminals. Is that what you meant?


No. Criminals don't have to agree with our interpretation of the law - but the positive law should agree with divine/natural law.




> I can't really see what you're getting at. I'm not talking about reciprocation, for one thing, I'm talking about _understanding_ that an action is wrong because you wouldn't like it if it was done to you. You surely don't need a God or a transcendent morality to tell you that you'd find being robbed, injured or murdered unpleasant?


You're right. That should be obvious - but that didn't stop Nazi Germany from legitimizing the extermination of human beings based upon ethnicity.




> It's a big question. The doctrine of 'no harm' is frequently evoked in child-rearing, e.g. 
> Authority figure A: Small boy, will you please stop picking at that/making that noise/getting yourself dirty? 
> Authority figure B: Oh, leave him alone. He's not doing any harm.


Not doing harm doesn't mean that an action is beneficial or edifying. A child scratching his genitals in public with his hand inside his pants isn't "harming" anybody, but is his action appropriate, beneficail or edifying in terms of preparing him for society?

T


> his is just a massive subject. From what I can gather, but it's all pretty much fragments picked up hear and there from chit chat, TV etc. child-rearing experts believe that the way you treat a child, from a moral point of view, is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. Assume they're basically decent and treat them with respect and they'll be decent and respectful. There also seems to be a strong emphasis on praising their good actions and being very clear about explaining why they're wrong actions are unacceptable. 
> 
> I don't have kids, but various friends of mine do. I don't see them actively telling their kids to do good deeds or anything, but I do see the kids, frequently, being spontaneously kind. 
> 
> Again, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of _telling_ people to do good because then there's nothing of themselves in it, they're really just acting as the instrument of the person who told them to do it'; they're not giving anything of themselves etc. and the idea that they need to be told fails to recognise any good impulses they have of their own.


Sorry - "friends with kids" doesn't give one any authority in the area of childraising any more than being single and having married friends gives one authority in committed relationships. Raising your own kids - I dare suggest - would radically alter how you see human nature.

I'm not telling anybody they need to "do good." But - if you don't actively train MOST children to be good and think of others (generally what we mean by being "good") they will tend to think only of themselves.




> No, I just want you to
> 
> a) see that, just as there are, indubitably, countless acts of extreme inhumanity and selfishness, there are countless acts of kindness and decency too. What about all the people who regularly give to charity, risk their lives to save others, protest, in huge numbers, against what they perceive to be unjust wars and dictators, take in foster children, provide free medical services to the poor etc.? A guy in South Africa is currently on a 21 day hunger strike to try to get his country and others to take decisive action against Robert Mugabe. 
> 
> b) explain to me precisely how, if God imparts an innate morality to us, our 'default' position can be said to be one of self-interest. Are you saying God imparts the innate morality and then the devil immediately takes control?


I've already admitted that "a" is true above.

I've already addressed "b" above as well: sin has corrupted the integrity of that innate moral sense.




> But, as I say above, if, as you suggest, it just makes sense, isn't that binding enough?


As I said above: "makes sense" can be shoved out of the way by exceptional circumstances (like some of the ridiculous "Patriot Act" components that were terrific violations of American citizens' civil rights, all in the name of "national security").




> More unsubstantiated argument. How does utilitarianism lead to totalitarianism? How do you know it always would? I'm not denying that it would, but you can't honestly be hoping to convince me by just saying whatever you happen to think is true without any kind of proof?


Seeing moral choices as a means to an end makes people into "means unto ends." Once the "greater good" becomes the standard for morality, we can do all kinds of detestible things for the "greater good" (whatever the powerful state tells us that "good" is, by the way. Without a divine law to measure the state's laws against, how can we protest these laws?).




> Anyway, as I said before, those aren't the only options. There's also 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you', a perfectly good principle that is so obvious in its sense that we hardly need a God to provide us with it. As you say, it just makes sense.


But the reality that God is behind the Golden Rule means that we understand that it can't just be pushed out of the way without serious moral consequences.




> I might quibble with the details, especially the religious ones, but I'm happy to agree with the substantive point that doing good feels good, love feels better than hate etc. You say this comes from God. I say it's the evolved tendency that holds societies together and allows for perpetration of the human race. Potato Potahto.


"Evolved"? How does a moral sense "evolve"?




> sin has corrupted our innate moral sense at what point? The moment of conception or birth?


Yes. We are "born into sin."




> Right, because they make sense to people even without a religious framework or a belief in God.


Yes - but that's because God created them and they bear this "stamp" of their maker within them whether they acknowledge Him or not.




> Oh. Poor God, doing his best, but it's not good enough, to be clearly understood. Are you saying he's not all-powerful?


How patronizing.

I'm suggesting that God attempting to put His ideas into human language is like us trying to put quantum mechanics into dog barks. He's working inside the limitations of our existence.





> By what? By what that doesn't appear to be just as able to compromise a God-based morality?


But there is a final accounting with God. That is the authority behind the law. Even if you manipulate God's law, you will ultimately answer for it from He who created it. You might get away with it for now - but not permanently.




> But it doesn't. The only extra leverage God would seem to have is eternal punishment/reward. But you can get the reward and dodge the punishyment just by repenting. (Also, as an aside, as Rozzy's posts in the Christian Hell thread suggest, the original gospels may not actually have communicated anything about an eternal punishment.)


No. God knows the contents of the human heart. Repenting just to save your skin doesn't work if not sincere. The Bible also teaches that repeated sinning "hardens" one's heart against repenting. The longer you sin, the less likely it becomes that you'll even WANT to repent. It's a dangerous gamble to bet on a "deathbed conversion."




> You haven't yet given one good reason why.


I've given numerous reasons thus far in this post.




> Would you agree, at least, that, as the example of Stalinism indicates, when humans believe themselves to be guided by something higher, they run a serious risk of losing touch with the reality of their imperfection and acting as if they do have perfect understanding?


That is a risk. CS Lewis postulated that the "higher" one flies, the farther down he falls - saying that the greatest saints make the most horrendous of sinners.




> No. Authority based solely on punishment or power is tyranny. The check on that in democracies is reason. Authority figures of any kind gain respect by behaving rationally and giving reasons for the things they do that are understood by the people over whom they have authority.


With God, reward or punishment is a function of reality - not His arbitrary choice; choosing God is its own reward; not choosing God is its own punishment.




> It's clear you understand this because you've already argued against 'might is right' as a governing principle. You've also suggested several times that the value in Christian morality is that it just makes sense. What makes sense does not require a powerful authority figure to be 'behind' it, nor can _we_ be said to be behind it. Its authority derives from its internal logic.


Already addressed above more than once.

----------


## NikolaiI

"Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!"

William Woodsworth

----------


## jaywalker

Laid back says ''If we consider things from scientific point of view, we find that everything in nature, right from a simple leaf to a blue whale or to just whatsoever else we can think of has a beautifully planned system.'' Like Cancer -birth deformities, Mental illness, a Rabbit found underground dead with a dead baby rabbit stuck in the birth canal?

----------


## NikolaiI

> Laid back says ''If we consider things from scientific point of view, we find that everything in nature, right from a simple leaf to a blue whale or to just whatsoever else we can think of has a beautifully planned system.'' Like Cancer -birth deformities, Mental illness, a Rabbit found underground dead with a dead baby rabbit stuck in the birth canal?


You haven't stated it, but I am taking your position to mean that those instances make you doubt the existence of the divine. They also make you doubt the existence of the soul, I presume? What about any other ideal? Love? Hope? Faith? Should we not have hope because of some evils in the world? Should we not have faith? Hope, faith and love are all completely integral in coming to know God. They're also necessary for us as human beings. We aren't fulfilled without them - external, material objects don't satsify us permanently or ultimately.

----------


## Pendragon

In the words of a song by Michael Card:

"So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see"

----------


## laidbackperson

> Laid back says ''If we consider things from scientific point of view, we find that everything in nature, right from a simple leaf to a blue whale or to just whatsoever else we can think of has a beautifully planned system.'' Like Cancer -birth deformities, Mental illness, a Rabbit found underground dead with a dead baby rabbit stuck in the birth canal?


What I meant is that you think of anything in Nature- living or non-living, you will find there a beautiful planning i.e. a complex mechanism by which a system (leaf or a stone or water, etc) perform its tasks or hold itself together. It makes you marvel, how everything happens by itself. If you study the physics or chemistry or biology of anything in Nature, you will find this planning there and to which scientists would not dispute. Further, if you take any human made objects *( Are humans anywhere near creating life in the laboratory with all know-how available whereas the life on its own evolved by itself as per science many billions of years ago? Also are we anywhere near putting an end to death? The day science gets there; I will start having doubts about God)* like cars, TVs cell phone, nuclear bomb etc, what we have actually done is studied only the laws (science) of nature and harnessed this knowledge in coming out with our inventions. But why nature works in a particular way, why positive and negative charges attracts and like charges repels, do we really know?

Second point I guess from your remarks are that you say there is also a bad side to nature. Examples that you have given. I fully agree with you. But even in the bad things that happen, there is a mechanism still working, but working now in a particular way owing to failure of a normal mechanism. Perhaps you are indirectly implying that if a good God is there then why bad things happen. I dont know the answer and I only guess that it is a part of our learning in earth. If all remains good for ever, then we may take everything for granted. So the pain, suffering, losses, deaths etc are there which make us reflect on our transitory happiness and make us seek God, seek for everlasting happiness.

Do also read my next post, where I have used your example.

----------


## laidbackperson

I have been mulling over this for some time. What do you say? It is a bit long but if you are able to finish it, and it makes your shake your head with amusement or disgust, do comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it not possible that God is actually the director of the continuous drama that is being played in world day and night, week after week, year after year? He operates silently from backstage but it is He who calls all the shot, pulls all the strings. And does so, so quietly, and so furtively that we fail to feel His presence and start believing that this whole drama runs on its own without any one directing it.

One day 9/11 happened. Misguided persons, pent up emotions take the control and succeed in their mission of terror. The whole world watches the TV replays again and again. Unbelievable. What is the world coming to? What the heck the God can be doing? How come He let such a thing happen? Or is it Gods doing? He must have been aware of all this and still He let this happen? 
Is it actually His way of asking us, Can you still believe on me after this. Can you still hold on to your faiths.? Or is God trying to send a message to humanity: Life is too short, too uncertain, dont take yourself as invincible. 

A Sunday afternoon. Sunny day. The city center is buzzing with activity. People are purchasing, tourists are sight-seeing, there is a zing in the air, lovers are gazing deeply into each-others eyes, oblivious of the world. Everything is looking fine with the world. A car comes at a breakneck speed and crushes a little kid who just moments ago was chuckling with glee. The kids young mother is inconsolable. Everyone who sees the sight is shocked, heartbroken. Why an innocent kid has to die this way? 

Simple A fast car, out of control. Probably the driver was drunk or casual or lost somewhere in thought or some other thing. But such things happen in the world. It can happen to anybody. There is no God. World runs on its own by its own rules.
Or again is God playing trick on us. Is He luring us into believeing that the whole drama runs on it own. Probably challenging us can we still believe in Him after this.

If we look around, watch TV or read newspapers, we will find plenty of bad and sad things happening: Rapes, unsolved grim murders, fit persons becoming severely handicapped for life, Mentally sick people, people dying of hunger or committing suicide out of loneliness, a rabbit found underground dead with with a dead baby rabbit stuck in the birth canal etc. We will find the world rampant with bad things. 
Can it be God playing trick on us. Playing His drama so effectively that we begin to suspect His presence. Is He challenging us- Can you still believe in me? Can you still cling to your faith if your world going topsy-turvy?

Coming back, why that kid had to die. We can see it only as the death of a seven year old- a bubbly life coming to an abrupt end in an unnatural way. But may be there is a reincarnation thing after all. For God the kid is not seven year old but a soul taking birth again and again in various human forms in earth. May be even earlier than Buddha, Muhammed, Christ, Krishna and others. In His eternal play, may be in a karma theory we dont know much about, the soul was to stay only for seven year as that kid. God sees the kid as an eternal entity ever existing and He is working towards the entitys final union with Him. With our limited knowledge about an event, what for us is mindless, unforgivable and too callous, for benevolent God who sees everything in full light it may only be a passing show in an eternal play.
Yes, there are no proofs for these things. It seems that God sees to it that there are no proofs of the type atheists seek. And believers just have to march forward on a faith that may get tested time and again. 
__________________________________________________ _
mm.. What happened?

I just hope that atheists and believers are not aiming their guns at me.

----------


## Judas130

> Well, then, if you've read the whole thing, then certainly you came across the verse that explains your failure to understand the Bible, didn't you?
> 
> *"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14*
> 
> That, in a nutshell, is why the Bible makes no sense to those who read it only to discredit it.


In context with quote, its hardly useful. Paul felt mistreated upon visiting CHRISTIAN Corinthians, and accused them of being 'of the flesh'. He was late to his meeting, and was seen as unreliable: 'we do not listen to him'.

15
The spiritual person judges all
things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

16
"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct
him?" But we have the mind of Christ

-- so those that indulge in a transcendent reality are not to be judged, they have their 'get out jail free' card for their ignorance of assertion and axiom? I'm sorry, but i'm judging already. it seems a hardly fair, loving, religion when the outsiders get discriminated towards. It contradicts jesus' views: there are many rooms in my fathers house - a respect for other people outside of his own faith. Paul, thus, does not possess the mind of Christ. simple. Paul here says that it does not matter if you are spiritual, you can be Buddhist, or a Christian of varying belief to that of Paul (the one who converted so many states) and yet you are still of the flesh: 'But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh'. This seems to contradict the views of Jesus, this contradiction makes the bible no better. your quote, in context, has no real argument.







> So you feel that the idea human should be aiming for perfection, for purity is unconvincing?


The church tells me i must repent for my 'sins'. and what sins are these? looking a someone's rear and thinking 'damn! if only!'? because, why should i repent for this? It is not perfection or purity the Church is pointing you towards, it is to selflessness, to guilt. it is ridiculous - you were made with these 'default settings', why ignore them? if you are created in God's image then God is no more than a higher animal like we all are.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In context with quote, its hardly useful. Paul felt mistreated upon visiting CHRISTIAN Corinthians, and accused them of being 'of the flesh'. He was late to his meeting, and was seen as unreliable: 'we do not listen to him'.
> 
> 15
> The spiritual person judges all
> things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
> 
> 16
> "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct
> him?" But we have the mind of Christ
> ...


"Outsiders" are "outside" because they refuse to believe in God. You can't be a member of a club if you reject the club's foundation. That's kind of how it works (though Christ DID sacrifice himself for all humanity - those who choose to follow him and even those who don't). 

Your interpretation of Paul's words leave a lot to be desired. I Corinthians 2:10-16 are a unified discussion on the enlightenment that the Spirit - the Holy Spirit - brings to humanity about God. Without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we would be in the dark about who God is how to understand His will. Paul makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is what makes scripture meaningful to Christians (and foolish to nonbelievers) because it is through the Holy Spirit's work that we aprehend God in our hearts. I suggest a closer re-read of Corinthians before you attempt to take apart Paul's ideas.





> The church tells me i must repent for my 'sins'. and what sins are these? looking a someone's rear and thinking 'damn! if only!'? because, why should i repent for this? It is not perfection or purity the Church is pointing you towards, it is to selflessness, to guilt. it is ridiculous - you were made with these 'default settings', why ignore them? if you are created in God's image then God is no more than a higher animal like we all are.


"Default settings" eh? Sounds like a justification to me. If they're so normal, why then do people get angry if they see it? Why would a woman get annoyed and her boyfriend/husband angry if they caught you exercising your "default setting" on her rear end if it were a normal and socially acceptable behavior? Perhaps it's because that behavior is innately wrong - because it is you "taking" something that you have no right to.

Your assessment of God is absurd. Clearly you know nothing of Him and can speak with as much authority about His character as I can about yours (which is with no authority whatsoever).

The reality is that if you'd actually read the Gospels closely, or even Paul's letters, you'd know that the worst sins are all spiritual in nature - the sin of jealousy, of bitterness, of self-righteousness and pride - those are the sins that Jesus lashed out against. For the carnal sins (checking out rear ends) he was surprisingly compassionate. Like me, you good sir, are a sinner. And, like me, you can be forgiven.

----------


## blazeofglory

There are plenty of reasons for us to believe in God. When our questions can not get answered we turn to God. God is the answer.

That is why turn to God.

----------


## krymsonkyng

God seems to be something of a security blanket. These days he's like insurance. Back in the day he was the only way of life. Folks believe and have believed in a god mostly out of self interest.

In Christianity the general consensus is if you believe in God, good things happen to you in this life and the next. If you don't you suffer for eternity. Other religions have similar rewards and punishments (Buddhism you spin your wheels, Taoism you constantly hurt, Any idea similar heaven or hell is like waving a carrot or a gun respectively).

People are selfish even in their charity.

Why should I be a member of your club? Because the club will keep the hounds from eating your soul.

Now please don't get me wrong, not everyone is religious just for the benefits God has to offer. I believe there are truly charitable people out there, who honestly fear other people will go to hell. They fear for themselves as well, but they know their odds are better than the heretic's odds. Fear becomes the heart of their love. God is love. People only believe in God because they are afraid of what will happen if they (and others) don't.

Having a god does not mean you have morals. It just means you have a higher being to answer to for those morals. True morals are for moralities sake. Otherwise you're acting out of extortion. It is possible to believe in justice without needing god at every turn to tell you justice is good. Consequences of actions, social contracts, and other reasons are enough to make a person realize that Integrity and Service to others are good things. God just does it quicker. Like money. Like a gun.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> God seems to be something of a security blanket. These days he's like insurance. Back in the day he was the only way of life. Folks believe and have believed in a god mostly out of self interest.


A sweeping generalization. Said as if God is some entity that can be manipulated for our own "self-interest." You've not read much of the Bible, I take it? God knows the motives of the human heart - He can't be manipulated. Those whose interest is only in theirselves wouldn't bother believing in God for very long - their servitude for theirselves wouldn't permit it. "Believing" in God is not the sign of being saved - even demons believe in God.




> In Christianity the general consensus is if you believe in God, good things happen to you in this life and the next.


Untrue. The Bible tells us that good things and bad things happen in this world to the evil and the righteous alike. In fact, choosing to follow God often means walking a more difficult path here on earth.





> If you don't you suffer for eternity. Other religions have similar rewards and punishments (Buddhism you spin your wheels, Taoism you constantly hurt, Any idea similar heaven or hell is like waving a carrot or a gun respectively).


The carrot and the gun are not inherent and natural consequences; they have been _contrived_ to get results. The mistake in this line of thinking is that heaven and hell are the same. They're not. They are the logical destination of people who either wish to serve God or serve themselves. And, it is not the oversimplified result of not "believing" in God - ending up in hell is choice made by people who persistently and over time refuse to accept the truth that God is their creator and they owe Him their lives in obedience. Heaven and Hell aren't _assigned_ - they are _chosen_.





> Why should I be a member of your club? Because the club will keep the hounds from eating your soul.


But the fact is this: that kind of deterent really doesn't have much force, does it?  If we can do things here on earth that fly in the face of common sense (smoking, though we know it will kill us; ditto with numerous other self-destructive behaviors) with the consequences right in front of us, how are we to really take seriously consequences that can't be seen, and are at best beyond our ability to conceptualize?




> People only believe in God because they are afraid of what will happen if they (and others) don't.


Another sweeping generalization that merely reveals why you _think_ others might choose to believe in God. You cannot speak for all other Christians. Many of us believe in God because we recognize His ownership of us and we recognize the blessings He has given us.




> Having a god does not mean you have morals. It just means you have a higher being to answer to for those morals.


And that makes a big difference. See below.




> True morals are for moralities sake. Otherwise you're acting out of extortion.


How noble sounding. Pure altruism does not exist. And, without consequences, laws, and courts to enforce them, your utopian vision of morality would vanish in a heartbeat. One need not have a god to obey laws out of fear of retribution. That's pretty much how it works on this planet. Is it "extortion" to tell someone that if they steal they might go to jail? Is it extortion to tell the smoker that smoking will more than likely cause him cancer? How about the reality that consequences always attend moral transgressions, whether inflicted by the state, or our own heart?





> It is possible to believe in justice without needing god at every turn to tell you justice is good. Consequences of actions, social contracts, and other reasons are enough to make a person realize that Integrity and Service to others are good things. God just does it quicker. Like money. Like a gun.


It's possible to believe in justice without God - but that "justice" has no stable foundation because it can be "revised" by humans whenever their self-interest or capricious whims decide that the laws do not serve their need. Witness the Nazi regime, Stalin, Communism, etc...

----------


## krymsonkyng

> A sweeping generalization. Said as if God is some entity that can be manipulated for our own "self-interest." You've not read much of the Bible, I take it?


Admittedly, I couldn't get past the first chapter of the bible. My reasoning in not taking the good book too seriously has little to do with this topic though.





> Untrue. The Bible tells us that good things and bad things happen in this world to the evil and the righteous alike. In fact, choosing to follow God often means walking a more difficult path here on earth.


Good point. But folks wouldn't brave the difficulties in this life if there was no *reward* or *punishment* in the next. That's self interest.







> The carrot and the gun are not inherent and natural consequences; they have been _contrived_ to get results. The mistake in this line of thinking is that heaven and hell are the same. They're not. They are the logical destination of people who either wish to serve *God* or *serve themselves*.


My point is that they are both basically the same thing in the next life...





> And, it is not the oversimplified result of not "believing" in God - ending up in hell is choice made by people who persistently and over time refuse to accept the truth that God is their creator and they *owe* Him their lives in obedience. Heaven and Hell aren't _assigned_ - they are _chosen_.


Some choice really. Owing god something isn't a choice, it's a debt.





> But the fact is this: that kind of deterent really doesn't have much force, does it? If we can do things here on earth that fly in the face of common sense (smoking, though we know it will kill us; ditto with numerous other self-destructive behaviors) with the consequences right in front of us, how are we to really take seriously consequences that can't be seen, and are at best beyond our ability to conceptualize?


That's merely the difference of immediate gratification compared to long term happiness. I believe there's little comparison: Long term is more measurable than a shot of booze or a puff of smoke. God never enters the equation for temperance in this mortal coil.





> Another sweeping generalization that merely reveals why you _think_ others might choose to believe in God. You cannot speak for all other Christians. Many of us believe in God because we recognize His ownership of us and we recognize the blessings He has given us.


True. I did generalize, but I think I'm justified in it. People believe in god because they feel a benefit. I believe the post mortem benefits are the main incentive. 





> How noble sounding. Pure altruism does not exist. And, without consequences, laws, and courts to enforce them, your utopian vision of morality would vanish in a heartbeat. One need not have a god to obey laws out of fear of retribution. That's pretty much how it works on this planet. Is it "extortion" to tell someone that if they steal they might go to jail? Is it extortion to tell the smoker that smoking will more than likely cause him cancer? How about the reality that consequences always attend moral transgressions, whether inflicted by the state, or our own heart?


I see it more as economics than altruism. We are in agreement that consequence is the governing factor for a human being: I believe that people follow laws because they comprehend the consequences of the law on their selves. That's also why they follow god: It's in their best self interest.





> It's possible to believe in justice without God - but that "justice" has no stable foundation because it can be "revised" by humans whenever their self-interest or capricious whims decide that the laws do not serve their need. Witness the Nazi regime, Stalin, Communism, etc...


The Nazis had plenty of church on their side when they started out. Communism is based on selflessness (isn't that a Christian ideal? Wasn't Jesus selfless?).

God does not equal morality in my book, he equals supernatural *authority*. The two may not always be coterminus in human thought, and can be twisted pretty nicely. There are plenty of examples of the abuse of religious authority. Self interest with foresight is where morality really comes from. It is also why people usually believe in god. You don't need god for the first though, he just helps.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Good point. But folks wouldn't brave the difficulties in this life if there was no *reward* or *punishment* in the next. That's self interest.


Let's put it this way: relationships go through a number of stages - the deep love that a man and a woman may feel for each other is not present in its earliest stages; that's infatuation and attraction. The deep committed love develops over time. With God it is the same way; in the beginning, some people may simply choose to believe for the "benefit" - but if they are truly developing a relationship with God (which they must do, otherwise the "benefit" will cease to be meaningful to them) that motivation may still be present, but it will cease to take the highest priority. 





> My point is that they are both basically the same thing in the next life...


How can you even begin to _assume_ knowledge of what the next life will be like?

People who wish to serve themselves reject God. You can't get to heaven by putting yourself first. Regardless as to how YOU interpret people's motivation for believing in God, the Bible makes it clear how one gets into heaven and it doesn't agree with your interpretation. Sorry.




> Some choice really. Owing god something isn't a choice, it's a debt.


An attitude that clearly speaks of a denial that we owe God anything; are you willing to reject _all_ obligation here on earth? Do parents _owe_ their children anything? Do spouses _owe_ each other anything? Do children _owe_ their parents anything? Do you dare day no to those questions (because civilization is based on these shared obligations)? If we acknowledge that these relationships involve legitimate obligations, why do you seem to bristle at the idea that we owe something to the Entity that not only created us, but all the blessings we enjoy and the universe itself?




> That's merely the difference of immediate gratification compared to long term happiness. I believe there's little comparison: Long term is more measurable than a shot of booze or a puff of smoke. God never enters the equation for temperance in this mortal coil.


I don't see the point you're trying to make here. Consequences are only just so effective. Most people understand that intrinsic controls are much more effective than extrinsic. Kids who are raised up correctly are a much better deterent to crime than higher jail sentences; the former is proactive, the latter reactive. As such, the extrinsic reward of heaven/punishment of hell is only just so effective; those who don't have a real relationship with God will eventually reject the reward and deny the punishment. 





> True. I did generalize, but I think I'm justified in it. People believe in god because they feel a benefit. I believe the post mortem benefits are the main incentive.


Well, you've simply repeated yourself again without providing any real argument as to why your generalization might be correct. You can't defend a generalization by simply repeating the generalization.





> I see it more as economics than altruism. We are in agreement that consequence is the governing factor for a human being: I believe that people follow laws because they comprehend the consequences of the law on their selves. That's also why they follow god: It's in their best self interest.


To an extent, yes; but it's more complicated than that. The key is why people come to God at all. Generally, people come to God because the Holy Spirit has been working on their heart, convicting them of their sin and showing them their need of God (we do need him - C.S. Lewis suggests that we were desgined to "run" on God just as a car is designed to run on gasoline - anything else will leave us unsatisfied and searching). Once the individual accepts that s/he needs God, then they ask Him to enter their lives and the growth begins. The average person doesn't go "Well, I'm not sure about all this but I want to go to heaven." It's not that simple.




> The Nazis had plenty of church on their side when they started out. Communism is based on selflessness (isn't that a Christian ideal? Wasn't Jesus selfless?).


Communism is NOT based on selflessness, PLEASE. You simply must be kidding. Let's not bring the Nazi's into this - claiming affiliation with God is easily done - proving it is an entirely different story. Next.




> God does not equal morality in my book, he equals supernatural *authority*. The two may not always be coterminus in human thought, and can be twisted pretty nicely. There are plenty of examples of the abuse of religious authority. Self interest with foresight is where morality really comes from. It is also why people usually believe in god. You don't need god for the first though, he just helps.


That flawed and sinful human beings have misinterpreted God's will (either knowingly or unknowingly) doesn't invalidate God's morality anymore than your twisting my words would invalidate my argument.

Self-interest is usually working against morality. Morality always involves doing what is in the best interest of the _other_, not of me. In serving the other I end up taking care of me, but certainly not in a way that is explicitly based in "self-interest."

Without God behind morality, morality has no stable basis and is open to manipulation and distortion by self-interested people and their governments.

----------


## krymsonkyng

> Let's put it this way: relationships go through a number of stages - the deep love that a man and a woman may feel for each other is not present in its earliest stages; that's infatuation and attraction. The deep committed love develops over time. With God it is the same way; in the beginning, some people may simply choose to believe for the "benefit" - but if they are truly developing a relationship with God (which they must do, otherwise the "benefit" will cease to be meaningful to them) that motivation may still be present, but it will cease to take the highest priority.


I agree. A relationship is initially benefit, eventually the immediate trade becomes less important. It's the first and strongest "why I believe" though. 

Note the I in the sentence, folks don't do things for prolonged periods unless they feel they're right or benefit in some way or another. Otherwise they've stopped thinking and are just doing. That's not belief, that's blind faith and it's more dangerous than anyone who takes a moment to consider the real world consequences of their actions.





> How can you even begin to _assume_ knowledge of what the next life will be like?


Heaven = good. Whether it's paradise with harps and robes or merely being in the presence of god Heaven by definition is a good thing. Hell is its inverse to some degree. It's not an assumption, it's a definition.




> People who wish to serve themselves reject God. You can't get to heaven by putting yourself first. Regardless as to how YOU interpret people's motivation for believing in God, the Bible makes it clear how one gets into heaven and it doesn't agree with your interpretation. Sorry.


Whether the bible proposes that's how it is or isn't, is moot. This isn't about how to get into heaven, or what an ideal person is like, it's about why a person believes in a god. _Any_ god. It drives me crazy when folks take only the Christian point of view. Because why would anyone consider anything else?






> An attitude that clearly speaks of a denial that we owe God anything; are you willing to reject _all_ obligation here on earth? Do parents _owe_ their children anything? Do spouses _owe_ each other anything? Do children _owe_ their parents anything? Do you dare day no to those questions (because civilization is based on these shared obligations)? If we acknowledge that these relationships involve legitimate obligations, why do you seem to bristle at the idea that we owe something to the Entity that not only created us, but all the blessings we enjoy and the universe itself?


God isn't my parents. God isn't my children. God isn't my society. The give and take in this life and between me and them is something like the give and take between god and man. I love them because they love me, or benefit me, not because I owe it to them. What about kids whose parents are abusive drunks? Kids with guns? Oppressive rule? Do we owe them love too? Love out of guilt? Shame.





> I don't see the point you're trying to make here. Consequences are only just so effective. Most people understand that intrinsic controls are much more effective than extrinsic. Kids who are raised up correctly are a much better deterent to crime than higher jail sentences; the former is proactive, the latter reactive. As such, the extrinsic reward of heaven/punishment of hell is only just so effective; those who don't have a real relationship with God will eventually reject the reward and deny the punishment.


This is true. Parents raise their kids using lesser consequences and (hopefully) rationality to see what their actions will result in once they're of age. The idea is to comprehend consequences in order to avoid them and excel despite them. The fringe benefits of being a good person are well worth the trouble, despite the obvious benefits of being crude and getting away with it. Integrity means a good reputation. Robbery has immediate benefits but society sees the robber as a cheater and punishes them for it. Understanding the consequences of a persons actions is more important. 

Eternal bliss or eternal pain are only so effective, my eye! They're eternally effective!!! Assuming someone can be convinced to believe in them. I see it as something like Stockholm syndrome: Initially cooperate and everything goes smoothly. Eventually it's just habit. There's love there.






> Well, you've simply repeated yourself again without providing any real argument as to why your generalization might be correct. You can't defend a generalization by simply repeating the generalization.


Ok, invert my generalization. Do people believe in god because they feel no benefit from it? Is it out of guilt alone?

I believe rational people do what they feel benefits them. Which is why they believe in a god. It's that simple.





> Communism is NOT based on selflessness, PLEASE. You simply must be kidding. Let's not bring the Nazi's into this - claiming affiliation with God is easily done - proving it is an entirely different story. Next.


Proving affiliation is unnecessary. In war both sides believe their god's on their side. I was pointing out that using the Nazi's and Commies as examples does nothing for this argument. Justice is just as stable as god.





> Self-interest is usually working against morality. Morality always involves doing what is in the best interest of the _other_, not of me. In serving the other I end up taking care of me, but certainly not in a way that is explicitly based in "self-interest."


I disagree.

----------


## Judas130

> "Default settings" eh? Sounds like a justification to me. If they're so normal, why then do people get angry if they see it?


Because society is very much practiced in good form. Behind the closed doors however, oh boy! Read Jekyll and Hyde to understand how dualistic society can be, how society spits hypocrisy, how they do not practice what they preach. But we all think it, desire for example, to do what you really want to do, is part of what you are, when you strip away all the strings that tie you down, you are an animal. 





> Why would a woman get annoyed and her boyfriend/husband angry if they caught you exercising your "default setting" on her rear end if it were a normal and socially acceptable behavior?


I never said it was. 




> Perhaps it's because that behavior is innately wrong


Feels good to me, feels free. Moral imperatives are shaped from your upbringing and your surroundings, what you accept unquestionably as a child, or force yourself to accept as an adult, for varying reasons and factors and incentives. To you, perhaps doing sorry you 'ought' not to feels bad, because you simply shouldn't, you'd get a slap, you'd feel dirty, because you are instilled with a notion of cleanliness. 'adama'/adam = earth. Your bible claims we are made from dirt, we are not divine, we are an imperfect form of a concept. You can squeeze more from the soil, but i'll take what i have and won't waste me' time sir. 






> The reality is that if you'd actually read the Gospels closely, or even Paul's letters, you'd know that the worst sins are all spiritual in nature


Then I have nothing to fear. I do not possess the transcendent power from this unseen 'spirit'. I possess a brain, and a body. 




> The key is why people come to God at all. Generally, people come to God because the Holy Spirit has been working on their heart, convicting them of their sin and showing them their need of God


Your opinion. Psychologically, people come to a religion to commune together in their guilt, using trance and conformity as the cognitive mechanism to find some middle ground between their melancholy and joy. The man who creates his god, builds his god to suit his characteristics, and preaches of it. Others who worship this deity, worship the man's characteristics. religious people seem to be in some perpetual search of forgiveness for some unseen sin, completely obsessed with their guilt, in union with what they think they feel is right, or what they are told. Tell me, if God influences us through our imperatives, if God innately speaks to us about what is wrong, then how comes we differ in opinion over morality? Clearly, God does not speak to all. Only those, select religious few...the ones who tell themselves day in and out that there is some mercy for their 'sinful' desires at the end of the tunnel. is evil really evil? or is evil simply live ? evil/live




> ending up in hell is choice made by people who persistently and over time refuse to accept the truth that God is their creator and they owe Him their lives in obedience.


 if God is all powerful - why then does suffering exist, the problem of evil etc etc. I understand the comebacks to these questions and this isnt exactly my point. My viewpoint is that Hell is where God is not. God does not exist physically, it can't. So hell is here. Heaven, like God, is your abstract notion. Hell is your realm of pain and suffering, destruction, and 'evil' - heaven is an end to all this, and frankly I call it death. Heaven and Hell = Life and Death. Both journeys, both tests. 




> How can you even begin to assume knowledge of what the next life will be like?


how can we know what the next life will be like? how can we know a God? the 'bible' is riddled with contradictions and is hardly a sound basis for absolute truth. It is the job of organizations, congregations of humans, to interpret biblical meanings and these interpretations flood in abundance. God does not exist empirically, we established this in another thread, yet he exists in concept. so then, with so many differing viewpoints on God, and on the bible, surely they can't all be right? God is the supreme being, yet you or anybody else is trying to explain him to me, undermines his superiority, because he fails prey to our differing, conceptual, abstract thinking. It eats itself, you might say.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Note the I in the sentence, folks don't do things for prolonged periods unless they feel they're right or benefit in some way or another. Otherwise they've stopped thinking and are just doing. That's not belief, that's blind faith and it's more dangerous than anyone who takes a moment to consider the real world consequences of their actions.


OK - this is simply going to go in a circle until we get some clarity on how you're using the term "benefit" and the idea of "self-interest." You're using the term in a way to suggest "selfishness" but that is not always so. To do what is in my "best interest" may mean doing things that require sacrifice and discomfort. That is very different from "self-interest" that is inwardly focused. For example, if I eat the right foods and exercise, I'm doing that out of "self-interest," but nobody would call that selfish. However, if I eat junk food because I like it and it makes me feel good - well, that's a different sort of "self-focus." The problem with making Christians "self-interested" and no more is that that flatly contradicts the Bible's injunctions that believers be outwardly (not inwardly) focused.





> Heaven = good. Whether it's paradise with harps and robes or merely being in the presence of god Heaven by definition is a good thing. Hell is its inverse to some degree. It's not an assumption, it's a definition.


No - you've merely categorized both places - but that is not sufficient to make assumptions about the nature of either place - especially since the definition of "good" must match God's definition of "good" (not our own) if it is to be accurate.





> Whether the bible proposes that's how it is or isn't, is moot. This isn't about how to get into heaven, or what an ideal person is like, it's about why a person believes in a god. _Any_ god. It drives me crazy when folks take only the Christian point of view. Because why would anyone consider anything else?


Because I AM a Christian; why should I take a view I don't believe in? Do you do that?





> God isn't my parents. God isn't my children. God isn't my society. The give and take in this life and between me and them is something like the give and take between god and man. I love them because they love me, or benefit me, not because I owe it to them. What about kids whose parents are abusive drunks? Kids with guns? Oppressive rule? Do we owe them love too? Love out of guilt? Shame.


On the contrary - God is your parent as He is the parent of all created beings. Wrong - you owe your parents certain things as their child: respect, love, honor, care. Before you understood what it meant to love them, you had instilled within you the idea that you had certain obligations to them. Kids who aren't taught that do not grow up to respect and love their parents. Your negative examples are clever, but they are merely exceptions you're tossing out to deflect the point I was making. Family memebers have obligations to each other - the family is the most fundamental unit of government because it is the natural model of obligation and duty.






> Eternal bliss or eternal pain are only so effective, my eye! They're eternally effective!!! Assuming someone can be convinced to believe in them. I see it as something like Stockholm syndrome: Initially cooperate and everything goes smoothly. Eventually it's just habit. There's love there.


No. Both options (bliss and pain) are equally unreal to us. It requires faith to believe in either, just as it takes faith to believe in God. There are plenty of people who believe in both who still willingly sin. Consequences cannot keep all people from doing what they ought not. The idea is that while the fear of the consequence or desire of the reward may bring someone to God, that once that person gets into a relationship with God that such mercenary ideas fall to the side; if the person does not develop a relationship with God, then he/she will more than likely fall away and decide not to believe in either. 




> Ok, invert my generalization. Do people believe in god because they feel no benefit from it? Is it out of guilt alone?
> 
> I believe rational people do what they feel benefits them. Which is why they believe in a god. It's that simple.


Yes - rational people do that - but "benefit" is not the nasty word you're trying to make it. Your simplification over-simplifies both human nature and our interactions with God.




> Proving affiliation is unnecessary. In war both sides believe their god's on their side. I was pointing out that using the Nazi's and Commies as examples does nothing for this argument. Justice is just as stable as god.


No - justice is a function of law - and if unjust laws are passed then justice becomes unjust.




> Because society is very much practiced in good form. Behind the closed doors however, oh boy! Read Jekyll and Hyde to understand how dualistic society can be, how society spits hypocrisy, how they do not practice what they preach. But we all think it, desire for example, to do what you really want to do, is part of what you are, when you strip away all the strings that tie you down, you are an animal.


We are capable of this, yes. All of us.




> Feels good to me, feels free. Moral imperatives are shaped from your upbringing and your surroundings, what you accept unquestionably as a child, or force yourself to accept as an adult, for varying reasons and factors and incentives. To you, perhaps doing sorry you 'ought' not to feels bad, because you simply shouldn't, you'd get a slap, you'd feel dirty, because you are instilled with a notion of cleanliness. 'adama'/adam = earth. Your bible claims we are made from dirt, we are not divine, we are an imperfect form of a concept. You can squeeze more from the soil, but i'll take what i have and won't waste me' time sir.


_Feelings_ ought not ever be taken for _reality_. Freedom is not simply doing what you wish. In fact, most textbooks on law, freedom and justice make it plainly clear that the only way to ensure freedom is to restrict it - that total freedom without restriction means that somebody gets oppressed in some way. As the old saying goes - my freedom to swing my arm is limited by the freedom you have to keep your nose unbroken. If I respond that "well, too bad, swinging my arm 'feels good' and 'feels free' " I'm not sure you'd go for that logic.

I am instilled with respect for a woman's body which is not rightfully mine to possess _even in my heart_ (see Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5). The only rear end on earth that is rightfully mine to attach my eyes to is my wife's. 

We are fashioned from dirt _and_ the breath of God - which means we are partially "divine" beings in that we have a "spark" of God inside us called a "spirit."




> Then I have nothing to fear. I do not possess the transcendent power from this unseen 'spirit'. I possess a brain, and a body.


There are sins of the flesh (murder, adultery, theft) and sins of the spirit (pride, self-righteousness, vindictiveness, arrogance). Mocking God and those who believe in Him fall under the second category.


[QUOTE=Judas130;683811]


> Your opinion. Psychologically, people come to a religion to commune together in their guilt, using trance and conformity as the cognitive mechanism to find some middle ground between their melancholy and joy. The man who creates his god, builds his god to suit his characteristics, and preaches of it. Others who worship this deity, worship the man's characteristics. religious people seem to be in some perpetual search of forgiveness for some unseen sin, completely obsessed with their guilt, in union with what they think they feel is right, or what they are told. Tell me, if God influences us through our imperatives, if God innately speaks to us about what is wrong, then how comes we differ in opinion over morality? Clearly, God does not speak to all. Only those, select religious few...the ones who tell themselves day in and out that there is some mercy for their 'sinful' desires at the end of the tunnel. is evil really evil? or is evil simply live ? evil/live


1. It's my opinion, but that opinion is based upon what the Bible tells me - on what Paul says in the epistles. So it's more than just my opinion. If you had closely read the book you are indirectly criticizing you might know this.

2. Although your psychoanalytical undown of religion is interesting, it is largely incorrect - it is the view from the "outside" and I don't expect you to have a much more accurate view than that. We did not create God - He created us.

3. God's "voice" will not overwhelm us; it speaks quietly and can be drowned out by the other voices of this world (our desires, our lusts, our selfish motives) as well as the voice of he who wishes to derail any conversation we might have with God - Satan. He speaks - but you can't hear Him unless you wish to, or your heart is in a place where you're willing to hear Him.

Christians do not revel in their guilt. They understand and accept that they are sinners (as we all, including you, are) and that only God can help them become a better, less sinful person. Nobody on this earth is a "good" person per se - we all have done and continue to do things that hurt ourselves and our relationships - even you are guilty of this.




> if God is all powerful - why then does suffering exist, the problem of evil etc etc. I understand the comebacks to these questions and this isnt exactly my point. My viewpoint is that Hell is where God is not. God does not exist physically, it can't. So hell is here. Heaven, like God, is your abstract notion. Hell is your realm of pain and suffering, destruction, and 'evil' - heaven is an end to all this, and frankly I call it death. Heaven and Hell = Life and Death. Both journeys, both tests.


Hell is the "quarantine" place that God will allow those who do not wish to serve Him to continue their existence. You are using simplistic logic to argue where hell is located. God is ultimate reality - whether or not He has a physical form is immaterial. Heaven and Hell are real places.




> how can we know what the next life will be like? how can we know a God? the 'bible' is riddled with contradictions and is hardly a sound basis for absolute truth. It is the job of organizations, congregations of humans, to interpret biblical meanings and these interpretations flood in abundance. God does not exist empirically, we established this in another thread, yet he exists in concept. so then, with so many differing viewpoints on God, and on the bible, surely they can't all be right? God is the supreme being, yet you or anybody else is trying to explain him to me, undermines his superiority, because he fails prey to our differing, conceptual, abstract thinking. It eats itself, you might say.


I have little idea as to what the next life will be like - but if I am in the presence of God, I do not care.

Spare me the "riddled with contradictions" theory - it's tired and worn out. Most of them are easily resolved, and very few deal with theology. The apparent contradictions actually serve to reinforce its validity - because I book simply contrived by humanity to manipulate others (another popular charge) would most certainly have revised those contradictions out of existence. You can't have it both ways.

I can't explain God to you - nobody really can - except that the Bible tells us that God is love - so what you understand about love is what you understand about God.

----------


## krymsonkyng

First I want to thank you for hanging in here so long with me. I really enjoy this discussion.  :Smile: 




> OK - this is simply going to go in a circle until we get some clarity on how you're using the term "benefit" and the idea of "self-interest." You're using the term in a way to suggest "selfishness" but that is not always so. To do what is in my "best interest" may mean doing things that require sacrifice and discomfort. That is very different from "self-interest" that is inwardly focused. For example, if I eat the right foods and exercise, I'm doing that out of "self-interest," but nobody would call that selfish. However, if I eat junk food because I like it and it makes me feel good - well, that's a different sort of "self-focus." The problem with making Christians "self-interested" and no more is that that flatly contradicts the Bible's injunctions that believers be outwardly (not inwardly) focused.


You're right, self interest has a negative connotation not completely in line with what I'm trying to say, but it's the closest thing I could think of. Best interest doesn't fit either because I'm talking about a perceived "best" interest based on what an individual understands to be true.

It is a far sighted self interest, not always a logical choice, but a perceived truth. People believe in god because they think in the long run there will be a payoff. That's the only rational explanation I've considered until this conversation, where the concept of a deistic debt was hit upon. I guess folks believe what they're raised to believe. I don't think tradition or doctrine is always spot on (Genesis for example. I can't buy it.) but "that's the way it is" seems as good a reason as any, if one doesn't want to dig into other ideas. 






> No - you've merely categorized both places - but that is not sufficient to make assumptions about the nature of either place - especially since the definition of "good" must match God's definition of "good" (not our own) if it is to be accurate.


Ok... what? Would you consider Heaven a benefit of having Faith in whichever Christian group you belong to? By benefit I mean a good thing.





> Because I AM a Christian; why should I take a view I don't believe in? Do you do that?


All I ask for is an open mind. That's the only way learning or an educational discussion is accomplished. I _consider_ a view even if I don't believe in it. That's respect, isn't it? I'm trying to stay open to all the other gods that have come and gone both before and after the Christian texts were written, interpreted, edited, rewritten and reinterpreted. I want a generalized reason why people believe in god(s). As I understand it, people believe because they think it's right. They think it's right because of the benefits.






> On the contrary - God is your parent as He is the parent of all created beings. Wrong - you owe your parents certain things as their child: respect, love, honor, care. Before you understood what it meant to love them, you had instilled within you the idea that you had certain obligations to them. Kids who aren't taught that do not grow up to respect and love their parents. Your negative examples are clever, but they are merely exceptions you're tossing out to deflect the point I was making. Family memebers have obligations to each other - the family is the most fundamental unit of government because it is the natural model of obligation and duty.


A parent and a biological predecessor are two different things. A baby owes his or her parents _nothing_ until they begin to raise and nourish it. Love honor and respect must first be given to be deserved. A child doesn't understand those concepts until a parent instills them.






> No. Both options (bliss and pain) are equally unreal to us. It requires faith to believe in either, just as it takes faith to believe in God. There are plenty of people who believe in both who still willingly sin. Consequences cannot keep all people from doing what they ought not. The idea is that while the fear of the consequence or desire of the reward may bring someone to God, that once that person gets into a relationship with God that such mercenary ideas fall to the side; if the person does not develop a relationship with God, then he/she will more than likely fall away and decide not to believe in either.


A developmental relationship is not a sole initial reason for believing or disbelieving in a god. It is a reason, to stay with a god but that's a moot point for me. The relationship is merely part of the pay off, and considered in the person's best interest.





> Yes - rational people do that - but "benefit" is not the nasty word you're trying to make it. Your simplification over-simplifies both human nature and our interactions with God.


I believe egoism is base human nature. I believe if a human is to be a member of a society, or a part of the race there needs to be some progression from this egoism. Whether this progression is through a god, or through philosophy, there needs to be that first step, from egoism to some form of values beyond the immediate-self.




> No - justice is a function of law - and if unjust laws are passed then justice becomes unjust.


The values of a god or faith in such are a function of interpretation. How many sects of any major religion are there? Compare this to how many sets of national laws there are. One or two for each nation. Justice and law are akin to god and faith in such. Again though, this is off topic.

My basic statement is that people believe in any god for the benefits it brings _them_ in this life or the next. 
A feeling of belonging, a personal relationship with some higher being, a get out of hell free card and many other things are to be considered benefits, since they are considered more desirable than the alternatives.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I want a generalized reason why people believe in god(s). As I understand it, people believe because they think it's right. They think it's right because of the benefits.


Forgive me for interrupting! I almost did before, but I waited. Anyway, I wanted to say the same thing as before. Perhaps some do it for a reward, but I think it's a minority. I mean can you remember talking to a believer about their reasons, and if so, do you recall any saying "so I'll be rewarded"? In my experience people believe because they are convinced there is a higher reality, or something like this, or that they have had spiritual experiences. Or they decided intellectually or by reason.

----------


## krymsonkyng

> Forgive me for interrupting! I almost did before, but I waited. Anyway, I wanted to say the same thing as before. Perhaps some do it for a reward, but I think it's a minority. I mean can you remember talking to a believer about their reasons, and if so, do you recall any saying "so I'll be rewarded"? In my experience people believe because they are convinced there is a higher reality, or something like this, or that they have had spiritual experiences. Or they decided intellectually or by reason.


To believe because one is convinced of a higher reality, is repetitive and circular, "I believe (in god) because I believe (in a higher reality)". I'm trying to rationalize faith. Folks wouldn't believe in something unless it was to their betterment. They may not explicitly state a reward, but feeling justified in their beliefs is certainly to be considered a benefit of the belief.

Perhaps a general reason like, "folk believe, because it feels right" isn't good enough. Please give me a reasoning for believing something that doesn't benefit a person in some way? I've talked with believers before and it's not "so I will be rewarded", it's "because my belief is rewarding" every time so far. That sounds pretty reasonable to me...

----------


## Judas130

> _Feelings_ ought not ever be taken for _reality_. Freedom is not simply doing what you wish. In fact, most textbooks on law, freedom and justice make it plainly clear that the only way to ensure freedom is to restrict it - that total freedom without restriction means that somebody gets oppressed in some way. As the old saying goes - my freedom to swing my arm is limited by the freedom you have to keep your nose unbroken. If I respond that "well, too bad, swinging my arm 'feels good' and 'feels free' " I'm not sure you'd go for that logic.


yet these democratic ideals do not always apply in society, sometimes the people do not matter, and what you alone think is the important thing. I'm bickering here, for if we reversed jesus' teachings, we would have chaos. To get hit on the cheek, and smash him in the other would mean only senseless war. In the animal kingdom, which is the source of my idea here, the winner takes all, the strongest survives and society is a long way away from that. I wouldn't be physically hurting anybody by being a lil in touch with the carnal human, if abiding certain laws and understandings...such as murder, which is unnaturally taking away a naturally given life, and interfering with the telos of the human. (to kill animals is fine, hunting gives the animal a purpose other than to procreate, yet it must not be wasted). anyways... 




> I am instilled with respect for a woman's body which is not rightfully mine to possess _even in my heart_ (see Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5). The only rear end on earth that is rightfully mine to attach my eyes to is my wife's.


feel free to limit yourself, and your anger for having another man staring at your territory is justified, natural.




> We are fashioned from dirt _and_ the breath of God - which means we are partially "divine" beings in that we have a "spark" of God inside us called a "spirit."


For Plato, the spirit is supposed to be an immortal thing, completely perfect and unchanging, which is, for a christian maybe, because of where it derives from - yet how can an unchanging thing suffer from a flux of emotion? 
what is your understanding of the spirit? not just the textbook christian definition, but how it works and what is it essentially? 






> There are sins of the flesh (murder, adultery, theft) and sins of the spirit (pride, self-righteousness, vindictiveness, arrogance). Mocking God and those who believe in Him fall under the second category.


Assuming this to be true, we therefore all have spirit. Okay. To mock a God means to acknowledge a God, while your everyday nihilist wouldn't even bother, not all atheists mock either. Yet pride is a human nature i don't feel we should ignore. If I had a kid, and he got good grades, i'd feel pride. this is wrong? so i should show indifference and not encourage him?

to be self righteous is to be 'Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.' and being pious is to 'have or show a dutiful spirit of reverence for God or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations.' Surely this, is what Jesus, and his disciples themselves did, and what religious people do today. To be self righteous is to be intolerant of other people's moral systems that differ to your own, to be completely intolerant of the behaviors of others - maybe checking out a rear end. to be the opposite of this, is to be completely relative. Sounds to me like you have to have the sins of the spirit to preach out against the sins of the flesh. 




> 2. Although your psychoanalytical undown of religion is interesting, it is largely incorrect - it is the view from the "outside" and I don't expect you to have a much more accurate view than that. We did not create God - He created us.


Its amusing that IF i ardently supported my belief I would condemn you ignorant for your belief, and here the same is suggested - the outsiders cannot possibly understand. chill, i'm only pondering...my questions are childish, but my acceptance isn't. However, throughout my stay on these boards I want you to tell me if you feel offended, because I'm sure its happened before when my opinion surfaces. I can't logically understand how a concept can directly effect the physical reality. People talk of how contingency requires a necessary being - but how is this supported? I hear the physical examples, but these do not apply to God, being beyond physicality and all.




> 3. God's "voice" will not overwhelm us; it speaks quietly and can be drowned out by the other voices of this world (our desires, our lusts, our selfish motives) as well as the voice of he who wishes to derail any conversation we might have with God - Satan. He speaks - but you can't hear Him unless you wish to, or your heart is in a place where you're willing to hear Him.


This is understandable, reminds me of Plato's 'charioteer'. or the mind steering the body and the soul (both of which are running in opposite directions). To not understand what you hear from 'Satan' is further dangerous if you want to score some heaven points, for there's that saying that the greatest deception Satan ever did was make believe he wasn't real. I think there is more to argue that our mind is one with the soul. The mind is what we have physically as a mechanism of the brain to conclude that there is a God, can't this longing for perfection that people seem to possess be from a spark from God? and seeing as the conclusions are formed in the mind...




> Christians do not revel in their guilt. They understand and accept that they are sinners (as we all, including you, are) and that only God can help them become a better, less sinful person. Nobody on this earth is a "good" person per se - we all have done and continue to do things that hurt ourselves and our relationships - even you are guilty of this.


But you have proven to me that Christians are, on the basis that you believe in sin. You believe that what you would do without any influence is sinful, because the Bible tells you, and the Bible is your proof of God, it seems. Satan represents the natural side to us humans, without this personification we would not understand Good or evil, which are human notions. Personally, i feel giving alms or lowering myself to a servant for others (which i have done) made me feel dirty and worthless, even though I did it because I felt that would be what God would want of me. I know the road is tough, but this 'good' is just a word, and you can play with words. I have done things that hurt myself and others, but 'guilty' is something I can reject, because 'guilty' implies being 'bad', sometimes I feel brilliant, is brilliance good? sure it is. Words are only words. Good is something you have applied and you use it to categorise my example in to 'sin' - because 'bad' is all that is naturally felt in the human mind, indulgences, pride, hate/anger and 'sin' is applied in order that we remove what is natural of us and conform to repentance for being who we were born to be. I can _only_ see guilt, and a weak argument on my part. 






> Hell is the "quarantine" place that God will allow those who do not wish to serve Him to continue their existence. You are using simplistic logic to argue where hell is located. God is ultimate reality - whether or not He has a physical form is immaterial. Heaven and Hell are real places.


Saying that Heaven and Hell are real places doesnt help me much. surely the logic is far simpler to say 'it just exists'. If God has no physical form, yet we can exist beyond physical existence, then we must transcend the reality and onto the abstract? like taking a photograph, I understand an afterlife of existence in the thoughts of others that will come to know of you due to writings or music or other talents. However, the idea of being physical, and then not being physical but existing necessarily, is one that takes some work to prove. A flower exists, but it is contingent because it doesn't have to. Heaven and Hell isn't a flower...so it doesn't exist, but it must? 






> Spare me the "riddled with contradictions" theory - it's tired and worn out. Most of them are easily resolved, and very few deal with theology. The apparent contradictions actually serve to reinforce its validity - because I book simply contrived by humanity to manipulate others (another popular charge) would most certainly have revised those contradictions out of existence. You can't have it both ways.


what of the bibles that add extra books or take some away and claim to be the voice of God still? The contradictions aren't taken out because this would cause a might stir im sure, instead it is interpreted by many different people and then preached from these people's conclusions, it is unclear.




> I can't explain God to you - nobody really can - except that the Bible tells us that God is love - so what you understand about love is what you understand about God.


If God is love, then why did God drown all those below Noah's Arc? if God is love then why did he inflict pain on the Egyptians and take the side of another race? The Bible tells me that God is also a vehement creature, completely charged with fury for those who do not care for him and worship the gods that came _before_ him, this is not love. Jesus is very compassionate...I dont see how Jesus is God however, so any argument that God is love based on Jesus falls on deaf ears. The Koran promotes a loving God in many cases, yet also a vengeful God. I just see contradictions. 

An interesting argument I heard was the God manifests in varying degrees. God possesses perfect mercy, yet is sometimes merciless in action. This might overcome the contradictions. Most of the characteristics of God are relative characteristics, I would throw Love into this category. However, The fact that God is spiritual, is an absolute characteristic and is quite blatant. 

food for thought.

----------


## Nightshade

> If God is love, then why did God drown all those below Noah's Arc? if God is love then why did he inflict pain on the Egyptians and take the side of another race? The Bible tells me that God is also a vehement creature, completely charged with fury for those who do not care for him and worship the gods that came _before_ him, this is not love. Jesus is very compassionate...I don't see how Jesus is God however, so any argument that God is love based on Jesus falls on deaf ears. The Koran promotes a loving God in many cases, yet also a vengeful God. I just see contradictions. 
> 
> An interesting argument I heard was the God manifests in varying degrees. God possesses perfect mercy, yet is sometimes merciless in action. This might overcome the contradictions. Most of the characteristics of God are relative characteristics, I would throw Love into this category. However, The fact that God is spiritual, is an absolute characteristic and is quite blatant. 
> 
> food for thought.


humm a couple of things and not just directly related to this but things that have been mulling in my mind while I read this thread this evening. Firstly as far as I understand it and have always taken it to mean, The Koran doesn't say that God is necessarily kind or 'nice' or in anyway lovlydovley all soft and cuddley. No that would be putting Human characteristics on God when He/She/It is something so completely other the reality of which is beyond both Human comprehension and imagination. God is just God end of story. At least that is what I have always understood the Koran's stand on the subject to be, I could be wrong. 

On the subject of love .. . I don't believe in love human love in any form, it is a survival mechanism that is controlled by hormones and electrochemical releases in the brain. Which is why in most cases the instinct of a mother is to 'love' her baby, its to ensure the survival of the species of course sometimes the natural click goes wrong some how and we have postpartum depression. I can go on forever, and have an explanation for most types of love and bonds but I wont bore you with it and let's just leave at that , and yes I know that a weird view and yes Ive heard it is a remarkably unhealthy take on life. 
Yet I believe in God, I believe that perhaps if there is any kind of love even possible then it would be Divine Love as it were ( I like that term although I probably use it differently to most people). Loving God has not evolutionary or survival purpose, its irrational and it doesn't really affect anything life goes on however you feel about god, therefore I would argue that because there is no really benefit in it it has to be real ( actually that's a fairly irrational argument looking at it but then Faith never had much to do with rationality anyway its about what you Believe not what you can prove. and I know God loves me and none will ever convince me otherwise, why else would good things happen to me so often just exactly when I need them to?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Emmy Castrol

Those who understand and have a love for literature, who delight in the consistency of character and wonder at the beauty of a perfectly constructed story line, cannot help but love the Bible, if not for a book of religious accuracy, then as the ultimate expression of the collected word. 

Joyce, Proust and James reached the pinnacle of literature and yet not even they could construct a character with the compassionate, complexity, and understanding of the 'higher being' that Jesus represents. 

A question people always like to ask is that if there was a God, why is there so much suffering allowed in this world. The suffering in this world exists not because of God, but because of human nature. We, as a whole, have chosen suffering and death. Why do the good and innocent suffer? It is as simple as this - a person, A, gets angry at being mistreated by B. Because he is too cowardly to take his anger out on B, he picks on C, who is good and innocent but meek. C, being good and innocent, suffers. Is that because of God or because of the wickedness of A?

----------


## Judas130

> humm a couple of things and not just directly related to this but things that have been mulling in my mind while I read this thread this evening. Firstly as far as I understand it and have always taken it to mean, The Koran doesn't say that God is necessarily kind or 'nice' or in anyway lovlydovley all soft and cuddley. No that would be putting Human characteristics on God when He/She/It is something so completely other the reality of which is beyond both Human comprehension and imagination. God is just God end of story. At least that is what I have always understood the Koran's stand on the subject to be, I could be wrong.


My Koran example was odd, especially when discussing something with Red, who is a Christian...I have the koran at home, I havent read it over yet, only parts that seem to collide with Christian things, such as mentions of Mary and Jesus. 




> it is a survival mechanism that is controlled by hormones and electrochemical releases in the brain. Which is why in most cases the instinct of a mother is to 'love' her baby, its to ensure the survival of the species of course sometimes the natural click goes wrong some how and we have postpartum depression. I can go on forever, and have an explanation for most types of love and bonds but I wont bore you with it and let's just leave at that , and yes I know that a weird view and yes Ive heard it is a remarkably unhealthy take on life.


would you say to support this is belief? It is belief if it is but a theory. Of course, i'm sure there is empirical data in abundance to support your claim, someone else linked us to a thread on the same issue. Its a common argument to say 'science cannot prove everything, what about love?' frankly, it can explain love. What science does is deal with 'what' not 'why', faith deals with 'why' as well as 'what'. 





> Loving God has not evolutionary or survival purpose, its irrational and it doesn't really affect anything life goes on however you feel about god, therefore I would argue that because there is no really benefit in it it has to be real ( actually that's a fairly irrational argument looking at it but then Faith never had much to do with rationality anyway its about what you Believe not what you can prove. and I know God loves me and none will ever convince me otherwise, why else would good things happen to me so often just exactly when I need them to?


The phrase: ignorance is bliss springs to mind. But I'd actually have to defend many many many christian philosophers who worked their bottoms off to rationally show their understanding of God, to the level where it gets so complicated. Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas....interesting thinkers, very well thought out arguments, and if not, were developed and also shot down by others...as is the way philosophy goes. Anselm + Descartes - Kant (forget Guarnillo) = little argument. Recently, being the Agnostic I am, I have seen how blissfully happy religious people are, how I felt when i was alone and had no one in very stressful times, and how I felt I knew and really actually _knew_ there was something there to interact with, i [I]told[I] myself there was. Prayer...It got me out of the hole, ignorance is bliss. But I know that Prayer = Trance = cognitive mechanism to bridge melancholy and joy and etc, etc. Did I care? no. 

I'm sure there are cold and analytical way to discribe this, I probably already have. But recently I pondered on the notion of a happy atheist. I wrote a poem, a cold, analytical poem, surprisingly, and its ending hasnt yet got the resonance I want, and its also surreal, so its a lil complex, but essentially, the notion of being 'Free' from the establishment, free from the trance, the conformity, the 'opiate of the people' as Marx had said, leaves very little in terms of significance, except to procreate. I accept this. But personally, its rather unfulfillable...but faiths such as Christianity which feel so guilt ridden in practise do little else as well ... makes me question why we choose new religions after leaving others...self interest? or in one's best interests? 

peace.




> A question people always like to ask is that if there was a God, why is there so much suffering allowed in this world. The suffering in this world exists not because of God, but because of human nature. We, as a whole, have chosen suffering and death. Why do the good and innocent suffer? It is as simple as this - a person, A, gets angry at being mistreated by B. Because he is too cowardly to take his anger out on B, he picks on C, who is good and innocent but meek. C, being good and innocent, suffers. Is that because of God or because of the wickedness of A?


you have chosen a very big topic here. here is a short essay for ya  :Smile: 

A fundamental challenge to Gods existence is the concept of evil in reality. For example, how could an all powerful and benevolent God allow for earthquakes, tornadoes, pestilence and other such natural disasters to take lives? Believers in God see Him as loving and just, and this evidence is difficult for them, logically.

The common reaction to the suffering in the physical world is that it all suggests that either God is omnipotent or not perfectly good. The ideologies of Deism or Agnosticism may fall in to play, that there is evil and suffering in the world because God is disinterested, or does not exist at all, the whole idea of God a mistake  frightening prospects for the theist. 

Furthermore, due to the fact that there is indeed suffering in the world, one can argue that God either cannot remove suffering, or will not. If God cannot, this contradicts Gods omnipotence, if he will not then God is not benevolent or all-good. 

The theist must deal with the problem of evil, as it empirically opposes the common attributes of God, and must show the suffering in the world as consistent with a perfectly good and all powerful God. If the theist can answer the problem of evil, this would provide a theodicy  a vindication of divine actions to mankind to allow the existence of the divine with natural and moral evil. 

There have been many theistic arguments for explaining the problem of evil and one which is noteworthy is the book, The Divine Principle, the main theological textbook of the Unification Church. The book holds that redemption is the process through which God is working to remove the consequences of the fall and restore humanity back to the relationship and position that God had originally intended. The road to redemption is one of suffering and hardship, yet more importantly, the notion of redemption suggests sin and it is sin that has caused the suffering in the world. 

If it is sin that causes the suffering in the world, then God is not benevolent, as He will not remove the natural evil, instead using it to punish, - a notion that does not comply with a loving God. However, perhaps as humans we are all imperfect and none of us good due to the fall of man and original sin, and must therefore seek to bridge our relationship with God once more. It is thus our free will that is the responsible for chaos in the world.

A question which leads from free will (which is a rather large topic in concerning evil) is that if God is omniscient He would have known of the fall before it happened, and could have prevented it. This leads us to ponder to what extent is evil man-made. God created the world ex-nihilio, establishing order in chaos, the unpredictable void. Yet evil exists long after the establishment of order, suggesting both evil and order must co-exist, being reflections of each other, meaning in short that God cannot be wholly perfect if good is relative to evil.

The theist must look at the attributes of God, for example looking at how God is omniscient and maybe taking the position of the skeptical theist, a viewpoint that one cannot possibly conceive Gods ultimate plan, or think or par with God, this is a popular belief. When looking at the different manifestations of God, we can see that he manifests in varying degrees. God possesses perfect mercy, yet sometimes does not show it, meaning mercy is a relative characteristic, while something like spirituality would be an absolute characteristic.

----------


## Emmy Castrol

> Furthermore, due to the fact that there is indeed suffering in the world, one can argue that God either cannot remove suffering, or will not. If God cannot, this contradicts Gods omnipotence, if he will not then God is not benevolent or all-good.


What a catch-22 for God, eh?  :Smile: 

Following is my reasoning, I am not a philosopher so I have tried to keep it simple for myself. 

1. Even God has to abide by His Law, which we have yet to understand perfectly, if we ever will. 

I am inclined to think that God 'cannot' remove suffering as we would like to picture Him to be able (i.e. stop all suffering right now from this moment on) because He 'cannot' go against His Law, which created the universe. 

So we would assume from this that God is not omnipotent, however, keep in mind that He created His Law, which He cannot override. So if he is non-omnipotent, it is due only to Himself. A bit of a paradox? so what next? 

2. Just because God 'cannot' end suffering now does not mean that he 'cannot' end suffering ever. 

God has to work aligned with and within His Law. That is why Jesus came and the Word became human. Everything that Jesus did was within the Law (of nature and creation). 

Christians like to believe that God can remove suffering. Unfortunately, unlike God, we live within time and may be in the middle of God's plan to remove suffering. The story of humankind is not finished and soon suffering may be ended yet, but it is done according to God's will, not humankind's.

----------


## blazeofglory

Believing in God has so many reasons. First and foremost is we are not knowledgeable about the origin or creation of this universe and in point of fact we can not solely subscribe to the idea of Darwin. 

We are all conscious beings and there must be a source of it, and of course all that we do are not sheer quivers, vibrations, tremors and the like. There are things that are beyond our ranges of comprehensions and believing in God is not beleiving in our confinements and to think that there must be something beyond all these webs as a matter of fact. 

And may be some of our questions that go unanswered will find answers in believing in God. God is not a word, nor an entity, nor an object, nor a process. May the last answer or the last destination is what God is. God is everything or not everything. It is something that is not explained away in books of scriptures, not in religious faiths, not even in benediction. And wherein is a question we can never answer.

----------


## krymsonkyng

> Those who understand and have a love for literature, who delight in the consistency of character and wonder at the beauty of a perfectly constructed story line, cannot help but love the Bible, if not for a book of religious accuracy, then as the ultimate expression of the collected word. 
> 
> Joyce, Proust and James reached the pinnacle of literature and yet not even they could construct a character with the compassionate, complexity, and understanding of the 'higher being' that Jesus represents.


Jesus is complex because he is a surreal character, and the bible contradicts itself in several instances. The bible is a sequel to the Old testament, but it had parts cut from it: Apocryphal texts are mostly ignored. The bible is far from perfect or whole. The bible has been interpreted in whatever way it is needed to mean. It's ambiguity and mysticism allow others to lead minds unwilling to think for themselves. Jesus is like an ancient superman, a character with absolute power who overcomes moral struggle and previous doctrine. Jesus is a catalyst. he has all the marks of a superhero, righteous fury, rise, and fall included.

The bible's ancient, but constantly revised and given new spin. If anything it's on the same level as the Koran, the Sutras, or any other religious document unless you happen to be Christian biased. Jesus wasn't the first of his kind or the last. Gilgamesh, Heracles and other ancient heroes were parented by the god(s).

I refuse to accept the bible as a valid reason why people in general believe in a god. It is a fine story, but I do not see it as perfect, ultimate, or anything more than what it is: Doctrine.




> A question people always like to ask is that if there was a God, why is there so much suffering allowed in this world. The suffering in this world exists not because of God, but because of human nature. *We, as a whole, have chosen suffering and death*. Why do the good and innocent suffer? It is as simple as this - a person, A, gets angry at being mistreated by B. Because he is too cowardly to take his anger out on B, he picks on C, who is good and innocent but meek. C, being good and innocent, suffers. Is that because of God or because of the wickedness of A?


I agree that people allow themselves to suffer. I feel the "Jesus take the wheel!" mentality that religion sometimes breeds is partly to blame. But this is a different topic...

----------


## Emmy Castrol

> The bible's ancient, but constantly revised and given new spin. If anything it's on the same level as the Koran, the Sutras, or any other religious document unless you happen to be Christian biased. Jesus wasn't the first of his kind or the last. Gilgamesh, Heracles and other ancient heroes were parented by the god(s).
> 
> I refuse to accept the bible as a valid reason why people in general believe in a god. It is a fine story, but I do not see it as perfect, ultimate, or anything more than what it is: Doctrine.


It is very difficult for an individual to approach the Bible with a completely objective and open mind; in fact, I'm tempted to say it is impossible. From the moment we are born, we are influenced by the beliefs of those around us. 

The world naturally finds Christianity repulsive and unnecesary. The average man is brought up on a secular view of Christianity and almost automatically categories Jesus to other ancient 'king types' of past cultures. 

A sincere study into the character of Jesus will affirm many differences. Jesus was the only character whom aim it was to establish a 'spiritual kingdom' rather than a physical one. The character of Jesus has never been able to be emulated in any of the modern literature, and the reason why I say modern literature is because only modern literature (due to it being the product of literary advancement) would be able to (if it could) create such a character. 

In fact, the closest character to Jesus I have come across is Superman (but he is a DC comic character) and he made no attempt to change things on the spiritual level on earth. 

Those known as the greatest writers have rarely made any attempt to construct a God and wisely so, have chosen for their masterpieces to be focused on the human condition. 

My point is, no literature other than the Bible has been able to craft a character as original, as consistent, with as thorough an understanding of the human condition, as that of Jesus.

----------


## krymsonkyng

> A sincere study into the character of Jesus will affirm many differences. Jesus was the only character whom aim it was to establish a 'spiritual kingdom' rather than a physical one. The character of Jesus has never been able to be emulated in any of the modern literature, and the reason why I say modern literature is because only modern literature (due to it being the product of literary advancement) would be able to (if it could) create such a character. 
> 
> In fact, the closest character to Jesus I have come across is Superman (but he is a DC comic character) and he made no attempt to change things on the spiritual level on earth. 
> 
> Those known as the greatest writers have rarely made any attempt to construct a God and wisely so, have chosen for their masterpieces to be focused on the human condition. 
> 
> My point is, no literature other than the Bible has been able to craft a character as original, as consistent, with as thorough an understanding of the human condition, as that of Jesus.


Siddhartha was said to have been born a half century before Christ... Martyrs existed long before Jesus, and long after. Spiritual martyrs as well.

Modern literature has a term for the Christ Figure: link. Given, a lot of these people are considered mimic of the original, but several have their own reasons. A good example would be Finny in _A Separate Peace_. Another (though to a much lesser extent) would be Victor from _Choke_. He becomes so worried about his kindness and niceties that he begins to strive to be anything but Christ in defiance of his psychotic parent.

Jesus is perfect. In theory, that isn't too hard to write. Jesus has no weakness. There is no fear there, no complexity to his decisions. I would say he's less complex for his perfection, and his few imperfections are contradictions considered trivial and ignored.

Any writer to construct a god would not be considered great for long because of the retribution such "arrogance" would bring. People get persecuted for questioning the church. Such writings are not considered "great" by mainstream readers for a reason.

I reject the bibles as the main motivating factors for people to believe in the Christian God. Scripture of any sort is sort of like an instructional story (Not too unlike a series of fables, but of a more serious nature. People don't kill over the tortoise and the hair...) for the already faithful to take to heart. Few people I have met ever join Christianity after reading the entire bible. The usual indoctrination takes place at a younger age and is accepted household fact that bias' the newly faithful towards scripture for reinforcement. Again though, this is only because the child (if rational) accepts the teachings of his parents enough to believe them beneficial.

----------


## Lynne Fees

Oh, but I have seen Jesus work in my life in such a wonderful way. Who do you think Jesus is? Cuz if you study the Bible with an open mind, you will be amazed.

----------


## krymsonkyng

> Oh, but I have seen Jesus work in my life in such a wonderful way. Who do you think Jesus is? Cuz if you study the Bible with an open mind, you will be amazed.


I wholeheartedly agree, an open mind is necessary in learning anything, the bible(s) included. The point of my posts in this thread are to determine a cause for faith in any god though, not just whichever god you subscribe to. I have come to the bible with an open mind before, but I refuse to take it as fact for several reasons not important to this thread.

To keep on topic may I ask you a question? If you're alright with a personal question (you do not have to answer if you do not want to) would you say you believe in a god because of the good things Jesus does for you?

----------


## blazeofglory

This is a topic that can fuel our imagination and as a matter of fact it engages us to think and imagine greatly.

In point of fact beleiving God widens your horizon of life. Or else life is meaningless. If we try to understand life in material terms or take it as a physical entity and can not think beyond a point life becomes very dry.

Believing in God broadens our perspectives. 

Man suffers and still he hopes he can be out of it. He can overcomes hardships. He believes prayer is powerful.

In fact prayer is powerful. The most important thing is beleif or confidence and if one loses one tends to lost greatly. Prayer props up faith and confidence in ourselves, in others, and in everything. 

Prayer braces our sense of morality. Of course prayer soothes our minds and we will be doing things that morality approves.

There are so many reasons that make us beleive in God. Man does not want to be confined and man wants to grow infinitely and limitlessly. 

God is a height, an ideal, a summit man wants to be at.

The most important value man has is God, and no achievement is higher in glory and worthier than realizing or attaining liberation.

----------


## laidbackperson

> God seems to be something of a security blanket. These days he's like insurance. Back in the day he was the only way of life. Folks believe and have believed in a god mostly out of self interest
> In Christianity the general consensus is if you believe in God, good things happen to you in this life and the next. If you don't you suffer for eternity. Other religions have similar rewards and punishments (Buddhism you spin your wheels, Taoism you constantly hurt, Any idea similar heaven or hell is like waving a carrot or a gun respectively).People are selfish even in their charity


I will answer it like this:

I feel pretty sure that there is a higher Power behind everything.

The higher power wants us to live in a particular way: Be good person, compassionate, honest, loving, tolerant etc.
By striving to live this way, I feel Gods grace will be with me and He will take care. He will also lead me towards God realization.
So, you can say here that by believing in God, I am looking for a benefit that my present life will be OK in general. 

What if my life gets in disarray, then I will still keep believe hoping that God will straighten it out. 
What if He does not straighten it out? 
I think I will continue believing and hoping and working towards solving my problems.
This is the way it is presently with me and may be with many other believers. 

One more point I would like to mention here:
God has also been taken as ultimate lover or beloved.
So when you love God, like a true lover or a beloved you want to please God. You resign yourself to the will of God and accept God in whatever situation He puts you. 

If you have seen the movie Casablanca, then there are two good men in love with same woman. Both men would have laid their lives for the happiness of this fine woman and there was just love for the woman without thought of any self-interest. That is how it should be ultimately between God and human.

May be here also you can say that there is a benefit involved: Doing the thing that you like loving someone without any care for self

----------


## krymsonkyng

> I will answer it like this:
> 
> I feel pretty sure that there is a higher Power behind everything.
> 
> The higher power wants us to live in a particular way: Be good person, compassionate, honest, loving, tolerant etc.
> By striving to live this way, I feel Gods grace will be with me and He will take care. He will also lead me towards God realization.
> So, you can say here that by believing in God, I am looking for a benefit that my present life will be OK in general.


I would believe in a god for very much the same reason.

I have not seen Casablanca (yet) but I can see how a person loves a god, I wanted to find a general reasoning for people to believe. I believe people believe, in general because it feels right. Love is a powerful motivator, but I wanted to classify it as a "benefit" in terms of motivation. I now see how careful one must be when trying to make general statements about something so near and dear to so many hearts.

I wanted to make a statement similar to Pascal's wager, but in relation to religion as a whole instead of just Christianity. I hope I have not offended anyone with my obstinacy in believing that the feeling is a stronger motivator than the doctrine.

----------


## blazeofglory

In fact it is very hard to carry on without having to believe in God, for God is inundated with life, and we feel totally at one with God in many respects. Today more than ever we turn to God, for all we eye these days are falsehoods, deception, forgeries.

How can we not beleive in God the savour.

For what is God is not the Biblical or mythological God. God is a symbol or ideal of something, and not believing in God is not believing in any ideal.

----------


## cfh

without indulging personal religious beliefs, it is a basic and inherent part of our nature to believe in a higher power. early philosophers consistently proofed this in logic. by pure observation of known civilization this is true.

people who cling to the idea that there is no God seem truly contradictory to their own human nature, internally they battle what they say does not exist.

even the most recent discoveries in quantum physics and string theory have arrived at a point of ill consequence that they must now explain something from nothing. it is a leap, it is faith.

----------


## blazeofglory

In point of fact it is hard not to beleive in God, for without God ultimately everything becomes worthless.

God is an accumulation of our all values in point of fact.

----------


## theatrics

"I think believing in God provides a comfort."
That is hardly a reason to prove God's existence. God can be COMPLETELY fictional yet still provide us comfort. 
You are way to general on other points. For example you gave a reason for sin in the world as follows: [because if we didn't have sin] "the world would become very automated, dull and without spice." You're joking right? That's justification for God, and further, for him allowing sin in the world? Because it would be homogeneously good without sin? Sorry, I can't believe that. I've seen the religious folks come up with A LOT better reasons than that.

----------


## Lynne Fees

> I wholeheartedly agree, an open mind is necessary in learning anything, the bible(s) included. The point of my posts in this thread are to determine a cause for faith in any god though, not just whichever god you subscribe to. I have come to the bible with an open mind before, but I refuse to take it as fact for several reasons not important to this thread.
> 
> To keep on topic may I ask you a question? If you're alright with a personal question (you do not have to answer if you do not want to) would you say you believe in a god because of the good things Jesus does for you?


I believe in God because I have studied apologetics (good ex: Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell) and I believe the Bible is God's inspired Word. In the Bible, I have learned God's plan for Jesus to come to earth to redeem mankind. Then, I have studied the Bible and applied its principles to my life. I have seen the peace and joy that comes from that.

----------


## zado_k

I've pruned drastically for brevity. Apologies if this inadvertantly misrepresents anything.



> "Outsiders" are "outside" because they refuse to believe in God.


Where does *refusal* come into it? I can't decide to believe in god or refuse to believe in god: either the evidence and arguments compel me or they don't! There would be, as I think you imply elsewhere, little point in opportunistically confessing belief that wasn't real: god would know the difference! I'm outside not because I refuse to believe in god but because I simply can't honestly say that I do. I can't pretend to you or to god that I believe it even remotely likely that god exists.

Jakob

----------


## Lynne Fees

> "I think believing in God provides a comfort."
> That is hardly a reason to prove God's existence. God can be COMPLETELY fictional yet still provide us comfort. 
> You are way to general on other points. For example you gave a reason for sin in the world as follows: [because if we didn't have sin] "the world would become very automated, dull and without spice." You're joking right? That's justification for God, and further, for him allowing sin in the world? Because it would be homogeneously good without sin? Sorry, I can't believe that. I've seen the religious folks come up with A LOT better reasons than that.


Think about the world with God not allowing sin (or sickness or injury or death, which entered the world due to sin according to the Bible). What would happen to the laws of physics? For instance, you jump off your roof, fall but are unhurt. Cars crashing into eachother with no dents and no injuries. But worst of all is that man's free will would be gone. An evil person couldn't do any evil - that is why we would all be robots. There would be no way to judge people at all - good people wouldn't do anything bad; bad people wouldn't do anything bad. We'd all just have to die and go to heaven together; what would be the point of Earth at all, then?

----------


## Judas130

Irenaeus looked at your problem by suggesting that God wished to create Humans perfect but, in our infancy, we could not receive the gift of perfection that had been bestowed upon us. The Fall of Man is seen as a childish mistake of naivety, and that the world, with suffering, is a training ground for humankind to become closer to God, closer to perfection. The Augustine ideals fail in many ways, Irenaeus seems only to postulate...but he has some interesting ideas that are worth delving into, search up the Irenaean theodicy.
There is a stressed discrimination between the 'Image' and the 'Likeness' of God. God created human beings as imperfect (In his likeness) so that they could grow into moral, spiritual and intelligent beings (In his image) who would love him.

peace.

----------


## Lynne Fees

> Irenaeus looked at your problem by suggesting that God wished to create Humans perfect but, in our infancy, we could not receive the gift of perfection that had been bestowed upon us. The Fall of Man is seen as a childish mistake of naivety, and that the world, with suffering, is a training ground for humankind to become closer to God, closer to perfection. The Augustine ideals fail in many ways, Irenaeus seems only to postulate...but he has some interesting ideas that are worth delving into, search up the Irenaean theodicy.
> There is a stressed discrimination between the 'Image' and the 'Likeness' of God. God created human beings as imperfect (In his likeness) so that they could grow into moral, spiritual and intelligent beings (In his image) who would love him.
> 
> peace.


Or did "in His image" mean that human beings WERE moral, spiritual and intelligent beings, like God? And where we fell off the wagon was when we disobeyed?

----------


## jakobmuller

I can't respect religion, mainly christianity, as anything more than a story that was fabricated to make people naiively fall in line with other people who believe the same story and thus make them feel justified in doing so. 

One huge revelation (pun intended) i've had is that so many elements of christianity are similar to the story of santa claus and the north pole. While this probably sounds silly, since St. Nick was started way after jesus, I have found that whenever someone talks about their faith and how amazing God is, i can't help but think of them as a little kid talking about Santa. Isn't it amazing how Santa can make it around to every house in the whole world in one night? What about how God can hear and act upon billions of prayers every day? If little billy is good this year, he'll get lots of toys; if he's bad, he will get dirty black coal. Lead a God-ful life, you end up in Heaven; A bad one will land you in Hell.

To end the metaphor, most of the core values and morals that many religions teach are the only thing rooted in reality. The majority of would agree that it is bad to steal, kill, and hate; we also tend to agree that it is good to love, appreciate what we have, and be kind to others.

So why do we need a big silly story to back those simple principles up?

Abraham Lincoln once said:

"If I do good, I feel good
If I do bad, I feel bad
and that is my religion."

----------


## Judas130

> Or did "in His image" mean that human beings WERE moral, spiritual and intelligent beings, like God? And where we fell off the wagon was when we disobeyed?


well, that is the Augustine route of argument. That all the suffering in the world is a result of the perverse turning away from God - the fall of man. This creates the moral evil we have in the world. Yet the other fall, the fall of Lucifer and his angels, consequentially produced natural evil..earthquakes etc. 
The idea that we were all present in the loins of Adam is biologically impossible, and we should not have to suffer for another person's sin.

----------


## Lynne Fees

> well, that is the Augustine route of argument. That all the suffering in the world is a result of the perverse turning away from God - the fall of man. This creates the moral evil we have in the world. Yet the other fall, the fall of Lucifer and his angels, consequentially produced natural evil..earthquakes etc. 
> The idea that we were all present in the loins of Adam is biologically impossible, and we should not have to suffer for another person's sin.


I think DNA evidence has traced all of our roots back to the Middle East. 
We only personally suffer for our own sin. The world at large suffers from the "moral evil" you described.

----------


## MarkBastable

> In point of fact it is hard not to beleive in God, for without God ultimately everything becomes worthless.
> 
> God is an accumulation of our all values in point of fact.


Or, of course, it could be that everything is worthless. The fact that everything would be worthless without God is not enough to make God exist. 

If you _want_ everything to have worth, that might be reason to _believe_ God exists. But it's not a mechanism to _make_ him exist

----------


## Lynne Fees

> I can't respect religion, mainly christianity, as anything more than a story that was fabricated to make people naiively fall in line with other people who believe the same story and thus make them feel justified in doing so. 
> 
> One huge revelation (pun intended) i've had is that so many elements of christianity are similar to the story of santa claus and the north pole. While this probably sounds silly, since St. Nick was started way after jesus, I have found that whenever someone talks about their faith and how amazing God is, i can't help but think of them as a little kid talking about Santa. Isn't it amazing how Santa can make it around to every house in the whole world in one night? What about how God can hear and act upon billions of prayers every day? If little billy is good this year, he'll get lots of toys; if he's bad, he will get dirty black coal. Lead a God-ful life, you end up in Heaven; A bad one will land you in Hell.
> 
> To end the metaphor, most of the core values and morals that many religions teach are the only thing rooted in reality. The majority of would agree that it is bad to steal, kill, and hate; we also tend to agree that it is good to love, appreciate what we have, and be kind to others.
> 
> So why do we need a big silly story to back those simple principles up?
> 
> 
> ...


It's funny - I remember praying to God as a child and throwing in right before the Amen, "Oh, could you please tell Santa about the doll I want for Christmas?" I thought they were both sitting up in heaven together hanging out. 

Santa, however sadly, is made up. He did not have a historical account like that in the Bible to verify his existence. So it turns out he is make-believe. And the whole "be good, get heaven; be bad, get hell" is just a Santa idea, not God's. None of us can be good enough to please God. God told Moses to tell the Israelites: "Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy." No mere mortal can be that good! It's a much higher standard than Santa's.

----------


## billyjack

you should skim over some religious polemics--see if your faith can stand up to the onslaught of a hitchens or a harris

----------


## Judas130

> Or, of course, it could be that everything is worthless.


Not so. Everything, however little, has some abstract and physical worth. The Sun, for example, is not worthless for it is needed for there to be much of the life we see on this planet (and to see naturally at all for that matter).
A hairbrush may be of value and worth to one person, and not to you or I, yet that is not to say it has no worth, for it evidently does to its owner - including the price it cost (thus allowing the seller to become more prosperous), and the materials needed for its existence - and the worth of those materials, and the worth of mechanisms to bring those materials together - as well as the jobs created in the process, and the families it feeds, etc, etc. 
What might be a pebble to man, is home or protection for the insect - everything has worth, god or not. 





> The fact that everything would be worthless without God is not enough to make God exist. 
> 
> 
> ...it's not a mechanism to _make_ him exist


I beg to differ. Anselm already proved that God existed (at least in conception, though his ontological argument in terms of physical existence borders on ridiculous, although rational). Anselm shows us that, in concept, god actually exists. Human beings and the primitive societies that have gone before us, time and time again conclude of a God - to do such is a cognitive mechanism, to have faith allows the mind to expand and indulge, placing trust and respect, even aspects of love, into this abstract God. In this way, God exists through cognitive mechanism. even the Atheist, known as the 'fool' (i do not say this to be cruel) in psalm 53, i believe..or around, who claims not to believe in God, believes in God - for he recognizes a deity in concept to claim it doesn't exist, and through this recognition, the conceptual God exists. I dislike using A priori arguments, but I think it bears some relevance to your statement. 




> Santa, however sadly, is made up. He did not have a historical account like that in the Bible to verify his existence.


wrong, St Nicholas of Bari is the model for santa clause - He had a reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of those who left them out for him, and thus became the model for Santa Claus, whose English name comes from the German 'Sankt Niklaus.' 

"a poor man had three daughters but could not afford a proper dowry for them. This meant that they would remain unmarried and probably, in absence of any other possible employment would have to become prostitutes. Hearing of the poor man's plight, Nicholas decided to help him but being too modest to help the man in public, (or to save the man the humiliation of accepting charity), he went to his house under the cover of night and threw three purses (one for each daughter) filled with gold coins through the window opening into the man's house." (wikipedia 2009) 

He is said to have died about 330AD, so the accounts aren't dead certain, but nor is most history (read JBI's ideas in the Bible thread) or the bible for that matter.

----------


## grotto

Just as an outsider with an opinion, same as every one else here; I dont think that God is the issue here, its belief that causes the problem. Human beliefs have killed far more people than any God ever has. 

Why is it you believe anything? The existence or non existence belief, it matters not which one you choose, either one will keep you closed minded to the possibilities beyond what you fight so hard to cherish. Your belief is what keeps you bound.

Never mind trying to get people to agree or conform to what you believe, ask why it is that you believe what it is you believe.

----------


## jakobmuller

The point i attempted to make with the santa analogy is that many christian people try to justify doing so with the same logic as little kids who believe in santa.

Why do you believe in God?
"because He created me and how else could we all exist in such a beautiful world"

Why do you believe in Santa?
"well DUH, how else do you think all these presents got under the tree??!! Who else could have eaten the cookies?!"

----------


## Rorshach69

> Why do you believe in Santa?
> "well DUH, how else do you think all these presents got under the tree??!! Who else could have eaten the cookies?!"


It was me i ate the cookies and i created the universe. There that should end the whole religion debate. haha

----------


## MarkBastable

> Not so. Everything, however little, has some abstract and physical worth. The Sun, for example, is not worthless for it is needed for there to be much of the life we see on this planet (and to see naturally at all for that matter).



Hey, it wasn't me who said everything was worthless. The guy earlier in the thread said that without God everything would be worthless. And maybe it would, but that doesn't make God exist.

Me, I think that it's possible - indeed, more believable - that things have worth without God.

And that's my point. If you need God to give things worth, go ahead. Be my guest. 


Me, all I need to give things worth is...well, the things that to me give things worth. And one of them, just so you know, is not God.


However, just to address your rebuttal of the notion, you suggest that the sun has worth because it sustains life on this planet. Which would suggest that life on the planet has worth. Which then needs justifying.

I think we need to define 'worth' then. If we mean 'purpose' then I disagree. I can't see any, in anything, not on any scale that appears sensible. If we mean 'value' then, yeah, locally, subjectively and selectively - some stuff has worth. I mean, me and my kids - lots of worth. The Siberian tiger - some worth. Jeffery Archer - no worth at all.

But that would be true with or without God. Especially the bit about Jeffery Archer.

----------


## Judas130

It doesn't really work that way Rorshach, but 

...damn my cynical nature.  :Frown: 

To answer grotto's question, i'll put up the argument of indoctrination, conformity, and upbringing as factors that influence belief in a religion. However, I am not wholly right, as these factors may be the case up until a certain age, but doesn't explain how adults later turn to religions from nothing previous. 
I think what attracts many adults into belief is a sense of calamity, or peace both inner and outer, and some real love. Someone mentioned on these forums once that it takes a great deal more to turn from God, or your belief, than turn to it - as your mind searches for spiritual conclusions, not to empirical fact, but to spiritual purpose - questions asked from childhood and to deny this, to cut off and isolate yourself from a higher sense, is a downsight harder.




> However, just to address your rebuttal of the notion, you suggest that the sun has worth because it sustains life on this planet. Which would suggest that life on the planet has worth. Which then needs justifying.


not at all. my argument is a simple one, that conceptually..everything has worth..i suppose to the eyes of the beholder and to that which is directly affected by it. Your J. Archer example is humorous, but does not mean that the man has no worth - and yes, by worth i do man value and not purpose - as the man has worth to say, a wife, or a dear friend, or his parents and that makes the man have worth - purpose is a whole separate thing, which is something i don't have the capacity to argue at this hour.




> I can't see any, in anything, not on any scale that appears sensible.


Aristotle opened our eyes to the gift of actuality and potentiality. I'd say if we had purpose, though this is not really what I wanted to talk about..but meh, then it lies in our potential. You child for example, say at the age of four, has the actuality of being four, though has the potential of being 84. This is true at least...we are all two people, our actual and our potential...our potential is our unforeseen purpose. 

I'm also very cynical, and personally believe we all live to breed and die...but that's no fun really is it? 
purpose has varying meanings...the purpose of a tool is to be used to fix something or make it work. the purpose that we affix to the space between birth and death, is a whole separate matter...some breed of fish, i believe trout or maybe salmon, swim upriver after giving birth, and die...for their purpose is complete...so what have humans got in the same scenario? 

peace.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I'm also very cynical, and personally believe we all live to breed and die...but that's no fun really is it? 
> peace.


If you're not having fun then you're not doing it right.  :FRlol:

----------


## jakobmuller

> If you're not having fun then you're not doing it right.


brilliant  :Biggrin:

----------


## Judas130

:Frown:  shot down like...


...pheasant.  :Bawling:

----------


## grotto

> shot down like...
> 
> 
> ...pheasant.


Yes, but did it make you smile? : :Biggrin:  Some times, that's all you can do. You have to watch those who smile through adversity! They know something!

----------


## Judas130

indeed, quite true  :Wink:

----------


## Lynne Fees

> wrong, St Nicholas of Bari is the model for santa clause - He had a reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of those who left them out for him, and thus became the model for Santa Claus, whose English name comes from the German 'Sankt Niklaus.' 
> 
> "a poor man had three daughters but could not afford a proper dowry for them. This meant that they would remain unmarried and probably, in absence of any other possible employment would have to become prostitutes. Hearing of the poor man's plight, Nicholas decided to help him but being too modest to help the man in public, (or to save the man the humiliation of accepting charity), he went to his house under the cover of night and threw three purses (one for each daughter) filled with gold coins through the window opening into the man's house." (wikipedia 2009) 
> 
> He is said to have died about 330AD, so the accounts aren't dead certain, but nor is most history (read JBI's ideas in the Bible thread) or the bible for that matter.


But no historical account of the Santa of which you spoke, you know, the one who travels the world in his sleigh on Christmas Eve? 
However, there is a historical account of God's and Jesus's miracles. Jesus died about 33 AD. His death was documented by a secular historian at the time, I believe his name was Josephus. The account of his resurrection was also mentioned by Josephus. You have to study all of this thoroughly. Evidence That Demands a Verdict is an excellent resource if you really want to know the scientific and historical evidence surrounding the Bible. It's not just another fairy tale. It's not like Santa - a kernal of truth because a real nice man named Jesus once lived and people have devised a nice story about him.

----------


## grotto

Yes, its a nice story about a very nice man who lived long, long ago in a very different world. Then, a group of people of dubious origin decide to write about it in the vernacular of the time. Then, lets not forget all of those after the original writers who had a hand in conveniently adding there own agenda to the story. It has since been manipulated continually for every conceivable gain and manipulation to the point of being a mere fairy tale. Yet every fairy tale has a grain of truth I suppose.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Yes, its a nice story about a very nice man who lived long, long ago in a very different world. Then, a group of people of dubious origin decide to write about it in the vernacular of the time. Then, lets not forget all of those after the original writers who had a hand in conveniently adding there own agenda to the story. It has since been manipulated continually for every conceivable gain and manipulation to the point of being a mere fairy tale. Yet every fairy tale has a grain of truth I suppose.


And what is the sources of this evident manipulation? Care to quote them? Or is this yet another repeating of what you've heard - you know: hearsay? The coherence of the Bible defies much of this attempt to discredit it. We take for truth ancient texts (like Homer and Plato) with far less credibility behind them (in terms of textual integrity) than the Bible.

----------


## grotto

Who said I was talking about the bible?

----------


## jakobmuller

> We take for truth ancient texts (like Homer and Plato) with far less credibility behind them (in terms of textual integrity) than the Bible.


The Iliad and the Odyssey don't give an exact set of guidelines by which millions of people live their lives, so we don't have anywhere near as much motive to question them.

----------


## c4its

I believe in God, most ardently and His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. I would like to address one of the issues that seems to arise when God is mentioned. If there is a God, how can He let such terrible things happen in the world? 
God does not want us to suffer, but he must let us have our own free agency (right to make independent choices) in order for us to become more perfect beings. All of the terrible things that have happened have happened because of human error, and that's okay. When we as humans go through things that are difficult, we have a responsibility to _grow_ from those diversities. It is like a refining fire, we are tossed and turned and burned so that we can become more like God. When a couple goes through tough times, and they try to correct their mistakes and solve their problem, their relationship gets stronger. When natural disasters happen, others rush in and try to help and serve those who have been affected, those people involved can become more like Christ in his perfectness. When someone close to you dies, you have the chance to realize how precious life is. We are on Earth to learn and grow and to be tested. What determines our happiness is how we decide to respond to the trials that are put in our way, will you become bitter with hate or will you try to refine yourself?

----------


## laidbackperson

> I would like to address one of the issues that seems to arise when God is mentioned. If there is a God, how can He let such terrible things happen in the world? 
> 
> God does not want us to suffer, but he must let us have our own free agency (right to make independent choices) in order for us to become more perfect beings. All of the terrible things that have happened have happened because of human error, and that's okay. When we as humans go through things that are difficult, we have a responsibility to _grow_ from those diversities. It is like a refining fire, we are tossed and turned and burned so that we can become more like God. When a couple goes through tough times, and they try to correct their mistakes and solve their problem, their relationship gets stronger. When natural disasters happen, others rush in and try to help and serve those who have been affected, those people involved can become more like Christ in his perfectness. When someone close to you dies, you have the chance to realize how precious life is. We are on Earth to learn and grow and to be tested. What determines our happiness is how we decide to respond to the trials that are put in our way, will you become bitter with hate or will you try to refine yourself?


Nicely put, c4its. I also think, it has to be something like this.

----------


## MarkBastable

> God does not want us to suffer, but he must let us have our own free agency (right to make independent choices) in order for us to become more perfect beings. All of the terrible things that have happened have happened because of human error, and that's okay. When we as humans go through things that are difficult, we have a responsibility to _grow_ from those diversities. It is like a refining fire, we are tossed and turned and burned so that we can become more like God. When a couple goes through tough times, and they try to correct their mistakes and solve their problem, their relationship gets stronger. When natural disasters happen, others rush in and try to help and serve those who have been affected, those people involved can become more like Christ in his perfectness. When someone close to you dies, you have the chance to realize how precious life is. We are on Earth to learn and grow and to be tested. What determines our happiness is how we decide to respond to the trials that are put in our way, will you become bitter with hate or will you try to refine yourself?




So God allows terrible things to happen in order to give us the chance to improve ourselves? He came up with the fabulous idea of childhood leukaemia to make it easier for bereaved parents to aspire to a state of Christ-like grace?


It's becoming increasingly obvious to me during this discussion that if God exists then I don't like him much. I have serious reservations about his methods and I'm not prepared to adopt the attitudes and behaviours that are apparently necessary to gain his approval.




> ...what would be the point of Earth at all, then?


Well, quite possibly none. Which seems to me much more likely to be true than any other suggested possibility.

And _because_ there's no ultimate point, the way you live your life matters on a human scale - you have to exhibit kindness, companionship, fair dealing, charity, all that stuff. 

Here's the scary part though. If you decide _not_ to be humane, there's no ultimate punishment. There's no _wait till your father gets home_ comeuppance. You have to be good simply because it seems the right thing to do. There's no payoff, no threat, no reckoning.

That's a much tougher requirement of human beings, in my opinion, than the God-led alternative where the good children get a long holiday in Paradise Resorts, and the bad children are locked in the cellar forever. 

It's hard work being an atheist. It's not an easy path to follow- but I think it's a more responsible one.

----------


## laidbackperson

> So God allows terrible things to happen in order to give us the chance to improve ourselves? He came up with the fabulous idea of childhood leukaemia to make it easier for bereaved parents to aspire to a state of Christ-like grace?
> 
> 
> It's becoming increasingly obvious to me during this discussion that if God exists then I don't like him much. I have serious reservations about his methods and I'm not prepared to adopt the attitudes and behaviours that are apparently necessary to gain his approval.





> Well, quite possibly none. Which seems to me much more likely to be true than any other suggested possibility.
> 
> And because there's no ultimate point, the way you live your life matters on a human scale - you have to exhibit kindness, companionship, fair dealing, charity, all that stuff. 
> 
> Here's the scary part though. If you decide not to be humane, there's no ultimate punishment. There's no wait till your father gets home comeuppance. You have to be good simply because it seems the right thing to do. There's no payoff, no threat, no reckoning.
> 
> That's a much tougher requirement of human beings, in my opinion, than the God-led alternative where the good children get a long holiday in Paradise Resorts, and the bad children are locked in the cellar forever. 
> 
> It's hard work being an atheist. It's not an easy path to follow- but I think it's a more responsible one. .


Even if our final fate is just to be born, to procreate and die, with enjoyment or suffering thrown in in-between to varying degree for different persons, then also I agree with you that right way of living is with kindness, companionship, fair dealing and all such stuff. To understand this is very important. 

All your ego trips, flaunting of power or money, physical attraction and charms, prizes, adulation, knowledge etc should not have much meaning, for ultimately like all others who have gone before us, each one of us alive here have to leave all this and die.

As for your doubt about connection between suffering and God do please read *my post (#300) at last of page 20 of this thread*. 

May be, if you see the things from recarnation angle & everything-is-God's- play, you will be able to get at some answer.

----------


## marxengels2012

All the way back to Epicurus and Lucretius ("On the Nature of Things"), the ancient Greeks found that disbelief in "god(s)" was a very liberating experience. Religion has always been "the opiate of the masses" long before Marx and Engels. I am today a non-theist (atheist) who has found that slavery to religion generally is the worst of slaveries. During these hard economic times, more and more people are lining up at the "churches" for comfort and salvation, but are finding that they "come out the same door as in [they] went" in the words of Omar Khayyam. The "God" of the Bible is a tyrant in every way; he is for fratricide, ethnic cleanising, and hatred of women. Read the books of Joshua and Judges and then tell me about the "love of God."

----------


## laidbackperson

> During these hard economic times, more and more people are lining up at the "churches" for comfort and salvation, but are finding that they "come out the same door as in [they] went" in the words of Omar Khayyam. The "God" of the Bible is a tyrant in every way; he is for fratricide, ethnic cleanising, and hatred of women. Read the books of Joshua and Judges and then tell me about the "love of God."


What about others few like Mother Teressa. 

I once met her during her last years. As a young person, I stood in a que of teenagers for her autograph. As the person just ahead of me took her autogrph, the thought flashed through my mind, 'Let us see, what's so great about her?'

When my turn came, she looked at me with such compassionate eyes (as you can see in he so many photographs), the thought came unbidden in my mind, 'Well, she is different'. 

I still carry that autograph with my I card as a good luck sign when I move out for town on offical tours.

Today I think of a single benevolent God for the entire humanity, and seperate religion and religions text and rituals from God. Still instead of basing your beliefs on fears, I think it is better not to believe. To each his own.

----------


## marxengels2012

Mother Teresa and Pope John-Paul II are much over-rated in today's world. There are many others who are doing even more than they did. Why pick out one or two "saints" to emulate when history is full of them, both within and outside the Catholic Church. And why a "good luck charm" from an autograph? Many teenagers are carrying the autographs and pictures of "rock stars" as "good luck charms" and none of this means anything at all. When will humankind grow up? Even the ancient Greeks saw through this guise of "religion" (cf. Epicurus and Lucretius). Mother Teresa was "possessed" by an "evil spirit" at one time, was she not? Was she "possessed" when you saw her and got her autograph?

----------


## NikolaiI

For all those conerned, I would like to quote a Sanskrit verse from the Vedas..


"Delight"

Anandadd hy eva khalv imani bhutani jayante,
Anandena jatani jivanti
Anandam prayantyabhisam visanti. 


Translation 

From Delight we came into existence.
In Delight we grow.
At the end of our journey’s close,
Into Delight we retire.

----------


## Judas130

> For all those conerned, I would like to quote a Sanskrit verse from the Vedas..
> 
> Translation 
> 
> From Delight we came into existence.
> In Delight we grow.
> At the end of our journeys close,
> Into Delight we retire.



Mothers experience pain in pregnancy, children cry in fright in birth
many grow through society, collecting and attaching, paying money and living in the state, raising families
When we die - death - can vary in pain or ease. Such practices as bodhicitta automatically bring calm at the time of death. 
Is the delight that you refer to something which is attained, or something that is there by default? I've read some of thoughts of the present Dalai Lama, and much work is to be had to attain goals and ease throughout life: "let us take a moment to review how progress toward a meaningful life unfolds: first comes morality, then concentrated meditation, then wisdom." (How to practise - Dalai Lama) 





> Religion has always been "the opiate of the masses" long before Marx and Engels. I am today a non-theist (atheist) who has found that slavery to religion generally is the worst of slaveries.


Are you sure it is slavery? For if one does not wish to believe, then one will not. Do you not think instead that religion is an indulgent rather than a slavery? When you truly come to comprehend how little we are in relation to a universe of which we presently know little of, then such a thought that we are all alone in a great sea is a heartbreaking one. The thought that, even within our own galaxy, we cannot 'see' what is around us - indeed, what we 'see' is the history of our neighbouring stars, light years into the past - we can not know what the gallaxy, or the universe looks like - because all we see is it's history - thanks to the speed of light. To say "a galaxy is presently colliding' is wrong, for it collided perhaps 4 billion years ago. This is a further lonely idea to add to the arsenal of loneliness. Humans worship and have faith, we conclude and try to understand. 

Yet to think of atheism as liberation is an idea I cannot personally understand. In recent years I have thought long and hard, and the path of atheism is a cold and distressing one for me to have indulged in, I am a less happy person - it is, after all, the process of stripping away an in-built cognitive mechanism that allows one to believe and have faith - when people pray for example, or meditate, their senses are heightened, more of the brain is used. Religion has it's corruption yet religion is a natural part of society, it is conformity, clumping of groups with similar concepts and ideals - so that they do not feel alone, so that they can share the things they need: purpose, goals, love, guidance, safety. Faith, however, is the personal belief that comes separate to Religion (which is the congregation of similar faiths). Faith is the true liberation in this lonely universe, while atheism and explicitly nihilism, is the indulgent in cold, purposeless, and spiritless existence - it is slavery to the void, to isolation.  :Frown:

----------


## NikolaiI

> Mothers experience pain in pregnancy, children cry in fright in birth
> many grow through society, collecting and attaching, paying money and living in the state, raising families
> When we die - death - can vary in pain or ease. Such practices as bodhicitta automatically bring calm at the time of death. 
> Is the delight that you refer to something which is attained, or something that is there by default? I've read some of thoughts of the present Dalai Lama, and much work is to be had to attain goals and ease throughout life: "let us take a moment to review how progress toward a meaningful life unfolds: first comes morality, then concentrated meditation, then wisdom." (How to practise - Dalai Lama)


This is just my interpretation, but I interpret the passage to be speaking about the soul. In Hinduism the soul is called Atman, its nature bliss and knowledge. This was my point. We come from the soul, actually we _are_ the soul, not only the body. We are seeking for... what- peace? We are seeking for our source, and our source is Atman, the soul. And yet the soul is not somewhere apart from us or distant from us. The soul, the source, is the center from which we seek. We have gone however many twists and turns that we feel separate from ourselves, from the Universe, from Atman. Since we have encountered this ignorance of separation of Atman, we doubt it. I am saying, it is real.

----------


## Stargazer86

I was raised strictly Catholic. Throughout my childhood, I believed it all, no question. I remember when I started to really doubt my faith. I was in 7th grade and I asked my religion teacher, "If God is supposed to be our Father who loves us, and we're his children, why are we supposed to fear him?" Her response: "I remember being about your age, asking my religion teacher the very same thing." and then she just walked away...no answer. That's when I started to realize that I needed something more tangible in which to believe. The more I examined my religion from a different perspective, the more it horrified me. I find a lot of the hypocrisy, idolatry (worship of the Virgin and saints etc), and suffering to be very distasteful. After years of angry, bitter old nuns and priests, I was done. The Christian/Judeo God reminds me far to much of a Greek god. The anger, the jealousy, the suffering...and then all of a sudden, in the new testament, he becomes like this whole different entity entirely. If he was always perfect, why the change? 
That's not to say that I'm an athiest; I'm not. I find it just as hard to believe that there's absolutely NOTHING out there beyond us. Religion is a good thing for some people. Kudos to anyone who is secure in thier faith. The problem comes in when people can't graciously accept that others have different beliefs that they hold just as dear as the next person does thier own religion. The violence, hatred, and killing that is carried out in the name of religion is completely unconscionable. Anyone who is truely spiritual (and there is a definate distinction between being religious and being spiritual) would never engage or condone such violence. What happend to Love thy neighbor? and the Golden Rule? Religious or not, anyone can agree on these general principles of morality. 

Nikolai, I've enjoyed reading your posts. More and more I'm gravitating towards the ideas of Hindu, Buddhism, and Shinto. The idea of a soul, morality, and working to attain a higher sense of peace and knowledge. Beautiful. 

Sorry for my writing being so disjointed with the misspellings etc. I'm operating on no sleep in the past few days.

----------


## MarkBastable

> May be, if you see the things from recarnation angle & everything-is-God's- play, you will be able to get at some answer.


I already have an answer. That's what my post was - an answer. I was trying to help you get at it.

----------


## Lynne Fees

> So God allows terrible things to happen in order to give us the chance to improve ourselves? He came up with the fabulous idea of childhood leukaemia to make it easier for bereaved parents to aspire to a state of Christ-like grace?
> 
> 
> It's becoming increasingly obvious to me during this discussion that if God exists then I don't like him much. I have serious reservations about his methods and I'm not prepared to adopt the attitudes and behaviours that are apparently necessary to gain his approval.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, quite possibly none. Which seems to me much more likely to be true than any other suggested possibility.
> 
> ...



God did not come up with the "fabulous idea of childhood leukemia." When man/woman sinned, and chose to choose putting themselves above God, God gave Satan certain power on Earth. Hence, death, disease, etc.
As far as "why are we here," I think you have hit the nail on the head. Using "good" and "bad" to decide whether a person goes to heaven or hell does not work. Hence, Jesus.

----------


## MarkBastable

> When man/woman sinned, and chose to choose putting themselves above God, God gave Satan certain power on Earth. Hence, death, disease, etc.



There was a time when Christians would have burned you at the stake for saying that - because the implication is that God is not all-powerful.

And it's a real paradox. Either God is not all-powerful, which means that he's not, actually, in charge of the Universe. Or he is all-powerful, which means he _could_ stop suffering but he chooses to give Satan free rein to screw with us.

If it's the latter, then he is ultimately responsible for childhood leukaemia, although he lets Satan take the rap. 

If it's the former, then he's not in any position to save us from anything, including death, disease, famine or Jeffery Archer - which renders prayer a bit of a lottery really.

----------


## Lynne Fees

> It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically. It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god. In other words, believers argue (and here I am talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian tradition note, not eastern or world religions) that their belief is a product of faith, which is virtuous. That's rhetoric for they are too afraid to change their minds, when faced with overwhelming evidence against god.
> 
> I can respect religion to an extent, but this "I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," is pure rhetoric. That isn't a reason to believe in something, it just shows the inner cowardice of the believer.


In the spirit of valuing everyone's views, let's not use "coward." This reminds me of the old "religion is a crutch" argument. Let's stick to the facts. 
The proof of God is in creation. I believe it takes more faith to believe that the butterfly, the elephant, the frog and people are just random happenings. Look at the brain. Look at the eye.

----------


## billyjack

> God did not come up with the "fabulous idea of childhood leukemia." When man/woman sinned, and chose to choose putting themselves above God, God gave Satan certain power on Earth. Hence, death, disease, etc.


ummmmmm??? you're attributing the ebb and flow, death and life, disease and health of mankind to sin or piety. do you know how out of touch with reality that is?... to actually think that a mental phenomenon, such as the choice between putting yourself above or below god, could affect even the tiniest atom on this planet. 

i know you're not saying that our mentalities affect minor physical phenomenon. you're saying that they affect the most important, large scale physical phenomenon in terms of our human value systems. making your stance that much more baffling.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically.


What you mean to say...or what you should be saying...is that God cannot be explained _empirically_, which is to say that He cannot be explained by the experience of the five senses. He is not of a physical nature, so He cannot be measured by the scientific standards that man understands. That is why He gave us revelation, so that we could know more about Him. If there are those who choose to reject His message...well that is to their own detriment.





> It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god.


There is no proof that God does not exist. However, there are many proofs that the existence of the universe could only be by an Intelligent Creator.




> In other words, believers argue (and here I am talking specifically about the Judeo-Christian tradition note, not eastern or world religions) that their belief is a product of faith, which is virtuous.


Many Christians argue the existence of God from a "scientific" stand point. Just because there have been some that have used such arguments, does not mean that all or even most use such arguments. If you want to look into the Christian Evidences that some use to establish their beliefs check out such websites as...http://www.apologeticspress.org/

----------


## MarkBastable

> ummmmmm??? you're attributing the ebb and flow, death and life, disease and health of mankind to sin or piety. do you know how out of touch with reality that is?... to actually think that a mental phenomenon, such as the choice between putting yourself above or below god, could affect even the tiniest atom on this planet. 
> 
> i know you're not saying that our mentalities affect minor physical phenomenon. you're saying that they affect the most important, large scale physical phenomenon in terms of our human value systems. making your stance that much more baffling.


I think you've misunderstood what Lynne means. She's employing the 'original sin' argument - which goes like this: God made the world perfect for mankind, and all he asked in return was that mankind should stick to a few simple rules. Mankind didn't (in the metaphor, Adam and Eve ate of the fruit) and so God said, "Right - just for that, I'm going to let Satan take a shot at you, and then you'll have to make decisions about where your loyalties lie."

So she's not saying that each _individual's_ mentality affects stuff like leukaemia. She's saying it's inherent to the human condition that God allows Satan to impose suffering on us, and that's no fault but our own.

All that's not, though, an argument for the existence of God, because the situation as stated requires the pre-existence of God in order to be possible.

Me, I think that a God who gives people curiosity and then puts them in a garden that contains a tree they can't touch is just asking to be disobeyed, so if that's how it happened, I'd say God was as much to blame as Adam and Eve. If it were a court case, he'd be charged with contributory negligence.

----------


## billyjack

even worse then. an old analogy that doesn't coincide with reality as we know it is being used to blame bad stuff on people. 

at least my favorable take on lyne's stance gave her an out, telekinesis.

----------


## NikolaiI

Debate about Satan and Adam and Even and so on is really all off-topic to this thread. The original post of this thread said nothing about any of those, nor did the creator of this thread ever mention them. The thread is about God, not Christianity or Christian theology.




> And it's a real paradox. Either God is not all-powerful, which means that he's not, actually, in charge of the Universe. Or he is all-powerful, which means he could stop suffering but he chooses to give Satan free rein to screw with us.


This is exactly what I'd rather be discussiong, rather than Christian theology.  :Thumbs Up: 

Mark, let me reply to your position; first, I understand the reasons for atheism as I was an atheist for most of my young life. I studied philosophy and then Eastern philosophy and then some religions, mainly Buddhism and now Hinduism. 

It seems like atheism is very far away from theism, but it isn't quite as far removed as one might think. When I shifted my views from atheism, I did not become a theist straightaway. As far as I can tell, although by some definitions there are more, there are three main types of perspectives. Atheism, impersonalism, and personalism (theism).

Personalism worships God as Lord, as the Personality of Godhead. In theism, though, God also has impersonal attributes. Such as an impersonal spiritual effulgence. Impersonalists see God to be impersonal, just this impersonal spiritual effulgence. This is referred to as brahmajyoti. In this philosophy (Mayavadin) the question of how could an all-powerful God allow suffering doesn't come up, or it isn't answered. It's answered honestly, "I don't know." 

Atheism is not so much different from impersonalism, because neither concludes the existence of a Personality of Godhead. 

Impersonalism is different from atheism because impersonalism does think there is some spiritual path. 

Eastern philosophy generally has the idea that the material universe is Maya, or Samsara. The question mainly is, what is reality, and what are we? Why is there suffering? What is our true nature? 

Atheism or skepticism is good so far as it goes. It's certainly necessary to protect against dogma. But it can, and I have seen it do so, become a dogma in itself. Your statement, "I already have the answer, I am just trying to get you to see it," is an indication of this.

Why is it mystics of all religions, cultures, nations, and times, say such similar things? Why do they say there is a truth which is the only thing which is important, but yet equally inexpressible in its vastness? What they say is that this truth is basically one of peace, bliss, saying... "Do not worry, and be happy," and as much as they can, they describe this infinite bliss which is what really is.

What I am trying to say is, not everything which exists can be measured with a ruler. Not everything which is of value can be put into words. Not everything which is true can be expressed in thought. There is truth, reality, beyond words, thought, and measurement. I guess that is my main point.

And about God; God is one of these which can't be understood by thought, words, or measurement. God is infinite bliss, truth, and existence. God is the source of everything which exists. Everything in this world, when we are thinking, "I am this body," is illusion. This may conflict with what you believe, and you may think whatever you wish in response. Please understand I am not justifying moral relativity. Actually I think we should be very moral, and not waste time on nonsense. But - what I am saying is, what happens to the body does not affect the soul. We are all the soul, and the soul actually cannot be hurt, cut, burned, or dried by air. It is eternal. What is temporary does not exist in relation to what is eternal.

Someone else mentioned revelation...I too speak of revelation. One must know that everything related to the ego is illusion. What is reality is a deeper peace, truth and bliss. Awakening is realizing one's nature - not simply understanding intellectually, but realizing, on all levels of being - one's Buddha-nature, or one's divine nature. This is what is true, that every living being's true nature is that.

I am not here to argue but merely discuss, as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.

----------


## Eugenie

I have believed since I was a baby and noone in my house believed or gave Him the time of day. I have always been aware of HIm , his love and a sense of destiny from Him. 
My family always talks of when I was not yet three and suddenly hurried to the coat rack, taking down from the low peg my dress coat.
'where do you think you are going?' father asked in surprise.
'I am going to find God" I answered and went to the door."
They stared at one anothe and were silent as they took my coat off and tried to find some way to stop my tears of protesttion.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I am not here to argue but merely discuss, as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.


Thank you, NikolaiI. That was a very informative and well thought out response. Although we may not see all things together, I think that there are some basic rudimentary thoughts that no doubt we will agree on. In fact, I think that your information given may even have helped me to understand my own beliefs better.

I do have a question for you, having studied many religions, it seems that you are currently holding to aspects of Hinduism (if I referred that properly). Do you hold fast to Hinduism, or have you blended aspects of several?

There is also the considerations of Theism vs. Deism. I've heard this in respects to Christianity, but I'm sure it applies across the board. If the existence of all things come from an intelligent powerful God...or a cooperative effort of Spiritual Persons, is He/They still involved with the creation? Obviously this begins to imply the area of Personalism vs Impersonalism...possibly? Please forgive me if I speak in terms of Christianity in this thread, I will try my best to comment, question, or explain in broader terms.

----------


## Lynne Fees

> ummmmmm??? you're attributing the ebb and flow, death and life, disease and health of mankind to sin or piety. do you know how out of touch with reality that is?... to actually think that a mental phenomenon, such as the choice between putting yourself above or below god, could affect even the tiniest atom on this planet. 
> 
> i know you're not saying that our mentalities affect minor physical phenomenon. you're saying that they affect the most important, large scale physical phenomenon in terms of our human value systems. making your stance that much more baffling.


Think of it this way. The Lord's prayer says, "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven." Due to sin, Earth is not heaven. In heaven, God's will is done in a complete way. On Earth, it is done in a more roundabout way. Once Adam & Eve (and every other human on Earth, past, present & future other than Jesus) sinned, the rules changed. We all bring disease and death upon the world in our own way, by our sin. (Not a tit-for-tat kind of disease and death for sin, but in a general sense.) God can pre-empt Satan and evil when He decides to - look at Job. When God does not pre-empt Satan, He does promise that He can help us make good out of any situation, however terrible.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Thank you, NikolaiI. That was a very informative and well thought out response. Although we may not see all things together, I think that there are some basic rudimentary thoughts that no doubt we will agree on. In fact, I think that your information given may even have helped me to understand my own beliefs better.
> 
> I do have a question for you, having studied many religions, it seems that you are currently holding to aspects of Hinduism (if I referred that properly). Do you hold fast to Hinduism, or have you blended aspects of several?
> 
> There is also the considerations of Theism vs. Deism. I've heard this in respects to Christianity, but I'm sure it applies across the board. If the existence of all things come from an intelligent powerful God...or a cooperative effort of Spiritual Persons, is He/They still involved with the creation? Obviously this begins to imply the area of Personalism vs Impersonalism...possibly? Please forgive me if I speak in terms of Christianity in this thread, I will try my best to comment, question, or explain in broader terms.


No, that seems right. It does seem to imply the area of Personalism vs. Impersonalism. I wasn't thinking about Deism vs. Theism when I wrote my post.

I would agree that you and I have many similar fundamental beliefs. Our differences are... I don't know if you are, but I am assuming, you are not a vegetarian. For me it is absolutely essential. But besides that difference, assuming it is one, there probably are many similarities. For instance neither you or I take any intoxication. That is probably second to vegetarianism (or rather non-injuring, of which vegetarianism is part) to me.

I know that went off topic a little... to answer your question yes, Hinduism is mainly my religion but I think it incorporates other religions. My only desire is to understand what is true, what is real. I believe God is the source of everything. My experiences led me to this conclusion. I've had experiences of the soul and of God. Basically these led me to understand that God's reality is peace, bliss, power, and knowledge. That is what is true, what is real. The rest is illusion. 

Basically I believe God is infinite. All the rest is ignorance, Maya, or illusion; it is imagination. The central question is why is there suffering? But to me more central is, what is true/ what is real? I believe eventually, we will all wake up, to the infinite nature of God. Until that happens I will continue to live a simple life and try to increase happiness, knowledge, peace, and love. I basically believe in simplicity as well. I try to be undivided.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Atheism or skepticism is good so far as it goes. It's certainly necessary to protect against dogma. But it can, and I have seen it do so, become a dogma in itself. Your statement, "I already have the answer, I am just trying to get you to see it," is an indication of this.


Actually, that was a deliberately and facetiously provocative response to the suggestion that I might need to read previous posts in order to find an answer. You would think that I'd've learned by now that it's futile to attempt to make a serious point by the application of fatuous logic.




> Why is it mystics of all religions, cultures, nations, and times, say such similar things? Why do they say there is a truth which is the only thing which is important, but yet equally inexpressible in its vastness?


Well, not because there's a God, if you ask me. I think that they say such similar things because people are led astray by the very attributes that make us human beings - to wit, the talents for language and symbolic thought. We construct a metaphor for Big Cosmic Stuff, and we choose to personify it. We need to refer to it in conversation, so we give it a name. Because it has a name, we start to think of it as a Real Thing. Next thing you know, we can't separate the metaphorical construct from our own perception of reality, and before long we're building cathedrals and intercontinental missiles.




> What I am trying to say is, not everything which exists can be measured with a ruler. Not everything which is of value can be put into words. Not everything which is true can be expressed in thought. There is truth, reality, beyond words, thought, and measurement. I guess that is my main point.


Unfortunately a ruler and some words are all I have, because that's all God gave me. And if God decides to create children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.




> I am not here to argue...as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.


Oh I am. I don't think it's a waste of time at all.

----------


## Scheherazade

*R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments during discussions.

Posts containing such remarks will be removed immediately.*

----------


## Lynne Fees

> Well, not because there's a God, if you ask me. I think that they say such similar things because people are led astray by the very attributes that make us human beings - to wit, the talents for language and symbolic thought. We construct a metaphor for Big Cosmic Stuff, and we choose to personify it. We need to refer to it in conversation, so we give it a name. Because it has a name, we start to think of it as a Real Thing. Next thing you know, we can't separate the metaphorical construct from our own perception of reality, and before long we're building cathedrals and intercontinental missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately a ruler and some words are all I have, because that's all God gave me. And if God decides to create children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.


Paul says in Romans God gave us creation to show He exists. So now people have managed to take God out of that, even, by espousing the theory of Darwinism to explain how we got here. Who or what put the "survival" instinct into plants and animals, by the way? That it all happened by chance it harder to believe than to believe in God.

----------


## MarkBastable

> That it all happened by chance it harder to believe than to believe in God.


It is if you believe in God. But, believe me, if you don't take God as read, chance is a much more believable explanation than anything else. In fact, it's _so_ believable, I'm always a bit surprised that anyone bothers to find another explanation.

However, believability is no argument in support of truth. 

For instance - because of the way in which the human mind interprets the world, it's much easier to believe the Earth is a plate than to believe it's a ball. But, despite the fact that the plate is more believable, the world is in fact a ball. 

What's easy to believe is not necessarily true. I find chance easy to believe. You find God easy to believe. But neither my predisposition nor yours is in the least useful as an argument in support of either belief.

----------


## BooK WorM 13

Im only 12 and to most people im still a kid. But i have my own opinionson things. like thewhole god aspect. I still quiestion my true faith simply because the bible confuses me, not in a way as though to make me fell stupid bbut challenges my brain and tests my beleifs. my family is religious(very) so i suppose i should be aswell, but i still think there is something out there. We had learned about the ancient greeks in school the other day, and it clearly stated that they also had simular religions as welll as us here in the present.

----------


## lichtrausch

> Im only 12 and to most people im still a kid. But i have my own opinionson things. like thewhole god aspect. I still quiestion my true faith simply because the bible confuses me, not in a way as though to make me fell stupid bbut challenges my brain and tests my beleifs.


How so?




> my family is religious(very) so i suppose i should be aswell


There's no reason to believe in something just because your family does.




> i still think there is something out there. We had learned about the ancient greeks in school the other day, and it clearly stated that they also had simular religions as welll as us here in the present.


Most religions come from the early days of man when we were incredibly primitive and knew nothing about the world. The human brain has a habit of looking for patterns and meaning, and finding them even where they don't exist. So early men searched for a meaning of how human beings were created and most decided that we were created by an all powerful celestial being. Not a bad guess at the time. The key thing to remember is that these guesses which quickly became dogma remain nothing more than guesses trying to explain the world. Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Most religions come from the early days of man when we were incredibly primitive and knew nothing about the world. The human brain has a habit of looking for patterns and meaning, and finding them even where they don't exist. So early men searched for a meaning of how human beings were created and most decided that we were created by an all powerful celestial being. Not a bad guess at the time. The key thing to remember is that these guesses which quickly became dogma remain nothing more than guesses trying to explain the world. Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.


Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason? I am being a little blunt, but I don't mean to be harsh. I was an atheist until I was 17, and I understand the position well. Still, just believe me that there is more out there. I would suggest reading some of Emerson's essays. And a book on Buddhism, which doesn't teach about God, but is a wonderful first step begin to be free from Western materialism, I also suggest, which is called _Entering the Stream_.

Anyway, I would take Emerson's intellect, personality, mind and ideas over any atheist's writings I have ever read.

----------


## lichtrausch

> Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason?


An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".




> Still, just believe me that there is more out there.


I believe you. After all the universe is a big place, ain't it?




> I would suggest reading some of Emerson's essays. And a book on Buddhism, which doesn't teach about God, but is a wonderful first step begin to be free from Western materialism, I also suggest, which is called _Entering the Stream_.


I'll check it out when I get the chance.




> Anyway, I would take Emerson's intellect, personality, mind and ideas over any atheist's writings I have ever read.


That's nice.

----------


## NikolaiI

> An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".
> 
> I believe you. After all the universe is a big place, ain't it?


Yes.. and yet you just say that others cannot possibly know the truth. Can you see the error in this? What if I said you could not possibly know the truth? I wouldn't say that, though.

It's just, that's one thing which is amazing to me, when people say, "others, who can't possible know the truth"...

Quite the contrary, anyone can attain self-knowledge, self-truth, self-realization. Not no one, but anyone and everyone. It is possible for anyone to attain peace and enlightenment.

----------


## lichtrausch

> Yes.. and yet you just say that others cannot possibly know the truth. Can you see the error in this? What if I said you could not possibly know the truth? I wouldn't say that, though.
> 
> It's just, that's one thing which is amazing to me, when people say, "others, who can't possible know the truth"...
> 
> Quite the contrary, anyone can attain self-knowledge, self-truth, self-realization. Not no one, but anyone and everyone. It is possible for anyone to attain peace and enlightenment.


When you said "the truth", I was assuming you meant the dogmas common to our world which ask for blind faith in exchange for "the truth". Terms like the truth, self-knowledge and self-truth are vague and not conducive to a rational discussion.

----------


## Dr. Hill

To attain peace and enlightenment is to become a secular humanist.

----------


## NikolaiI

> When you said "the truth", I was assuming you meant the dogmas common to our world which ask for blind faith in exchange for "the truth". Terms like the truth, self-knowledge and self-truth are vague and not conducive to a rational discussion.


You forgot to reply to my criticism. You said in your last post that there are some who cannot know the truth. You didn't specify who, so I might ask - who is it that cannot know the truth?

Perhaps anyone who says something which isn't materialist? Or anyone who believes in anything mysticial or spiritual?

Or is it anyone who speaks of peace, or ineffable peace beyond normal thought? Or worse, the worst crime in a rationalist's mind, speaks of mysticism?

There do exists states of mind, and states of reality, beyond anything you know, or also beyond anything I know. When I experienced one of those, it was like a revelation.

Just as in the spectrum of light there are light which we cannot see, so in the spectrum of consciousness is there consciousness which we are not aware of - spiritual, or divine consciousness is not perceptible to mental thought, just as mental thought is not perceptible to lower forms of consciousness (animal thought/behavior).

----------


## lichtrausch

> You forgot to reply to my criticism. You said in your last post that there are some who cannot know the truth. You didn't specify who, so I might ask - who is it that cannot know the truth?
> 
> Perhaps anyone who says something which isn't materialist? Or anyone who believes in anything mysticial or spiritual?
> 
> Or is it anyone who speaks of peace, or ineffable peace beyond normal thought? Or worse, the worst crime in a rationalist's mind, speaks of mysticism?
> 
> There do exists states of mind, and states of reality, beyond anything you know, or also beyond anything I know. When I experienced one of those, it was like a revelation.
> 
> Just as in the spectrum of light there are light which we cannot see, so in the spectrum of consciousness is there consciousness which we are not aware of - spiritual, or divine consciousness is not perceptible to mental thought, just as mental thought is not perceptible to lower forms of consciousness (animal thought/behavior).


To make sure we're on the same page, can you define what you mean by "the truth"?

----------


## NikolaiI

> Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.





> Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason?





> An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".


This is the line of conversation... I am not even sure what all you are claiming. Obviously you are against God and religion. I can only assume you are also saying, Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Wiccan, and all other types of religion or spirituality are all dogma and opposite to reason...? You might like to read the Tao Te Ching, read a good book on Buddhism or the Dhammapada, read the Bhagavad-Gita, before you obliquely criticize the first three, anyway...

I am not a big fan of religions which think they are exclusively true, that is worse than anything. But also it is a big, wild, and totally unreasoned leap to say that all those who say anything about spirituality or spirit or soul are wrong. Do you know really, very much about Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism, to say that they aren't supported by reason? Or even Christianity or Islam or Judaism for that matter?

----------


## lichtrausch

> This is the line of conversation... I am not even sure what all you are claiming. Obviously you are against God and religion. I can only assume you are also saying, Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Wiccan, and all other types of religion or spirituality are all dogma and opposite to reason...? You might like to read the Tao Te Ching, read a good book on Buddhism or the Dhammapada, read the Bhagavad-Gita, before you obliquely criticize the first three, anyway...
> 
> I am not a big fan of religions which think they are exclusively true, that is worse than anything. But also it is a big, wild, and totally unreasoned leap to say that all those who say anything about spirituality or spirit or soul are wrong. Do you know really, very much about Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism, to say that they aren't supported by reason? Or even Christianity or Islam or Judaism for that matter?


I have nothing against spirituality. It's monotheistic religions and their believers who indoctrinate their children with dogmas which encourage blind faith and discourage questioning, curiosity, and rational thinking that I am against.

When I said no one knows "the truth", I was referring to the claim by most religions that they have the absolute truth. That is to say, they know the answer to why the universe was created, who created it, what the meaning of mankind's existence is and similar questions.

In short, spirituality and thinking are good, indoctrination and blind faith are bad. I think we can agree on that, no?

----------


## Judas130

When studying all the theodicies for the problem of evil, or reasoning behind God's existence, be it a priori or a posteroiri, and understanding that all fail or prove ineffectual with modern understandings...what proof can one bring to the table to suggest the existence of a deity? True empirical reasoning will suggest no proofs for God at the end of the day, and no one philosopher has before managed to prove a deity's existence without contradiction, or without corrupt or bias premises. To say you can disprove a God is probably wrong, there is no way of knowing, yet the same is applied to believing - there is no way of knowing. 
No one can fully agree on what a God is - as we all have varying ideas upon the subject. Anselm would claim that even the atheist understands God (or 'that than which nothing greater can be perceived') and thus proves the existence through disbelief, because the Atheist understands God to disprove it (as existence, to Anselm, is necessary to 'that than which nothing greater can be perceived', as existence is a characteristic of perfection). However, you can't take one idea from the mind and just bullet it with pure logic, and being a priori, it relies wholly on definition, not physicality. All Anselm proves is that God is purely conceptual, and exists only in the mind as fabrication - Kant and Hume made sure to bring that argument to its knees. 
Essentially, my question to believers, is that, with the knowledge that God cannot be disproved by sciences and such, nor proved, only traditional ideas challenged, why still believe without the proof, without any empirical evidence? Polkinghorn challenged Dawkins by saying that dawkins forgets about the Human longing for a deity, that humans strive for divinity - but Polkinhorn does not prove a God here, he only proves that there is a longing, nothing more is said. 
peace

----------


## sc9108

I don't believe because I don't feel the need, I have great believe but also great doubt in humanity, And that keeps me going also when I think of the war and death religion has caused that makes me uncomfortable,

----------


## NikolaiI

> I have nothing against spirituality. It's monotheistic religions and their believers who indoctrinate their children with dogmas which encourage blind faith and discourage questioning, curiosity, and rational thinking that I am against.
> 
> When I said no one knows "the truth", I was referring to the claim by most religions that they have the absolute truth. That is to say, they know the answer to why the universe was created, who created it, what the meaning of mankind's existence is and similar questions.
> 
> In short, spirituality and thinking are good, indoctrination and blind faith are bad. I think we can agree on that, no?


Yes, absolutely. We agree on it very much. I am sorry I didn't reply sooner but I've been traveling. I'll reply in more length soon, hopefully.

----------


## NovemberGuest

I am a christian. Someone once asked me: What if you're wrong...what if you're living a lie?

I thought...and this is my conclusion: So what if I am? By my friends way of thinking...we could ALL be living a lie. At least mine is an "honest" lie...a lie that compells me to do good and fills me with hope. A lie that makes me to think of others before myself. A lie that, I think, can make me a better person. 

I believe in God, because of the many things he has done in my life...the answered prayers, his mercy when i deserved malice. You know, I can't really explain it...but thats why its called faith.  :Smile:

----------


## Judas130

> I am a christian. Someone once asked me: What if you're wrong...what if you're living a lie?
> 
> I thought...and this is my conclusion: So what if I am? By my friends way of thinking...we could ALL be living a lie. At least mine is an "honest" lie...a lie that compells me to do good and fills me with hope. A lie that makes me to think of others before myself. A lie that, I think, can make me a better person. 
> 
> I believe in God, because of the many things he has done in my life...the answered prayers, his mercy when i deserved malice. You know, I can't really explain it...but thats why its called faith.


Your faith does not mean you live a lie. even if I can quite easily reduce and tell you what faith is, what happens in the brain, what tests show, why empirical evidence shows it as fallacy, or anything and everything, "who can we possibly thank for all the beauty?" - I'd be a beast for doing so, and no man should on these forums or here on this thread. Faith, it seems, keeps you happy and keeps your mind at ease on your journey from A to B - and that is the case with many a person. To me, religion or faith is a guilt trip for my human nature - i feel just as good acting as I was born to act (animal) as you do being humble and selfless (buddha or christ). And good. so what of it? 
As a less bluntly and cruel atheist than most, i would say your beliefs are not wrong. They are in fact correct! God, Santa, whatever, its all true - CONCEPTUALLY, in belief, in the mind. If you chose to act from it, then so be it - and whoever judged you for it is wasting their time in my opinion, and were pretty cruel too. 
The moment faith becomes a lie is when it becomes applied through religion. when it seems to think some external force can implement change in the world - it is not a deity, but the processes of communal trance. that is where the evidence stops, where the logic and reason stop. No theist can prove their deity's existence, only that they believe. my conclusion is that God exists in concept alone. To me God is consequentially fabrication, to a theist God is true and now lets buy some drinks and watch the sport.

Never let an atheist take your faith from you. it is yours to grow out of on your own terms, or live with to make ya happy. peace.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Your faith does not mean you live a lie. even if I can quite easily reduce and tell you what faith is, what happens in the brain, what tests show, why empirical evidence shows it as fallacy, or anything and everything, "who can we possibly thank for all the beauty?" - I'd be a beast for doing so, and no man should on these forums or here on this thread. Faith, it seems, keeps you happy and keeps your mind at ease on your journey from A to B - and that is the case with many a person. To me, religion or faith is a guilt trip for my human nature - i feel just as good acting as I was born to act (animal) as you do being humble and selfless (buddha or christ). And good. so what of it? 
> As a less bluntly and cruel atheist than most, i would say your beliefs are not wrong. They are in fact correct! God, Santa, whatever, its all true - CONCEPTUALLY, in belief, in the mind. If you chose to act from it, then so be it - and whoever judged you for it is wasting their time in my opinion, and were pretty cruel too. 
> The moment faith becomes a lie is when it becomes applied through religion. when it seems to think some external force can implement change in the world - it is not a deity, but the processes of communal trance. that is where the evidence stops, where the logic and reason stop. No theist can prove their deity's existence, only that they believe. my conclusion is that God exists in concept alone. To me God is consequentially fabrication, to a theist God is true and now lets buy some drinks and watch the sport.
> 
> Never let an atheist take your faith from you. it is yours to grow out of on your own terms, or live with to make ya happy. peace.


And you, also, should never give up searching.  :Smile:  And don't act like an animal.  :Tongue:  Most of the time.  :Smile:

----------


## NovemberGuest

I really like the way you put it Judas130, and I agree for the most part.

However, as much as I wish it were true, I cannot say the the purpose of my faith is to me "happy". Yes, I have my happy moments...peace...but its not all nice. Anyone who has been persecuted for their faith would tell you that...personally, I have not. But even so, when I do something that, according to christianity, is a sin, I feel guitly (and maybe this is going back to your "religion or faith is a guilt trip for my human nature ") and I need to apologize. So yes...my faith gives me peace, but not necessarily happiness. 

This is what you said that I really like:




> No theist can prove their deity's existence, only that they believe.


That is exactly what faith consists of. To prove it would turn it into something else...

Tennyson puts it better than I can:




> Strong son of God, immortal love,
> Whom we, that have not seen thy face,
> *By faith, and faith alone, embrace,
> Believing what we cannot prove.* 
> -In Memoriam A.H.H.


Hebrews 11:1...Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Thanks for your insightful reply, and peace to you, too.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I have nothing against spirituality. It's monotheistic religions and their believers who indoctrinate their children with dogmas which encourage blind faith and discourage questioning, curiosity, and rational thinking that I am against.
> 
> When I said no one knows "the truth", I was referring to the claim by most religions that they have the absolute truth. That is to say, they know the answer to why the universe was created, who created it, what the meaning of mankind's existence is and similar questions.
> 
> In short, spirituality and thinking are good, indoctrination and blind faith are bad. I think we can agree on that, no?


Why shouldn't a religion claim a truth? Science does so all the time - and much of that truth is speculative in nature. How do YOU know that a certain religion doesn't have the truth? How can you know?

We can only agree if our definitions of your terms agree; what you call "spirituality" or "thinking" or "indoctrination" or "blind faith" may not be what I perceive them to be at all. I'd have to hear your definitions first.

----------


## jocky

Faith should always be private and a free choice of the individual to follow or not. How many times have we heard the sermon, Gods ways are unknowable , immediately followed by , this is what God wants you to do? Athiesm and agnosticism are intellectually reasonable and morally defensible. If we are wrong, yet at the same time have lived a decent life, then I am sure a God of love would be forgiving. I agree that science can never provide all the answers, but blind faith based on a 4000 year old religious text, written by fallable humans is not the answer either. Tennyson also wrote about ' honest doubt ' in his elegy on death. Is humanity a result of a big bang, or some sort of beneficial intelligent design, who knows? No one should pretend to certainty, because that is the worst kind of falsehood.

----------


## The Comedian

> Faith should always be private and a free choice of the individual to follow or not. How many times have we heard the sermon, Gods ways are unknowable , immediately followed by , this is what God wants you to do? Athiesm and agnosticism are intellectualy reasonable and morally defensible. If we are wrong, yet at the same time have lived a decent life, then I am sure a God of love would be forgiving. I agree that science can never provide all the answers, but blind faith based on a 4000 year old religious text, written by fallible humans is not the answer either. Tennyson also wrote about ' honest doubt ' in his elegy on death. Is humanity a result of a big bang, or some sort of beneficiant intelligent design, who knows? No one should pretend to certainty, because that is the worst kind of falsehood.


Well said jocky.

----------


## jocky

:Smile:  :Smile: 


> Well said jocky.


Comedian, I wasnt sure if you were still alive after the woodpile, or maybe skulking out in the backwoods, but its great to hear from you. I thought I would never be spotted in a serious discussion, but there you go.  :Smile:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Jocky, what you wrote sums up what I've been trying to say about religion in the last three years so perfectly and to the point that I actually copied it and e-mailed it to myself to make sure that I never lose it. You are MUCH more eloquent than I am.

----------


## jocky

> Jocky, what you wrote sums up what I've been trying to say about religion in the last three years so perfectly and to the point that I actually copied it and e-mailed it to myself to make sure that I never lose it. You are MUCH more eloquent than I am.


That is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me, however if you check out some of the rubbish I talk on the Blokes thread you may change your opinion.  :Smile:

----------


## virginiawang

I believe in God because I believe in everything Emerson wrote. Emerson held that all of us must accept fate, which is beyond our power to alter, and that this fate understands itself. At one time I was so obssessed with fortune telling that I actually visited a fortune teller once for about ten days to learn some of the hidden secrets about my fate and some of the things that may happen in the near future. That fortune teller reads palms. At the moment he reads your palm, he delves into your heart and discerns what you are thinking and feeling. I believe there is a part of the universe that has been occult and inexplicable throughout the past centuries, and this mysterious part may give evidence to the existence of God.

----------


## blazeofglory

But palmists are kind of making predictions that are not done with occult powers and they are not occultists in point. They have certain ideas that work for them. It is generalization and that works.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Faith should always be private and a free choice of the individual to follow or not. How many times have we heard the sermon, Gods ways are unknowable , immediately followed by , this is what God wants you to do? Athiesm and agnosticism are intellectually reasonable and morally defensible. If we are wrong, yet at the same time have lived a decent life, then I am sure a God of love would be forgiving. I agree that science can never provide all the answers, but blind faith based on a 4000 year old religious text, written by fallable humans is not the answer either. Tennyson also wrote about ' honest doubt ' in his elegy on death. Is humanity a result of a big bang, or some sort of beneficial intelligent design, who knows? No one should pretend to certainty, because that is the worst kind of falsehood.


I always advocate that faith should be totally a private thing and religions should never be politicized and today the basic problem with religion is with the idea of fundamentalism and fundamentalists always try to politicize religions and used it as tools for propagating their ideas and they take advantages out of this.

----------


## Odysseus93

My belief in God is rooted in logic. I believe that the existence of a created object implies the existence of a creator. 
If you saw a beautiful chair you would automatically assume that someone created it, rather than assuming that it was created by simple random chance, since human logic states that that is impossible. Since the uniiverse is so much more complex doesnt it follow that someone created that?

In believing this I am simply following the greatest philosophers and scientists of all time who believed in god in some form or another; Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Einstein, Newton, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas to mention a few.

----------


## blazeofglory

It is really hard not to believe in point of fact; even if empirical science holds the contrary view, given the vastness and complexity of the world we live it is in reality reasonable that we imagine there is a creator of everything and this is our comfort zone.

----------


## Fat Romeo

> The simple reason that you were brought up with the belief in God does not justify that belief. The belief is not innate - children are born atheists - you acquire the belief from your role models, or whoever instilled that belief in you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but we have tangible, empirical reasoning for scientific theory. The universe exists, given that we live in it, and the effects of atoms can be seen chemically. God, on the other hand, has no real tangible manifestation. There is no reason why we should belief such a thing exists. Scientists did not come up with the big bang theory for kicks, they are trying to explain the creation of the universe. There would be no reason to come up with a theory if the universe did not exist. 
> 
> What empirical data do we have that would require the existence of a god?


"Children are born atheist" - this doesn't make sense.They are not atheists neither believers.
I am 99% atheist,but I don't believe in science.I mean...the scientists are going forward and back in one hundred different ways in slow motion,compaired with the complexity of Nature they would explain.They are working by curiosity in a field full of lacunas.We can doubt Darwin and carbon-14 dating being atheists.
You see - was it the supposed first images of atoms? - it is written "I.B.M."
and disagree on how the scientists thought atoms were.Suspect.
At less the LHC is not too expensive.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Children are born atheists. They have no understanding of monotheism. They are more like primitive or prototype scientists, always questioning. give a child enough freedom to question and they will rarely become religious believers

----------


## Buh4Bee

This is true. Religion is taught.

----------


## Turtletoast

I mean, I have been both an Atheist and someone who believes in a God. Neither one is wrong, but, as Leo says in "stones from the river", the important thing is just to be kind.

Just on a side note, I feel as though often people see science and faith at war with each other. This has never been, and probably never will be the case. Furthermore, science isn't one force. A 3 year old who studies the bugs in his backyard is technically a "scientist", which is name for someone who discovers information, usually just for the sake of finding things out. Therefore, are scientists that different from philosophers of religion? They have the same goal, just different, non-conflicting methods.

----------


## Scheherazade85

It remains a puzzle to me as to which point in our lives we decided to believe or not to believe. Or did we ever?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Children are born atheists. They have no understanding of monotheism. They are more like primitive or prototype scientists, always questioning. give a child enough freedom to question and they will rarely become religious believers


Some problems with this post:
1. Is there anything beyond your opinion to substantiate your claim that children are "born atheists"? Since the majority of atheists - it would seem - tend to be naturalists and claim empiricism as the basis of reality and understanding, I would think you'd have more than just your opinion (since we Christians get dinged for our opinions about the nature of reality that can't be scientifically proven).
2. According to the Bible, all men are born with an innate knowledge of their Creator (sorry - don't have a specific text handy - apologies for that); unfortunately, sin clouds that knowledge and that is why we teach our children about God and why we read the Bible - so that that innate encoding makes more sense.
3. The idea that children left to simply question will not believe is fallacious for a number of reasons; first, a childish view of the world would seem to indicate that the sun revolves around the earth and that at night it sinks into the ocean (if you live on the west coast). Second, depending upon whom the child questions, the answers will be different (and often equally subjective). If you teach a child that the world possesses only a material existence, then yes - the child will grow up unbelieving. If you teach the child that matter is not the full frame of reality, well, the outcome might be a bit different. 
4. Many of the questions asked by children and adults alike are unanswerable by science or naturalism.

Atheism is not a "natural" condition - it is a chosen condition. The greatest strivings of philosophers, artists, musicians and writers have always been to seek after the greater purposes of life, to fathom the mysteries of existence, to identify that restless longing of the heart. All those things point to something larger than ourselves, prompting us to find that thing which lies outside of us. If atheism were "natural" - well, I doubt that history would be littered with the overhwhelming evidence that all people have believed in something larger than themselves through which they and the universe take a greater, more profound meaning.

----------


## blazeofglory

This question whether God exists or whether children were atheists by birth is really a classical question and of course great treatises have been written on this debate and are still being written persistently. I do not think children are innately atheists. Theisms and atheisms are certain philosophical notions and children are not philosophers. Indeed they are questioners. The idea of God came to us by thinking evolutionarily from time immemorial and I do not surmise that children do not keep on thinking. They wonder at what they observe around them, the beauty and immensity of nature. Maybe they do not think the way we do after reading books of theologies that conditioned us to think about Biblical or Islamic or Hindu Gods and goddesses. If they cannot think up mythological ideas of Gods with certain sizes, faces and capacities but nevertheless they may think there must be some grand intelligence or something that integrates all animate and inanimate beings. For, man has the capacity for thinking and children think and are more imaginative than adults and this presupposes the fact that Children are atheists. We kind rational fools hypothesize ideas of theism and atheism woven out of what we have learned from others or books. People who choose to call themselves atheists, fashioning ideas of atheism out of swanky predisposition think they are rationalists, empiricists, scientists and those who believe in God are dogmatists or irrational. But the fact is both theists or atheists or the whole gangs of scientists, philosophers cannot conclusively say that God exists or does not in point of fact. They simply theorize ideas and those so called atheists by hinging on those theorized ideas make a series of conjectures and confuse the common man. I am not siding with both, theists and atheists biasedly or fixedly with sets of ideas or theorists. People may brand me as unprincipled or something like that. I am open to ideas, to both theists and atheists and love to discuss as an unprejudiced individual with no preconceived notions of things.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Many of the questions asked by children and adults alike are unanswerable by science or naturalism.


And how, pray tell, does supernaturalism answer the profound questions of our existence? Faith merely makes people trade honest doubt for the most hollow certainty. Religion short-circuits the process of inquiry by making people repeat empty affirmations as many times as it takes to convince them that they're answers to the big questions.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## virginiawang

> It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically. It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god. 
> 
> That's rhetoric for they are too afraid to change their minds, when faced with overwhelming evidence against god.
> 
> I can respect religion to an extent, but this "I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," is pure rhetoric. That isn't a reason to believe in something, it just shows the inner cowardice of the believer.


The fact that you don't feel God does not alter the fact that soembody else does feel Him. You cannot deny everything you don't understand or never perceive as non-existent because it is a bizzar world full of wonders that may shock people into idiots at any moment. Can you possibly have seen all events, felt all the unknown, or understood all the miraculous in the universe? NO. Then try to be modest.
Evidence tells nothing. It only offers a certain amount of proof to anything you wish to know, but it can escape the real truth. Who knows? You may have no evidence to prove that you are not lying when you are actually teling the truth, but you may have a great deal of evidence to prove what you're saying when you are in fact telling sheer lies.
Please respect the wonder of the world, some of which may not have reached you yet.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And how, pray tell, does supernaturalism answer the profound questions of our existence? Faith merely makes people trade honest doubt for the most hollow certainty. Religion short-circuits the process of inquiry by making people repeat empty affirmations as many times as it takes to convince them that they're answers to the big questions.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Istvan


A belief in God supplies us with answers that science cannot - questions concerning our origins, our human nature, the problem of sin, the existence of morality and the purpose of human life. Science dismisses all of these things into mere random forces - which drains all thought, all words, all actions of meaning.

The certainty is only "hollow" if God isn't real. Science can neither confirm or deny God's existence - so it's dismissal of Him is premature.

The affirmations are only empty if God isn't real. If He isn't real - neither you nor I will ever know; if He is real - you and I will BOTH know.

I don't get where being a believer implies a lack of intelligence, critical thinking ability and logic. Science cannot answer all questions; that many people choose to accept its hypotheses and theories as fact simply suggests that many people are afraid of the unknown; I prefer to say the jury is still out on a number of important matters.

----------


## Babbalanja

> A belief in God supplies us with answers that science cannot - questions concerning our origins, our human nature, the problem of sin, the existence of morality and the purpose of human life. Science dismisses all of these things into mere random forces - which drains all thought, all words, all actions of meaning.


You didn't answer my question. What _answers_ does belief provide? At least scientific research has given us provisionally reliable information on our real origins and the evolutionary basis of much of our behavior. It seems that credulity merely allows the believer to think whatever he wants.




> I don't get where being a believer implies a lack of intelligence, critical thinking ability and logic. Science cannot answer all questions; that many people choose to accept its hypotheses and theories as fact simply suggests that many people are afraid of the unknown; I prefer to say the jury is still out on a number of important matters.


But the religious approach to the unknown is actually less honest and more fearful of the unknown than the scientific approach. The religious believer has certainty because he already affirms the validity of the Bible, and considers it a virtue to keep believing regardless of new information. The empirical researcher only has statistical confidence in his beliefs, because he realizes that new information could change or refute what he currently believes. Which approach is actually more accepting and curious about the unknown?

You say science can't answer all questions, and I agree. But as I said before, religion only pretends to answer them.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You didn't answer my question. What _answers_ does belief provide? At least scientific research has given us provisionally reliable information on our real origins and the evolutionary basis of much of our behavior. It seems that credulity merely allows the believer to think whatever he wants.


Christianity tells us how the universe began, where humanity came from, why we do the things we do to each other, the origin and composition of "evil" and the definition of of "good," as well as the solution to the problem of human pain/evil. It establishes that the universe is ultimately just and that we as human beings have meaning and purpose - that life is intentional and significant.

Science has a limited view; what it can do (assess the material world and its contents) it does exceptionally well (though we often find as time goes on that science's assessments need to be revised); what it fails to have the ability to do is answer those questions that Christianity _does_ answer. Science can only speculate and theorize about our origins; it cannot verify its theories in any concrete way - it may only argue circumstancially, using subjective tools in the process. That science can explain how the universe appears to function doesn't mean that it can do everything; it cannot prove/disprove the existence of God, neither can it fully account for the origins of life or the universe itself.

Believers do not believe "whatever they want." That is an oversimplification of something far more complex and profound.




> But the religious approach to the unknown is actually less honest and more fearful of the unknown than the scientific approach.


Don't see how this is true. It's only "less honest" if it's _wrong_, and science has not proven that conclusively; it has taken circumstancial evidence that is open to interpretation and then prematurely called out "case closed," but that doesn't prove anything. You'll have to clarify the "fearful" part for me.




> The religious believer has certainty because he already affirms the validity of the Bible, and considers it a virtue to keep believing regardless of new information. The empirical researcher only has statistical confidence in his beliefs, because he realizes that new information could change or refute what he currently believes. Which approach is actually more accepting and curious about the unknown?


You assume that "new information" somehow contradicts the Bible. Archeological finds over the last 30-40 years continue to affirm the Bible's claims by verifying the existence of people and locations that scholars once (mistakenly) asserted didn't exist. I think the scientific community is guilty of the same thing - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bible is accurate, yet plenty of people continue to dismiss it as "fairy tales" and "myths."

The empirical researcher also is not completely objective in his/her pursuit of knowledge. Science sometimes involves objective tools of interpretation (like mathematics); other times it must rely upon more subjective methods of interpretation. If I begin from the mindset that there is no such thing as a spirtitual dimension to reality, then all my conclusions will reinforce this belief; if I believe that a spiritual dimension exists, then my scientific conclusions will lean that way (hence intelligent design): both scientists look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions because both began from a specific philosophical foundation upon which they assessed their evidence.




> You say science can't answer all questions, and I agree. But as I said before, religion only pretends to answer them.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Istvan



Again - you beg the question: "pretends" is only accurate if Christianity/religion is _wrong_; but that has not been irrefutably established.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Christianity tells us how the universe began, where humanity came from, why we do the things we do to each other, the origin and composition of "evil" and the definition of of "good," as well as the solution to the problem of human pain/evil. It establishes that the universe is ultimately just and that we as human beings have meaning and purpose - that life is intentional and significant.
> 
> Again - you beg the question: "pretends" is only accurate if Christianity/religion is _wrong_; but that has not been irrefutably established.


Well, you believe the "answers" Christianity gives you regardless of whether science validates them, so why should you care if science contradicts them?

The Genesis account of creation is as fascinating as any ancient creation story. However, it's also no more consistent with what science has discovered about the formation and development of the universe and Earth than any of the rest. I wouldn't have expected the ancients to be privy to such knowledge. However, since you do, you simply choose to believe what's in the Bible.

Both of the Genesis accounts of where humans came from are similarly poetic and metaphorical. Neither jibes with what the overwhelming evidence from archaeology, molecular biology, and comparative morphology tell us: that we share ancestry with all life through a long process of evolution. If a believer rejects the evolution of species by natural selection, he does so because he wants to believe Genesis.

As far as the morality and justice inherent in the universe, religious belief is simply an excuse for complacency. It sets up a construct that is validated regardless of what we observe in our universe: if things appear just, it's because there's justice in the way things are. If things do not appear just, it's only because we're not equipped to understand the ineffable wisdom of the Almighty. So birth defects, trypanosomes, liver flukes and all the rest of the things that make the innocent suffer are assumed to be part of God's plan by the believer.

That life is significant is exactly the opposite of what religion teaches. By defining this life as a mere warm-up for the afterlife, religious belief denigrates human endeavor and trivializes human suffering. Only by believing that this life is all we have can we be motivated to strive for justice here on Earth.




> Believers do not believe "whatever they want."


That's exactly what they believe. And, as you demonstrated above, they also believe whatever they want _about_ what they believe.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## NikolaiI

> Well, you believe the "answers" Christianity gives you regardless of whether science validates them, so why should you care if science contradicts them?
> 
> The Genesis account of creation is as fascinating as any ancient creation story. However, it's also no more consistent with what science has discovered about the formation and development of the universe and Earth than any of the rest. I wouldn't have expected the ancients to be privy to such knowledge. However, since you do, you simply choose to believe what's in the Bible.
> 
> Both of the Genesis accounts of where humans came from are similarly poetic and metaphorical. Neither jibes with what the overwhelming evidence from archaeology, molecular biology, and comparative morphology tell us: that we share ancestry with all life through a long process of evolution. If a believer rejects the evolution of species by natural selection, he does so because he wants to believe Genesis.
> 
> As far as the morality and justice inherent in the universe, religious belief is simply an excuse for complacency. It sets up a construct that is validated regardless of what we observe in our universe: if things appear just, it's because there's justice in the way things are. If things do not appear just, it's only because we're not equipped to understand the ineffable wisdom of the Almighty. So birth defects, trypanosomes, liver flukes and all the rest of the things that make the innocent suffer are assumed to be part of God's plan by the believer.
> 
> That life is significant is exactly the opposite of what religion teaches. By defining this life as a mere warm-up for the afterlife, religious belief denigrates human endeavor and trivializes human suffering. Only by believing that this life is all we have can we be motivated to strive for justice here on Earth.
> ...


One problem with this is that you begin by critiquing Christianity but then switch to speaking about all religious people. Now what you say would be true if it were corroborated by evidence. If you saw Christians, Hindus, and the rest behaving completely disrepectfully or worse toward all life. 

There is good and bad in all people. But let me speak of some of the good people I know, of those religions. For instance the Christians I know and respect have a deep respect for life, considering it sacred. There is a creed within Christianity which says they are supposed to be "Good stewardship." And there are many Christians who realize that our stewardship of this planet has not been up to standard and they are working to change it. 

Similarly, there are Christians who do understand that it's also wrong to kill animals as well as humans, and so they have become vegetarian. Or at least they may give up the buying of meat where it comes from factory farms, etc.

But again there is good and bad in all of us. You say that religion is all negative, basically, or in effect, and I am just pointing out that this is not true at all. Nor is it true that Christians (I will just speak of them as it seems that is the religion you are most familiar with) are all good. There is a deep fallacy a lot of Christians hold, generally the more fundamentalist ones, and that is also one of negative viewing. They say, if you have said one lie, then you are a liar. They actually say this. Now why not the reverse? Why not if you have said one kind word, you are a kind person? But they generally run by emotion and cannot see the glaring fallacy there.

But as for whether God exists; that is not dependent on what we see here. The shadow is dependent upon the person, but the person is not dependent on the shadow. So many have eloquently projected their inner visions of God and I do not have really the ability; but I have experienced the divine consciousness and can tell you from experience it is real. It can be hard to come out of the illusion, because there are billions of people on the planet reinforcing it, but once you become free of the illusion, you then realize it was always nothing.

----------


## G4C Chiodos

A way to answer the " Why does God allow Evil and Wrong to take place" questions. God allows us to be put through trials everyday. And people that attempt these trials either pass them or fail. If you pass then it could lead to something good or another trial. If you fail then it could have the same outcome as if you were to pass it. God simply allows Satan to tempt us all. Its basically a giant test. If everyone would resist the temptation of Satan then I believe the world would be a better place. That doesn't mean that it would be, That's just what I believe.

----------


## Lacra

All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys. 
Why I believe in God? Leaving alone the spiritual experiences and reasons I do have strong logical reasons which lead me to belive unconditionally in God. People use to say that there is no logical reasons to believe God exists. But... there are powerful arguments as:
1. There is an Unique Designer for the whole Universe including time, space, energy and matter - everything is so organized that I can't belive in nature doing so.
2. God's existence is clearly evident and easily traceable in unlimitated signs and proofs manifested in the creation of numberless atoms, cells, tissues, muscles, and everyone and everything created. How can I, as educated person, ignore all these evidences?

----------


## lupe

> All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys. 
> Why I believe in God? Leaving alone the spiritual experiences and reasons I do have strong logical reasons which lead me to belive unconditionally in God. People use to say that there is no logical reasons to believe God exists. But... there are powerful arguments as:
> 1. There is an Unique Designer for the whole Universe including time, space, energy and matter - everything is so organized that I can't belive in nature doing so.
> 2. God's existence is clearly evident and easily traceable in unlimitated signs and proofs manifested in the creation of numberless atoms, cells, tissues, muscles, and everyone and everything created. How can I, as educated person, ignore all these evidences?


If you are really an educated person, please go back to your science books and find out that all these have nothing to do with gods. The arguments of "_intelligent design_" and "_beauty_" have been debated for decades now and most deists don't even used them a lot anymore.

----------


## NikolaiI

> All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys. 
> 
> ...


Hello Lacra!

That was a very beautiful post and thank you so much for posting it! I agree completely with what you said, and I think it's important to find out these answers for ourselves, within, rather than being too influenced by the zeitgeist around us or of society.

I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.


The second is that everything has a source. We can understand that everything which exists in the universe has a source, and it is logical to think the universe also has a source. Now sometimes people will ask what this means, and they remain unconvinced. They aren't stirred by it. But what it means is that there are more levels of reality than at first glance. (But since when did first glance ever reveal real knowledge?!)

So the source of the universe is a more real existence, so to speak. Its relation to us is like our relation to a computer game, or a novel, or a dream. That's why, yes a very logical, a highly advanced, and not superstitious why, that Muslims and Hindus both say that God is the only reality. Muslims have a sacred phrase for it... I don't know what the Sanskrit equivalent is, though it was the main tenant of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

----------


## Babbalanja

> I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.


But infinity actually doesn't exist in mathematics. There's no number _n_ for which you couldn't say _n+1_, right? It's true that the concept of infinity is symbolized as ∞ , but that's simply because it can't be defined mathematically.

And the reason for this is relevant to your argument. Graphing a function like y = 1/x, you notice that the lower the positive value of x, the higher the value of y. But you can't divide 1 by zero, so the y value of the function when x=0 is said to be an infinitely large number, or ∞ . 

So in the for-us-by-us system of mathematics, the infinite is just a concept we created to deal with the reality of nothingness. By implication, then, what does this say about the concept of the infinite in the for-us-by-us construct of religion?

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Lacra

:Thumbsup: 


> If you are really an educated person, please go back to your science books and find out that all these have nothing to do with gods. The arguments of "_intelligent design_" and "_beauty_" have been debated for decades now and most deists don't even used them a lot anymore.


Thank you for your suggestion... I never stopped to study and to develop myself as a normal educated person ( At least, I hope so! ). You said that the deists concluded that accidentally, the mother nature created and developed all those. Well this is their opinion and I do have my personal opinion as well. Or I don't have the right to write my ideas, even badly expressed?
I understand that you display the postmodern attitude. That's great but exactlly the science books you were referring to, made me able to understand that there is an unique Designer in the background.  :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Thank you for your suggestion... I never stopped to study and to develop myself as a normal educated person ( At least, I hope so! ). You said that the deists concluded that accidentally, the mother nature created and developed all those. Well this is their opinion and I do have my personal opinion as well. Or I don't have the right to write my ideas, even badly expressed?
> I understand that you display the postmodern attitude. That's great but exactlly the science books you were referring to, made me able to understand that there is an unique Designer in the background.


You show yourself to be an extremely intelligent person. Able to discern and decide truth for yourself. Keep up your education beyond that what someone merely tells you. Always remember, the science books are filled with misinformation...but I think that you already know that.

 :Thumbsup:

----------


## Lacra

> Hello Lacra!
> 
> That was a very beautiful post and thank you so much for posting it! I agree completely with what you said, and I think it's important to find out these answers for ourselves, within, rather than being too influenced by the zeitgeist around us or of society.
> 
> I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.
> 
> 
> The second is that everything has a source. We can understand that everything which exists in the universe has a source, and it is logical to think the universe also has a source. Now sometimes people will ask what this means, and they remain unconvinced. They aren't stirred by it. But what it means is that there are more levels of reality than at first glance. (But since when did first glance ever reveal real knowledge?!)
> 
> So the source of the universe is a more real existence, so to speak. Its relation to us is like our relation to a computer game, or a novel, or a dream. That's why, yes a very logical, a highly advanced, and not superstitious why, that Muslims and Hindus both say that God is the only reality. Muslims have a sacred phrase for it... I don't know what the Sanskrit equivalent is, though it was the main tenant of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.


Welcome, Nikolai! I am glad you like it... also your 2 logically adds are very interesting and I never realized this before. Can you give me a quote related to the Muslims' sacred phrase? Thank you!  :Smile: 




> You show yourself to be an extremely intelligent person. Able to discern and decide truth for yourself. Keep up your education beyond that what someone merely tells you. Always remember, the science books are filled with misinformation...but I think that you already know that.


Thank you, Bienvenu! Ya, right, science books are not susceptible to be perfect.  :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

Science books say that it takes millions of years for coal to form......however, we know for a FACT that coal is formed in a matter of decades in nature. Yet the education system has neglected to make the correction.

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

W a r n i n g

Personalised and off-topic posts have been and will be deleted without further notice.

~*

----------


## Virgil

> If you are really an educated person, please go back to your science books and find out that all these have nothing to do with gods. The arguments of "_intelligent design_" and "_beauty_" have been debated for decades now and most deists don't even used them a lot anymore.


Says who that intelligent design is no longer used? You are just making that up and completely wrong. Not only is intelligent design based on the physical world, but ity has now expanded into the biological. Read Stephan Meyer's _Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design_.

Here:http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell.../dp/0061472786




> [Stephan] Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

----------


## NikolaiI

> *~
> 
> W a r n i n g
> 
> Personalised and off-topic posts have been and will be deleted without further notice.
> 
> ~*


Yay...o!

heh...




> Welcome, Nikolai! I am glad you like it... also your 2 logically adds are very interesting and I never realized this before. Can you give me a quote related to the Muslims' sacred phrase? Thank you!


Well, I was referring to _la ilaha illallah_. I know that some translated it as "There is no God but Allah," while others translate it as "There is no reality other than God (or Allah)." I asked one Sufi to explain the two translations, and she replied that reality is another name for God.

Now I am not a Muslim although I'm learning some gradually and getting to know some Sufis. I did read a wonderful poem about _la ilaha illallah muhammad rasulallah_ by Lex Hixon Al Nur Jerrahi, the poem was called Affirmation of Unity. Really amazing poem!

And Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's central idea was similar to the Sufis' saying there's no reality but God. He would say often that God alone is real, nothing else exists. Of course, though, he didn't originate this. Meher Baba said the same thing in the same words.

----------


## tailor STATELY

Topic: Why I believe in God?

For me, a Christian, all things denote the existence of God. I know this. I've always known this. The prophets of old and new testify of this fact. The Holy Ghost testifies to me of this fact.

I love this scripture from Matthew chapter 6: 


> 24 ¶ No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


 Mammon, to me, describes the natural man who is in opposition to that of God.

I am ever amazed at the new theories or models to explain every nuance that the natural man discovers - each contradicting the last. How many dimensions (this month) to justify the mathematics of theoreticians. How many more universes or dimensions or models or particles will be foisted before the natural man proves 'his' vanity. 

With regards to Babbalanja answering Nikolai earlier: 


> Quote:Originally Posted by NikolaiI 
> I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.UnQuote
> 
> Babbalanja: "But infinity actually doesn't exist in mathematics. There's no number n for which you couldn't say n+1, right? It's true that the concept of infinity is symbolized as ∞ , but that's simply because it can't be defined mathematically.
> 
> And the reason for this is relevant to your argument. Graphing a function like y = 1/x, you notice that the lower the positive value of x, the higher the value of y. But you can't divide 1 by zero, so the y value of the function when x=0 is said to be an infinitely large number, or ∞ . 
> 
> So in the for-us-by-us system of mathematics, the infinite is just a concept we created to deal with the reality of nothingness. By implication, then, what does this say about the concept of the infinite in the for-us-by-us construct of religion?
> 
> ...


 It is fashionable to divide by zero when it suits mathematicians and theorists when describing complex systems such as Wheel theory, string theory, and Riemann spheres 


> In mathematics, the Riemann sphere is a way of extending the plane of complex numbers with one additional point at infinity, in a way that makes expressions such as 1/0= ∞ well-behaved and useful, at least in certain contexts.





> The Riemann sphere has many uses in physics. In quantum mechanics, points on the complex projective line are natural values for photon polarization states, spin states of massive particles of spin 1/2, and 2-state particles in general. The Riemann sphere has been suggested as a relativistic model for the celestial sphere. In string theory, the worldsheets of strings are Riemann surfaces, and the Riemann sphere, being the simplest Riemann surface, plays a significant role. It is also important in twistor theory.


Truths that I ascribe to:

Axiom: There is a God. 

Axiom: All things denote a God.

Axiom: The natural man is in opposition to God.

Axiom: Science and mathematics does not preclude the existence of God. 

Axiom: It is of far greater importance for God to prove men than for man to prove God.

From "The Book of Mormon" Alma 29: 


> 1 O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people! 
> 2 Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and come unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth. 
> 3 But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me.


May those with ears listen, those with eyes see; and those without seek. Again from Matthew chapter 6: 


> 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


With utmost respect to those of differing views,
sincerely,
tailor STATELY

----------


## Babbalanja

> Science books say that it takes millions of years for coal to form......however, we know for a FACT that coal is formed in a matter of decades in nature. Yet the education system has neglected to make the correction.





> Says who that intelligent design is no longer used? You are just making that up and completely wrong. Not only is intelligent design based on the physical world, but ity has now expanded into the biological. Read Stephan Meyer's _Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design_.


Religion is all about believing whatever you want, but that's not what science is about. 

Expecting scientific inquiry to pander to our prejudices does a great disservice to the millions of researchers (believers and nonbelievers alike) whose work has given us a consistent, coherent picture of our universe. The vastness of space, the development of life on Earth over billions of years, and the amazing world of microbiology, are all comprehensible to us because of the long legacy of empirical evidential inquiry.

What we believe about our material universe doesn't depend on wishful thinking or appeal to scripture. The process of scientific inquiry is cumulative and inductive: new information refines or changes what we know. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good; we believe because the theory is backed by evidence. If a theory puts more evidence into a coherent, testable framework, it's considered a better theory until something even better comes along. 

There's no way to test religious beliefs; they are merely affirmed until the believer no longer doubts them, and redefined whenever it's convenient. In the process of empirical evidential inquiry, obsolete ideas are scrapped forever. No one says "geocentrism wasn't literally true, but since people believed it for most of human history, it must have some value." 

But is scientific support ever relevant to religious belief anyway? For the record, I have never stated that scientific inquiry invalidates religious belief. In fact, I submit that people profess religious belief for reasons that have nothing to do with facts and evidence. 

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## lupe

> Religion is all about believing whatever you want, but that's not what science is about. 
> 
> Expecting scientific inquiry to pander to our prejudices does a great disservice to the millions of researchers (believers and nonbelievers alike) whose work has given us a consistent, coherent picture of our universe. The vastness of space, the development of life on Earth over billions of years, and the amazing world of microbiology, are all comprehensible to us because of the long legacy of empirical evidential inquiry.
> 
> What we believe about our material universe doesn't depend on wishful thinking or appeal to scripture. The process of scientific inquiry is cumulative and inductive: new information refines or changes what we know. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good; we believe because the theory is backed by evidence. If a theory puts more evidence into a coherent, testable framework, it's considered a better theory until something even better comes along. 
> 
> There's no way to test religious beliefs; they are merely affirmed until the believer no longer doubts them, and redefined whenever it's convenient. In the process of empirical evidential inquiry, obsolete ideas are scrapped forever. No one says "geocentrism wasn't literally true, but since people believed it for most of human history, it must have some value." 
> 
> But is scientific support ever relevant to religious belief anyway? For the record, I have never stated that scientific inquiry invalidates religious belief. In fact, I submit that people profess religious belief for reasons that have nothing to do with facts and evidence. 
> ...


Thank you Istvan, I personally don't have the energy anymore to respond to these kind of posts. 
At the end of the day, arguments that are presented without proofs, can be dismissed without proofs...

----------


## Lacra

Everything around me, the Universe itself testifies for me that God exist and I do have to believe in His existence. Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. Science leads to believe in God.
Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met “just by accident”? The Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; it is exactly the right distance from the Moon; it has exactly the right diameter; it has exactly the right atmospheric pressure; it has exactly the right tilt; it has exactly the right amount of oceanic water; it has exactly the right weight and mass; and so on. 
Of course I have spiritual reasons to believe in my Lord but in this thread I just mentioned the logical perspective. There are many scientists who talk about the existence of God, without being religious persons.

----------


## hoope

We believe in God ..simply because He exists and he is the only that worths being Worshipped. 
And knowing that there is a One Great Lord behind this universe makes one fear God and worship him not only believe in Him.

The existance of this universe was not spontaneously ;it didn't cease to exist because we can witness death of creatures .. others being born , we witness life , water , winds things that come into exisrence and then disappear all that shows that there is a outside determining factor that brought it to existence and here comes the invalidity of an infinite sequence. Because there is only One Almighty God that runs this uuniverse... 
Don't you think that He is worth believing?????

----------


## MarkBastable

O. M. lack of. G.

----------


## Virgil

> Religion is all about believing whatever you want, but that's not what science is about. 
> 
> Expecting scientific inquiry to pander to our prejudices does a great disservice to the millions of researchers (believers and nonbelievers alike) whose work has given us a consistent, coherent picture of our universe. The vastness of space, the development of life on Earth over billions of years, and the amazing world of microbiology, are all comprehensible to us because of the long legacy of empirical evidential inquiry.
> 
> What we believe about our material universe doesn't depend on wishful thinking or appeal to scripture. The process of scientific inquiry is cumulative and inductive: new information refines or changes what we know. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good; we believe because the theory is backed by evidence. If a theory puts more evidence into a coherent, testable framework, it's considered a better theory until something even better comes along.


It's not based on any religious principles. None whatsoever. Show me the religious statement where it is. It's based on pattern, structure, organization, and probability. Argue with the PhDs that support. Otherwise you just blowing smoke. Claiming it's wishful thinking proves nothing but your lack of acceptance of anything but your fixed views. And what is your scientific background? What's your education level?

----------


## OrphanPip

I'm sorry, but I find Meyer offensive to everything biology stands for. He has continuously used dishonest tactics to support ID, and has also conveniently made a fortune out of his schemes through the Discovery Institute.

I've read his 2004 paper, the only peer reviewed paper ever published by the DI, and it was a travesty that this got to be published. For one, it was a comparative anatomy paper that somehow got published in a journal of systematics (the publishing of the discovery of new species). Secondly, it was composed primarily of speculation.

ID is simply not science. Their early pet project, irreducible complexity, was quickly unmasked as a load of ****. Meyer and company (usually Behe) used to argue that the flagellum was so complex that it could never have evolved because it required too many steps, so it was "irreducibly complex". However, it only took 4 years for biologist working on the origins of the flagella to identify intermediate forms in the secretory systems of bacteria. This is just one example of the intellectual laziness of the ID movement. You find something you don't have to the answer to at the moment, resort to the "God did it" cop out, and then quit looking for evidence. This is the tactic they repeatedly utilize, find unanswered problems and tack on the "design" explanation. There is no actual attempt to answer any scientific questions, there is no utilization of the scientific method, it is simply not science.

Not to mention that the DI initially started out as an explicitly pro-Christian organization, and just remodeled itself as a non-partisan deistic organization for PR reasons.

----------


## DanielBenoit

Hey here's my opinion on the issue and I'm sure Babajana knows it, as we have debated over it before  :Tongue: 

I find faith to be fascinating in the Kierkegaardian sense of being making the _leap_ of faith. This act is beyond words, and thus beyond justification. It is in a sense humanistic transcendence (I do not mean this in some Kantian way), but in the fact that it transcends the dialectical rules of language.

I usually think of faith and reason analogously to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem: With reason one can have a non-contradictary but incomplete system, and with faith, one can have a complete system but with contradictions. Again, this is merely an analogy and has no relation with the theorem itself.

----------


## Virgil

Baloney. Argue with all the other scientists that support it. Look design doesn't confirm there is a God, but it sure proves it to anyone who understands probabilty. You people are so fixed that you can't even accept the possibility of a God. I accept the possibility that there may not be one, just like there is the possibility I can hit the lottery. but you people refuse to even acknowledge a possibility. That's fundementalist athiesm.

----------


## OrphanPip

Except Meyer's arguments are flawed. He has failed to show that life can't evolve through natural means. I could care less if people believe in a creator and design, but I object to pseudoscientific explanations, especially ones with declared political motivations, like the Discovery Institute.

Real scientist publish research that stands up to criticism, they don't publish books from a private press. The Discovery Institute self-publishes all its "science", its dishonesty is a disgrace not only to science but to religion as well.

It is not merely atheist scientist who reject the style of ID promoted by the Discovery Institute, the vast majority of scientist reject it, and many of those scientist are religious.

Even physicist and religious philosopher Stephen Barr, who has dedicated his life to promoting theological naturalism, rejects ID http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...lligent-design

----------


## Babbalanja

> Baloney. Argue with all the other scientists that support it. Look design doesn't confirm there is a God, but it sure proves it to anyone who understands probabilty. You people are so fixed that you can't even accept the possibility of a God. I accept the possibility that there may not be one, just like there is the possibility I can hit the lottery. but you people refuse to even acknowledge a possibility. That's fundementalist athiesm.


Try to stay civil, okay? 

It's really got less to do with probability than with affirming the consequent. It's the logical fallacy where you paint a target around the arrow sticking out of the wall. ID theorists talk about an attribute such as 'irreducible complexity' or 'complex specified information,' and assert that this attribute is prima facie evidence of the intentional activity of a designing entity. 

However, this doesn't follow logically. The very things that the ID people claim are evidence of design (like DNA or the bacterial flagellum) in fact represent disconfirming evidence of the design hypothesis. That is, the very existence of 'irreducible complexity' in DNA can't be used to support the major premise 'irreducible complexity is evidence of design' without demonstrating that DNA was in fact designed by an intelligent agent.

I don't refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a God. However, I refuse to accept arguments for His existence if they lack logical coherence. And if the argument simply panders to the human bias for seeing intent where there is none, that's not convincing either.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Virgil

> Except Meyer's arguments are flawed. He has failed to show that life can't evolve through natural means. I could care less if people believe in a creator and design, but I object to pseudoscientific explanations, especially ones with declared political motivations, like the Discovery Institute.
> 
> Real scientist publish research that stands up to criticism, they don't publish books from a private press. The Discovery Institute self-publishes all its "science", its dishonesty is a disgrace not only to science but to religion as well.
> 
> It is not merely atheist scientist who reject the style of ID promoted by the Discovery Institute, the vast majority of scientist reject it, and many of those scientist are religious.
> 
> Even physicist and religious philosopher Stephen Barr, who has dedicated his life to promoting theological naturalism, rejects ID http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...lligent-design


First of all it depends what one means by intelligent design. There are several definitions out there, and people conveniently pick the one that is not scientifically oriented to knock down as a strawman.

Second, he is under no obligation to prove that "can't evolve through natural means." He proved it was highly unlikely that it can't, and the preponderance of probility was toward a creator. And even there we have a conflict of definitions. Natural means is God!

----------


## Virgil

> Try to stay civil, okay?


Where was I uncivil? Your language of ridicule is in almost every other post. You are the uncivil person here. I can find a list of people here who detest your arrogance.

I asked you a number of times. What are your scientific qualifications? What is your education? What makes you such an expert that your arrogance has to come through in every post?

----------


## OrphanPip

> First of all it depends what one means by intelligent design. There are several definitions out there, and people conveniently pick the one that is not scientifically oriented to knock down as a strawman.
> 
> Second, he is under no obligation to prove that "can't evolve through natural means." He proved it was highly unlikely that it can't, and the preponderance of probility was toward a creator. And even there we have a conflict of definitions. Natural means is God!


In science you do have an obligation to show a testable alternative or disprove the current explanation. ID has no interest in science. Meyer parades the idea of abiogenesis being improbable, but he doesn't even do that honestly. First of all you have to presume you have knowledge of how abiogenesis occurred to make a claim to its probability, which he certainly doesn't have. Thus, what you get is the terms for calculating the probability are created out of Meyer's own mind, there's no objective science going on here. The most he could claim is that the specified form of abiogenesis that he is attacking is improbable given the assumptions he makes.

----------


## Babbalanja

> In science you do have an obligation to show a testable alternative or disprove the current explanation. ID has no interest in science. Meyer parades the idea of abiogenesis being improbable, but he doesn't even do that honestly. First of all you have to presume you have knowledge of how abiogenesis occurred to make a claim to its probability, which he certainly doesn't have. Thus, what you get is the terms for calculating the probability are created out of Meyer's own mind, there's no objective science going on here. The most he could claim is that the specified form of abiogenesis that he is attacking is improbable given the assumptions he makes.


God-of-the-Gaps arguments always take this form. Certain events happened so long ago in history (like the emergence of life, or the evolution of the bacterial flagellum) that reconstructing the circumstances billions of years later is by definition speculative. But not all forms of speculation are equally valid.

A scientific approach to speculation involves the formation of testable hypotheses using known processes. This is the cumulative nature of empirical evidential inquiry: build on what we know, and try to expand our knowledge in a responsible, comprehensible manner.

The "intelligent design" perspective, however, fetishizes the unknown by characterizing science's current inability to explain these events as a flaw in naturalistic science itself. These quotes are from Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" website:

_Meyer is the first to bring the relevant data together into a powerful demonstration of the intelligence that stands outside nature and directs the path life has taken.

The signature in the cell is that of the master programmer of life._

_Meyer illuminates the mystery that surrounds the origins of DNA. He demonstrates that previous scientific efforts to explain the origins of biological information have all failed, and argues convincingly for intelligent design as the best explanation of lifes beginning._

As you stated, this is not science. However, it's not truly challenging the naturalistic basis of science. ID neither explains the origin of biotic life, nor what's lacking in materialistic scientific inquiry that makes it unable to account for this staggeringly unlikely event. ID is just a philosophical shell game, completely lacking in scientific merit.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## blazeofglory

> Everything around me, the Universe itself testifies for me that God exist and I do have to believe in His existence. Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. Science leads to believe in God.
> Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met just by accident? The Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; it is exactly the right distance from the Moon; it has exactly the right diameter; it has exactly the right atmospheric pressure; it has exactly the right tilt; it has exactly the right amount of oceanic water; it has exactly the right weight and mass; and so on. 
> Of course I have spiritual reasons to believe in my Lord but in this thread I just mentioned the logical perspective. There are many scientists who talk about the existence of God, without being religious persons.


This is really a good argument and convincing about the existence of God

----------


## Virgil

I have better things to do than to carry on this endless argument. I am not a fundementalist. I don't come to a literature forum and spend 80% of my time proseltizing.

All I have to say is look up Anthony Flew.

----------


## Satan

> Everything around me, the Universe itself testifies for me that God exist and I do have to believe in His existence. Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. Science leads to believe in God.
> Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met just by accident? The Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; it is exactly the right distance from the Moon; it has exactly the right diameter; it has exactly the right atmospheric pressure; it has exactly the right tilt; it has exactly the right amount of oceanic water; it has exactly the right weight and mass; and so on. 
> Of course I have spiritual reasons to believe in my Lord but in this thread I just mentioned the logical perspective. There are many scientists who talk about the existence of God, without being religious persons.


The reason why there is only one Earth known to man is that it's an accidental presence--an exception among billions of uninhabitable planets circling around 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. The odds of an intelligent designer creating billions upon billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars each and then putting life on one tiny and insignificant planet only to watch it destroy itself over and over again are astronomical on an almost comically multidimensional scale.

If every _creation_ must have a creator, then one must inquire into the design of this _creator_, for he also cannot exist without having been conceived by an even more eloquent designer ...ad infinitum. Else, if the complexity of a creation can far surpass that of its designer, which is quite apparent in the process of evolution, then this creator is but an insignificant prehistoric artifact.

The need to believe and worship is more of a socio-psychological aspect of our evolution than a proof of divinity.

----------


## Lacra

> The reason why there is only one Earth known to man is that it's an accidental presence--an exception among billions of uninhabitable planets circling around 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. The odds of an intelligent designer creating billions upon billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars each and then putting life on one tiny and insignificant planet only to watch it destroy itself over and over again are astronomical on an almost comically multidimensional scale.
> 
> If every _creation_ must have a creator, then one must inquire into the design of this _creator_, for he also cannot exist without having been conceived by an even more eloquent designer ...ad infinitum. Else, if the complexity of a creation can far surpass that of its designer, which is quite apparent in the process of evolution, then this creator is but an insignificant prehistoric artifact.
> 
> The need to believe and worship is more of a socio-psychological aspect of our evolution than a proof of divinity.


These arguments you are displaying have been debated before and one of the answers that I came across and has convinced me is that it makes logical sense that it has to be only one Creator at the beginning. Because if every creator has his creater then when we will stop? At some point there has to be a Creator, a starting point an uncreated Creater. 
The main issue of this conversation is about the existence of God, and why do I belive in God, not how does God exist. I cannot tell you something I don't know, nobody knows. We have no knowledge of many things in the Universe... it is perfectly natural that we don't know how God exist. Any scientist will tell you that the more you study, the more you learn how much we don't know.

It has never been established that we are the only creatures in the Universe. Nobody knows! The argument that you made that our existence is an accidental one, because we may be the only ones in the Universe is a weak one.
I would agree that the need to worship is a socio-psychological aspect, however I would prefer to use the word "instinct".We need to ask ourselves where does this instinct come from and who placed it there?

----------


## Satan

How appropriate, convincing and convenient that there be a single creator of a creation mired with infinite intriguing possibilities! The point of my statement is to separate logical and rational arguments from the fallacy of faith--to annul the unholy marriage of belief and knowledge. If you are perfectly content with the idea of believing in an entity founded on a flawed _a priori_ judgment, then your ontological arguments are already beyond any form of logical criticism.

Quit using _lack of knowledge_ as a proof of verifiable existence. Your assumptions that life exists above and beyond this planet and that there _must_ be a single point of failure, which you so affectionately call _creator_, are not a scientific validation by any stretch of imagination. It is also entirely possible that you and I are bio-mechanical bots in a simulated game of life, programmed by a handful of nerds from another dimension--in line with Nick Bostrom's _simulation argument_.

Schizophrenics were taken very seriously in ancient times.

----------


## tailor STATELY

I love this quote in support of your argument:




> Schizophrenics were taken very seriously in ancient times.


Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, eh ?

The New Testament Apostle Paul was correct in saying (in his Second Epistle to Timothy in chapter 2) : 


> 23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 
> 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 
> 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 
> 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.


Adieux.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I have better things to do than to carry on this endless argument. I am not a fundementalist. I don't come to a literature forum and spend 80% of my time proseltizing.
> 
> All I have to say is look up Anthony Flew.


I saw a great debate between Anthony Flew and Thomas B Warren. Flew did not impress me that much. BTW...who are you posting this in response to?

I still don't understand why people cannot allow others to hold their beliefs. It is okay to comment to someone's opinion, but to sit and argue back and forth the way that some do...it's nonsense.

----------


## JommiL

"My suggeston is that you will step out from your hut in magnificient winter-night. And then, when you look up to the skies ans all those stars, try to say; "There´s no God." Without feelin´ yourself as a fool."

----------


## Satan

> I love this quote in support of your argument:


And I love your reaction to it.

Replying to your post any further would be an attempt at offending the premises of this thread, since we are discussing the reasons of belief--or disbelief--not religions, occults or their less than convincing self-serving arguments.




> "My suggeston is that you will step out from your hut in magnificient winter-night. And then, when you look up to the skies ans all those stars, try to say; "There´s no God." Without feelin´ yourself as a fool."


I'm not impressed.

----------


## JommiL

I understand why - perhaps it has something to do with your alias  :Smilewinkgrin: 

But remember - there´s a lot on things, that cannot be found in atheists wordbook. Many people think, that believing in God is weakness. But it is not. If anyone really wants to check out, what bible will teach about moral etc. it is very obvious, that it creates lot of strenght.
There´s many paradoxes in life. One of them is that we must be weak - we must admit that we need each other - to be strong. Being just "strong" without mercy and hope and caring, we are doomed into loneliness, after all. But then we hit our nose into tall, hard wall: No-one can live just alone and survive mentally. For example - as well known fact is - our mental state of mind and ability grow as humans stops otherwise. This is just a basic information about psychology.

"Remembering betrays nature,
Because yesterday's nature is not nature,
What's past is nothing and remembering is not seeing."

- Sorry, but that´s a big, big lie. You see, if we live like that, we deny power of history. If we deny it, it has funny - and VERY painful - way to remember us about how small we are; It starts to repeat itself, if we are not going to listen and learn about it. If anyone argues, it simply means, that he says that there´s no results of our actions. And everyone knows, what truth about this is. There´s no any possible way to fight against this fact without 101% losing. Remembering means LEARNING & UNDERSTANDING what been happening before. Also that "remembering is not seeing" is saying - after all - that we should see in future. And do we? We are NOT. Same patterns in life will repeat day after day - it is a law of nature. It can´t be broked. If we deny that we don´t need learning and understanding, we are basically saying that we are complete persons - which we are not. Ever. Also it would mean that there´s no purpose about in our life, because life IS learning. If we don´t listen to the history, we are stupidly proud and we are going to pay for it, after all.

"Nature will not broke own laws."
- Albert Einstein.

Thanks.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> And I love your reaction to it.
> 
> Replying to your post any further would be an attempt at offending the premises of this thread, since we are discussing the reasons of belief--or disbelief--not religions, occults or their less than convincing self-serving arguments.


I appreciate your respect...
 :Thumbsup:

----------


## Virgil

> I saw a great debate between Anthony Flew and Thomas B Warren. Flew did not impress me that much. BTW...who are you posting this in response to?


My only point about Anthony Flew was that he was a long time passionate atheist, a philosopher who argued in much the same way as the atheists here, but who was later convinced on the argument of intelligent design as I argue it (that universe has too much structure for it to have been a random creation), and is no longer an atheist. I've never heard of Thomas Warren, and was Flew an athiest or did he see the light when he was arguing with Warren?

By the way, this is Flew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

----------


## OrphanPip

As long as they keep ID out of the biology classroom, because they don't know biology from their left hand.

----------


## Virgil

> As long as they keep ID out of the biology classroom, because they don't know biology from their left hand.


OP, intelligent design is a generic philosophic argument, and has nothing to do with the specifics of any science. It is a way of looking at the science and coming to a conclusion. I agree, it does not belong in a scientific classroom, but I argue it's a legitamate philosophic argument.

My form of ID does not argue for creationism. That is where ID has gotten a bad rap, because some have expanded it to beyond what is justifiable. I only argue for the existence of God. I cannot find any support for a specific type of God. That goes from philosophy to theology.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> My only point about Anthony Flew was that he was a long time passionate atheist, a philosopher who argued in much the same way as the atheists here, but who was later convinced on the argument of intelligent design as I argue it (that universe has too much structure for it to have been a random creation), and is no longer an atheist. I've never heard of Thomas Warren, and was Flew an atheist or did he see the light when he was arguing with Warren?
> 
> By the way, this is Flew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew


Warren may have likely convinced him of the fallacy of his position.




> As long as they keep ID out of the biology classroom, because they don't know biology from their left hand.


I can agree with that, but they also need to keep evolution out of biology and stick with mere classifications of the creatures that we know we have.

----------


## OrphanPip

> OP, intelligent design is a generic philosophic argument, and has nothing to do with the specifics of any science. It is a way of looking at the science and coming to a conclusion. I agree, it does not belong in a scientific classroom, but I argue it's a legitamate philosophic argument.
> 
> My form of ID does not argue for creationism. That is where ID has gotten a bad rap, because some have expanded it to beyond what is justifiable. I only argue for the existence of God. I cannot find any support for a specific type of God. That goes from philosophy to theology.


Sadly, I think the bad rap is well deserved. The problem is that organizations like the Discovery Institute have clear political motivations and insist on the scientific nature of their work. I would have much less problems with ID if most of its major proponents would admit they are not doing science.

At the least it's better than the creation "museums" that put up displays of humans and dinosaurs living side by side.




> I can agree with that, but they also need to keep evolution out of biology and stick with mere classifications of the creatures that we know we have.


That's just silly, we're not here for "stamp collecting" as Haldane put it. Evolution is vital to the understanding of modern biology.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> That's just silly, we're not here for "stamp collecting" as Haldane put it. Evolution is vital to the understanding of modern biology.


This is where I will just agree to disagree. I don't think that Evolution has anything to do with Modern Biology. It is a theory without much real supporting evidence. I will not argue this topic any further.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> I can agree with that, but they also need to keep evolution out of biology and stick with mere classifications of the creatures that we know we have.


To do so would be to take away virtually over one-hundred years of biology. Pretty much _all_ biology today is based on evolution (OP correct me if I'm wrong). Genes, DNA and the cell are all impossible to understand without evolution. Take evolution out of the picture, you're left with mere zoology.




> This is where I will just agree to disagree. I don't think that Evolution has anything to do with Modern Biology. It is a theory without much real supporting evidence. I will not argue this topic any further.


Since you insist on not arguing any further, I will not engage you. But as a statement of the _facts_, evolution has _everything_ to do with Modern Biology. And as far as the _mere theory_ argument which arises out of ignorance of the philosophy of science. A _theory_ is not a _hypothesis_ nor is it a _propostitional idea_, it may begin that way, but in order to be regarded as a theory it needs a great gathering of _facts_ and _evidence_ to encompass a full scientific narrative in whatever field of study it is in. A theory is better than a fact, just as the whole is better than the parts.

----------


## OrphanPip

> This is where I will just agree to disagree. I don't think that Evolution has anything to do with Modern Biology. It is a theory without much real supporting evidence. I will not argue this topic any further.


It has mounds of evidence. 

Apparently evolution has nothing to do with the emergence of new resistance to antibiotics, to the emergence of resistance within insects to pesticides, to the development of new enzymes for nylon digestion in bacteria, to explaining the emergence of new species as we see it in the fossil record, to understanding why current behaviors are emerge over others.

The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence, has stood the test against attempts to falsify it, and is the most important theory in biology.

----------


## tailor STATELY

> By the way, this is Flew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew


Interesting link. I was amused by a few lines that stood out for me which I highlight below and cite below from the same wikipedia link to keep the context intact.




> Book with Varghese
> 
> In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, *and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline*, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book.[4] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview. The article provoked a public outcry, in which atheist PZ Myers called Varghese "a contemptible manipulator."[23]
> 
> A further article by Anthony Gottlieb noted a strong difference in style between the passages giving Flew's biography, and those laying out the case for a god, with the latter including Americanisms such as "beverages", "vacation" and "candy". He came to the same conclusion as Oppenheimer, and stated that *"Far from strengthening the case for the existence of God, [the book] rather weakens the case for the existence of Antony Flew".* Varghese replied with a letter disputing this view.[25] Flew released a statement through his publisher stating that although Varghese did the actual writing, the book belonged to him and represented his thinking.[26] An audio commentary by William Lane Craig[27] concurs with this position, but Richard Carrier disputes this view.[29] In June 2008, Flew stated his position once again, in a letter to a fellow of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship.[6]


It must be weird to have to defend one's existence, and/or state of mind, when philosophically joisting in the public arena.

re: Evolution, ID, Creationism; I find it fascinating to have these topics to discuss and ponder. For me it speaks as a testimony for each one of us to come to grips with our mortality and reaffirm that spark of uniqueness that each of us possesses. If nothing else, one lesson we can well learn is tolerance for those of opposing views; with the hope that someday we may all know everything. This reaffirms my faith all the more.

Adieux.

----------


## tailor STATELY

> by tailor STATELY: I love this quote in support of your argument:
> 
> Quote:Schizophrenics were taken very seriously in ancient times. 
> 
> Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, eh ?





> And I love your reaction to it.


Thank you. My response was to highlight a logical slip on your part - I find the logical progression for your views usually less salient.

re: 


> The New Testament Apostle Paul was correct in saying (in his Second Epistle to Timothy in chapter 2) : 
> Quote:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 
> 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 
> 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 
> 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. 
> Adieux.


 


> Your reply: Replying to your post any further would be an attempt at offending the premises of this thread, since we are discussing the reasons of belief--or disbelief--not religions, occults or their less than convincing self-serving arguments.


Forgive me for being obtuse in quoting the Biblical text - it was for mine own admonishment.

----------


## heethar73

I believe firmly in God. I will not argue with anyone about my belief, because I know it is futile to argue with someone who firmly believes the opposite! I believe in Him for several reasons, but one is that I refuse to believe the world is completely random and happened by chance. That makes my life meaningless - I would have no purpose if there was no purpose for me being here in the first place. By that standard, I should live my life with no regard for anyone. Only my own desires and wants. So if you don't believe in God, I understand why you don't. If you do, to God be the glory!

----------


## Babbalanja

> OP, intelligent design is a generic philosophic argument, and has nothing to do with the specifics of any science. It is a way of looking at the science and coming to a conclusion. I agree, it does not belong in a scientific classroom, but I argue it's a legitamate philosophic argument.


From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical. You may be unaware of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and that's why people like Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe can sell so many books. However, that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times.

For the millionth time, you can't use your conclusion as the validation for your major premise. That is, using "only intelligent design could account for the such-and-such natural phenomenon" as your major premise assumes what you're trying to prove. Since Darwin, humans have discovered many natural mechanisms that could account for such-and-such natural phenomenon that don't involve the intentional activity of an intelligent designer. Even if logic hadn't already gutted the Argument from Design, what we've discovered about the biosphere would have made it obsolete.




> This is where I will just agree to disagree. I don't think that Evolution has anything to do with Modern Biology. It is a theory without much real supporting evidence.


Like I said before, scientific endeavor isn't like religious belief: you don't just make something true by claiming to believe it. Dan Benoit made the point in his post: evolution by natural selection is the foundation of modern biology, and it's just plain wrong to deny that fact. 

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Virgil

> From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical. You may be unaware of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and that's why people like Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe can sell so many books. However, that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times.
> 
> For the millionth time, you can't use your conclusion as the validation for your major premise. That is, using "only intelligent design could account for the such-and-such natural phenomenon" as your major premise assumes what you're trying to prove. Since Darwin, humans have discovered many natural mechanisms that could account for such-and-such natural phenomenon that don't involve the intentional activity of an intelligent designer. Even if logic hadn't already gutted the Argument from Design, what we've discovered about the biosphere would have made it obsolete.


Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton. 

The problem I have with you personally Babbalanja (or whatever your name is) is that you refuse to give resoect to other people's opinions. It has not been shown to be nonsensical. 

Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton. 
> 
> The problem I have with you personally Babbalanja (or whatever your name is) is that you refuse to give resoect to other people's opinions. It has not been shown to be nonsensical. 
> 
> Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.


Hear, hear!!

I'm looking for the uprave button, but I didn't see one!!

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton.


Man, I really dislike it when either sides of the theist/atheist spectrum use what these men said as spokesmen for their own beliefs. But what I dislike even more is when they use these men's personal beliefs as arguments against a certain scientific theory they happen to dislike.

First off, Newton did not believe in evolution because he lived almost 200 years before Darwin, and thus is a meaningless point. I having read Einstein's biography can state as a clear fact that he most obviously accepted the theory of evolution as almost any reasonable scientist did. Also, based on Einstein's personal and philosophical writings, he was most likely somewhere between an agnostic and a pantheist (the latter very definite in his later years), and though he was no longer an observant Jew, he greatly respected and embraced the culture in his later life.

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?




> Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.


Leaving aside criticisms of causality itself in both philosophy and quantum physics, I would like to simple point out that in your analogy of the dead body and the wire, you forcibly inject God into it. If I were a police officer at a crime scene, I would conclude that the dead body was caused by the wire because I _saw_ it right there and made inductive conclusions. This example is ridiculous when compared to the _existence_ of a supernatural entity. No one is denying the existence of the wire because it is _ perceivable_ through the senses. The unmoved mover (to use the Aristililean term) is no where in the picture in scientific revelation, He is merely semantically injected into it as the definition of the _cause_ of the revelation _a priori_. To summarize it, you are assuming that God is even there, and thus the cause. The wire _is_ there and thus can reasonably be concluded to be the cause. 

Now I'm not even an empiricist when it comes to these deep philosophical questions of the universe, but I am as almost everyone else is when it comes to everyday life. This is why I've disliked these analogies which are so simplistic and hardly match the question at hand.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?


You know, anything and everything that has ever needed to be said about the debate between atheists and theists has already been said by South Park.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> as almost any reasonable scientist did.


Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?

There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'? It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?


I like how you ignored my entire argument and focused on only one unimportant aspect.

Yes they would be, because of the mounds of evidence presented in the past one-hundred years. Also, I find it funny that you have stopped using the word 'theory' and lowered it down to 'hypothesis.'




> There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. *Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'?* It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...


I think the reasons for most of the opposition to evolution by the general public (besides its supposed incompatibility with religion) is because of the many misconceptions, misunderstandings, and just plain ignorance of the theory.

A primate didn't just give birth to a human and _volla_ we have _homo sapiens_! It took many conditions in the environment (changes in climate, natural disasters, etc.) for natural selection to even come about. And then, slow, at first hardly noticable changes happened over long periods of time. Please, I _beg_ you to at least have some understanding of evolution and the history of the theory before engaging in a debate. Sketchy evidence? Come on. In all the fields of science, evolution is the theory in the past 100 some years which has probably recieved the greatest amount of evidence. 

If you want to start arguing evidence, then present us with some _evidence_ on your side of the matter. Why is it that you are allowed to make the claim to reason when criticizing evolution, but then run into the safe-hold of faith when your beliefs are criticized?

----------


## OrphanPip

> Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?
> 
> There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'? It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...


The vast majority do accept the THEORY of evolution, not the hypothesis. You display several misunderstanding of evolutionary theory in your post alone.

For one, if simple adaptations aren't evolution, what do you suppose they are?

Secondly, apes are continuing to evolve, no life is static and there is continual change in frequency of alleles within populations.

It is nonsense to dismiss all the evidence for evolution as "speculation". There is phylogenetic evidence, geographical genetic difference, comparative anatomy, fossil record, comparative genetics, embryology, genetics, it all supports evolution.

Let's take a single example like snakes. From the fossil records and comparative examination of the skeleton scientist first concluded that they evolved from a family of lizards. Then we found that genetically it seemed there were two mutations that resulted in the loss of the limbs at two separate points. Finally, after we found the genetic evidence pointing to loss of the front and back limbs at different periods we found a transitional fossil of a species of proto-snake which had two limbs. This is just one of several examples of clear evolutionary progression due to progressive genetic change we know of.

Then we have things like ring species which point to how species diversification can occur. 

I can't even begin to scratch the surface of the evidence that exists for evolution. If I exhausted every bit of evidence I know of, I could go out and find twice as much.

"Evolutionist" look at you like you're absurd, because when you say things like this about evolution, you look absurd. 

Seriously, if you think no species can change into something else, what do you think of fossils. I'm honestly bewildered by that.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I find it funny that you have stopped using the word 'theory' and lowered it down to 'hypothesis.'


It is what it is...





> A primate didn't just give birth to a human


At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.

And stop insulting my intelligence...

----------


## DanielBenoit

> It is what it is...
> 
> 
> 
> At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.


Was about to reply, but thankfully OrphanPip supplied a lucid and intelligent answer.




> And stop insulting my intelligence...


Stop insulting the scientist's.

End-note: I find it funny how creationists when engaging in a debate, always seem to have very little understanding of the simple basics of evolution.

----------


## OrphanPip

> At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.
> 
> And stop insulting my intelligence...


They went extinct...

None of the contemporaries of the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans are alive either.

There are around 15 species of hominid identified in the fossil record that lie between us and the MRCA of chimps and humans.

Greater than 99.9% of species found in the fossil record are extinct.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The vast majority do accept the THEORY of evolution, not the hypothesis.


At one time, the vast majority of the world actually believed that the world was flat. At one time, the vast majority believed that the earth of the center of the universe. All of this under the authority of THE CHURCH. Well, this current hypothesis is CALLED a theory, so therefore, everyone just accepts it.

I'm not going to address every little point of your arguments, because they are diversionary in nature.

Where is the chain of evolution? Don't tell me that every link has died off. I don't buy that. We aren't just talking about every link from primate to human, but also in every species on the earth. We witness all species only reproducing within its own species. Nothing is crawling up onto the shore. No one is walking around dragging their knuckles. Please don't open up any new arguments until you answer this one.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> They went extinct...
> 
> .........
> 
> Greater than 99.9% of species found in the fossil record are extinct.


Oh...really! THAT is a new one...

Then there should be PLENTY of WHOLE fossils......but we never find WHOLE fossils of the evolutionary links. The evidence doesn't exist. Show me pictures that are not just drawings.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> At one time, the vast majority of the world actually believed that the world was flat. At one time, the vast majority believed that the earth of the center of the universe. All of this under the authority of THE CHURCH. Well, this current hypothesis is CALLED a theory, so therefore, everyone just accepts it.


That's because they were indoctrinated by _religious dogma_. As a matter of fact, the ancient Greek mathematically proved that the earth was round over 2500 years before Columbus. People just didn't buy it because of _religious dogma set up by the church_. I wonder if that still happens today?  :Rolleyes: 

Science changes dude. We don't have all the answers nor do we pretend to. Science does not present itself as _the absolute truth_ as religion does. Evolution is merely the best theory we have right now. Understand, science has no way at coming to _absolute_ conclusions. That does not discredit evolution, because right now we have every reason to believe that it is true, just as we have every reason to believe in Copernicean astronomy.




> I'm not going to address every little point of your arguments, because they are diversionary in nature.


If you refuse to engage us, we refuse to engage back. _ Address our points and we will address yours_

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> That's because they were indoctrinated by _religious dogma_. As a matter of fact, the ancient Greek mathematically proved that the earth was round over 2500 years before Columbus. People just didn't buy it because of _religious dogma set up by the church_. I wonder if that still happens today?


Yes...but now it's called scientific dogma...

I only wish that you would STOP engaging my statements of faith and truth. But you seem to love to try to prove my thoughts and opinions to be wrong. If you wish to have faith the the hypothesis and 'theories' of those who advocate evolutionary processes, you are more than welcome to do that. If you wish to believe that all things just came about with no direction or guidance, by forces that came from no where, and that all things are an accident...that is your prerogative.


I wish to believe the evidence that the earth is about 6,000 years old and designed by a supernatural Being that is greater and more intelligent that what we see around us.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Where is the chain of evolution? Don't tell me that every link has died off. I don't buy that. We aren't just talking about every link from primate to human, but also in every species on the earth. We witness all species only reproducing within its own species. Nothing is crawling up onto the shore. No one is walking around dragging their knuckles. Please don't open up any new arguments until you answer this one.


This notion of a chain is a bit misleading to begin with. Evolution is better thought of in terms of clades, with branches.

I can address every one of these points.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by having a problem with every species on Earth. We have transitional fossils and species from all sorts of genuses and orders. It is just a fact of life that the species extant in one period are not the same as those extant in others, for one genetic drift alone would result in new structures and breeding isolation if geographic isolation occured.

The problem with why one may think they observe that species only breed within themselves is mostly because the common public is only familiar with the "biological species" definition of species. This is the definition of a species based on breeding isolation. However, if one looks closely at living things you'll find this isn't really an adequate definition of species. Lion and tigers can breed, but aren't the same species. So can horses and donkeys. Interbreeding amongst different plant species is even more common. 

Although, the reason why different looking organisms so often can't breed with each other is because breeding isolation is often a major cause for evolutionary diversification. Genetic drift in isolated population results in significant enough change in the receptors of the sperm, eggs, and chemoattractants that two populations geographically separated can become breeding isolates. This can be seen in ring species. 



In this example of Atlantic sea gulls arrows represent populations capable of interbreeding. You can see how geographical isolation and genetic drift can result in breeding isolation.

As to why we don't often see fish evolving into amphibians as must of happened once in the past. Well for one the niche is now sadly filled by an abundance of land animals that it would not be evolutionarily advantageous. Moreover, we do see fish species that are on this cusp. There are air breathing fish in low oxygen rivers like the Amazon.

I don't see why you would expect people to be dragging their arms. You seem not to understand how gradual speciesation occurs. It doesn't happen with just a single individual, an entire isolated population changes gradually over time.




> Oh...really! THAT is a new one...
> 
> Then there should be PLENTY of WHOLE fossils......but we never find WHOLE fossils of the evolutionary links. The evidence doesn't exist. Show me pictures that are not just drawings.


Fossilization is a very rare event, most species that have existed only ever existed in populations of a couple hundred at a time, we will likely never know of every species that ever existed.

Besides that point, there are complete fossils of H. erectus (dear old lucy) as well as ergaster, habilis, heidelbergensis.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> I wish to believe the evidence that the earth is about 6,000 years old and designed by a supernatural Being that is greater and more intelligent that what we see around us.


That's totally cool. Have at it. Just don't expect to not be criticized when you say that. I'll speak for myself, but those who attack statements like that aren't attacking _you_ or demanding that _you_ change your mind, but rather as a means of presenting an opposition for those reading or listening. If I were to make a thread and announce "Copernicean astronomy is nonsense and the earth is the center of the universe!" one would expect our fellow intellectuals to discredit such a statement, not for the sake of the one who stated it, but for those who are being fed non-facts.

You may keep your faith, and we may be allowed to criticize it.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Lion and tigers can breed, but aren't the same species. So can horses and donkeys. Interbreeding amongst different plant species is even more common.


A lot of words, but really nothing...

Lions and tigers...both cats...let's try a...Wolf and a Lion...what happens?

Horse and donkey....BAD example....mules which result are sterile...the end of the line in that "evolution"...

----------


## OrphanPip

> A lot of words, but really nothing...
> 
> Lions and tigers...both cats...let's try a...Wolf and a Lion...what happens?
> 
> Horse and donkey....BAD example....mules which result are sterile...the end of the line in that "evolution"...


Evolution doesn't occur via hybridization, I don't see your point.

I was just pointing out that the notion that species are perfect breeding isolates is not as true as is thought by the general public. Like I said before, speciesation occurs out of a breeding group isolated from it's parent group.

e.g.

You have a group of wombats who live happily in a field, then a rift in the Earth opens up in the middle of the group. The group has now been divided in two, you now have two breeding groups. Just by genetic drift alone there is a chance that these two groups will become biological breeding isolates. Over time both groups are likely to change and become two new separate species. Where one or the other might go extinct, they might both live on, or they might both go extinct.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You have a group of wombats who live happily in a field, then a rift in the Earth opens up in the middle of the group. The group has now been divided in two, you now have two breeding groups. Just by genetic drift alone there is a chance that these two groups will become biological breeding isolates. Over time both groups are likely to change and become two new separate species. Where one or the other might go extinct, they might both live on, or they might both go extinct.


Likely?

But we have never witnessed anything like this...therefore it is NOT science... and no better than something based on religious faith. Your ideas are based more on faith than what I base my beliefs on...

So....EVERY evolutionary link...has gone extinct...and you think that my faith is far fetched...

----------


## OrphanPip

> Likely?
> 
> But we have never witnessed anything like this...therefore it is NOT science... and no better than something based on religious faith. Your ideas are based more on faith than what I base my beliefs on...
> 
> So....EVERY evolutionary link...has gone extinct...and you think that my faith is far fetched...


Organisms change constantly, life isn't static, it is not possible for species that existed 1 million years ago to be identical today.

We may not see this today because it takes millions of years. However, you are ignoring the evidence we have of this occurring. The fossil record and phylogenetics both support this happening. Moreover, you're ignoring the fact of ring species, which is an example of this in process today.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Organisms change constantly, life isn't static, it is not possible for species that existed 1 million years ago to be identical today.
> 
> We may not see this today because it takes millions of years. However, you are ignoring the evidence we have of this occurring. The fossil record and phylogenetics both support this happening. Moreover, you're ignoring the fact of ring species, which is an example of this in process today.


How does the fossil record prove that?
I don't believe that the earth is millions of years old. There is very conflicting evidence that makes the age of the earth inconclusive. Carbon dating isn't accurate past about 6,000 years....oh, that's how old some think that the earth is...

We will never solve this without some real conclusive evidence...not just the statement that evidence exists either. I grow tired of the mere statements that there is tons of evidence. Nor does telling me that I 'don't understand' evolution prove itself as a viable argument.

I am done here...

----------


## Babbalanja

> Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?





> I wish to believe the evidence that the earth is about 6,000 years old and designed by a supernatural Being that is greater and more intelligent that what we see around us.


So there you have it, plain as day. This isn't an argument about facts or evidence, it's wishful thinking. I debated creationists for years, refuting every one of their shopworn talking points, until I realized that when they talked about _evidence_, they meant something completely different than what it means to scientific researchers. Creationism isn't a search for tentative knowledge, it's a search for comfortable certainty.

Does anyone still believe faith is a good thing if it motivates people to celebrate their ignorance of modern scientific research? Does anyone still believe credulity is just as valid a path to knowledge about the universe as empirical evidential inquiry?

As for "Why I Believe In God," I've said before that I doubt anyone believes because of logical "proofs" and creationist propaganda. These are just the rationalizations that come afterward.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Odysseus93

Personally I believe that the whole creationist-evolutionist debate is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how you believe the world got here in the first place, as long as you believe that it was created. The bible has been stated as _spiritual_ truth, rather than scientific, and the whole "seven days" analogy is simply an attempt to put time on a being who is by definition, timeless. To put it simply, if God is timeless, as most people believe, couldn't his ""seven days" be billions of years to us? Anyway, shouldnt we be debating whether God exists or not, rather than how he created everything?

----------


## Katy North

> We will never solve this without some real conclusive evidence...not just the statement that evidence exists either. I grow tired of the mere statements that there is tons of evidence. Nor does telling me that I 'don't understand' evolution prove itself as a viable argument.
> 
> I am done here...


You're not going to like me very much but...

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...-1404585051071

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...-1403619443814

And finally, for all you people who don't mind Bill Mahr and humorous critiques on fundamentalism...

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...-1596167291434

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You're not going to like me very much but...


After watching the first video, I concluded that the content has nothing to do with evolution at all. The assumptions made are far reaching. Especially to stretch the observances to humans and primates.

There is nothing really offered here worth consideration as evidence toward evolution.

----------


## OrphanPip

Actually, it's another common example of ring species, it shows how speciesation and breeding isolation occurs gradually.

----------


## JommiL

I wrote in my satire few moths ago, that is funny, that "human being is usually very proud. But still he wants to be more from apes than God."

Why? Because if we admit that God exists, it also means, that we have to make very serious decisions about our life and way how do we live it.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Actually, it's another common example of ring species, it shows how speciesation and breeding isolation occurs gradually.


Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Why? Because if we admit that God exists, it also means, that we have to make very serious decisions about our life and way how do we live it.


One can say the same for theists who refuse to believe that they are a result of natural selection because to them it would make them deal with questions such as the meaning of their life in this new and different perspective. Bienevu admitted himself that he'd rather believe that he was created by a divine being rather than believe that he came about by "random chance". (which is not how evolution works if you know the meaning of natural selection.)




> Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...


Please, show me where these "Grand Canyon size gaps" are. Yes like all scientific theories, evolution does have gaps. You know why? Because science isn't like religion and learns more and evolves as it progresses. 

Orphan Pip and Katy North have taken the trouble to link you all of this information, at least you could give us your objections to it instead of just outright saying _there are a ton of gaps_, without even having the courtesy to point out to us where these gaps are.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...


I don't get how it isn't evidence. If you ask the question, how does one breeding population become two isolated populations over time? Then ring species are a clear example of how it happens.

Edit: All it would take is for the salamander species in the North to go extinct, to leave you with two genetically isolated populations incapable of interbreeding.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Please, show me where these "Grand Canyon size gaps" are.


 :Rolleyes: 

This is the conspiracy-theorist's stock in trade, concentrating on a list of perceived anomalies in a coherent model instead of proposing one of his own. Do you think it's merely coincidental that we're never allowed to consider the "gaps" in creationism, or gauge its statistical unlikelihood?

This is never a matter of someone actually wanting to learn. It's just the scattershot denials of someone with a bad science education and an axe to grind. If you address every point the denier makes, he'll welcome every one of your patient, rational responses by sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting _I can't hear you la la la!_

Anyone want to make a bet?

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Edit: All it would take is for the salamander species in the North to go extinct, to leave you with two genetically isolated populations incapable of interbreeding.


That is an unsubstantiated conclusion of the evolutionists...who are trying to prove the hypothesis...

----------


## OrphanPip

> That is an unsubstantiated conclusion of the evolutionists...who are trying to prove the hypothesis...


No this was a prediction made by evolutionary theory far before we ever had the ability to understand the process at a genetic and molecular level. It strengthens the evolutionary theory that the more we learn about biological processes the more supported the theory is.

I don't see how you can't see that conclusion as plain evident. If the two species at the extremes of the "ring", which is more like a horseshoe, are not able to breed with each other, but still have gene flow between each other because of interbreeding along the ring. Then these two populations of salamander on the extremes are at the cusp of being separate species, if you cut off the gene flow between them, they would have nothing to relate them except ancestry.

----------


## JommiL

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
> It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.


_That's because the discoveries in science confirm evolution._

If God sets natures laws, then of course He too must've been under some kind of law in order to set them. Also, who says that the laws of nature needed a _setter_? If anything they are tautological results from situation like when two atoms collide. It's rather misguiding when we use the word 'laws' when refering to the nature of the universe, as if they were laws of jurisdiction and so forth. The 'laws' of science are our way of systematically describing situations by means of induction, so that we can make predictions, create new technology and so forth. The laws of motion are merely our systemization of a universally common occurrence amongst objects in space. There's no actual naturalistic 'law' written on a tablet in space saying 'In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.'

----------


## JommiL

> _That's because the discoveries in science confirm evolution._
> 
> - No they are not. They only confirm that we must be very, very humble.
> 
> If God sets natures laws, then of course He too must've been under some kind of law in order to set them.
> 
> - Why He should be? If we compare God and man, man must create things with has been before, but this has nothing to do with God - He is allmighty. He creates, we just copy.
> 
> Also, who says that the laws of nature needed a _setter_?
> ...


- Laws of science - well described. We are just schoolboys. Also predictions will base in trust of laws and solid patterns, which will appear all around us.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> - No they are not. They only confirm that we must be very, very humble.


Very well. You keep your humility and we will keep our anti-biotics, modern medicine, etc.




> - Why He should be? If we compare God and man, man must create things with has been before, but this has nothing to do with God - He is allmighty. He creates, we just copy.


That's your assumption. You may have it.




> Well, as Einstein said, God does not throw the dice with universe, so... :o)


I don't see how this has any relation to the point I was making. Besides, that Einstein quote was in reference to his disagreement with quantum theory. Turns out he was wrong.

----------


## Virgil

Oh my God, this goes on and on and on. Let me just address this and get the hell out this thread and all religious threads.




> Man, I really dislike it when either sides of the theist/atheist spectrum use what these men said as spokesmen for their own beliefs. But what I dislike even more is when they use these men's personal beliefs as arguments against a certain scientific theory they happen to dislike.


Oh Daniel, I wasn't just appealing to any authority to defend my argument. Between this thread and others I' laid out what the correct Intelligent Design argument is. I appealed to Einstein and Newton only because the dope I was arguing with had an implicint appeal to his authority: "From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical" and "that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times." That's his indirect way to appeal to authority. I was refuting (after I had already laid out my argument) with other authority. The point being that there is no consensus.




> Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?


I don't know what you're referring to. I believe in evolution and I said so many times.





> Leaving aside criticisms of causality itself in both philosophy and quantum physics, I would like to simple point out that in your analogy of the dead body and the wire, you forcibly inject God into it. If I were a police officer at a crime scene, I would conclude that the dead body was caused by the wire because I _saw_ it right there and made inductive conclusions. This example is ridiculous when compared to the _existence_ of a supernatural entity. No one is denying the existence of the wire because it is _ perceivable_ through the senses. The unmoved mover (to use the Aristililean term) is no where in the picture in scientific revelation, He is merely semantically injected into it as the definition of the _cause_ of the revelation _a priori_. To summarize it, you are assuming that God is even there, and thus the cause. The wire _is_ there and thus can reasonably be concluded to be the cause. 
> 
> Now I'm not even an empiricist when it comes to these deep philosophical questions of the universe, but I am as almost everyone else is when it comes to everyday life. This is why I've disliked these analogies which are so simplistic and hardly match the question at hand.


Oh Daniel, you didn't understand. I wasn't using the tripping as an analogy to proving God. I was using it to show the fallacy of the dope's claim that I was fallacious to "affirming the consequence." Affirming the consequence is used all the time. It is not fallacious. In fact I would say all scientific discoveries are in essence affirming the consequence. The scientific method is affirming the consequence. In fact that is how Darwin supports the theory of evolution, by observing the consequence and building an argument on how the consequence occured.

*I'm am out of here.*

----------


## Babbalanja

My dearest friend Virgil,

I'm not sure what problem you have with your Internet connection, but you must not have seen the part of my post where I explicitly explained the logical and methodological flaws in the Argument from Design. To reiterate, you can't use your conclusion to validate your major premise. It's not at all an appeal to authority.

But, no matter. You have seen fit to move on to your other favorite logical constructs such as the Appeal to Arrogance and the Argument from Unprovoked Personal Abuse. I simply assume that calling me a "dope" has to compensate for your inability to engage any of my actual statements.




> Oh my God, this goes on and on and on. Let me just address this and get the hell out this thread and all religious threads.


In the interests of your emotional health, I wish you would avoid taking part in discussions wherein you seem unable to control your temper. 

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## IceM

> Likely?
> 
> *But we have never witnessed anything like this*...therefore it is NOT science... and no better than something based on religious faith. Your ideas are based more on faith than what I base my beliefs on...
> 
> So....EVERY evolutionary link...has gone extinct...and you think that my faith is far fetched...


Charles Darwin discovered that on the Galapagos Islands, different islands had different birds; some islands featured birds with smaller beaks, some with larger, some with sharper talons, some with different mating calls. The species different in correlation with different topography. Over the 5-ish years spent observing the finches, Darwin realized that the finches changed over time--natural selection. As a previous poster said, the distance between islands ultimately led to different species.

If you choose to view this as myth or some "non-scientific study" feel free to do so. I won't blame you for adhering to ignorant dogma. I'll just consider you delusional.




> *Science learns? It does not learn anything.* Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
> It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.


You're right; science doesn't learn. But the scientists that perpetuate and augment scientific theories do. Hardly any study found in science is catered to the topic of evolution just as any hardly any other finding on lung cancer is catered to cigarette smoke (for there are other causes). But if you want to consider science as some blasphemous, irrelevant field of study while your "beliefs" are superior, by all means, do so. Just understand that I'm allergic to illogicality and ignorance.

 :Puke:

----------


## JommiL

Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?

I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?
> 
> I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?
> 
> BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.


Great comments!!

----------


## OrphanPip

> Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?
> 
> I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?
> 
> BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.


Besides the fact that you're misquoting Einstein, who was speaking of his disbelief in the probabilistic nature of quantum physics, and the fact that Einstein was wrong on this one.

Order appears spontaneously all the time. Snowflakes form spontaneously and are highly ordered structures, as are claybeds, rock strata, whirlpools, etc. 

The analogy of man made objects is a false analogy. As to moons and stars being more accurate than wristwatches... Well that's just silly. Time first of all is relative based on the velocity you are traveling at. If you're traveling at the speed of light time for you would progress slower than it would be for us here on Earth. Although, you wouldn't notice because it is relative, time would progress relatively slower for you, but for you on the spaceship traveling at light speed it would feel normal.

Also, days, minutes, and seconds are man made concepts for measuring time, and I don't see how you think stars and moons measure time... I could arbitrarily decide that a minute is 75 seconds and then that would make every hour 48 minutes, my system of time measurement would be just as consistent as yours, I would just have to make a second mean a different measurement of time. If I were on Mars the moons would pass several times in an "Earth day", but a Mars year would be several Earth years.

----------


## AimusSage

The problem with science is that it moves at an incredibly fast and increasing rate, almost everyday discoveries are made that correct previous assumptions. What people learn in their physics or chemistry class in high school is almost always outdated. Only if you are a scientist yourself in a particular field is it possible to be on the cutting edge. As such people tend to stick with what they know of science and disregard it subsequently as not fitting their own view of the universe, nature or whatever you want to call it.

Comprehending science is not easy, and sometimes it is easier to simply belief in 'something', many people say they belief in science, but what they really are saying is that science is their new religion. This is more or less equal to believing in God, which was the explanation given to natural phenomena in times when science wasn't advanced enough to explain them. The idea of God stuck and evolved only slightly from a natural phenomena to for example an entity that created and or controls nature/ and now people are taught that God exist, much the same way nowadays people belief that what science says is always true. The skeptic and other critical thinkers understand that nothing is certain, but that we can assume certain aspects of science, such as evolution to be accurate based on empirical evidence, even though it can always benefit from further evidence.

I do not want to deny anyone the right to belief what they want, but I do wish to encourage critical thinking, and as such I will always question their belief, as I do my own convictions, I have yet to hear a reasonable, critical explanation for the belief in a God such as the Judeo-Christian God of the bible and Torah. I recognize that people can find strength in their beliefs. What I regret is that they do not realize that the strength is already there in their own personality/existence without the need of a God or other superior being to guide them.

----------


## Babbalanja

> BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.


By the way, that's exactly what suggests that the process by which Nature got that way is quite different than the process by which man creates, i.e. intelligent design.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## MSDGreen

> Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?
> 
> I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?
> 
> BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.


Where did God come from?

----------


## Lacra

> Where did God come from?


Hehehhe, you remind me something. Long time ago, my first graders used to ask me this : "Where did God come from? "

----------


## JuniperWoolf

I don't know why we keep arguing. The more we try to hammer the point home, the more creationists plug their ears and close their eyes... "la la la la I can't hear you!" I don't know why they keep at it, but they do. It is more reasonable to think up a religious theory that takes evolution into account, you can't just _ignore_ scientific facts and hope that they go away. I don't know how you would go about blending science and religion, maybe mutation/natural selection/evolution is the mechanism by which god(s) act... whatever, the point is, I can't respect any religion that chooses to ignore facts outright rather than change with the times. That's counter-productive.




> I simply assume that calling me a "dope" has to compensate for your inability to engage any of my actual statements.


Haha, don't feel bad. Once, I disagreed with Virgil about American politics so he wrote:




> Certainly it would have been interesting to have discussed this with someone who had knowledge of history or economics or had a job or paid bills or had been out in the world or even visited the United States. This is what happens when some 20 year old dope is fed a bunch of garbage over the internet and thinks they understand another country.


It's always the quiet ones.




> Hehehhe, you remind me something. Long time ago, my first graders used to ask me this : "Where did God come from? "


Out of the mouthes of babes.

----------


## MSDGreen

> Hehehhe, you remind me something. Long time ago, my first graders used to ask me this : "Where did God come from? "


The post that I was replying to was trying to say that because something exists, such as a watch, then it unreasonable to say that it came from nothing. Well using that logic, and assuming that God does exist then he/she must have been created by something intelligent, or must be designed. Watches were made by man, and so was God*. Maybe you could get one of your first graders to draw it out in crayon for you? 

*This opinion has been crafted by the facts as they are. Should someone offer proof that there is indeed a God/Gods I will gladly change that.**

**Not being able to disprove something does not make that certain something true.

----------


## Lacra

> The post that I was replying to was trying to say that because something exists, such as a watch, then it unreasonable to say that it came from nothing. Well using that logic, and assuming that God does exist then he/she must have been created by something intelligent, or must be designed. Watches were made by man, and so was God*. Maybe you could get one of your first graders to draw it out in crayon for you? 
> 
> *This opinion has been crafted by the facts as they are. Should someone offer proof that there is indeed a God/Gods I will gladly change that.**
> 
> **Not being able to disprove something does not make that certain something true.


To draw for me? Why for me? My answer wasn't ironical, it was just memory, that's all!

----------


## JommiL

Funny thing, and revealing; Human mind is so tiny to understand eternity. As bible says, God has no beginning and no end.

----------


## MSDGreen

> To draw for me? Why for me? My answer wasn't ironical, it was just memory, that's all!


If that is the case I apologize. I am glad that I could bring a moment of nostalgia for you. I hope you do understand how one can view your comment as being ironical.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Funny thing, and revealing; Human mind is so tiny to understand eternity. As bible says, God has no beginning and no end.


That which is Spirit can be eternal, while that which is physical cannot...according to our Laws of Physics...

----------


## DanielBenoit

> That which is Spirit can be eternal, while that which is physical cannot...according to our Laws of Physics...


Dude, the Laws of Physics say nothing about "Spirit" or "eternity", in case you didn't know, physics has _nothing_ to do with anything but the physical world, it has nothing to say about the spiritual world or it's existence/non-existence because it isn't philosophy or religion.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> while that which is physical cannot...according to our Laws of Physics...


2nd Law

----------


## Babbalanja

> That which is Spirit can be eternal, while that which is physical cannot...according to our Laws of Physics...


Which particular law of physics is that? Did they repeal the first law of thermodynamics ("Energy and Matter in the universe are constant") when no one was looking?

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Haunted

> Dude, the Laws of Physics say nothing about "Spirit" or "eternity", in case you didn't know, physics has _nothing_ to do with anything but the physical world, it has nothing to say about the spiritual world or it's existence/non-existence because it isn't philosophy or religion.


Daniel, check out a book called the Physics of Christianity...there are also other books written by physicists that cover the subject of cosmological singularity.

----------


## Scheherazade

*W a r n i n g

Posts containing personal/inflammatory/disrespectful comments will be removed.

If you are not familiar with the Religious Texts Forum Rules, please read them before carrying on.*

----------


## JommiL

Orphan; No it is not silly. Because scientists can calculate exact position for moon and planets, because they are moving extremely accurate.

Let me ask one question; EVERY material in this world will shrink when it´s temperature is getting colder. But there´s one exception. What it is? Water. Why? Because if water would shrink when it turns into ice, it would get more heavier than normal water, and it would sink into bottom of the seas. Result would be that quite soon bottom of the seas would be filled with ice. Do you think this is just coincidence?

Let´s get forward; Why earth is in angled? It´s position is not straight. If it would be straight, other side on the earth would be very hot, and other would be filled with ice. No reason to say, would this kind of circumstances allow that kind of rich life, that we see here now? Now when that little angle exists, we have opportunity to see and feel and live in different seasons.

And also; If nature has no laws, why very often we must copy things from it? Very few materials has that kind of features that there´s in nature. Let´s think about bones. Bones has very strong structure, they are very tough, but still they are very, very light. What happen, if our bones would be something like a steel? Moving would be quite difficult. And why bones are often hollow? Because hollow bone is A/ lighter and B/ stronger than solid one.

What if ozon layer would missing? What if earth would be littlebit more closer on farer from the sun? What if there´s no such thing like gravity? Can you imagine? Why just we have something like air? How our senses, mind, consciousness and thought are born? How we can see colours? Are these coincidences too? If you see even a henhouse in the fields, you would ever believe, if i told you that it came from nothing. And gravity... well, it is littlebit larger and more difficult thing than henhouse.

Perhaps you should read some chapters from book of Job, for example 38 and 39, and think again about your question?

----------


## OrphanPip

I have no idea where you learned basic chemistry, but I suggest you go back to it. All liquids become more dense as they get colder, as ice forms it becomes less dense because of the structure of the rigid hydrogen bonds. 

The notion of the fine-tuned Earth is by itself logically flawed. If the Earth were not capable of sustaining life, then life would not have been able to evolve, or it would have evolved differently.

You are attaching tautologies to natural processes because you want to see a purpose in it. What you are doing is no different from the ancient Greeks assuming that lightning was the anger of the gods.

----------


## MSDGreen

> Orphan; No it is not silly. Because scientists can calculate exact position for moon and planets, because they are moving extremely accurate.
> 
> Let me ask one question; EVERY material in this world will shrink when it´s temperature is getting colder. But there´s one exception. What it is? Water. Why? Because if water would shrink when it turns into ice, it would get more heavier than normal water, and it would sink into bottom of the seas. Result would be that quite soon bottom of the seas would be filled with ice. Do you think this is just coincidence?
> 
> Let´s get forward; Why earth is in angled? It´s position is not straight. If it would be straight, other side on the earth would be very hot, and other would be filled with ice. No reason to say, would this kind of circumstances allow that kind of rich life, that we see here now? Now when that little angle exists, we have opportunity to see and feel and live in different seasons.
> 
> And also; If nature has no laws, why very often we must copy things from it? Very few materials has that kind of features that there´s in nature. Let´s think about bones. Bones has very strong structure, they are very tough, but still they are very, very light. What happen, if our bones would be something like a steel? Moving would be quite difficult. And why bones are often hollow? Because hollow bone is A/ lighter and B/ stronger than solid one.
> 
> What if ozon layer would missing? What if earth would be littlebit more closer on farer from the sun? What if there´s no such thing like gravity? Can you imagine? Why just we have something like air? How our senses, mind, consciousness and thought are born? How we can see colours? Are these coincidences too? If you see even a henhouse in the fields, you would ever believe, if i told you that it came from nothing. And gravity... well, it is littlebit larger and more difficult thing than henhouse.
> ...



And yet none of these things mean that it was designed. There are a seemingly endless amount of planets orbiting a seemingly endless amount of stars. (I am no astronomer by any means, but this is my understanding of it). What are the chances that one of these or many of these planets have the capabilities to support life or act exactly as the earth acts. When given so many possibilities it seems plausible that what has happened would happen, given a large enough pool of possibilities. It is truly amazing that we are here, and it does feel like a gift to be alive, but to chalk all this up to a all powerful being without any proof that one does or ever did exist is not an option for me. In my opinion, it takes away of what is actually amazing about Earth.

----------


## JommiL

Well, then too all those wristwatches are from emptiness, no-one has build them...

But you got the point of water anyway. Dont you?

Lets ask this way; What would be proof of designing to you?

----------


## MSDGreen

> Well, then too all those wristwatches are from emptiness, no-one has build them...
> 
> But you got the point of water anyway. Dont you?
> 
> Lets ask this way; What would be proof of designing to you?


Gallium exands when frozen too. Short of a manifestation by a deity, that is not induced in a dream state or a hallucination, a miracle I guess, witnessing something that is impossible.

What would it take to shake your faith to the point where you could no longer believe in your creator?

----------


## Haunted

> What would it take to shake your faith to the point where you could no longer believe in your creator?


why is this necessary? Please respect the rights of others to their beliefs. Thanks.

----------


## NikolaiI

> The post that I was replying to was trying to say that because something exists, such as a watch, then it unreasonable to say that it came from nothing. Well using that logic, and assuming that God does exist then he/she must have been created by something intelligent, or must be designed. Watches were made by man, and so was God*. Maybe you could get one of your first graders to draw it out in crayon for you? 
> 
> *This opinion has been crafted by the facts as they are. Should someone offer proof that there is indeed a God/Gods I will gladly change that.**
> 
> **Not being able to disprove something does not make that certain something true.


Yes.. I am familiar with this argument. But let's use the word "source" for a moment instead of "creator." 

The first question to address is, "does everything have a source?"

I believe the answer to this is fairly clearly yes. Everything does indeed have a source. Now the idea that because everything has a source, there can't be an original source of everything, that doesn't make sense -- and yet that is what the argument used boils down to. The argument says, "Well, what is the source of the original source?" And if there isn't a good answer, then the conclusion "There is no source." But this doesn't disprove that everything has a source...

So I guess it comes down simply to that question, Does everything have a source? Does the universe have a source? If everything does, then the universe does...

Anyway it's remarkable how universal this idea is... and in fact how many people's spirituality consists of this... and not a God who smites people.

In my mind it's clear that it is a logical idea to say the universe has a source, and that there are existences, realities, dimensions, beyond what we currently know. To say there's no dimensions, realities, existence beyond what we know _at this moment_, to say there cannot be, that is the height of ignorance...

----------


## JommiL

> why is this necessary? Please respect the rights of others to their beliefs. Thanks.


Good point but i´ll give my answer;

Just because there´s too much things in life that cannot find from wordbook of atheists. There´s too many "coincidents" in this universe, which - in VERY strange way are just too perfect.

----------


## MarkBastable

_Why earth is in angled? It´s position is not straight. If it would be straight, other side on the earth would be very hot, and other would be filled with ice. No reason to say, would this kind of circumstances allow that kind of rich life, that we see here now? Now when that little angle exists, we have opportunity to see and feel and live in different seasons._


Yeah - good point!! And another thing - if there's no God, how come all the Australian animals are in Australia? I mean, not _most_ of them - _every single one_! 

Coincidence??!?? I think _not_, Mr Arnie so-called Atheist.

----------


## Babbalanja

> And another thing - if there's no God, how come all the Australian animals are in Australia? I mean, not _most_ of them - _every single one_! 
> 
> Coincidence??!?? I think _not_, Mr Arnie so-called Atheist.


Amen, brother. I also think it's significant that in God's precise and perfect Creation, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is exactly 22 divided by 7. 

Not _about_ 22 divided by seven, _exactly_ 22 divided by seven.

Explain how that happens without an omnipotent Creator.

Regards,

Istvan Pangloss

----------


## MarkBastable

Actually, if we had twenty-two fingers and seven toes and a perfectly round head, I'd probably believe in God.





> Amen, brother. I also think it's significant that in God's precise and perfect Creation, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is exactly 22 divided by 7. 
> 
> Not _about_ 22 divided by seven, _exactly_ 22 divided by seven.
> 
> Explain how that happens without an omnipotent Creator.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Istvan Pangloss

----------


## MSDGreen

> why is this necessary? Please respect the rights of others to their beliefs. Thanks.


Please understand I am not trying take away anyones right to believe what they like. A question was asked of me and I answered as best I could and returned the question. The question was modified so that it was relevant. If you don't want to answer the question that is fine, but try to respect my right to ask people questions. Thanks.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Actually, if we had twenty-two fingers and seven toes and a perfectly round head, I'd probably believe in God.


Enough of your impiety, Mark. 

Consider the fact that if the loving Creator hadn't made retroviruses, trypanosomes, and birth defects, scientists wouldn't have to expand their knowledge to try to eradicate these things. And then where would we be?

Hard evidence, my friend, that the Lord works in mysterious ways.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## NikolaiI

> Good point but i´ll give my answer;
> 
> Just because there´s too much things in life that cannot find from wordbook of atheists. There´s too many "coincidents" in this universe, which - in VERY strange way are just too perfect.


Your faith is a good thing for all of us.  :Smile: 

What I don't get... those militant atheist... when I used to read their posts.. they consider all of us believers to be the "same." Even though some are fundamentalists, some are liberals, etc., etc... for me God is the sacred, the holy, the consecrate, the divine... the divine being full bliss, peace, knowledge, power, etc...

And scientists have come to a conclusion... that the universe is a like a holographic universe...and an infinitely repeating fractal pattern... which is something I thought of long before...

Some people don't realize this and that the scientists have come to these conclusions, which reveal a lot of beauty, complexity, (also simplicity) and mystery to the universe... they just hate those things!.. they would prefer every scientists to be a staunch atheist.  :Tongue:

----------


## JommiL

MSDGreen, yes, i understand your point.

Mark; Ah, How´s in Australia? I truly want to visit in that country in some day. I Live in Finland - and it is very cold in here and winter... well, a LOT more of snow in here than in Australia!

Good question. Also there was Indians in America, Blacks in Africa, idiots in Finland etc. No-one knows exactly, how old earth is, but to ME it could make sense, that in some day - many, many thousands years ago earth´s ground was much more solid. If you check out the world map, you see, that Africa and south-America will fit together as figure? Anyway, my point of view is that if this theory is true, perhaps kangaroos had one large population earlier in specific location - in that magnificent, endless landscape on Australia, and then land fell down, and water separated Australia from mainland? Fact is, that land is living all the time. Most of the kangaroos had to stay in Australia, and then, after all, population was stronger there? Also human being and most of the animals MUST stay with they friends and with they race, because other oppornity is to die.

Think this and tell me, what do you think? I will gladly hear your opinion.

----------


## prendrelemick

> Well, then too all those wristwatches are from emptiness, no-one has build them...
> 
> But you got the point of water anyway. Dont you?
> 
> Lets ask this way; What would be proof of designing to you?






Perhaps a big sign written in the sky. He could use the northern lights or something. It could say: "HELLO DOWN THERE! Yes it's me, GOD, and I did create the Universe- so think on!" 

That would be enough. Not much to ask of someone who can make ice bergs float, is it?

----------


## Babbalanja

> And scientists have come to a conclusion... that the universe is a like a holographic universe...and an infinitely repeating fractal pattern... which is something I thought of long before...
> 
> Some people don't realize this and that the scientists have come to these conclusions, which reveal a lot of beauty, complexity, (also simplicity) and mystery to the universe... they just hate those things!.. they would prefer every scientists to be a staunch atheist.


I just wonder why it matters what scientists think. Many times I've said that I believe people profess faith for reasons that have nothing to do with facts and evidence. All this talk about the _physics of religion_ seems irrelevant.

What I'd prefer is that believers be honest about the reason for their faith, that it's something that comes from within each one of them. No more cod statistics. No more pseudoscientific rationalizations. And no more of your New Age word salads. 

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## MarkBastable

> What I don't get... those militant atheist... when I used to read their posts.. they consider all of us believers to be the "same." Even though some are fundamentalists, some are liberals, etc., etc...


Speaking as a militant atheist, I don't think that's true. Amongst my siblings, with whom I get on very well, I can identify the following: a staunch Baptist who's a pillar of the church; a trained minister who lost his faith in God but who has developed a fondness for the rituals of the Catholic Church; a pragmatic agnostic who as a young and less sceptical man smuggled Bibles into Soviet Russia; and a sister who's entirely unengaged with any kind of religious debate on the basis that it's less interesting than almost everything else. I have atheist friends, Christian friends, Muslim friends, Jewish friends and Hindu friends. (This isn't because I'm a particularly gregarious and tolerant guy - it just goes with being a Londoner.)

But sticking with the varied range of beliefs, currently and historically, among my siblings, I think it's worth asking why we get on well. It's because we share a view of the world that has to do with tolerance, kindness and the free, mutual expression of intellectual mockery - directed, often, at each other. We argue when we need to, we show utter lack of respect for each other's views when it amuses us to do so and we simply accept each other when that's what'll keep us all happy.

My Christian brother honestly believes that the fires of Hell await me, my (Catholic) wife and, unless something is done, my children. I think that he's kidding himself if he thinks he can avoid oblivion. However, we don't let any of this spoil dessert.

----------


## atiguhya padma

I don't see why religious beliefs should need the protection of some code of respect. Either beliefs stand up for themselves through reasoned argument or they don't. If they don't then we shouldn't expect people of reason to refrain from showing how ridiculous or irrelevant they are. Besides, beliefs should be criticised. And in doing so, it is not the believer or any individual that is under attack. It is the belief or view that is being held. If you feel that you are your belief or that your view is inextricably linked to your self, then that's your problem.

----------


## JommiL

> Perhaps a big sign written in the sky. He could use the northern lights or something. It could say: "HELLO DOWN THERE! Yes it's me, GOD, and I did create the Universe- so think on!" 
> 
> That would be enough. Not much to ask of someone who can make ice bergs float, is it?



No, you would not do that, it´s only that airplane with some smoke in the tail...

Why? Do you understand, that that sign exists in WHOLE universe? And BTW: Do you remember, what happened to Noah? Do you remember, that road to tree was guarded with two angels & flaming sword. Noah told that flood will come. And still no-one listened. This is very good point to think - it is NOT even matter of faith always, only caring.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> No, you would not do that, it´s only that airplane with some smoke in the tail...
> 
> Why? Do you understand, that that sign exists in WHOLE universe? And BTW: Do you remember, what happened to Noah? Do you remember, that road to tree was guarded with two angels & flaming sword. Noah told that flood will come. And still no-one listened. This is very good point to think - it is NOT even matter of faith always, only caring.


Not to mention the Pharisees who tried to discredit Christ's miracles as being from Beelzebub. If people don't want to believe, then they will deny anything.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Actually the crux of the matter is, if you want to believe you'll believe anything. Virgin birth? No problem. Raising people from the dead? No problem. Miracles happening in a physical predictable universe? No problem. All you need is the mindset to support any irrational claim, and you'll believe it. Bit like fairy stories and folk tales.

----------


## blazeofglory

For all ideas originate from our beliefs and by believing in something we form our ideas. The idea of god therefore precedes the existence of god for us. I do not mean god comes after our idea but our capacity to understand the existence of god.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I don't see why religious beliefs should need the protection of some code of respect. Either beliefs stand up for themselves through reasoned argument or they don't. If they don't then we shouldn't expect people of reason to refrain from showing how ridiculous or irrelevant they are. Besides, beliefs should be criticised. And in doing so, it is not the believer or any individual that is under attack. It is the belief or view that is being held. If you feel that you are your belief or that your view is inextricably linked to your self, then that's your problem.


Everyone deserves respect and love. I am not saying that we should show love here, but we should show respect. Especially since that is the law laid down by the authorities of this site. It's not just believers whose beliefs should be respected here but also atheists or anyone - _everyone._ No one should be insulted, ridiculed, etc., for their beliefs and yet they are. By idiots. 

And what you say about separating the person and their beliefs... well, that doesn't hold up too much. Just consider how some people go on the attack... "Well, that is just the stupidest, most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say!"

I think that refutes your objection... the last one, that is.. in your post.. What if someone said that to you? It's not that you have some mis-identity or you identify yourself too much with your belief. It's just that if someone insults your beliefs in a descriptive enough way, then you just don't want to be around or near that kind of negativity...ugliness. Am I wrong, Atiguhya padma?

----------


## prendrelemick

> No, you would not do that, it´s only that airplane with some smoke in the tail...
> 
> Why? Do you understand, that that sign exists in WHOLE universe? And BTW: Do you remember, what happened to Noah? Do you remember, that road to tree was guarded with two angels & flaming sword. Noah told that flood will come. And still no-one listened. This is very good point to think - it is NOT even matter of faith always, only caring.




My point was, some of us need something a bit more unequivocal. This is a cynical age.

----------


## laidbackperson

A lot has been debated about evolution theory in last couple of days and I have come to know about some good theists. 

I will just put my viewpoint.

The evolution theory may not be exact as such but I honestly do not reject the idea that initially there could have been unicellular life, simple organisms, amphibions, vegetation and slowly over the period of times more complex creatures and apes and then humans appeared on earth.
Dinosaurs could well have disappeared due to a big meteorite striking the earth. Species could have survived and become extinct as per survival of the fittest.

Also Bible’s story of seven days could be just symbolic wherein a day could be, lets say more than a billion years as one member has pointed.

However, I also tell myself that many points of this theory may not be conclusive evidence, and may be, things can be explained in some other better way, some future day by science - as science continues in it pursuit of truth. 

Also when we seek truth, we have always to ask -Why?
For e.g. in evolution theory, we can ask - Why should there be tendency to evolve from unicellular life to higher life forms, in first place. 
And if an atheist says it is in nature of things, I will again ask why? If there is an answer for it also, I can put another why before him, and then another why and so on?
Similarly, I can ask why there has to be forces like gravity, or electricity or magnetism and so many other things. 

The answer can be very well in one of NikolaiI’s post where he has used a very correct word- Source. 

True believers can take God as source of all above, as they take God as source of all love and mercy and all other things. 

There is a good chance that life exists in many other planets on universe but why can not be the same God or Power, still responsible for everything.

The idea that, we, human beings, who have the capability to think and love and create life and who have invented aeroplanes, space shuttles, internet, cell phones, nuclear bombs etc are only a coincidental by-product of a hot, dense mass that burst with a big bang some 13 billions year ago, does not jell to me. 

May be, if it could have occurred 15 or 16 billions years ago, it could have made more sense. 

In nut shell, I think there can be many people like me who believe in God and also many points of the evolution theory.

----------


## NikolaiI

> My point was, some of us need something a bit more unequivocal. This is a cynical age.


But this is completely subjective. For one who lost all their possessions and their family, and their friends, they would grieve, perhaps they would recover or perhaps they would become most depressed and cynical. But for another person, let's say they suffered a little less but somehow overcame their problems to come to a peaceful, meaningful, harmonious existence. For them it is not cynical but the opposite. So it is subjective - maybe you see more people today are cynical... but maybe I see more people are becoming enlightened. In fact I think there are so, so many more people these days who are so close to enlightenment. In general people are turning away from fundamentalism and superstition and turning towards logic and spirituality. Many people are finidng peace, and truth within, and finding deep love, and they are sharing it, forming connections... so that is why I say that we are close to being much more enlightened as a race.

----------


## Babbalanja

> I also tell myself that many points of this theory may not be conclusive evidence, and may be, things can be explained in some other better way, some future day by science - as science continues in it pursuit of truth.


I believe the exact same thing. And I believe a better theory will come from scientific researchers, not religiously motivated ideologues.




> Also when we seek truth, we have always to ask -Why?


But as far as natural phenomena go, why do we never get a sufficient answer? The absurdity of the universe---the human condition---is that the _why_ questions are meaningless.





> The idea that, we, human beings, who have the capability to think and love and create life and who have invented aeroplanes, space shuttles, internet, cell phones, nuclear bombs etc are only a coincidental by-product of a hot, dense mass that burst with a big bang some 13 billions year ago, does not jell to me.


Homo Sap has a pretty inflated sense of his own self-worth. He loves to think of himself as God's most beloved creation, or as able to tap into the wellspring of pure Being, or at the very least as the crowning achievement of evolution. None of these things are any more than wishful thinking, part of the boundless narcissism of our species.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Satan

> I understand why - perhaps it has something to do with your alias 
> 
> But remember - there´s a lot on things, that cannot be found in atheists wordbook. Many people think, that believing in God is weakness. But it is not. If anyone really wants to check out, what bible will teach about moral etc. it is very obvious, that it creates lot of strenght.
> There´s many paradoxes in life. One of them is that we must be weak - we must admit that we need each other - to be strong. Being just "strong" without mercy and hope and caring, we are doomed into loneliness, after all. But then we hit our nose into tall, hard wall: No-one can live just alone and survive mentally. For example - as well known fact is - our mental state of mind and ability grow as humans stops otherwise. This is just a basic information about psychology.


I have no qualms with your clinical attempt at reducing the concept of a supreme being to a mere psychological need. Do keep in mind that your all too humane moral projections upon any such entity are only a romantic and narcissistic need to identify and connect yourself with something beyond explanation or knowledge.

I also needn't remind you that the concept of a supreme being and religion are two different things. Morality is mostly a matter of convenience which changes its state with time and place; the reason why civilization needed to invent _legality_ of human actions.




> Thank you. My response was to highlight a logical slip on your part - I find the logical progression for your views usually less salient.


I don't and perhaps you wouldn't either, had you kept the context of the post in mind which I was replying to. Why is that the existence of billions of dead pieces of rock and gas do not ascertain to absence of a creator, but a small obscure green planet becomes _the_ testament to a divine design and authority? What's your _logical_ explanation of this wishful thinking?

If any such being is indeed beyond human perception and logical explanations, then it doesn't matter if you're a believer or not. To quote Ludwig Wittgenstein: "a nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing can be said."

----------


## JommiL

"Satan believes in God, but he will not worship him."

- Pentti Saarikoski, Finnish poet.

"I also needn't remind you that the concept of a supreme being and religion are two different things. Morality is mostly a matter of convenience which changes its state with time and place; the reason why civilization needed to invent legality of human actions."

So very very wrong and no they are NOT. I can assure you, but i believe that you are totally hopeless in this matter.
Anyway, this means that there´s no good or bad. Everyone knows, that they exists. How the heck every time we just do something - like steal, lie etc. - everyone hates it? Believe me, i know satanism very well indeed. It is very easy way to think and see from upper level. It is just VERY big lie in every way.
There´s no such thing that "ubermench". We are just men. What is humanity? We will wound easily, we must stay "in the frontline" if we want to succeed and if we want to be better in every day. But still were are mortals. In this point; Dear Satan, you can live your life as you want to. Everyone has opportunity to choose. But this i´ll tell you; IF you love life, you don´t have any future. You just have some "pleasures" and foolish & full-of-lies feeling about being strong and independent. If you like, live it. But i dont want that you would do that. I could say, that "yeah, live your life, but DONT come back tome and say, that you were wrong." No. Why i should think like that? If i would, i would say, that YOU have no opportunity to build yourself. And because everyone has that opportunity, so do you. THIS is the matter of faith and hope. This means, that you have possibility to choose. But it is up to you, how you use this choice. No-one can´t do it for you, just yourself. So because you say, that you are responsible of ALL of your actions, feel free to do it and use your total freedom. But IF you will choose wrong way - man - it is just your fault.
Why? Because - in the last act - total freedom is the final corner on hell. We NEED moral laws because under them we are safe. If we just deny God and morality, we can keep anything as value. No good, no bad, no judgment, no law: No reason to be true, valuable human and humble, only reason and opportunity to live like a pig in the field, after all. Is that humanity? Is that humanity, that people kill each other? So; feel free to do and live anyway you like. Inner moral can be different than that we show to other people. I wonder also, why Jesus blamed those guys that they were just like gold-plated? White, nice looking tombs, and just bones inside. And there´s no any reason to say, what this kind of actions will lead us. Or do I?

----------


## NikolaiI

God is the absolute. A lot of times, or perhaps every time, atheists will reject this view. They say there is no absolute. Yet God is that, or in other words, God is Reality. Who would think there is nothing at all more real than this known existence? 

For example death. Atheists today say that death is the end of our existence. But they never questioned if existence is at is appears. What some found was that death and life are not opposites, but they form a whole, they are one. They're yin and yang. 

It makes no sense to think there is nothing beyond what we currently know. If anyone takes the view that there's nothing beyond what he or she knows, then they have immediately sealed their continued separation from truth. And yet this is what people are fighting about all the time. And they resort to tactics such as lumping all who say there is a soul as the same as those fundamentalists who demand you read the Bible... who can be scary at times. 

So what is God? God in Hinduism is written about in scriptures as the Witness. God's the Witness, of what? Of the nearly infinite information which is this universe, this matrix. But God is beyond the matrix. And how can we understand what the matrix of information, which we call this universe, is? It's like a dream. It has no real existence, exactly like a dream.

To be free, to reach God, to know God, that is the highest experience. Yet in this existence there is seeming imperfection, and for that reason people deny the existence of God. The matrix of information which is the entire universe we know, that is merely a tiny point in God. God is Reality, and the universe is a tiny point within Reality. But within this tiny point, which to us is the whole universe, is the only place where it seems that God is not. Rather, it seems that events and information are unconnected. 

And because it seems so bewiledering, for whatever reason that it seems that information is unconnected - that leads people to say that there is no way to know everything. In the worst case of this, people become ugly to each other. That's the cause of almost all suffering.

Now there have been many divine saints such as Christ, Muhammad, peace be upon them, and others who are less well-known. These divine saints saw God, and they knew the highest divine consciousness. Only on the lower levels is there difficulty. In the lower levels it seems as though there is a serious battle between good and evil. But the higher levels one knows the reality beyond this universe, as well as knowing that within this universe there is nothing to fear. They saw that anyone can come to God, can be free of all the bonds. And since this world will always have people who wish to play these games of life and all that is in life; they at least gave the answer to the interpersonal relationships, the answer being love.

They gave poems and other writings from their spiritual awareness which help us to become aware of the eternal, infinite existence beyond this matrix of information which is God. Love is the center of all of these writings and poems and all of their talks. God is at the center.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Everyone deserves respect and love. I am not saying that we should show love here, but we should show respect. Especially since that is the law laid down by the authorities of this site. It's not just believers whose beliefs should be respected here but also atheists or anyone - _everyone._ No one should be insulted, ridiculed, etc., for their beliefs and yet they are. By idiots. 
> 
> And what you say about separating the person and their beliefs... well, that doesn't hold up too much. Just consider how some people go on the attack... "Well, that is just the stupidest, most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say!"
> 
> I think that refutes your objection... the last one, that is.. in your post.. What if someone said that to you? It's not that you have some mis-identity or you identify yourself too much with your belief. It's just that if someone insults your beliefs in a descriptive enough way, then you just don't want to be around or near that kind of negativity...ugliness. Am I wrong, Atiguhya padma?


People deserve respect not ideas or beliefs. Can you imagine a philosophy professor complaining to the principal that people don't respect his philosophical views? He or she would be laughed at. if ideas, beliefs or viewpoints do not hold water, we should stop trying to artificially keep them
afloat. The fact that nowadays Christians are forever harping on about respect for their religious views shows just how weak their arguments are: they cannot defend their ideas well enough, so they're left with the last resort, respect, which leaves them free to propound nonsense and jargon without due review. It's the old story of the Emperor's new clothes.

----------


## atiguhya padma

NikolaiI,

I have seen plenty of people that you describe in your penultimate sentence. They are entrenched in their views to such a way that any argument, any evidence that doesn't agree with them is seen as negative and therefore something to avoid. This then means that everything confirms and strengthens their beliefs. but that's fine. what isn't fine is expecting everyone to hold their tongue because such people are around. even the church needs dissenters and radicals. Faith today would be nowhere without such people.

----------


## NikolaiI

> People deserve respect not ideas or beliefs. Can you imagine a philosophy professor complaining to the principal that people don't respect his philosophical views? He or she would be laughed at. if ideas, beliefs or viewpoints do not hold water, we should stop trying to artificially keep them
> afloat. The fact that nowadays Christians are forever harping on about respect for their religious views shows just how weak their arguments are: they cannot defend their ideas well enough, so they're left with the last resort, respect, which leaves them free to propound nonsense and jargon without due review. It's the old story of the Emperor's new clothes.


You completely did not get what I was saying. 

Do you understand that comments about someone belief, if phrased a certain way, can be very little different from insulting the actual person. For example what I used as an e.g., "That's absolutely the stupidest, most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say." 

The other thing is - I do have a very valid complaint. It's not just people who disagree with me I have a problem with. It's people who are radical and fundamentalist themselves, who will go on to say all kinds of nasty stuff in continuation. 

It's also the complete closed-mindedness and lack of thought which sometimes comes. 

Don't defend anonymous people on the internet so easily because sometimes the worst comes out in them in an anonymous setting like this. If someone goes on the attack quite often, calling those with spiritual ideas delusional frequently, saying they have mental problems... this is not really helpful to anyone, themselves or others.




> NikolaiI,
> 
> I have seen plenty of people that you describe in your penultimate sentence. They are entrenched in their views to such a way that any argument, any evidence that doesn't agree with them is seen as negative and therefore something to avoid. This then means that everything confirms and strengthens their beliefs. but that's fine. what isn't fine is expecting everyone to hold their tongue because such people are around. even the church needs dissenters and radicals. Faith today would be nowhere without such people.


Atiguhya, I did not give a list of those who I respect and admire but they are absolutely nothing like what you just described.

----------


## JommiL

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain

Faith and believing are pretty same thing, right? Funny thing; everyone who flies in airplane is believer. He believes, that plane stays in the air. If he/she do not believe, he/she will not go in the plane.

----------


## MarkBastable

> "Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain
> 
> Faith and believing are pretty same thing, right?


No, they aren't. Believing is a thing and - according to Twain - faith is believing under a specific circumstance. So, to break that down semantically, if I were to say that _Murder is killing when the law says you mustn't_, that would not lead to the conclusion that 'murder and killing are pretty same thing'.

Semantic inconsistency apart, what's the point you're trying to make? Are you saying that anyone who believes anything believes everything?

----------


## JommiL

No. I try to say, that believing and faith - also, is needed.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Faith and believing are pretty same thing, right?


No, they're not. If I believe something for a comprehensible reason, there's no _faith_ involved. I believe we will see the sun rise every morning because I know the reason we see the sun rise. Religious believers consider faith a virtue because it involves professing belief in things that can't be rationally affirmed.




> Funny thing; everyone who flies in airplane is believer. He believes, that plane stays in the air. If he/she do not believe, he/she will not go in the plane.


The difference is that the belief is based on a rational understanding of what makes planes fly and the reasonable expectation that the machine has been responsibly built and maintained.

That's the exact opposite of faith.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## JommiL

Well, i must disagree. Even faith can be rationally affirmed.
And basically people are showed they true side: Jesus made miracles and there was still those, who did not BELIEVE in him.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Well, i must disagree. Even faith can be rationally affirmed.


No it can't. That's what makes it faith. Can a believer rationally affirm John 3:16, or does he simply profess to believe it's true because he thinks it's immoral to doubt it?




> And basically people are showed they true side: Jesus made miracles and there was still those, who did not BELIEVE in him.


The Doubting Thomas story shows why religious believers consider faith a virtue. Anyone can affirm something if it's supported by evidence, so there's no moral dimension to professing such a belief. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." 

And that's where religious belief diverges from any regular human search for knowledge: facts and evidence are considered irrelevant. With religion, it's a moral imperative to believe, not an intellectual conclusion.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## JommiL

Yes it can be affirmed;

Hebr. 11;1

And yes, it is intellectual conclusion, and it is very easy to me.

----------


## Jeremydav

You can't prove something using itself. That's one of the worst logical fallacies that can be made.

----------


## blazeofglory

Belief in God is something we do it as an influence and of course we were told to believe in God. We were told the Biblical story of creation before we learned Darwin's theory of evolution. And thus our elders or seniors have instilled in our defenseless mindsets to beleive in God and we do now out of that impression and that is how faith goes on and on and on timelessly

----------


## Dekarto

I believe in God because He has touched my heart so deeply with his Holy Spirit that anything else than to love, obey and worship him was impossible.

Faith is not something man can achieve on his own, it is an act of God. 

"We love Him because He first loved us." - 1 John 4:19

----------


## Dekarto

> Belief in God is something we do it as an influence and of course we were told to believe in God. We were told the Biblical story of creation before we learned Darwin's theory of evolution. And thus our elders or seniors have instilled in our defenseless mindsets to beleive in God and we do now out of that impression and that is how faith goes on and on and on timelessly


This is incorrect. I was an atheist for many years and I learned about evolution long before creation. I was not brought up as a Christian, but rather in an anti-Christian home. People believe in God because they see the the Truth in His eternal Word and they see the undeniable fact that He exists and ultimately we feel His presence in our hearts. I was never "brain washed" to be Christian, it is something I became later in life. This is also the case for many other people. Take Buddhists in China as an example. These may not have heard of Christianity and creation all their lives and then, when they are eventually introduced to Christianity, they start believing in God. These facts do not agree with your statements.

----------


## Genocide

> I was an atheist for many years and I learned about evolution long before creation. I was not brought up as a Christian, but rather in an anti-Christian home. People believe in God because they see the the Truth in His eternal Word and they see the undeniable fact that He exists and ultimately we feel His presence in our hearts. I was never "brain washed" to be Christian, it is something I became later in life.


Can I ask why God and Christ are always used synonymously? Where there is God there is Christianity. I respect your change in belief, Dekarto, but it confuses me. You started off with no religious beliefs and then gravitated towards Christianity. Why? Why not Buddhism? Judaism? Islam? Wicca? Did you just happen to live where there is a large community of Christians?




> Take Buddhists in China as an example. These may not have heard of Christianity and creation all their lives and then, when they are eventually introduced to Christianity, they start believing in God.


That's not only China, but it's most of the world. The spread of Christianity was forced on many. If your example is focused on today I can only say that religion is a tool for assimilation. How much easier is it to fit in and get involved when you're in church every Sunday? 

Regardless, I believe in a God. Maybe it's a security blanket I use as an answer as to "Why isn't there just nothing?"

----------


## blazeofglory

> This is incorrect. I was an atheist for many years and I learned about evolution long before creation. I was not brought up as a Christian, but rather in an anti-Christian home. People believe in God because they see the the Truth in His eternal Word and they see the undeniable fact that He exists and ultimately we feel His presence in our hearts. I was never "brain washed" to be Christian, it is something I became later in life. This is also the case for many other people. Take Buddhists in China as an example. These may not have heard of Christianity and creation all their lives and then, when they are eventually introduced to Christianity, they start believing in God. These facts do not agree with your statements.


You seem to have been conditioned into believing in Christian faiths and you have wrongly thought that Chinese people have come to Christianity just because they have thought it is better than Buddhism. Most of what Christian missionaries do is they try to convert people into Christianity and by injecting more and more money they are influencing them. That said I am not critical of your faith and I respect others' faith, but now this is simply a comment on your critical opinion. What is more to articulate the Christian idea of creation is a narrow point of view and Christianity is one of the hundred faiths which suffer all kinds of dogmas and discretions. I personally do not subscribe to the personal God you do have and though I am born of an orthodox Hindu family yet I believe not in a personal, national, mythological, religious or invented God the way you do. Nobody can evidently say God exists nor they can disregard the idea of God. We are in a dilemma of belief and disbelief. But I am always open to ideas and never approve of theism and atheism for both lead to narrowness. In someway I repudiate that Christianity is better than Buddhism for simple and gullible Chinese Buddhists to convert. Now Buddhism is deemed a scientific religion by many and it does not suffer the fallacies and myths of Christianity. With all that said I apologize that I am not hitting upon your personal faiths but this is a general comment only, not directed against the domain of your faith at all

----------


## Dodo25

> Nobody can evidently say God exists nor they can disregard the idea of God. We are in a dilemma of belief and disbelief.


Yeah I'm in a huge dilemma too, about whether I should believe that there is Narnia in my closet. I mean, I can't disprove it, and either it is there or it is not, so the odds seem 50-50.. Maybe if I open my closet, someday, there will be Narnia. 

Or recently a friend told me about the flying spaghetti monster. Should I believe in it? I mean it's a tough choice, it might exist and there is no evidence against it.. I think I better believe in it, if it does exist and finds out I didn't care about it, it might get angry and throw spaghetti sauce at me, and I really don't want spaghetti sauce all over my clothes..

I can't understand those irrational 'A-Narnianists', these people who don't believe in Narnia. I mean, how arrogant are they to assume that there is existance without it. They can't prove it. Actually, not believing in Narnia is a religion too, they believe in solid closet walls instead of Narnia.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Yeah I'm in a huge dilemma too, about whether I should believe that there is Narnia in my closet. I mean, I can't disprove it, and either it is there or it is not, so the odds seem 50-50.. Maybe if I open my closet, someday, there will be Narnia. 
> 
> Or recently a friend told me about the flying spaghetti monster. Should I believe in it? I mean it's a tough choice, it might exist and there is no evidence against it.. I think I better believe in it, if it does exist and finds out I didn't care about it, it might get angry and throw spaghetti sauce at me, and I really don't want spaghetti sauce all over my clothes..
> 
> I can't understand those irrational 'A-Narnianists', these people who don't believe in Narnia. I mean, how arrogant are they to assume that there is existance without it. They can't prove it. Actually, not believing in Narnia is a religion too, they believe in solid closet walls instead of Narnia.


There is worldplay in your statement and I do not understand what you really want to put forth

----------


## Dodo25

> There is worldplay in your statement and I do not understand what you really want to put forth


I used sarcasm and reductiones ad absurdum to make an important point: It is irrational to believe (in) something if there is no evidence for it. The burden of 'proof' (or evidence) thus rests on the believer. Not 'believing' would then be the 'default option', and not a narrow-minded choice, and definitely not a fundamentalistic one, if we allow the possibility of changing our minds after new evidence comes up.

Edit: 
And 'solid closet walls' by the way stands for 'chance'. Some believers make statements like 'atheists have faith in chance'. The misunderstanding here is that it actually requires no faith to not believe, because God (or Narnia) is much more complex and thus more improbable to just happen to exist (or pop into existance) than anything else, including the universe itself. It means that this



> Regardless, I believe in a God. Maybe it's a security blanket I use as an answer as to "Why isn't there just nothing?"


is not a good answer, because just 'postulating' something even more complex and unexplainable than the thing (universe) we're trying to explain only complicates the problem.

----------


## Dekarto

> Can I ask why God and Christ are always used synonymously? Where there is God there is Christianity. I respect your change in belief, Dekarto, but it confuses me. You started off with no religious beliefs and then gravitated towards Christianity. Why? Why not Buddhism? Judaism? Islam? Wicca? Did you just happen to live where there is a large community of Christians?


God and Christ are used synonymously because Christ is part of the triune God; The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. God consists of these three personalities. You can search the internet for the Trinity to learn more about this unique characteristic of God. The answer to your second question on why I became a Christian instead of a follower of any other religon, is simple. As a Christian I believe in the salvation system of Calvinism, a doctrine that teaches that people are saved through the grace of God by an unconditional election. While this doctrine of salvation may not explain to you the reason for my personal conversion, it can throw some light on the matter. My personal testimony would be that one day some time ago, I for some reason came across some articles arguing for the existence of God. I was not very convinced at first, but gradually I started to realise that I had been a fool for many years; a fool to deny the existence of God. I prayed to God and said that if he really was out there, convince me that He is, and thereafter lead me to the right conclusions about Him. Unaware of the great act I had done by placing my faith in God, the perseverance of the Saints was starting working within me, and after that I have found it impossible to deny God; both because of the logical reasons why He exists and the personal experiences with Him and the great changes that have taken place in my life (I was the typical a-hole atheist before I was saved, but no longer). I mention that I prayed to God and asked Him to lead to me to right conclusions about Him, and He lead me to the Christian faith. The overwhelming evidence for the truth of this religion I just could not ignore and an inner convincing feeling made me place my trust in this religion as the right one. (Although there are many Christian churches and doctrines that are wrong.) Being a Christian feels so right, and then it probably is. 
And no, I'm not in a Christian community, I don't go to church, and I'm not baptised either. My faith is a personal one.




> That's not only China, but it's most of the world. The spread of Christianity was forced on many. If your example is focused on today I can only say that religion is a tool for assimilation. How much easier is it to fit in and get involved when you're in church every Sunday?


Indeed it has been forced on many to attend church and be baptised (by water), but one can _never_ force anyone to truly believe in something. They can lie about it and call themselves Christians, but this does not mean that they are baptised by the spirit and truly knows God and will go to Heaven. Not all 'Christians' will go to heaven.




> You seem to have been conditioned into believing in Christian faiths and you have wrongly thought that Chinese people have come to Christianity just because they have thought it is better than Buddhism. Most of what Christian missionaries do is they try to convert people into Christianity and by injecting more and more money they are influencing them.


Again, some Chinese people may call themselves Christian and not be so, but why would they? The only thing they have coming by doing so is persecution by the Chinese government. The only thing that matters is the personal faith and relationship with God, accepting His Son Jesus Christ as Savior. I strongly doubt that most Christian missionaries convert people by offering them riches. A true believer in Christ will not be influenced by these earthly items; a missionary that truly believes in Christ will not offer money to the chinese for convertion, and a true chinese believer will not accept the money and convert because of it. 

I could go on and on answering your questions and statements, but rather I will suggest the amazing Christian website www.gotquestions.org. This site can and _will_ answer all your questions on Christianity. But in the end it is up to you if you accept the religion or not.

----------


## Dodo25

> I could go on and on answering your questions and statements, but rather I will suggest the amazing Christian website (...). This site can and _will_ answer all your questions on Christianity.


In what way do you think posting a link that states things like 'homesexuality comes from sin, and people are not born homosexual' or 'humans lived with dinosaurs' supports your case??

Studies on twins raised separately in different environments have shown beyond reasonable doubt that being homosexual is to a huge extent determined by genes -> birth. So are some babies born as sinners and some aren't?

And the dinosaur thing is simply ridiculous, dating methods based on several different isotopes with different half-life times have independently reached the very same conclusion: Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago (with the exception of birds that is).

Not only are the 'answers' on this site preposterously wrong, they're also dangerous and highly offending. Thinking that being gay is a matter of choice or of weak character is discriminating. Indoctrinating others (children) with such believes, i.e. the dinosaur-human myth, messes up their minds and damages education.

This kind of stuff is the reason why faith is dangerous. If people don't learn _how_ to think and find it acceptable to hold beliefs without evidence, we'll continue to have problems with discrimination and simply terrible general education.

----------


## Dekarto

> In what way do you think posting a link that states things like 'homesexuality comes from sin, and people are not born homosexual' or 'humans lived with dinosaurs' supports your case?? Studies on twins raised separately in different environments have shown beyond reasonable doubt that being homosexual is to a huge extent determined by genes -> birth. So are some babies born as sinners and some aren't?


Firstly, in my post I do not have any specific cases that needs to be supported. Secondly, I am not responsible for what the articles on that site says about various things, I merely suggested it as a notable site visiting if you have questions regarding the Christian faith. About homosexuality: No one are born homosexual. There are indeed some people that have _tendencies_ to be homosexual, but this does not _force_ them to be homosexual. These tendencies may have some genetic origin, but in the end it is a sin like every other sin that needs to be suppressed. I think it is more offensive to say that homosexuals are without choice than to say that they actually _do_ have a choice.

Everyone are born sinners. It is not as you suggest that some are born sinners and some are not. Everyone inherit the original sin that dates back to Adam and Eve, from their parents. But sin is in many forms. Homosexuality is just one kind of sin, pedophilia, for example, is another. Disbelief in God is also a sin. Lust of the flesh is a sin. Murder is a sin. But the thing is that all sin is equal in value. No sin is worse than any other. 





> And the dinosaur thing is simply ridiculous, dating methods based on several different isotopes with different half-life times have independently reached the very same conclusion: Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago (with the exception of birds that is).


There is a common opinion among most people today that every theory science produces is an absolute fact. And that everything they read on wikipedia or watch on Discovery Channel is true. Well, this is wrong. There is debate among scientists on whether we can trust the dating methods used to determine the age of ancient fossils and other items. There are also many non-scientific reasons for why dating methods may be flawed. Let me use a simple example: When God created Adam and Eve, they were already adults, and a doctor would tell just the same. Why not think that when God created the Earth, it will, similar to the case of Adam and Eve, appear much older than its actual age?





> Not only are the 'answers' on this site preposterously wrong, they're also dangerous and highly offending. Thinking that being gay is a matter of choice or of weak character is discriminating. Indoctrinating others (children) with such believes, i.e. the dinosaur-human myth, messes up their minds and damages education. This kind of stuff is the reason why faith is dangerous. If people don't learn _how_ to think and find it acceptable to hold beliefs without evidence, we'll continue to have problems with discrimination and simply terrible general education.


I disagree with you here on several points. First of all, the answers on the site are not at all wrong, and much less offending. The site never claims homosexuals to be weak characters. And about education, I think it is rather the opposite; the teachings of today's society are wrong and perverted, not the teachings of the Bible. In fact, study of Scripture will reveal that it is not wrong in any areas and is actually compatible with science in many areas (assuming the scientific theories which are compared to religious views are correct in their statements, of course). Christians do not hold beliefs without evidence, science, on the other hand, often does. What proof do you have for the Big Bang theory? None. What proof do you have for dinosaurs living hundreds of millions of years ago? None. Christianity on the other hand answers both these questions. The Earth was created by a creator (which is logical when one thinks about it) and that life did not come to life out of nothing. And dinosaurs are documented in the Bible which is actually the most trustworthy ancient document. I think you should re-think your hasty statements and study the Christian points of view before you are too judgemental.

----------


## Genocide

> And 'solid closet walls' by the way stands for 'chance'. Some believers make statements like 'atheists have faith in chance'. The misunderstanding here is that it actually requires no faith to not believe, because God (or Narnia) is much more complex and thus more improbable to just happen to exist (or pop into existance) than anything else, including the universe itself. It means that this is not a good answer, because just 'postulating' something even more complex and unexplainable than the thing (universe) we're trying to explain only complicates the problem.


I don't believe I said it was a good answer.... but seeing as I don't see a better one.... :]




> No one are born homosexual. There are indeed some people that have _tendencies_ to be homosexual, but this does not _force_ them to be homosexual. These tendencies may have some genetic origin, but in the end it is a sin like every other sin that needs to be suppressed. I think it is more offensive to say that homosexuals are without choice than to say that they actually _do_ have a choice.


Hm, call me naive to think that people don't actually still think like this. I believe people are born homosexual. I mean, as far as guys go I think there is a clear indicator of what they prefer sexually. Why would a person _choose_ to have a hard life? Have people like you telling them they are sinners for loving whomever they happen to fall in love with. 




> Everyone are born sinners....But sin is in many forms. Homosexuality is just one kind of sin, pedophilia, for example, is another. Disbelief in God is also a sin. Lust of the flesh is a sin. Murder is a sin. But the thing is that all sin is equal in value. No sin is worse than any other.


Is discrimination a sin?




> And about education, I think it is rather the opposite; the teachings of today's society are wrong and perverted, not the teachings of the Bible.


Huh, you're right. Because here are a few of my favorite teachings of the Bible. I live by them. Really. 

_Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.---- 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 NAS_

So women can't have short hair and men shouldn't have long hair... well there was a man named Samson...

_"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." 
---- Deuteronomy.22:5._

OH! So not only must women have long hair but they can't wear...pants? Okay THIS one makes sense too!

_And the LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel: 'Suppose a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to her husband. Suppose she sleeps with another man, but there is no witness since she was not caught in the act. If her husband becomes jealous and suspicious of his wife, even if she has not defiled herself, the husband must bring his wife to the priest with an offering of two quarts of barley flour to be presented on her behalf. Do not mix it with olive oil or frankincense, for it is a jealousy offering  an offering of inquiry to find out if she is guilty. "'The priest must then present her before the LORD. He must take some holy water in a clay jar and mix it with dust from the Tabernacle floor. When he has presented her before the LORD, he must unbind her hair and place the offering of inquiry  the jealousy offering  in her hands to determine whether or not her husband's suspicions are justified. The priest will stand before her, holding the jar of bitter water that brings a curse to those who are guilty. The priest will put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you, and you have not defiled yourself by being unfaithful, may you be immune from the effects of this bitter water that causes the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority and defiled yourself by sleeping with another man"- at this point the priest must put the woman under this oath  "then may the people see that the LORD's curse is upon you when he makes you infertile. Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and make you infertile. "And the woman will be required to say, "Yes, let it be so." Then the priest will write these curses on a piece of leather and wash them off into the bitter water. He will then make the woman drink the bitter water, so it may bring on the curse and cause bitter suffering in cases of guilt. "'Then the priest will take the jealousy offering from the woman's hand, lift it up before the LORD, and carry it to the altar. He will take a handful as a token portion and burn it on the altar. Then he will require the woman to drink the water. If she has defiled herself by being unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse will cause bitter suffering. She will become infertile, and her name will become a curse word among her people. But if she has not defiled herself and is pure, she will be unharmed and will still be able to have children. "'This is the ritual law for dealing with jealousy. If a woman defiles herself by being unfaithful to her husband, or if a man is overcome with jealousy and suspicion that his wife has been unfaithful, the husband must present his wife before the LORD, and the priest will apply this entire ritual law to her. The husband will be innocent of any guilt in this matter, but his wife will be held accountable for her sin. ---- Numbers 5:11-31 NLT_

This is a favorite bed time story of mine.

_"But of these things be not ashamed, lest you sin through human respect;Of constant training of children, or of beating the sides of a disloyal servant; or of a seal to keep an erring wife at home. ---- Sirach 42:1,5-6 NAB_

Do you beat your children?

_Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. ----1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty. ---- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 NLT

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ---- 1 Timothy 2:11-14

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people."---- Leviticus 20:18

You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything. ---- Ephesians 5:22-24 NLT

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. ----- Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ... If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days. ... And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. ... But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. ---- Leviticus 12:1-5

Give no woman power over you to trample upon your dignity.---- Sirach 9:2 NAB

Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.---- Colossians 3:18 NAB

Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior. ---- 1 Peter 3:1-2 NAB_

Well.... this must be why Hillary lost. 

There are many, many more quotes that I don't actually believe you follow... but if you think that the Bible has it right... then that's you, I guess.

----------


## blazeofglory

> God and Christ are used synonymously because Christ is part of the triune God; The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. God consists of these three personalities. You can search the internet for the Trinity to learn more about this unique characteristic of God. The answer to your second question on why I became a Christian instead of a follower of any other religon, is simple. As a Christian I believe in the salvation system of Calvinism, a doctrine that teaches that people are saved through the grace of God by an unconditional election. While this doctrine of salvation may not explain to you the reason for my personal conversion, it can throw some light on the matter. My personal testimony would be that one day some time ago, I for some reason came across some articles arguing for the existence of God. I was not very convinced at first, but gradually I started to realise that I had been a fool for many years; a fool to deny the existence of God. I prayed to God and said that if he really was out there, convince me that He is, and thereafter lead me to the right conclusions about Him. Unaware of the great act I had done by placing my faith in God, the perseverance of the Saints was starting working within me, and after that I have found it impossible to deny God; both because of the logical reasons why He exists and the personal experiences with Him and the great changes that have taken place in my life (I was the typical a-hole atheist before I was saved, but no longer). I mention that I prayed to God and asked Him to lead to me to right conclusions about Him, and He lead me to the Christian faith. The overwhelming evidence for the truth of this religion I just could not ignore and an inner convincing feeling made me place my trust in this religion as the right one. (Although there are many Christian churches and doctrines that are wrong.) Being a Christian feels so right, and then it probably is. 
> And no, I'm not in a Christian community, I don't go to church, and I'm not baptised either. My faith is a personal one.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it has been forced on many to attend church and be baptised (by water), but one can _never_ force anyone to truly believe in something. They can lie about it and call themselves Christians, but this does not mean that they are baptised by the spirit and truly knows God and will go to Heaven. Not all 'Christians' will go to heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are right in an ideal situation when a believer is assured of the minimum accommodations he needs to maintain and sustain life in point of fact. But more often than not people are tempted and accept riches. In Nepal most Christian missionaries tempt poor communities into their faiths. I am not against Christianity or Jesus, but Christianity is not the only religion that is true and holy. Other religions are equally important too no matter how poor the people in those religions are. It is also true that Christian missionaries are richer and they have so much money to throw and that is helping them to spread their religions. On the strength of money this religion is spreading fast. With that said I do not want to criticize your faith. I am only stating it in relation to other faiths only

----------


## Scheherazade

*The OP of the thread*:


> Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe or do not believe in God. 
> I just hope that we do not go for one-another’s throat and keep our humor intact.


 *Just to reiterate:

This thread is not an opportunity for any kind of religious propaganda 
and 
it is definitely not an opportunity to push agendas on more controversial issues under the cloak of religious discussion.

Unless you would like to discuss the topic at hand, please refrain from posting in this thread.

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice and lead to thread closure.*

----------


## Dodo25

> There is a common opinion among most people today that every theory science produces is an absolute fact. And that everything they read on wikipedia or watch on Discovery Channel is true. Well, this is wrong. There is debate among scientists on whether we can trust the dating methods used to determine the age of ancient fossils and other items. There are also many non-scientific reasons for why dating methods may be flawed. Let me use a simple example: When God created Adam and Eve, they were already adults, and a doctor would tell just the same. Why not think that when God created the Earth, it will, similar to the case of Adam and Eve, appear much older than its actual age?


There is a common opion among some people today that every dogma a specific religion (mostly the one of their parents) produces is an absolute fact. And that everything they read in their holy book is true. Well, this is wrong. 

It is highly obvious, yet I'll still point it out: If you argue that religious issues are true because the Bible says so, you're using circular 'logic'. 

Additionally, your criticism on science is completely wrong. Science is evidence based, it _changes_ when the evidence changes, that's a strenght and not a weakness. When has religious dogma ever changed? You yourself exemplify this stubbornness by rejecting evidence-based (statistical) proof that people are born gay. 

And about scientific theories, they're the product of a systematic process called the _scientific method_. Based on observations, (several) intelligent guess(es) (_hypotheses_) are formed. Then, the hypotheses are used to predict the outcome of experiments. Experiments are performed, and if they contradict the hypothesis, it is _discarded_. Only if a hypothesis has succesfully predicted the outcomes of many experiments, never has been falsified, and papers on it have stood up to critical peer review, a body of explanations eventually becomes a _scientific theory_. 




> Christians do not hold beliefs without evidence, science, on the other hand, often does. What proof do you have for the Big Bang theory? None. What proof do you have for dinosaurs living hundreds of millions of years ago? None.


Science doesn't hold _beliefs_ without evidence, your statement just shows how your faith corrupts your thinking. You can't even represent the position of your 'opponents' objectively. The emphasis here rests on 'beliefs'. Scientists might have personal beliefs, and hypotheses, that only rest on intuiton (or even religiously motivated ideas, since there are also religious scientists). Yet the product of science, tested theories and results, are evidence-based, this is how it works, down to the very core of science. 

And who are you to tell me that there is no proof for the big bang theory or for dinosaurs having lived (hundreds of) millions of years ago? First of all, I _already told you_ that dating methods using different isotopes each independently reach the same conclusions. There is no controversy among scientists about this, it's just undamentalist Christian propaganda. 

And have you ever looked into the science behind the big bang? Are you familiar with microwave background radiation and the Doppler shift? Have you studied the criteria for indicator stars and how light waves travel? I'm not going to spell it out for you because as Scher has pointed out, it would be off topic. Yet I would like you to reflect and think about your own reasoning and ignorance about particular subjects. 




> Christianity on the other hand answers both these questions. The Earth was created by a creator (which is logical when one thinks about it) and that life did not come to life out of nothing. And dinosaurs are documented in the Bible which is actually the most trustworthy ancient document. I think you should re-think your hasty statements and study the Christian points of view before you are too judgemental.


I've stated before that the idea of a creator is not logical at all, because the creator is more complicated than what you're trying to explain. Where did that come from, super creator? 

And even if the Bible is the most trustworthy ancient document, and even if it were divenly inspired, many Biblical scholars argue against the interpretation of 'behemoth' and other 'creatures' being clear references to dinosaurs. Again, believers are bending the facts the way it suits them. If fossils weren't made of solid rock that you can actually touch, I'm pretty sure believers would deny that there even were dinosaurs. 

And finally, I have read the Bible and studied the Christian point of view. I'm familiar with the arguments and I haven't heard anything new for a long time of discussing these matters with believers. 

This is quite a long post and I think I've made my point. I might comment again if you respond to this, yet I definitely won't go into details again because I really think I've said enough.

----------


## sports24x

i believe in god because it inspires me..

----------


## Serena03

Judgment day tends to be the most common latent answer.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> No one are born homosexual. There are indeed some people that have _tendencies_ to be homosexual, but this does not _force_ them to be homosexual. These tendencies may have some genetic origin, but in the end it is a sin like every other sin that needs to be suppressed. I think it is more offensive to say that homosexuals are without choice than to say that they actually _do_ have a choice.


My mouth literaly hung open as I read this. Just unbelievable.

----------


## janeeyre88

My belief in God started at a early age as my family have always been involved in the church. I was brought up in the Methodist faith and have continued to believe. Though these days I do not attend church, I still believe and always have a Bible in the house. I try to bring my daughter up with these beliefs. I admit as time has went on my relationship with God is not as strong as it once was, I guess due to life's problems. Though I do think there is evidence of God just by looking at nature. :Angel:

----------


## Alexander III

Just wanted to state something general, but which I think should be stated.

Many on this thread have said things along the line of, probability wise there is barley a 0.01% chance og God existing, hence I define my self an atheist. And I agree, if your conception of god is a man in the clouds with a big beard, but lets face it, few people have that conception of god; and assuming that that is what people mean when they say god is rather ignorant and arrogant. On this forums almost all the members seem rather intelgint and cultured, so I doubt anyone here see's god as the big man in the clouds with the white beard.

The first problem in giving a probability which states the chance of god's existence is, what is god? unless you can answer that, you cant find a probability. Now if I said tell me what is the probability of gagblagoo, you would say what is gablagooo? It could be something as simple as a leaf or it could be something which does not exist. Only I know what Gagblagoo is. The same is the problem with god, except no one knows what god is, or can be or anything at all, so sating a probability for its existence is rather ridiculous and narrow-minded. 

For example if we take a deist approach to god, as was common among the cultured men of the 18th and 19th century, how can you find a probability for it's existence....

----------


## Armel P

> Just wanted to state something general, but which I think should be stated.
> 
> Many on this thread have said things along the line of, probability wise there is barley a 0.01% chance og God existing, hence I define my self an atheist. And I agree, if your conception of god is a man in the clouds with a big beard, but lets face it, few people have that conception of god; and assuming that that is what people mean when they say god is rather ignorant and arrogant. On this forums almost all the members seem rather intelgint and cultured, so I doubt anyone here see's god as the big man in the clouds with the white beard.
> 
> The first problem in giving a probability which states the chance of god's existence is, what is god? unless you can answer that, you cant find a probability. Now if I said tell me what is the probability of gagblagoo, you would say what is gablagooo? It could be something as simple as a leaf or it could be something which does not exist. Only I know what Gagblagoo is. The same is the problem with god, except no one knows what god is, or can be or anything at all, so sating a probability for its existence is rather ridiculous and narrow-minded. 
> 
> For example if we take a deist approach to god, as was common among the cultured men of the 18th and 19th century, how can you find a probability for it's existence....


As one who uses a probablility-like argument, I can respond with the following. The chance that any specific manifestation of a god exists is actually infinitesimal because logically there are an infinite number of possible gods with equal chance of existing. So limiting the argument to whether or not a deistic god exists or no god at all exists would be presenting a false dichotomy. It's important to note that all these infinite numbers of possible gods would necessarily have conflicting dogma somewhere along the line making them mutually exclusive. So it is meaningless to choose a particular god because it is equally possible that the _correct_ god -- for the sake of argument - would punish those who make that very choice.

----------


## Alexander III

> As one who uses a probablility-like argument, I can respond with the following. The chance that any specific manifestation of a god exists is actually infinitesimal because logically there are an infinite number of possible gods with equal chance of existing. So limiting the argument to whether or not a deistic god exists or no god at all exists would be presenting a false dichotomy. It's important to note that all these infinite numbers of possible gods would necessarily have conflicting dogma somewhere along the line making them mutually exclusive. So it is meaningless to choose a particular god because it is equally possible that the _correct_ god -- for the sake of argument - would punish those who make that very choice.


But you are to narrow in your approach to god - there are not an infinite amount of types of god, there cannot be - we still cannot define or know what god is, and yet religions seek to spew out dogma and radical atheists fight against the dogma with their arguments not the actually question of god.

----------


## Armel P

> But you are to narrow in your approach to god - there are not an infinite amount of types of god, there cannot be - we still cannot define or know what god is, and yet religions seek to spew out dogma and radical atheists fight against the dogma with their arguments not the actually question of god.


I meant that there are an infinite number of _possible_ gods. I didn't mean that they all exist simultaneously. I was making a point against a given act of defining a god. If anyone attempts to define a god in which to place belief they would be placing belief in an infinitely improbable entity. 

If on the other hand someone says that there is a god but it's role in the universe is completely unknowable, then there ceases to be a point in having that sort of faith depriving the act of believing of any reason. This would be like seeing a closed container and deciding for certain that something is definitely in the container but not knowing what that something is. And this is without being given any clue as to whether it is or is not empty. It's the simple act of deciding, and not even deciding that the contents have any positive effect on the decision-maker. At that point, you may as well be like me and live placing your confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method (essentially agnosticism). You accept that there is no purpose in drawing conclusions regarding things that are not tested or are untestable.

----------


## YesNo

> If on the other hand someone says that there is a god but it's role in the universe is completely unknowable, then there ceases to be a point in having that sort of faith depriving the act of believing of any reason. This would be like seeing a closed container and deciding for certain that something is definitely in the container but not knowing what that something is. And this is without being given any clue as to whether it is or is not empty. It's the simple act of deciding, and not even deciding that the contents have any positive effect on the decision-maker. At that point, you may as well be like me and live placing your confidence in *logic, reason and the scientific method* (essentially agnosticism). You accept that there is no purpose in drawing conclusions regarding things that are not tested or are untestable.


To stay on the higher ground of "logic, reason and the scientific method" (I made these bold in the quote), you need to restrict yourself to falsifiable statements. Statements that are outside this are part of your religion, your faith. 

When you argue positions of your faith you are no longer on that higher ground, but you are right there on the same level with the theists making arguments for the existence or non-existence of this or that god. 

Most theists are also atheists, by the way. There are gods they refuse to believe in.

----------


## Armel P

> To stay on the higher ground of "logic, reason and the scientific method" (I made these bold in the quote), you need to restrict yourself to falsifiable statements. Statements that are outside this are part of your religion, your faith. 
> 
> When you argue positions of your faith you are no longer on that higher ground, but you are right there on the same level with the theists making arguments for the existence or non-existence of this or that god. 
> 
> Most theists are also atheists, by the way. There are gods they refuse to believe in.


I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to tell me because I'm not sure if when you say "you" it is meant to address me specifically or if it is the proverbial "you." At the risk of having misunderstood, you seem to be saying that I am denying the existence of a god and that such a denial is a position of faith. If that was your intention, my response would be that I never do that. I actually agree that such a denial is an act of faith. My position is that drawing conclusions on that which is not testable is an unreasonable act. I never say "there is/are no god/s"; I only say there is no reason to believe in one.

Re: most theists being atheists, yes, that is very much like something Richard Dawkins often quips. He says that religious people are all atheists about other peoples gods but that atheists just go one god further. It's a cute statement though I don't feel it illustrate my personal position.

----------


## Ecurb

> I meant that there are an infinite number of _possible_ gods. I didn't mean that they all exist simultaneously. I was making a point against a given act of defining a god. If anyone attempts to define a god in which to place belief they would be placing belief in an infinitely improbable entity. 
> 
> .


As Hamlet told Horatio, There are more strange things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy. Many things are infinitely improbable (from one perspective), until they happen. 

Armels argument against God sounds exactly like some creationists argument that life developing out of the primordial soup is infinitely improbable. So is almost everything else  if we go back far enough in time. From the standpoint of a billion years ago, its infinitely improbable that I am typing this  but I am typing it.

This vein of argument represents a misunderstanding of probability.

----------


## Armel P

> As Hamlet told Horatio, “There are more strange things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy.” Many things are “infinitely improbable” (from one perspective), until they happen. 
> 
> Armel’s argument against God sounds exactly like some creationist’s argument that life developing out of the primordial soup is “infinitely improbable”. So is almost everything else – if we go back far enough in time. From the standpoint of a billion years ago, it’s infinitely improbable that I am typing this – but I am typing it.
> 
> This vein of argument represents a misunderstanding of probability.


There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part. 

Rather the misunderstanding is very much on your part here. First of all, my argument is not "against God" but rather the belief in god. There is a difference. I'm not trying to disprove existence. Secondly, you are misrepresenting probability here. How much time has nothing to do with probability. Given a certain set of facts the probably of an occurence is always the same. The longer time you allow for something to occur, the more likely you are to see it given that fixed probability. Unless, the probability is 1/infinity. Which brings me to my third point: by making comments about your typing, you are obviously confusing the ideas of highly inmprobable and infinitely improbable.

----------


## Jassy Melson

All I can say is, there is something beyond me that is not human but that is intelligent and can and will communicate with me. I can't explain what that something is or describe it, but for me it exists.

----------


## YesNo

> My position is that drawing conclusions on that which is not testable is an unreasonable act. I never say "there is/are no god/s"; I only say there is no reason to believe in one.


The point I am trying to make, Armel P, is that the statements you make are not falsifiable. This means that you are no longer on the higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method when you make them.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

It is amazing that a thread that is about "Why I believe in God?" has turned into a thread of...Why you shouldn't believe in God.

Why are some so diligent to ridicule another's belief in God?
And how is this NOT religious intolerance?

----------


## Armel P

> The point I am trying to make, Armel P, is that the statements you make are not falsifiable. This means that you are no longer on the higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method when you make them.


What statements are you talking about exactly? I'm not proposing hypotheses that should be subject to falsifiability. I'm just relying on formal logic. That's not how you would apply the necessity for falsifiability. Otherwise you would use falsifiability to disprove axioms, logic to disprove logic...

----------


## YesNo

> What statements are you talking about exactly? I'm not proposing hypotheses that should be subject to falsifiability. I'm using formal logic. That's not how you would apply the necessity for falsifiability. Otherwise you would use falsifiability to disprove axioms... logic to disprove logic.


Thanks for responding, Armel P. Although we might disagree, I'm exploring some ideas I've had recently. I don't mean to put you on the spot. 

When you disagree with a theist, it sounds to me that you think you are speaking from a _privileged position_, from a higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method that the believers in this thread do not share with you. You use this to claim that they should agree with you and stop believing in whatever it is they believe in.

However, I don't think you are speaking from any higher ground and that is why I mention that you are presenting your religion, your faith, your belief. 

Here is a statement you made about gods in general.




> I only say there is no reason to believe in one.


Now this is either an axiom or some conclusion. If it is an axiom, then you are assuming everything, so why argue with someone who believes in some God. By assumption, you don't. They do. So what?

If this is a conclusion and you want to remain on the higher ground of the scientific method, this should be a falsifiable statement. But is it falsifiable?

----------


## Armel P

> It is amazing that a thread that is about "Why I believe in God?" has turned into a thread of...Why you shouldn't believe in God.
> 
> Why are some so diligent to ridicule another's belief in God?
> And how is this NOT religious intolerance?


This is taken from the OP:




> Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe *or do not believe in God*.


 [emphasis added]

I don't think there was an intention to only discuss with the choir, if I may extend a popular metaphor. And I didn't read the entire thread but it seems that things are relatively civil.

Regarding how this is not religious intolerance, it seems the answer lies in the difference between feeling that freedom of religion is a right and not having a religion. It's comparing apples and oranges. I still feel people have a right to religion regardless of what I feel about the reasonability of that act.

----------


## Armel P

> Thanks for responding, Armel P. Although we might disagree, I'm exploring some ideas I've had recently. I don't mean to put you on the spot.


No problem. 




> When you disagree with a theist, it sounds to me that you think you are speaking from a _privileged position_, from a higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method that the believers in this thread do not share with you. You use this to claim that they should agree with you and stop believing in whatever it is they believe in.


This interpretation make me uncomfortable. First of all, I never intended to condescend. The "higher-ground" comment detracts from the conversation because it has less to do with content and more to do with perceived tone. Everybody who has confidence in something, even religious confidence, feels there is good reason for that confidence. 




> However, I don't think you are speaking from any higher ground and that is why I mention that you are presenting your religion, your faith, your belief.


I appologize but I'm not really interested in revisting the _science is a type of religion or logic is a type of religion and everything is a matter of faith therefore all forms of faith are created equal_ argument.




> Here is a statement you made about gods in general.
> 
> Now this is either an axiom or some conclusion. If it is an axiom, then you are assuming everything, so why argue with someone who believes in some God. By assumption, you don't. They do. So what?
> 
> If this is a conclusion and you want to remain on the higher ground of the scientific method, this should be a falsifiable statement. But is it falsifiable?


When you say, "this should be a falsifiable statement," I already disagree. From what I know, the necessity of falsifiability is related to the process of scientific discovery and proposing hypotheses or presenting theories. It does not apply to the use of formal logic to reach a conclusion. My statement is a conclusion after a logical process. You can revisit the process -- as a "test" -- to see if it produces a different result but it only would if it was never logical to begin with. 

The problem with my statement is that it's open to misinterpretation. When I say "reason" I don't mean personal reason. What I mean is that one cannot find greater weight in a particular form of a god without making an assumption that is not logical. Basically, nothing about the act of pointing out a false dichotomy can be dismissed as being unfalsifiable.

----------


## gUfo

The Alpha and Omega is perhaps the only question without an answer. It's beauty lies in the simple fact that it _can_ be asked. Since reading David Deutsche's _Fabric of Reality_, I have looked at this question from a slightly different angle. Deutsche (who may be an atheist) attempts to tackle the Omega Point (Fate/Time/God) from a quantum physics perspective. Though deep, the book doesn't get bogged down with mathematics. While on the fringe of pseudoscience, the implications born from the advent of computation are absolutely mind blowing!

The greatest physicists believe that we may one day be able to describe the _How_ at Alpha Point, but they also resign to the fact that we may never be able to know the most important question. 

_Why?_

~ il gufo

----------


## lobanw

I believe in God because there is no reason not to. With all of the things people are willing to put their faith in why not God be one of them? There have been so many good fortunes that have come from being a follower of Christ no matter what specific religion you may have. Even if your God isn't the same as my God, I bet they are at least friends  :Smile:

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I guess this thread wasn't originally intended to be a theism versus atheism debate, but it seems that's what it has turned into. There has been a lot of good arguments from both theistic and atheistic perspectives on this thread and I always enjoy reading well thought out arguments. However I feel like this thread, like so many other debates about faith and religion, is brilliantly showcasing how pointless this kind of debate actually is. As many before myself have already pointed out, agnostics base their belief on measurable and testable facts while most theists base their belief on philosophical/theological theories that are neither measurable or testable. So basically these two different views can never reach any kind of agreement on even the most basic principles of the debate. Therefore, the debate can never reach any kind of reasonable solution unless the other party flat out admits being wrong the whole time.

So the only real value of a theism versus atheism debate is in the fact that people, who aren't yet familiar with the arguments of both views, can learn about them and make up their mind about whether to rely purely on empirical facts or to base their belief on unscientific sources. That's all. There is nothing new to be discovered in this kind of debate.

----------


## The Ol' Man

I make this post merely for your idlest abstraction on the subject. I have not
read all of the posts, or even some of them. This is not because they're 
uninteresting, I'm just too weary to be anything but indifferent to them 
at the present time. Nor is this an invite for a rabble of militant Atheists 
to ride roughshod over this post with shrieks for evidence and logic and 
probabilities. With those disclosures out of the way, I will go on: 

I've had my flings with Religion, and I've been an argumentative Atheist. 
I think it's important to see that, even though a religion prescribes the 
particular image of its deity, each person who subscribes to that religion has a 
different conception of that deity. Not only are we dealing with an
incalculable number of religions as well as their branches, but also 
with the fact that the prescribed deities perform their image differently
for each belonging to the religion. This makes a single deity both infinite 
and impossible to come to grips with at the onset. 
With this consideration, we can example Stephen Hawking. Hawking 
(much in keeping with this line of thought) ascribes the term 'God' to the 
natural and physical laws that govern the universe. 
If the term is inseparably tied with the observable object,
then this is what that object is. In this instance, 'the mind of God' exists. 
This is not the same as ascribing the term 'God' to a raisin scone, 
devouring the scone, and proudly declaring - as Nietzsche did - 'God is dead.'

'God' itself is an indefinable something. I think most Atheists are afraid of 
being false in attempting to explore the matter more deeply, instead
crying out indignantly for evidence to feed their notions of rationality. 
Unfortunately, for all the poets and philosophers we should gladly 
desire to imitate, Richard Dawkins is not very inimitable. You will see this 
whenever you stumble onto a youtube video concerned with religion
or atheism, on which they thrive in warring against the perceived delusion
in other interlocutors. 
Maintaining a constant disposition of doubt is not
the route to understanding. You've already misunderstood to begin with,
and now you're going to infect the subject with the flaws you have 
understood to be teeming within it. Thomas Aquinas is the closest 
approach to the right, I think. He proposed to simply embrace the subject,
master the evidence for ourselves, and then (and only then) decide whether
or not the evidence is adequate to our sensibilities. Not before. 

As to the nature of a single God arching over the universe, that is a 
profoundly unanswerable question. However, I do subscribe to the 
existence of an underlying order to the universe, however difficult it 
may be to articulate. This becomes clear in the (depth) study of Astrology. 
To further remark on that and, admittedly, to try to preclude assailment by 
the rabble, I recall Isaac Newton's response when he was ribbed, gibed and elbowed 
by contemporaries for his studying of Astrology: 'I have studied it, sir, you
have not!'

I'm sure many of you also recall Carl Jung's towering "I know." 


Anyhow, just something for consideration,

O.M.



P.S. I'm fairly agreeable with Freudian Monkey's post.

----------


## chipper

mine is simple... 

the world is too perfect to happen by chance. human anatomy is too perfect to happen by chance. mountains, the corals, the sky.. too beautiful to happen by chance. 

i believe in God. I don't know what kind of shape or form he/she/it is in but God exists.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> I make this post merely for your idlest abstraction on the subject.


Thank you for you opinion. You are most certainly correct that I overly simplified the debates about theism versus atheism. That was my intention to begin with since deep down this matter is actually a really simple one.

So, basically what you are arguing here is that religious debates are valuable because there are indefinite amount of religious views based on the knowledge each of us possess as individuals and because of the fact that our arguments can be built on different presumptions about, say, the nature of god? Well, this is definitely the case. However my whole point in my previous post was that the arguments that agnostics are willing to accept to be legitimate are completely different than those presented by theists. This is a fundamental difference, something that makes a rational debate impossible even if our individual interpretations of philosophical or conceptual questions would wary. For instance, you may think that god is not a concrete, coherent entity - "the order of the universe", if you will. What difference does that make in a debate with an empiricist? He is just going to ask you the same question he asks from theists who believe in a personified god: "Where is the evidence?"

And I don't think he is going to accept astrological evidence.

ps: there are only a few scientists I value more than Dr. Jung.

----------


## The Ol' Man

Thank you for your response (my first response in all my time here, actually) but mine was a more general response, not fixed upon any particular person on the thread. Hopefully you didn't think I was tearing into you!

Edit: Oh yes. I'm nearly convinced such argumentation on this matter is useless. No mutually satisfactory truth can be established, because neither are 
willing to concede that their thought is wrong, nor should they be expected to. The arguments against a God are often meretricious,
more sleights of intellect than deeply persuasive. Arguments in favour of God cannot be proven, especially so to an Atheist.
Where does that leave us?

----------


## Emmy Castrol

Can't remember if I've ever contributed to this thread before or not...
But I believe in God because whenever I stop I get really scared of spirits and demons
 :Mad5:

----------


## libernaut

nice smiley face.

----------


## YesNo

> He is just going to ask you the same question he asks from theists who believe in a personified god: "Where is the evidence?"


Generally, people, whether theist or atheist, whether scientifically minded or pseudo-scientifically minded, accept as "evidence" only what supports their pet theories. All the other evidence is discredited.

That might actually be a safe thing to do since we can't adequately check out all the "evidence" that is presented to us.

Because we are _conscious_ there is reason to believe, just on that evidence alone, that we are not the highest consciousness around. It is the same sort of reason that a scientist uses to say there must be life on other planets: since it exists here, it should exist somewhere else as well.

In the 20th century physicists came to believe that the universe had a beginning. This was something only a religious person would have accepted in the 19th century.

Also in the 20th century physicists came to believe that the origin of the universe came out of _nothing_. People would have thought you were a religious nut in the 19th century if you believed such stuff.

So even atheists, with some scientific exposure, believe that the universe had a beginning and it came out of nothing. Just like the traditional theists.

If you add the evidence of near-death experiences and shared-death experiences, generally, out-of-body experiences, it seems almost certain that consciousness comes from a dimension outside of space-time, which means this whole space-time experience we are having did not happen by chance.

So the real question should be why don't you believe in God? The specifics of the God one believes in might be up for question. There seem to be too many conflicts between those who view Jesus as God, but no one else, and those who prefer Allah or Krishna or some unnamed "consciousness".

----------


## hampusforev

> mine is simple... 
> 
> the world is too perfect to happen by chance. human anatomy is too perfect to happen by chance. mountains, the corals, the sky.. too beautiful to happen by chance. 
> 
> i believe in God. I don't know what kind of shape or form he/she/it is in but God exists.


I often hear this and it's a pretty ridiculous contention, why is the world beautiful? I mean there are people starving and dying of horrible, agonizing illnesses every minute of every hour. And what is beautiful really? It's a pretty subjective notion... But I guess God is subjective.

Personally I don't know if I believe, one day I'm an atheist and the next I'm a believer. I'd never subscribe to any particular religion though, I just don't think that kind of collective thinking is healthy, at least not for me. The question wether God exist or not is not something I plan on deciding ever. I think the mystery is the whole beauty.

----------


## Paulclem

> mine is simple... 
> 
> the world is too perfect to happen by chance. human anatomy is too perfect to happen by chance. mountains, the corals, the sky.. too beautiful to happen by chance. 
> 
> i believe in God. I don't know what kind of shape or form he/she/it is in but God exists.


To follow on from Hampusforever - I disagree that the world is perfect. As Hamp pointed out, if you look then you will see endless suffering and pain and imperfection that somehow exists alongside what we at first consider to be beauty. 

It's not just the human world either.The slaughter of the seas, and nature red in tooth and claw come to mind. The waters might be calm on the surface, but beneath is a seething maelstrom of eat or be eaten. Some people are like that too.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> If you add the evidence of near-death experiences and shared-death experiences, generally, out-of-body experiences, it seems almost certain that consciousness comes from a dimension outside of space-time, which means this whole space-time experience we are having did not happen by chance.


Thank you for your opinion. However I strongly suggest that you take your time to read about _Temporal lobe epilepsy_ from wikipedia - it is the current scientific explanation for most paranormal, religious and other "unexplained" experiences.

Also, the fact that we are conscious beings doesn't make it at all evident that there would be some divine being who has given us this consciousness. This has been made apparent for instance by Ferdinand de Saussure.

----------


## YesNo

> Thank you for your opinion. However I strongly suggest that you take your time to read about _Temporal lobe epilepsy_ from wikipedia - it is the current scientific explanation for most paranormal, religious and other "unexplained" experiences.


The problem is I accept the various forms of out-of-body experiences as evidence.

That means any scientific theory or religious viewpoint that doesn't, or tries to trivialize it, is living in fantasy land.

That's _my_ perspective. I am postmodern enough to allow you to have your own perspective.

----------


## Paulclem

> Thank you for your opinion. However I strongly suggest that you take your time to read about _Temporal lobe epilepsy_ from wikipedia - it is the current scientific explanation for most paranormal, religious and other "unexplained" experiences.


This is mere supposition. That epileptics suffer such symptoms as described in the article does not mean that this is the explanation for religious and unexplained experiences. Making such a connection suggests that everyone who has a religious experience is epileptic, which they are clearly not.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> The problem is I accept the various forms of out-of-body experiences as evidence.
> 
> That means any scientific theory or religious viewpoint that doesn't, or tries to trivialize it, is living in fantasy land.


So this leads us to the conclusion that we cannot have a reasonable debate about this matter. This is precisely what I wrote in my first post to this topic: there is no way to have a reasonable debate if the opposing sides cannot reach any kind of agreement on even the most basic principles of the debate.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> This is mere supposition. That epileptics suffer such symptoms as described in the article does not mean that this is the explanation for religious and unexplained experiences. Making such a connection suggests that everyone who has a religious experience is epileptic, which they are clearly not.


Have you ever experienced déjà vu? I think most of us have. It is also categorized as _temporal lobe epilepsy_. So it is not only the people diagnosed with epilepsy that can experience hallucinations and other unexplained phenomena as a cause of _temporal lobe epilepsy_. You can read more about this theory from Michael A. Persinger.

----------


## Paulclem

> Have you ever experienced déjà vu? I think most of us have. It is also categorized as _temporal lobe epilepsy_. So it is not only the people diagnosed with epilepsy that can experience hallucinations and other unexplained phenomena as a cause of _temporal lobe epilepsy_. You can read more about this theory from Michael A. Persinger.


What do you mean categorised as temporal lobe epilepsy? Do you mean it is a symptom, because it's only one of many. 

I've got an aching knee like my arthritic neighbour, but it would be wrong to assume that I too have arthritis.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> What do you mean categorised as temporal lobe epilepsy? Do you mean it is a symptom, because it's only one of many. 
> 
> I've got an aching knee like my arthritic neighbour, but it would be wrong to assume that I too have arthritis.


What I meant was that as a result of this theory, religious and other unexplained experiences can all be perceived as causes of neurological processes. The fact that déjà vu is one of the symptoms of _temporal lobe epilepsy_ is just an example of how our brain can easily create supernatural phenomena. The research done by Persinger is only one example of this - there's a ton of researches about transcendental experiences and their neurological and sociopsychological nature - for instance about the obvious connection between transcendental experiences and stress.

----------


## Paulclem

> What I meant was that as a result of this theory, religious and other unexplained experiences can all be perceived as causes of neurological processes. The fact that déjà vu is one of the symptoms of _temporal lobe epilepsy_ is just an example of how our brain can easily create supernatural phenomena. The research done by Persinger is only one example of this - there's a ton of researches about transcendental experiences and their neurological and sociopsychological nature - for instance about the obvious connection between transcendental experiences and stress.


I think it's still an assumption about such a connection. We know that illness and drugs can induce *edit* similar experiences, but it does not explain the accounts of experiences by mystics for example, who do not use stimulants or suffer from illness. To say it is - without experiemntal corroboration, remains an assumption.

----------


## blazeofglory

A spiritual experience is something misconstrued. Spirituality is the only thing that gives a meaning to our meaninglessness in a world that is so void and empty and so creepy. I do not know, in fact no body knows whether or not God exists but I see great amounts of placating stuffs in spirituality and that is why I hanker after it.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> I think it's still an assumption about such a connection. We know that illness and drugs can induce such experiences, but it does not explain the accounts of experiences by mystics for example, who do not use stimulants or suffer from illness. To say it is - without experiemntal corroboration, remains an assumption.


I take it that you didn't bother reading through the whole article? Or at least you didn't check out the work done by Persinger. His theory has all to do with experimental corroboration.

I might not have been specific enough in my previous messages so let my try to put my point in a more simple manner. The basic concept of Persinger's study was to stimulate his subjects temporal lobes electromagnetically and see which kind of effects this electromagnetic exposure of temporal lobe has on a patients cognition. He studied some 400 individuals and roughly 80% of the subjects were recorded to have had various transcendental experiences. The subjects of the study were all, to my recollection, normal and healthy people.

To me, this study doesn't prove anything other than that the human brain is capable of producing transcendental experiences artificially and that it only takes a tiny amount of electromagnetic exposure (1 microTesla) for this to happen. However as I mentioned earlier, there has also been numerous studies about how people have had transcendental experiences in high stress situations, not to even mention studies concerning group psychology or semiotic studies about the concept of meaning-making in religious rhetoric.

One of the interesting results of Persinger's study was that some people are more receptive to temporal lobe stimulation than others. In other words, some people are more likely to have religious experiences than others. So, according to this research, one might imply that God is a determinist who has prematurely chosen those who have the ability to experience his presence and are therefore more likely to receive salvation (in a Christian sense). Some people have "a talent for religion", as Bishop Stephen Sykes put it. 

So wait... does this mean that God is a darwinian?

As a sidenote, I'm not an atheist - just an individual in search of truth. And this is just my opinion on this. I completely accept that other people have their own views based on their own arguments.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Spirituality is the only thing that gives a meaning to our meaninglessness.


Okay - what meaning does it give?

----------


## YesNo

> So this leads us to the conclusion that we cannot have a *reasonable debate* about this matter. This is precisely what I wrote in my first post to this topic: there is no way to have a reasonable debate if the opposing sides cannot reach any kind of agreement on even the most basic principles of the debate.


What for some people is a "reasonable debate" is for others a power play. 

I want to avoid the power play approach up-front. The dismissal of out-of-body experiences by assigning them a pseudo-scientific label is a power play. I am responding to it by saying up-front that I don't accept such explanations, that is, I will respond to a power play with an outright dismissal. Out-of-body experiences remain as evidence.

Why is consciousness important to discuss? 

During the second half of the last century, physicists validated two fundamental religious views of the universe that would have seemed absurd from a scientific perspective 100 years ago. (1) They said that space-time had a beginning. (2) They said it came from nothing. All that is left is to determine how this could have happened. Did space-time (as well as matter and energy) pop out of nothing by _chance_ or were there _choices_ involved.

If you claim it was done by _chance_, you must assume that there are countably infinite alternate space-time universes since chance would have to operate randomly over its domain of possibilities. For this theoretic approach to work, consciousness must be down-played as an insignificant accident.

If you claim it was done by a single or multiple acts of _choice_, you introduce dimensions of consciousness outside of space-time where those choices were made. For this theoretical approach, our own consciousness becomes a valuable source of information. If this approach wins out, the religious views that we were "made in the image of God" or that we have a "God within" become validated.

Personally, I'm on the choice side.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> What for some people is a "reasonable debate" is for others a power play. 
> 
> I want to avoid the power play approach up-front. The dismissal of out-of-body experiences by assigning them a pseudo-scientific label is a power play. I am responding to it by saying up-front that I don't accept such explanations, that is, I will respond to a power play with an outright dismissal. Out-of-body experiences remain as evidence.
> 
> Why is consciousness important to discuss? 
> 
> During the second half of the last century, physicists validated two fundamental religious views of the universe that would have seemed absurd from a scientific perspective 100 years ago. (1) They said that space-time had a beginning. (2) They said it came from nothing. All that is left is to determine how this could have happened. Did space-time (as well as matter and energy) pop out of nothing by _chance_ or were there _choices_ involved.
> 
> If you claim it was done by _chance_, you must assume that there are countably infinite alternate space-time universes since chance would have to operate randomly over its domain of possibilities. For this theoretic approach to work, consciousness must be down-played as an insignificant accident.
> ...


Thank you for your very interesting post. What I intended by saying that "we" cannot have a reasonable debate was mainly to stress my opinion about the meaningless nature of theism versus atheism debate. Now I find that we are suddenly dealing with quantum physics and metaphysics, which I don't consider to be an area where a reasonable debate wouldn't be possible, at least if we can find fundamental principles that can both agree.

If you feel that I was making a power play in pointing out that out-of-body experiences are pseudo-science, then you are kind of proving my point about theism versus atheism debate, since out-of-body experiences are generally perceived as pseudo-science. I don't say this as my own opinion, I say this as an individual who has followed this ongoing debate for years. And I only pointed out temporal lobe epilepsy and Persinger because I thought you might be interested to learn more about them, if you hadn't already done so.

But again, even though we might have a debate about our consciousness, free will or reason behind the existence of universe, all these fundamental religious questions ultimately boils down to questions of faith. Like you said, you believe that the world wasn't created by chance. OK, can you present any evidence to support this view? Since faith is not a factor in scientific mode of thinking, there is really no point in religious debate where scientific arguments are against any other forms of arguments. This is all that I have argued here, nothing else.

It's true however that science is nowadays used as a tool of power play, I can genuinely agree on that. It's the empiricists who won't accept any other than empirical evidence. So is there anything we can do about this? Not really. If they have chosen this mode of thinking, there is nothing that can affect their opinion other than empirical evidence.

I'd very much like to continue this debate on a philosophical level, without any allusions to science vs pseudo-science or theism vs atheism debate. I'm very interested to hear your opinion on the founding principles of human consciousness, since you seem to place a lot of your arguments on this cartesian mode of thinking. Personally I tend to lean toward a more Saussurean/Lacanian mode of thinking, and therefore I don't necessarily approve to cogito ergo sum, because individuals can never have an individual language with which they could produce individual thoughts; the very terms, that you use to make sense of the world, have been given to you. In other words, "my thoughts are not my own". This common semiotic view tends to point to a more deterministic worldview: if our consciousness is ultimately based on an artificial system of signs, we can't really rely on our cognition anymore as a source of authentic information - or at least not the consciousness, rather the uncouncious. It also points to a pretty sceptical view towards the existence of god. From this prespective, if there is something that we could call a god, it is most likely something similar to the structure of language.

So how do you defend your statement that consciousness is important in understanding the nature of our existence?

----------


## YesNo

> Thank you for your very interesting post. What I intended by saying that "we" cannot have a reasonable debate was mainly to stress my opinion about the meaningless nature of theism versus atheism debate. Now I find that we are suddenly dealing with quantum physics and metaphysics, which I don't consider to be an area where a reasonable debate wouldn't be possible, at least if we can find fundamental principles that can both agree.
> 
> If you feel that I was making a power play in pointing out that out-of-body experiences are pseudo-science, then you are kind of proving my point about theism versus atheism debate, since *out-of-body experiences are generally perceived as pseudo-science*. I don't say this as my own opinion, I say this as an individual who has followed this ongoing debate for years. And I only pointed out *temporal lobe epilepsy* and Persinger because I thought you might be interested to learn more about them, if you hadn't already done so.
> 
> But again, even though we might have a debate about our consciousness, free will or reason behind the existence of universe, all these fundamental religious questions ultimately boils down to questions of faith. Like you said, you believe that the world wasn't created by chance. *OK, can you present any evidence to support this view? Since faith is not a factor in scientific mode of thinking*, there is really no point in religious debate where scientific arguments are against any other forms of arguments. This is all that I have argued here, nothing else.
> 
> It's true however that science is nowadays used as a tool of power play, I can genuinely agree on that. *It's the empiricists who won't accept any other than empirical evidence.* So is there anything we can do about this? Not really. If they have chosen this mode of thinking, there is nothing that can affect their opinion other than empirical evidence.
> 
> I'd very much like to continue this debate on a philosophical level, without any allusions to science vs pseudo-science or theism vs atheism debate. I'm very interested to hear your opinion on the founding principles of human consciousness, since you seem to place a lot of your arguments on this cartesian mode of thinking. Personally I tend to lean toward a more Saussurean/Lacanian mode of thinking, and therefore I don't necessarily approve to cogito ergo sum, because individuals can never have an individual language with which they could produce individual thoughts; the very terms, that you use to make sense of the world, have been given to you. *In other words, "my thoughts are not my own".* This common semiotic view tends to point to a more deterministic worldview: if our consciousness is ultimately based on an artificial system of signs, we can't really rely on our cognition anymore as a source of authentic information - or at least not the consciousness, rather the uncouncious. It also points to a pretty sceptical view towards the existence of god. From this prespective, if there is something that we could call a god, it is most likely something similar to the structure of language.
> ...


I think I agree with you about language although I don't know enough about Saussure or Lacan to have much to say about it.

If a scientist is able to stimulate the temporal lobe and simulate a transcendental experience, that does not prove that the transcendental experience was a delusion. All it shows is that we now have another way to get that experience. A new technique has been discovered.

That transcendental experience is itself evidence--empirical evidence, that needs to be explored further, not dismissed.

Consider the universe popping out of nothing 14 billion years ago. What triggered that event? Was it chance or was a choice involved? If chance caused this event then there are infinitely many space-time universes. I don't have a problem with that, but I do think an infinity of universes is a high price to pay for a theory that refuses to acknowledge consciousness as an obvious place where that choice could have occurred. And our own consciousness would be a door through which we could make further explorations.

----------


## laidbackperson

> The problem is I accept the various forms of out-of-body experiences as evidence.
> 
> That means any scientific theory or religious viewpoint that doesn't, or tries to trivialize it, is living in fantasy land.
> 
> That's _my_ perspective. I am postmodern enough to allow you to have your own perspective.





> So this leads us to the conclusion that we cannot have a reasonable debate about this matter. This is precisely what I wrote in my first post to this topic: there is no way to have a reasonable debate if the opposing sides cannot reach any kind of agreement on even the most basic principles of the debate.





> _What for some people is a "reasonable debate" is for others a power play.
> 
> I want to avoid the power play approach up-front. The dismissal of out-of-body experiences by assigning them a pseudo-scientific label is a power play. I am responding to it by saying up-front that I don't accept such explanations, that is, I will respond to a power play with an outright dismissal._ Out-of-body experiences remain as evidence.
> 
> Why is consciousness important to discuss?
> 
> During the second half of the last century, physicists validated two fundamental religious views of the universe that would have seemed absurd from a scientific perspective 100 years ago. (1) They said that space-time had a beginning. (2) They said it came from nothing. All that is left is to determine how this could have happened. Did space-time (as well as matter and energy) pop out of nothing by chance or were there choices involved.
> 
> If you claim it was done by chance, you must assume that there are countably infinite alternate space-time universes since chance would have to operate randomly over its domain of possibilities. For this theoretic approach to work, consciousness must be down-played as an insignificant accident.
> ...


I think it is a very good reply.

----------


## sethyirak_7

I once stood on the side of "If you leave the genesis of our universe in the hands of chance, there must invariably be an infinite number of universes due to the nature of that chance" philosophy, and yet I found myself looking in the face of a similar problem when I brought the supernatural into the equation. It is hard to narrow down the _amount_ of supernaturality that is allowed in the equation. When you start discussing limits, you are undeniably discussing theology. 

With that said, I am not forsaking my fragile belief in supernatural occurences, but I cannot use that belief as a means of reasoning. As Wilde's Lord Henry might have said, leave theology to those who need it. And theology is always where I end up when discussing this matter.

I believe it was Freudian Monkey who stated that a theist and an atheist cannot have a reasonable debate. I must agree with this statement. The debate ends as soon as it begins, with the introductory statement of, "What I believe is..." It turns into a game of "change the other person's mind", rather than "demonstrate why the other person is wrong." Changing someone's mind isn't empirically valuable. I'm not sure if empirical value is the goal of this thread; it may just be a "quality of life" debate (which is almost always just as fun), but I think I remember someone challenging a non-believer to "give sound reasoning" for their disbelief, and that sounds awfully empirical. 

I may be completely off the mark from the discussion at hand, but in reality, I am simply trying to raise my post count.  :Brow:

----------


## iankropp

I agree with the stalemate statement. It will never truly be solved or answer, and it upsets me when people take these stubborn positions and entrench themselves in simplistic "right or wrong," and "black and white" opinions.

----------


## G L Wilson

All the evidence lines up with an atheist, his or her Being, falsehoods line the pockets of the faithful like cheap coin.

----------


## YesNo

> I may be completely off the mark from the discussion at hand, but in reality, I am simply trying to raise my post count.


 :Smile:  That's as good a reason as any to post something.

----------


## G L Wilson

> That's as good a reason as any to post something.


It is no reason at all, however it is funny.

----------


## lieasleep

> A spiritual experience is something misconstrued. Spirituality is the only thing that gives a meaning to our meaninglessness in a world that is so void and empty and so creepy. I do not know, in fact no body knows whether or not God exists but I see great amounts of placating stuffs in spirituality and that is why I hanker after it.


I would rather accept the meaningless, void, empty, creepy world for what it is rather than try and deny it with notions of the supernatural. Why should we desire to see the world through placated eyes. Our anger is allayed but still present. I would rather be present with it because suspending my own presence to avoid something too painfully present is only self-detrimental; the world still remains as it is.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I would rather accept the meaningless, void, empty, creepy world for what it is rather than try and deny it with notions of the supernatural. Why should we desire to see the world through placated eyes. Our anger is allayed but still present. I would rather be present with it because suspending my own presence to avoid something too painfully present is only self-detrimental; the world still remains as it is.


Is not nihilism a persona too, lieasleep? Is not authenticity for when you are dead? What is reality, and what is truth? Is not beauty truth, and ugliness true too? Are we not alienate from the world, and in our loneliness seek comfort? Is not the light blinding as the darkness is cool? Is not black a shade of white? Am I not asking a lot of questions? Is it not all illusion? How does one become certain? Where are we, and what are we here for? Can you not answer my questions?

----------


## lieasleep

> Is not nihilism a persona too, lieasleep? Is not authenticity for when you are dead? What is reality, and what is truth? Is not beauty truth, and ugliness true too? Are we not alienate from the world, and in our loneliness seek comfort? Is not the light blinding as the darkness is cool? Is not black a shade of white? Am I not asking a lot of questions? Is it not all illusion? How does one become certain? Where are we, and what are we here for? Can you not answer my questions?


Haha I can try to answer a few. Please accept some suspended humility. I only attempt answering some of this because it is fun. Disregard the answers themselves completely.

It is a persona that is attempting to not be a persona; although it is not whether or not it is a persona, it is. 

No, Hamlet, authenticity too is a self-qualified, relative non-existent and, when related back to to nihilism and persona, actually destroys any idea of existent value in culture, tradition, and/ or authenticity beyond our actions which reflect our own reflections. 

No truth in relativity beyond a self-qualified one, even a self-qualified one hidden behind a highly affected self-qualification. We only make choices based on experience and desire but being informed by experience leads to affect. I am extremely affected but I am still making the choice to be affected. I am still taking the action of effect. 

We are not alienate from the world because we are a part of it. We are arrangement of atoms, very physical existent atoms that are constantly entering and becoming a part of us (in the corporeal sense) and then again, in this same sense, moving out of us; what you consider the world, the physical universe, may very well be a part of you soon and may very well have been you; you once considered the dust on your floor _you_.

I don't really feel like answering anymore. Real fun trying to answer though.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Haha I can try to answer a few. Please accept some suspended humility. I only attempt answering some of this because it is fun. Disregard the answers themselves completely.
> 
> It is a persona that is attempting to not be a persona; although it is not whether or not it is a persona, it is. 
> 
> No, Hamlet, authenticity too is a self-qualified, relative non-existent and, when related back to to nihilism and persona, actually destroys any idea of existent value in culture, tradition, and/ or authenticity beyond our actions which reflect our own reflections. 
> 
> No truth in relativity beyond a self-qualified one, even a self-qualified one hidden behind a highly affected self-qualification. We only make choices based on experience and desire but being informed by experience leads to affect. I am extremely affected but I am still making the choice to be affected. I am still taking the action of effect. 
> 
> We are not alienate from the world because we are a part of it. We are arrangement of atoms, very physical existent atoms that are constantly entering and becoming a part of us (in the corporeal sense) and then again, in this same sense, moving out of us; what you consider the world, the physical universe, may very well be a part of you soon and may very well have been you; you once considered the dust on your floor _you_.
> ...


"Man simply is." Sartre

Is he nothing else? Am I not my brother's keeper?

----------


## lieasleep

> "Man simply is." Sartre
> 
> Is he nothing else? Am I not my brother's keeper?


Nope. Responsibility is is another one of those self-qualified relative blah blah blahs. _Choke_ by Pahalniuk is all about that, despite my hating that book, it made some good points.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Nope. Responsibility is is another one of those self-qualified relative blah blah blahs. _Choke_ by Pahalniuk is all about that, despite my hating that book, it made some good points.


Since you seem to think all is relative, why don't you try suicide and see if there is any certainty in that?

The nihilist thinks that nothing's more important than any other. Kurt Vonnegut is an example. (I knew that there was something which annoyed me about that guy.)

----------


## caddy_caddy

I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me. 
I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!

----------


## G L Wilson

> I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me. 
> I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
> I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
> I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
> I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!


"The Lord is a man of war." Exodus

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me. 
> I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
> I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
> I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
> I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!


Well said...

----------


## G L Wilson

> I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me. 
> I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
> I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
> I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
> I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!


How can God fail you, caddy_caddy, when he doesn't exist?

----------


## lieasleep

> Since you seem to think all is relative, why don't you try suicide and see if there is any certainty in that?
> 
> The nihilist thinks that nothing's more important than any other. Kurt Vonnegut is an example. (I knew that there was something which annoyed me about that guy.)


I like living. One day it will be over. Why now? Not everything is relative, a bunch of things that don't actually exist are relative. "Isn't existence relative?" No. Not a huge fan of solipsism.

And Vonnegut is a self-described humanist. Can someone be a humanist and a nihilist at the same time? Seems like humanism still takes a certain amount of faith that is really contradictory to nihilism.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I like living. One day it will be over. Why now? Not everything is relative, a bunch of things that don't actually exist are relative. "Isn't existence relative?" No. Not a huge fan of solipsism.
> 
> And Vonnegut is a self-described humanist. Can someone be a humanist and a nihilist at the same time? Seems like humanism still takes a certain amount of faith that is really contradictory to nihilism.


I am that I am, and who is to dispute me?

I cannot be God, for I exist because a baby has smiled at me. Proof of existence is in laughter. The Sufis say that the world began with a smile, why should I not die laughing?

----------


## caddy_caddy

> How can God fail you, caddy_caddy, when he doesn't exist?


He exists within me.
You know, outside my house there is a lot of trees full of birds; they keep singing but for years I've never noticed their existence; I've never remember that I heard them once; it's only when I began to love the birds' songs that they exist to me.

----------


## blazeofglory

> He exists within me.
> You know, outside my house there is a lot of trees full of birds; they keep singing but for years I've never noticed their existence; I've never remember that I heard them once; it's only when I began to love the birds' songs that they exist to me.


So marvelously written. All we see is the reflection of what we have inside and our strong faith enables us to see the beauty of everything. 

You are right Caddy in saying you can see the awe-inspiring beauty of nature since there is beauty inside you since you feel the message of the creator of the universe.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me. 
> I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
> I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
> I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
> I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!


If those are reasons to believe in God, you can hardly be surprised when those of us who haven't had those experiences don't. In fact, I'd be interested to know whether you believed in God before you had those experiences, or whether you had them and then came to believe in God.

----------


## caddy_caddy

I know it's highly subjective Haribol , not the objective reality most of us are looking for ; but why don't we look within not without?




> If those are reasons to believe in God, you can hardly be surprised when those of us who haven't had those experiences don't. In fact, I'd be interested to know whether you believed in God before you had those experiences, or whether you had them and then came to believe in God.


Before that I'm taught that there is God but only through my own experiences that I "believed" in God.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Before that I'm taught that there is God but only through my own experiences that I "believed" in God.


Two different uses of 'believe' here. 

a) _I believe in an afterlife._ (I consider such a thing exists)

b) _I believe in my wife._ (I consider that I can depend on her.)


So, did you believe in God in sense (a) before you had those experiences?

----------


## YesNo

> He exists within me.
> You know, outside my house there is a lot of trees full of birds; they keep singing but for years I've never noticed their existence; I've never remember that I heard them once; it's only when I began to love the birds' songs that they exist to me.


That's a very nice way of describing love as being necessary before something can really exist for someone. I hadn't thought of it like that before.

Most of the time we are unaware, except vaguely, of what is around us. Only when we are patient enough to pay attention do we really start seeing. And that patience is a kind of love if I am following what you are saying.

I also agree with your first sentence.

----------


## caddy_caddy

You cannot depend on something that doesn't exist Mark. It's both meaning .




> That's a very nice way of describing love as being necessary before something can really exist for someone. I hadn't thought of it like that before.
> 
> Most of the time we are unaware, except vaguely, of what is around us. Only when we are patient enough to pay attention do we really start seeing. And that patience is a kind of love if I am following what you are saying.
> 
> I also agree with your first sentence.


What does matter if something exists or not if it has no value to me? To me it makes no difference. 
Shall I consider those whom I love and are out of the reach of my senses a non-existent beings and those who are around me but don't have any value to me existent beings? Why is it so?

----------


## Atehequa

Sometimes I hear people speak of a loving god
Sometime I hear people say they have the fear of god within them
I have to ask myself - Why would anyone have fear of a loving god ?

----------


## caddy_caddy

We should fear the most those whom we love the most; That's because we are defenseless face of them.

----------


## Atehequa

> We should fear the most those whom we love the most; That's because we are defenseless face of them.


Seems like an unnecessary, uneasy, steepsided path.

----------


## MarkBastable

> You cannot depend on something that doesn't exist Mark.


I'm not asking a question about belief. I'm asking a question about the sequence of events. 

Did you believe God existed before you had the experiences you described in your list?

----------


## caddy_caddy

I answered you in the previous post but u didn't notice it. 
At first it was not a belief in God , no . I can't call it a belief. It was an idea of a God, that there is a God but later on I believed in Him.

Are u satisfied?





> Seems like an unnecessary, uneasy, steepsided path.


There is an Arabic verse that says : Who fears to climb the high mountains , spends all his life among holes.
__________________

----------


## MarkBastable

I'm not looking for satisfaction. I'm hoping to understand.

So - you didn't believe in God when you first had these experiences of him. It was the build-up of these experiences that caused you to believe in him.

The first time though, when you _didn't_ entirely believe he existed, and one of those things you listed took place, what happened?

----------


## caddy_caddy

The first time though, when you didn't entirely believe he existed, what happened? 

I was lost and feel that I'm so lonely and weak.When I believed in Him and that he really exists ,when I feel lonely and very weak , there is avoice within me that tells me ,you are not alone there is God ,and if you are weak and lost God could support you .

----------


## MarkBastable

Fair enough. He's never done that to me. When he does, I'll give it some thought.

----------


## caddy_caddy

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
then allow me to ask u , it's my turn now ; is it because he didn't do such a thing to u that you don't love him ?

----------


## MarkBastable

> hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> then allow me to ask u , it's my turn now ; is it because he didn't do such a thing to u that you don't love him ?


No - he might do something like that and I might still not love him. But I might at least _believe_ in him. As it is, I have no experience of him so there's nothing to think about, any more than I think about, for instance, cold fire or time travel.

----------


## caddy_caddy

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so whatever he does you won't love him , ok . But tell me if a female tells you I love you Mark , how could you prove that she really loves you and to believe her and /in her if you refuse to have any experience with her? Isn't experience the essential form of any knowledge?

----------


## MarkBastable

> hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so whatever he does you won't love him , ok . But tell me if a female tells you I love you Mark , how could you prove that she really loves you and to believe her and /in her if you refuse to have any experience with her? Isn't experience the essential form of any knowledge?


The question is not whether I love him, but whether I believe he exists. When he does something for me as personal as what he's done for you, then I'll think about how I feel about him.

So yeah - I agree with you that experience is important. When God and I share one, I guess we'll start paying attention to each other.

----------


## caddy_caddy

I swear I'm really depressed these days but u made me laugh from the bottom of my heart . Thx Mark.

And why u won't him to do sth for you if you don't love Him . don't believe in him , and don't trust Him?

----------


## MarkBastable

> And why u won't him to do sth for you if you don't love Him . don't believe in him , and don't trust Him?



For a start, it's not the case that I don't love him or do love him or do trust him or don't trust him. As I don't believe he exists, none of those things are possible.


But more importantly, I don't want him to "do something" for me. All I'm saying is that apparently he's done something for you, and if he did that for me, I'd have to revise my beliefs. If, on the other hand, he doesn't want to - that's okay. I'm fine and he's fine and I'm sure he'll get on fine without me.

----------


## caddy_caddy

Why are u interested in my experience then ?

----------


## MarkBastable

Two reasons.

Firstly, because I'm interested in how it stacks up as an argument, intellectually.

Second, because if you're right, God's playing favourites, which I don't think is fair of him.

----------


## lieasleep

> The first time though, when you didn't entirely believe he existed, what happened? 
> 
> I was lost and feel that I'm so lonely and weak.When I believed in Him and that he really exists ,when I feel lonely and very weak , there is avoice within me that tells me ,you are not alone there is God ,and if you are weak and lost God could support you .


I accept my human condition as lonely and weak and, most of all, small. You felt lonely and weak without god because you are lonely and weak. It is only once we accept the conditions of our lives that we can transcend them in some way. Denial of these conditions on the back of something that does not _exist_ is a denial and rejection of all that _does_ exist and, thus, the only non-relative truth that we could ever know.

----------


## Atehequa

> There is an Arabic verse that says : Who fears to climb the high mountains , spends all his life among holes.
> __________________



Thus for the Arabs. 
It is we of the mountains who sometimes fear coming down, especially at a long drop.


Once I heard - all good paths lead to better places

----------


## G L Wilson

True faith is a strength, strong reason is a weakness.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> True faith is a strength, strong reason is a weakness.


True faith AND strong reason can reside within the same.

----------


## lieasleep

> True faith is a strength, strong reason is a weakness.


By what standards?

----------


## G L Wilson

> True faith AND strong reason can reside within the same.


"The faith that stands on authority is not faith."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

----------


## G L Wilson

> By what standards?


By the highest.

----------


## caddy_caddy

> Two reasons.
> 
> Firstly, because I'm interested in how it stacks up as an argument, intellectually.
> 
> Second, because if you're right, God's playing favorites, which I don't think is fair of him.


I call him when I need Him. I love Him, trust Him, and believe in Him . You don't try, you don't want even to try , and you say he 's playing favorites!

If love, trust, and belief does not matter to you, it does matter to Him.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> "The faith that stands on authority is not faith."
> Ralph Waldo Emerson


Just because Ralph Waldo Emerson said it, it doesn't make it so. I don't agree with him.

----------


## caddy_caddy

> I accept my human condition as lonely and weak and, most of all, small. You felt lonely and weak without god because you are lonely and weak. It is only once we accept the conditions of our lives that we can transcend them in some way. Denial of these conditions on the back of something that does not _exist_ is a denial and rejection of all that _does_ exist and, thus, the only non-relative truth that we could ever know.


Allow me to differ with you. If people would think in this way and accept their human condition they won't be able to make revolutions and change their condition.We should rebel over this condition not to surrender to it. I allowed others to step over me and destroy me once because I used to believe in what you've said. But then I discovered I was wrong. We are not weak and alone; with the help of God you would discover that there is in every one of us a hero, but it needs only to be awakened. My life was a series of battles on every field; everyone was against me and I was completely alone but I was willing to go till the end in my endeavor because I used to think of God and that although I have no one to support me , I have God and that's enough. I did win by the end. I'm not the same person who was years ago. I was able to change my condition not by accepting it but by revolting against it. This in not a denial of what that does exist on the back of what does not exist. The person who I'm now did not exist years ago even in my imagination, even as a possibility; but now it exists.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Allow me to differ with you. If people would think in this way and accept their human condition they won't be able to make revolutions and change their condition.We should rebel over this condition not to surrender to it. I allowed others to step over me and destroy me once because I used to believe in what you've said. But then I discovered I was wrong. We are not weak and alone; with the help of God you would discover that there is in every one of us a hero, but it needs only to be awakened. My life was a series of battles on every field; everyone was against me and I was completely alone but I was willing to go till the end in my endeavor because I used to think of God and that although I have no one to support me , I have God and that's enough. I did win by the end. I'm not the same person who was years ago. I was able to change my condition not by accepting it but by revolting against it. This in not a denial of what that does exist on the back of what does not exist. The person who I'm now did not exist years ago even in my imagination, even as a possibility; but now it exists.


Very well said.

----------


## lieasleep

> Allow me to differ with you. If people would think in this way and accept their human condition they won't be able to make revolutions and change their condition.We should rebel over this condition not to surrender to it. I allowed others to step over me and destroy me once because I used to believe in what you've said. But then I discovered I was wrong. We are not weak and alone; with the help of God you would discover that there is in every one of us a hero, but it needs only to be awakened. My life was a series of battles on every field; everyone was against me and I was completely alone but I was willing to go till the end in my endeavor because I used to think of God and that although I have no one to support me , I have God and that's enough. I did win by the end. I'm not the same person who was years ago. I was able to change my condition not by accepting it but by revolting against it. This in not a denial of what that does exist on the back of what does not exist. The person who I'm now did not exist years ago even in my imagination, even as a possibility; but now it exists.


You completely misunderstood me. What you are talking about is yourself within the context of a society. I am talking about myself in the context of the universe. You revolted against your _circumstances_ but not your condition. 

The only revolt against our condition is acceptance of it. The only transcendence lies in the acceptance that we can not transcend. I am talking about condition in its basest form, the physical. 

I am glad that you found happiness, but it was not God that brought you it, it was your action towards happiness. This action may have been based on a belief in God but no one _needs_ God to want and make actions toward a happier life. I commend *you* for your actions, not god.

----------


## G L Wilson

Revolt is resistance. lieasleep, you are closer to God than you think.

caddy_caddy, the soul at peace is God's.

----------


## blithe spirit

I would rather believe in faith than believe in doubt.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I would rather believe in faith than believe in doubt.


I would rather cross the road like the chicken but I don't.

----------


## blithe spirit

> I would rather believe in faith than believe in doubt.





> I would rather cross the road like the chicken but I don't.


It takes courage to take that step of faith.

----------


## G L Wilson

> It takes courage to take that step of faith.


It takes courage to step in the other direction as well.

----------


## lieasleep

> It takes courage to take that step of faith.


it is fear to turn away from truth. faith, by its definition, is devoid of truth

----------


## G L Wilson

> it is fear to turn away from truth. faith, by its definition, is devoid of truth


1) What is truth? and
2) What is known?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> it is fear to turn away from truth. faith, by its definition, is devoid of truth


Where did you get that definition?

It seems that some just want to belittle a faith in God, but they wholeheartedly accept a faith in one man's conclusions of another's observations.

----------


## lieasleep

> Where did you get that definition?
> 
> It seems that some just want to belittle a faith in God, but they wholeheartedly accept a faith in one man's conclusions of another's observations.


I am not trying to belittle anything, I am trying to look at it within the dimensions of truth. Is God a truth? No. It is a speculation. Most things that we consider as truths are really only speculations, rife with relativity and taken only upon faith. Consider love, language, honor, cowardice, morality, ethics, spirituality, empathy, emotion. These things are taken to be universal but do not actually exist. Does that make them _un_true? No, they still live within the physical through the mechanism of thought and our interpretations of such mechanics. Their being thought can, obviously, not be denied but our faith in those interpretations, our insistence that such interpretations bear _truth_ is like being handed a picture of the loch ness monster by a man saying "Can't you _see_?!" and screaming in reply "Proof!" without second thought that you are simply holding a picture. The picture has truth. You can say "I am holding a picture" because you are, but you can't say "I am looking at the loch ness monster," because you are not. Similarly, one can more truthfully say "I am having thoughts that God exists," than "God exists." They are descriptions of the exact process only the former is moving towards truth (not there yet, the speaker could be lying which means the only real truth that he could say is "I am speaking" but this is a silly point which should be disregarded) and the latter is moving towards faith. And yet, faith is not belittled. It is made equal.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I am not trying to belittle anything, I am trying to look at it within the dimensions of truth. Is God a truth? No. It is a speculation. Most things that we consider as truths are really only speculations, rife with relativity and taken only upon faith. Consider love, language, honor, cowardice, morality, ethics, spirituality, empathy, emotion. These things are taken to be universal but do not actually exist. Does that make them _un_true? No, they still live within the physical through the mechanism of thought and our interpretations of such mechanics. Their being thought can, obviously, not be denied but our faith in those interpretations, our insistence that such interpretations bear _truth_ is like being handed a picture of the loch ness monster by a man saying "Can't you _see_?!" and screaming in reply "Proof!" without second thought that you are simply holding a picture. The picture has truth. You can say "I am holding a picture" because you are, but you can't say "I am looking at the loch ness monster," because you are not. Similarly, one can more truthfully say "I am having thoughts that God exists," than "God exists." They are descriptions of the exact process only the former is moving towards truth (not there yet, the speaker could be lying which means the only real truth that he could say is "I am speaking" but this is a silly point which should be disregarded) and the latter is moving towards faith. And yet, faith is not belittled. It is made equal.


In a way, the search for truth is more important than the discovery of truth. We must imagine Sisyphus happy as Camus said.

----------


## lieasleep

> In a way, the search for truth is more important than the discovery of truth. We must imagine Sisyphus happy as Camus said.


GL are you a bot? I will be pissed if you are because you do say some descent stuff.

----------


## G L Wilson

> GL are you a bot? I will be pissed if you are because you do say some descent stuff.


I am human, lieasleep, as are you.

----------


## Rores28

G L.... I don't know what to think of you. If you are a bot than congrats to your programmers. If not I find you weird and pithy.  :Smile:

----------


## G L Wilson

Rores28, I don't mind being weird and pithy.

----------


## lieasleep

> Rores28, I don't mind being weird and pithy.


I know that this is getting away entirely from the point of this thread (maybe not) but I have been thinking of asking you, G L, to prove your humanity but I have realized that I no longer care whether or not you are a human or a bot or maybe some mix of the two, you say some good stuff so bot or not, I accept you.

----------


## G L Wilson

Thank you, lieasleep. Now I have lost the thread of our argument, where were we? Yes, must we imagine Sisyphus happy?

----------


## lieasleep

> Thank you, lieasleep. Now I have lost the thread of our argument, where were we? Yes, must we imagine Sisyphus happy?


haha I think that we are getting somewhat off topic but I don't care and think Camus had some very pointed intentions when writing those words (and to put it in the context of this thread, we are discussing the possibility of happiness when considering the universe without god and without meaning). I think Camus was showing us how happiness is _possible_ through acceptance of life's base condition. But, as much as I buy that, I think true acceptance of the universe (including life) on its base terms (which again, is being used within this lexicon as a description of godlessness, nihilism, and acceptance of our lack of freedom), "refusing to hope," as Camus put it, nearly _requires_ sadness as well.

I read a book called _They Shoot Horses, Don't They?_ by Horace McCoy (a book that led many French to call him the true founder of existentialism) and, to not rant on for too long, basically asserted a character's unhappiness in the face of a crushingly realistic disillusionment (like those that we are talking about) against the backdrop of the Great Depression. The character chooses death. I think the conditions of our life (all of the things we can't change about living but are desperately trying to) are crushing and to not treat them, even while remaining happy, as crushing (obviously not to the extent of suicide) takes some hope. So yes, is the answer to your question, but not completely happy.

----------


## G L Wilson

Martin Luther King Jnr said that he had been to the mountain top and had seen the promised land. I think that I will push my rock in his direction if you don't mind, lieasleep.

----------


## lieasleep

> Martin Luther King Jnr said that he had been to the mountain top and had seen the promised land. I think that I will push my rock in his direction if you don't mind, lieasleep.


Of course you will, that is the point.  :Yesnod: 

And as I am thinking about it, so does everyone else (who doesn't, yet die). Gods, meanings, universalities are all attempts at this happiness only with a much larger amount of faith than yours, G L. But is it still not an attempt at happiness while being crushed? (I do not mean to give it a negative spin, I am treating it as if it just _was_, trying to expose it perhaps, but not-- at least intentionally--as negative)

----------


## G L Wilson

My lot is a poor one, lieasleep, but I still have hope that one day man will achieve paradise.

----------


## silvermist

Originally stated in OP:
As for my believing in God, I said I believe in God primarily because I find nature so beautifully planned that I think a God has to be involved somewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my late twenties, I also looked at nature and told myself that there had to have been a God to create such a perfect world. I wasn't sure if He was still around until later. 

A few years after this, I experienced a heartache that left me devastated. Even in my despair, the love I felt for the person who caused this allowed me to forgive. When I did that, a new understanding of myself came to light and I was filled with a positive energy that I knew was totally different from anything I had felt before.

At the time, I didn't connect it with God, but a couple of years after that when I found myself in the same situation again, (a sinful relationship that I shouldn't have been in) I read a book that told of Jesus and who He is and why He is the acceptable sacrifice for sin and that if I believed in Him, I would be redeemed and reconciled to God.

In other words, no matter what I had done God wasn't mad at me anymore. I chose to believe it and that same positive energy returned only this time I knew who it was coming from. I also could see that I had put myself in harm's way. It wasn't only the other person involved who was at fault.

It was a tremendous experience with much insight gained and guilt lifted. There was a new-found freedom that I was so grateful for. I will never forget it.

----------


## usman.khawar

let me tell a little bit(here little bit coz he did a tremendous job and answer every question of the this modern era of science) from my teacher sayings and you will also come to know about the reason of my beleiving in God. 

Everyone has different opinion, but what is worst of all is intellect itself as Sheikh Ibn-e-Arabi had said ¡ “Knowledge is the greatest veil” similarly the intellect of any intellectual is the main problem; this is a big dilemma, more psychological and scientific attitudes. When I perceive my approach is right and get the results out of my hard work, worldly and universal problems are being solved according to my deliberations. Meanwhile someone ask me to accept religion, whereas there is no empirical evidence/data for me to accept God. Same case is being faced by every scientist when he accepts God or tried to accept God. As they (scientists) had researched to solve scientific problems, similarly I have researched on the concept of God.
I still remember when a western professor enquired me, how I found God? I told him that I did nothing extraordinary I just tried like a common student who had an urge to discover truth and mostly I wished to get rid from God and main cause of this fear was due to the image of God in my mind of a cruel person who will beat me if did any wrong. These images are instilled in our minds from generations. To overcome this fear I decided to search Him if he exist then its all right if not then I will be free. 
I searched on the concept of God for eight years. I did not start my research on lower level. I had in my mind objections of world’s greatest intellectuals, philosophers and atheist so I started my research on their standards. I have observed a common weakness in all the scientists that when they talk about God (mostly in the cosmologist). As everyone knew Alexander Fleming, who had to examine a culture plate for twelve years, after twelve years he suddenly discovered penicillin. Mostly things are discovered like this. Suddenness is very important but behind this suddenness great efforts are involved. After so much hard work when scientists discover something they give such comment .Excellent¡¦.! Very good¡¦! Exceptional hard work! This is a meticulous work! Dedicated, great people work with. But when they talk about God they talk like quacks. And it would be unjust to give opinion about it without reading it on its own level, as Lord Russell did and said about Quran, 
“All gospel truths is alike” 
But all gospel truths is not alike, Quran is not like Bible. It is entirely a different book of which if any information is proved wrong then Allah becomes also wrong. There is a major difference between Quran and other gospels. Man remains a man despite of doing hundred of mistakes but Allah is not Allah if he does a single mistake. And Allah has declared Quran as his data on earth. 
They did not even study the whole Quran, neither Hadith (explaining documentary of quran, the life of Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H) nor Islamic History. They talk in a funniest way whether he is Altaf bhai or Hoodbhoy. 
.it is the same case if I would be delivering lecture on atomic physics instead of thesis of Islam and hall is full of scientist who are waiting earnestly for my departure. You cannot even imagine how stupid these people look when they talk about God. I would rather suggest them to stop giving their opinion in these matters. I experienced a practical incident when I said with reference to Quran that God has set the mountains up as kingpins to keep the earth in balance The head of physics department of Quaid-e-Azam University wrote me a letter asking My dear professor If you came at university I will teach you about that, you should not talk on these realities. We have not such evidence. This is not right I replied him only that sorry professor, you are not a professor of Geology, You are a professor of Physics, do not involve yourself into other people job The professor of physics is criticizing me on giving geological statements. Obviously I have not studied it because I have not to become a scientist but the knowledge I get from God or Quran can never be denied, either it is proved through sciences or arts. God gives a statement in the Quran, just tell me from where I get its proof .it was a queer statement that a bird .hoopoe. came to king Solomon (A.S) and said O. Grand king I have founded a strange and splendid state where a woman ruled and they worshipped the Sun. ladies and gentlemen! Who was hoopoe? I don’t know! there are many who even denied this bird and say how birds could talk to Prophets and vice versa. One person said that king Solomon (A.S) had not addressed to the ants, he should wait a little before giving a final statement as he said ants can not hear, it was true since three years back, now modern research has proved that ants are able to hear, speech and give signals at 1 mega hertz. They ask for evidence which is known by every one now but it is not still known which quality in Prophet make him able to hear their voices, obviously he was an extraordinary man. When I studied this incident I was worried to get its evidence. Ladies and gentlemen! You will surely get the evidences from the archaeological findings of Sebains civilization where it was ruined. Do you know archaeologists have founded some places in Sebains civilization where people worshipped .Apollo. the Sun. The very first pillar founded by them was of Apollo. Now sayings of God don’t surprise me any more but what surprised me is the fact that what Quran says in the first place of these people that they worshipped Sun is being discovered by the archaeologist too. So ladies and gentlemen! It is necessary to take help from everywhere. My respected teacher Ali Usman Hajveri had said, If you want to know God then get every kind of knowledge which is required for explaining Quran. And now a day it is not possible to be skilled in every kind of knowledge. But you can achieve that intellectual level where one can understand the ultimate results. Once you get a level of maturity then naturally anything can be understood. As it is not necessary to learn whole mathematics but there are chances that you would be able to understand the end results. It is not known how many years Newton took in the discovery of laws of motion but now they are even understood by children easily. So research is a different thing and the result of that research becomes a simple one, means scientist does not work as hard on religion as we do. But I am still not satisfied with the work done on Quran. Sorry to say! Let me give you an example from Qura.n where God says: Mankind was one community (Al-Baqra 213)
I was looking for its evidence so I had to go back to the history where I found only idolatry and before idolatry there exist mythologies so I studied hard all the mythologies of the world. I was in a mood to find some mistake done by God to deny Him so I tried very hard and studied all the mythologies and when came to Greek mythology I noticed one thing that mostly you never read it from the beginning and remained stuck to only contemporaneous mythology. It tells us that there were several gods of Olympia .Zeus, Afrodite, Hephaestus were few of them but if we go back to history of Olympians, its very strange to know that all the gods of Olympians were born out of one god named Coronus who used to devour all his offspring when they were born, so his son Zeus was fled with his siblings to an island Crete. In the beginning they worshipped one God but they could not bear the oneness for long. They had to shift their place to build other temple at some other place and this gave rise to Idol ship. If we look at Indian history there are several idols and their respective generations. Whereas the origin of Indian mythology starts from Aryans. When they entered India they believed on one god .Indra.. He had two distinct qualities being .God of thunder. and .God of swarg. means .Zuljalal-Wal-Ikram. who is able to give reward and punishment. When he entered in India they wed locked him with two goddesses .Mitra. and .Warona. which built trinity and there was no more oneness of God. The oneness of God came to surface again with another God Brahma. In the same time period came Vishnou and Shiva and another trinity came in to being. When the son of Mano asked his father to describe omnipotence of God, he replied:There is only one God who has got two qualities of being destroyer and constructive. Ladies and gentlemen! You cannot imagine how much hard work is required for the interpretation of Quran, I want to clear that some data of quran has been discovered by sciences from Quran, and there are possibilities of some improvement as Quran says: 
“We made every living thing of water” (Al-Anbiya 30) 
And biology has further confirmed that all life is created by water. Now it has become a law. 
There are many Quranic laws which are not confirmed yet by sciences or they are in mid way in the form of hypothesis. There is no need to be feared, with the advancement of sciences nature will confirm it and I swear by God if there would be anything proved against Quranic data, I will be the first man to leave God. He has given me the liberty to refuse or believe unless I understand it fully. I have searched God and now from thirty years I am with him. First of all you need some logic to believe and then come closeness with God. If you are willing to be closed to God then sciences are not enough. You will have to get knowledge of everything. Let me tell you about a science which has not yet been discovered by sciences and I learn it from Quran. It is science of feelings and sentiments; it is a pity that sciences labeled feelings as unscientific. As time will pass you will come to know its actions, reactions and reciprocal reactions. After ten years you will learn that every feeling is a science, all the syndromes are science. But it will take time Keep learning and be Patient.

Laidback person! this is the main fault that we try to see God from our angle only. too limited mind which is not able to capture or imagine the time n space only besides all the creations. than with this mind how can we come to see or imagine God?
about God and moralities its only religions(prophets) which told us something. 

if u have read above the main external scienticfic argument is "Man remains a man despite of doing hundred of mistakes but Allah is not Allah if he does a single mistake. And Allah has declared Quran as his data on earth. "

i have many scientific inventions same as mentioned in quran 1400 years before, "everything is moving in its orbits for a specific time" " We are expanding the universe" do u beleive that these are quran's statements and now sceinces are proving it!! ?

Quote : Quran is the book of creations while science is the book of research.

O' Allah give us the knoweldge of reality of the things and give us the straight path towards you. Amen

"With power We constructed the universes(skies, heaven) Verily, We are extanding the vastness of space thereof." 51, 46 Quran

To beleive in God and to beleive that quran is the data of God on earth, this only verse is enough. In quran God says that previous books are corrupted with human mixing. But for His last book He said that He will protect it word to word. 
We all know in previous centuries , earth was considered to be static. after sometime scietist said that sun is static and earth is revolving around sun. but now latest and final theories says that every thing is moving and this universe is expanding. i wrote this science's statement final as it reaches the statement of God. there are many others verses which tells most scientific inventions. In islam 1400 hundred years back there is clue of cloning as well in Hadith books which was possible only in Dajjal era" the single eyed". 

Quranic language is arabic which is very wide and have a variety of words. when it is translated in other languages , it was not possible to translate exactly the same. unfortunately translators when couldnt understand any word ( which is for future time) they translated it by their own mind. only few of them translated same as it was given. like for above verse Quran uses "mosi on" which mean expand. but earlier translator due to their lower level of faith was afraid to do exact translate. some of them did like power, some wrote it that God expand the food. one of the biggest misunderstanding that islam is known and recogonize by the muslims actions. if some one want to understand islam He/she should read only quran and sunnah( hadith which is life of Muhammad peace be upon Him, my teacher says its the expaining documentary of quran).

----------


## laidbackperson

> Originally stated in OP:
> As for my believing in God, I said I believe in God primarily because I find nature so beautifully planned that I think a God has to be involved somewhere.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In my late twenties, I also looked at nature and told myself that there had to have been a God to create such a perfect world. I wasn't sure if He was still around until later. 
> 
> A few years after this, I experienced a heartache that left me devastated. Even in my despair, the love I felt for the person who caused this allowed me to forgive. When I did that, a new understanding of myself came to light and I was filled with a positive energy that I knew was totally different from anything I had felt before.
> 
> At the time, I didn't connect it with God, but a couple of years after that when I found myself in the same situation again, (a sinful relationship that I shouldn't have been in) I read a book that told of Jesus and who He is and why He is the acceptable sacrifice for sin and that if I believed in Him, I would be redeemed and reconciled to God.
> 
> ...


 I liked your post and can understand your reason for believing in God.

You quoted partially from one of my earlier post to which I have added the later lines, so that the idea looks more complete:

"As for my believing in God, I said I believe in God primarily because I find nature so beautifully planned that I think a God has to be involved somewhere. Sitting outside in a harsh sunlight troubled by world and personal affairs, the faith about a benevolent God is shaken at times. But I tell myself I can not comprehend the ways of God and if I take everything as a will of God and just do the work as I can do best, that is probably the right way of living."




> Laidback person! this is the main fault that we try to see God from our angle only. too limited mind which is not able to capture or imagine the time n space only besides all the creations. than with this mind how can we come to see or imagine God?
> about God and moralities its only religions(prophets) which told us something.


I agree fully with you here. 
Yours is an interesting post and it seems you have worked hard in your endeavor towards validating concept of God. 
Although I am from science background and respect its logic, I too believe that God is beyond all scientific logic and theories about material world and beyond the grasp of hardcore scientists.




> if u have read above the main external scienticfic argument is "Man remains a man despite of doing hundred of mistakes but Allah is not Allah if he does a single mistake. And Allah has declared Quran as his data on earth. "


I am ready to agree to this also. But I believe that there has to be only one God for entire mankind, for entire universe.
We all, being His children I just can not imagine a benevolent God to forsake his other children who are not Muslims.
Also what about all those people who were born and died before the birth of Prophet Muhammad.
I just like to take God to be beyond all religions of the world.

----------


## usman.khawar

> But I believe that there has to be only one God for entire mankind, for entire universe.
> We all, being His children I just can not imagine a benevolent God to forsake his other children who are not Muslims.
> Also what about all those people who were born and died before the birth of Prophet Muhammad.
> I just like to take God to be beyond all religions of the world.


you are absolutely right to beleive that there is only one God for entire mankind and for entire universe. and also for all 7 universes. as it is also mentioned in quran that there is 7 earths He created so that human come to know that God is so great and powerful. He doesnt get tired. Nor sleep. dizziness is away from Him. His knowledge is surrounding n capturing each n everything. 

i beleive we all are the creations of God not children. He is one and only. nothing which we can even imagine is like Him, we cant give example of anything present in the universes. coz Creator is bigger than the creations.

the breif expalanation about your concern "Also what about all those people who were born and died before the birth of Prophet Muhammad."

i have mentioned in the thread " enemy within". i like you to read and comments over there as i observe your way of thinking is apreciatable.

i also like to request other respected members to read once and comments in above mentioned thread as there are answers of so many questions i have read in religious text of so many people. people are always ready to accept truth but with argument first. by this way i'll get the chance to improve my knowledge as well. i read so many thread and i felt lucky that here in this network there are so many good mind gather under a same umbrella. i also congrats to admin for making such a good plateform for literary minds. in the end i again yes request to read my threads with critical mind and raise questions. Also i like to see point of views of ur guys about mystic (saint). kindly comments about mystic in my other thread names Mystic : a Truth, a reality , a path
Thank you very much

----------


## libernaut

Because I cannot prove the existence of God, and I cannot disprove the existence of God. 

Though I have seen much to make me believe there might very well be a God, I couldn't prove it. And though I have seen much that would leave me to believe there isn't a God, I couldn't prove that either. There for Agnosticism seems to make sense. 

 :Beatdeadhorse5:

----------


## G L Wilson

> Because I cannot prove the existence of God, and I cannot disprove the existence of God. 
> 
> Though I have seen much to make me believe there might very well be a God, I couldn't prove it. And though I have seen much that would leave me to believe there isn't a God, I couldn't prove that either. There for Agnosticism seems to make sense.


One thing is certain, libernaut, God is a dead un because he hasn't won any races lately and isn't likely to.

----------


## libernaut

Nietzsche tried to save that horse yaknow... tragic

----------


## G L Wilson

> Nietzsche tried to save that horse yaknow... tragic


He did because he was a man and nothing more. And it was his last act as a man.

----------


## usman.khawar

where is laidback person? its nice to talk with him.

----------


## G L Wilson

> where is laidback person? its nice to talk with him.


He is long gone to rest.

----------


## YesNo

I finished reading William Lane Craig's and Quentin Smith's _Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology_ where Craig took the theist side and Smith the atheist side in a debate on whether the Big Bang could be used as evidence for the existence of a God. 

I think Craig won the debate, but you'll have to read it for yourself.

What Craig shows, as I see it, is that the empirical evidence from science for the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, etc) 13+ billion years ago is empirical evidence for the existence of something else, outside the universe, that made a _choice_ and that is why the universe is here today. You can call that something else _God_.

So my answer to the original question in this post is that no one really needs to _believe_ in a God on a basic level. God's basic existence is made necessary by the empirical results of modern science. Belief is more appropriately applied to the various accounts of how God relates to us that individual religions provide.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I finished reading William Lane Craig's and Quentin Smith's _Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology_ where Craig took the theist side and Smith the atheist side in a debate on whether the Big Bang could be used as evidence for the existence of a God. 
> 
> I think Craig won the debate, but you'll have to read it for yourself.
> 
> What Craig shows, as I see it, is that the empirical evidence from science for the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, etc) 13+ billion years ago is empirical evidence for the existence of something else, outside the universe, that made a _choice_ and that is why the universe is here today. You can call that something else _God_.
> 
> So my answer to the original question in this post is that no one really needs to _believe_ in a God on a basic level. God's basic existence is made necessary by the empirical results of modern science. Belief is more appropriately applied to the various accounts of how God relates to us that individual religions provide.


A choice made outside reality? Nope, I can't think of anything.

----------


## Darcy88

> I finished reading William Lane Craig's and Quentin Smith's _Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology_ where Craig took the theist side and Smith the atheist side in a debate on whether the Big Bang could be used as evidence for the existence of a God. 
> 
> I think Craig won the debate, but you'll have to read it for yourself.
> 
> What Craig shows, as I see it, is that the empirical evidence from science for the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, etc) 13+ billion years ago is empirical evidence for the existence of something else, outside the universe, that made a _choice_ and that is why the universe is here today. You can call that something else _God_.
> 
> So my answer to the original question in this post is that no one really needs to _believe_ in a God on a basic level. God's basic existence is made necessary by the empirical results of modern science. Belief is more appropriately applied to the various accounts of how God relates to us that individual religions provide.


I've heard Craig's arguments. I would grant Stephen Hawking's opinion a tad more weight when he states in his most recent book that God is not needed in order to explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps him and Craig should have a debate on cosmology. 

Its hard to take Craig seriously when he asserts Christ's resurrection as objective historical fact and then uses that for one of his 5 main arguments for God's existence. I'm referring to his debate with Hitchens. 

And in that debate he makes this grand leap from the universe being created to it being created by a personal God. He said it could only have been created from beyond time and space and that the only thing from beyond time and space which could have done it is a mind. Mind is beyond time and space now? 

Most of his arguments rely on science and yet he is not a scientist. The world's most renowned cosmologist disagrees with him and yet he does not humbly defer. Something wrong there.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I've heard Craig's arguments. I would grant Stephen Hawking's opinion a tad more weight when he states in his most recent book that God is not needed in order to explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps him and Craig should have a debate on cosmology. 
> 
> Its hard to take Craig seriously when he asserts Christ's resurrection as objective historical fact and then uses that for one of his 5 main arguments for God's existence. I'm referring to his debate with Hitchens. 
> 
> And in that debate he makes this grand leap from the universe being created to it being created by a personal God. He said it could only have been created from beyond time and space and that the only thing from beyond time and space which could have done it is a mind. Mind is beyond time and space now? 
> 
> Most of his arguments rely on science and yet he is not a scientist. The world's most renowned cosmologist disagrees with him and yet he does not humbly defer. Something wrong there.


By the sounds of it, Craig is perhaps having an argument with himself more to the point.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

Seems to me that there are some folks that need to start a "Why I don't believe in God" thread.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Seems to me that there are some folks that need to start a "Why I don't believe in God" thread.


Perhaps some folks should have more faith in their fellow man.

----------


## YesNo

> I've heard Craig's arguments. I would grant Stephen Hawking's opinion a tad more weight when he states in his most recent book that God is not needed in order to explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps him and Craig should have a debate on cosmology. 
> 
> Its hard to take Craig seriously when he asserts Christ's resurrection as objective historical fact and then uses that for one of his 5 main arguments for God's existence. I'm referring to his debate with Hitchens. 
> 
> And in that debate he makes this grand leap from the universe being created to it being created by a personal God. He said it could only have been created from beyond time and space and that the only thing from beyond time and space which could have done it is a mind. Mind is beyond time and space now? 
> 
> Most of his arguments rely on science and yet he is not a scientist. The world's most renowned cosmologist disagrees with him and yet he does not humbly defer. Something wrong there.


Within the debate with Smith, Christianity does not arise. The results don't need it. All they need is that the universe had a beginning. And the results only show that something made a _choice_. That a choice was made is what makes it _personal_ for Craig. As far as I'm concerned, I just need the idea of choice.

Although this was not directly discussed in the debate, I have no problem seeing _consciousness_ as something generally beyond time and space. It would actually help explain near-death and shared-death experiences. If by _mind_ you mean the brain, that would certainly be within space, but the brain is not consciousness.

It doesn't matter that Craig is not a scientist. When Hawking makes pronouncements on God's existence or not he is not acting as a scientist but as a metaphysician, which is more in Craig's field than his own. It is Hawking who should humbly defer. Hawking does come up in the debate. Smith tries to base his atheism on various pronouncements Hawking has made. I think Smith failed to make his point.

I don't have any religious affiliation that I am trying to justify with this, although I find a watered down, generic Hinduism attractive.

----------


## Darcy88

> Within the debate with Smith, Christianity does not arise. The results don't need it. All they need is that the universe had a beginning. And the results only show that something made a _choice_. That a choice was made is what makes it _personal_ for Craig. As far as I'm concerned, I just need the idea of choice.
> 
> Although this was not directly discussed in the debate, I have no problem seeing _consciousness_ as something generally beyond time and space. It would actually help explain near-death and shared-death experiences. If by _mind_ you mean the brain, that would certainly be within space, but the brain is not consciousness.
> 
> It doesn't matter that Craig is not a scientist. When Hawking makes pronouncements on God's existence or not he is not acting as a scientist but as a metaphysician, which is more in Craig's field than his own. It is Hawking who should humbly defer. Hawking does come up in the debate. Smith tries to base his atheism on various pronouncements Hawking has made. I think Smith failed to make his point.
> 
> I don't have any religious affiliation that I am trying to justify with this, although I find a watered down, generic Hinduism attractive.


Hawking says in his book that the coming into being of the universe was an *inevitability* due to the working of physical laws. 

I just don't like Craig. C.S. Lewis's apologetic works came off as much more persuasive to me. Craig acts like he has water-tight, bullet-proof, absolutely irrefutable arguments for God's existence. He's cocky about it and then frankly disingenuous when he claims that science supports his views when it quite simply does not. In the two hour of the debate I watched he acted more like a scientist than a philosopher, throwing around facts and figures and conclusions like he was a cosmologist and biologist rather than a theologian and philosopher. 

He is lucid though. And one heck of a speaker/debater. It could be said that he "beat" Hitchens.

----------


## Darcy88

one point Hitchens made in the debate is that, as far as we've come scientifically, we still do not know everything. In that mystery there is room for faith, if one is so inclined.

----------


## G L Wilson

The only room for faith is in a dunny to flush it when needs be.

----------


## Darcy88

If there's a God then he is a bowler of ill aim: He let loose the ball and Kerplunk! - straight into the gutter.

Foundation for a new deism?

----------


## Darcy88

That sounded much cleverer in my head.

----------


## billl

> Hawking says in his book that the coming into being of the universe was an *inevitability* due to the working of physical laws. 
> 
> I just don't like Craig. C.S. Lewis's apologetic works came off as much more persuasive to me. Craig acts like he has water-tight, bullet-proof, absolutely irrefutable arguments for God's existence. He's cocky about it and then frankly disingenuous when he claims that science supports his views when it quite simply does not. In the two hour of the debate I watched he acted more like a scientist than a philosopher, throwing around facts and figures and conclusions like he was a cosmologist and biologist rather than a theologian and philosopher. 
> 
> He is lucid though. And one heck of a speaker/debater. It could be said that he "beat" Hitchens.


I watched only the beginning of Craig's introductory comments to the Craig v. Hitchens thing on youtube (the top result of a search for that). My internet connection was acting up that night and it was already late, and so I didn't go any further. Still, after the hype about Craig, I had decided was anxious to get a dose of the debate, and ended up with just the slightest sample. It's certainly my cup of tea, though, and I'll be checking the whole thing out sometime.

*Craig poo-poos infinity*
I have to say though, that Craig opened the debate rather weakly. He began with some unconvincing verdicts on what "infinity" and infinite time would mean to cosmology, implying it would lead to contradictions (and so there must be a creation). His arguments amount to "Hey, what is infinity minus infinity" and an appeal to conclusions reached by the famous mathematician David Hilbert, whose work is regarded as _very_ important, but is not without criticism/rejection (even by his closest proteges). But it's enough for Craig (and I don't blame him for that), and it's handed to the audience along with assurances that (rather than being a preacher waving a Bible), he is a "professional philosopher". 

*The Multiverse, maybe?*
Next, he (wisely) mentions the Multi-Verse theories about the origins of our universe. He is interested in pointing to the Anthropic Principle as evidence strongly suggesting a creation and creator, or at least some sort of design/plan behind existence. Looking at certain aspects of our universe, it seems "fortunate" that certain constants and laws came together so precisely--the slightest changes here or there would've made the formation of life impossible. The Multi-Verse is a popular theory among professional cosmolgists these days, and it makes the Anthropic view irrelevant. According to Multi-verse theories, conditions for life occured in our universe, as unlikely as it might seem, because it is just one of _many_ other universes in which unfavorable conditions much more typically occur, and it's all just a matter of chance.

*Craig gathers an ally*
Craig attacks this notion. Rather, he latches on to some work by Roger Penrose that casts doubt on the Multiverse theory, and deploys it himself (while giving credit, of course), stating that the Multi-verse settling on the fine-tuned version of reality that we are familiar with is a lot less likely than the prospect of encountering many crazy things in this particular portion of the multi-verse. Basically, the idea that a table might suddenly appear out of nowhere is more likely than the Multiverse idea itself producing our reality, and so why aren't we seeing chairs pop up out of nowhere, or other crazy things. I might be mis-stating Penrose's position, but I'm probably as close as Craig gets, anyhow.

Multiverse proponents have their own objections to this sort of argument, if I might be so bold as to reduce Penrose's idea to the Occam's Razor objection.

*Roger Penrose and cosmology*
But perhaps more importantly, Roger Penrose is an atheist. (Maybe Hitchens points this out... Jeez, I might really regret posting without having watched the whole thing yet...) And, while Craig is of course free to choose what to do with whichever portion of Penrose's work he chooses, I am inclined to believe that it is at least as important to hear Penrose out on these matters, and what he thinks his work might likely imply.

Penrose believes that the universe is indeed infinite in time, with no beginning, nor an end. It isn't an ironclad conviction of his, I assume (since he is a scientist) but rather a theory that makes most sense to him. It's what he thinks is happening, but he isn't asking anyone to have "faith" in it, and he doesn't expect scripture to pile on further "reason" to believe anything. I'd have to have more explaining from him to be fully convinced of his idea (or at least more time to research it), but it is rather elegant (to begin with, certainly) if a few questions (re: knowing the fate of this universe, "bits of things to argue about") are sufficiently addressed. Frankly, I think the biggest job for him would maybe be to address them in such a way that I could understand it, but anyhow...

I'll post an excerpt from a recent interview of his. Basically, he's looking at the fact that photons have no mass, and that that means that physical dimension (I mean specifically mean "scale") means nothing in a world of photons. When we go back to the energy levels at the time of the Big Bang, the energy was greater than the equivalent mass for all of the matter, and so everything was just energy. How "big" was the "universe" at that time? Well, he's saying there wasn't a way to judge size:




> Now, the strange idea here is that if you have nothing which has rest mass, present in the universe. If you have things like photons then they cant make a clock. And if you can't make a clock you can't measure distances either. And so you don't know how big the scale of the universe is. So the point that I am trying to make is that the universe reaches a state where all black holes evaporate away by Hawking evaporation and there is nothing left - there are bits of things to argue about here - but let's say there's nothing but photons with zero mass. They don't measure scales. Equations of Maxwell for instance are completely independent of scale - if you make them small or big it makes no difference. So I am saying that physics of that stage is insensitive to scale. And this also applies to the Big Bang because if you go back and back and back in time you will find that temperatures get greater and greater, and that means that the energy of individual particles gets greater and greater until you reach the scale at which they get even greater than the mass energy of the particle. That means the particle is effectively without mass. And everything near the Big Bang, in fact probably before the Higg's time (which the LHC is trying to explore), much earlier than that, particles are effectively without mass. If they are without mass they become insensitive to scale again. So what I am saying is that the remote future of the previous aeon will be almost indistinguishable from our Big Bang and it is simply a scale change. I will have to talk about equations in detail but the idea is that the remote future of the previous aeon will be almost indistinguishable from our big bang and then our remote future will become the big bang of the next one. There is never any collapse it just keeps going but then it loses track of how big it is - it's a funny idea but that's the idea I am trying to promote.


http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...ein-quantum/13

Here's the link, and on the next page or so of the interview he goes on to sketch out some reasons he believes this is the case (gravity is the key), but good luck understanding it precisely right away!

Anyhow, this is the guy who provides Craig with his argument against the Multi-verse (thus providing Craig with the chance to present Creation as the best option...), and we just have to decide if Penrose's thinking is the sort of thing that has merit or not, on this matter or that or both. It should be noted, I guess, that Penrose is an Atheist, but not a "positivist", and he's also in dispute over certain matters with other prominent atheists (e.g. Hawking).

Anyhow, I'm anxious to watch the rest, but I've gotten a poor initial impression of Craig just from his opening statement. (And a poor Wi-Fi connection, recently  :Frown:  )

----------


## G L Wilson

The absurdity of creationists knows no bounds.

----------


## YesNo

I haven't seen the Craig v Hitchens debate, but I'll look for it. 

In _Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology_, the part about Cantor's transfinite arithmetic was relevant for two reasons: (1) Craig showed that an actual infinite cannot exist in the universe, but only a potential one, in spite of Cantor's set theory; and, (2) He argued that formally logical mathematical structures need not actually exist--logical consistency does not imply actual existence. I take that to mean that Craig is not a Platonist. This is then used to show that past time cannot be actually infinite so the universe had to have a beginning regardless of what science comes up with.

With the universe actually having a beginning based on empirical scientific evidence, one can go beyond these philosophic arguments against infinite time. The actual birth of the universe can now be dated. However, both Craig and Smith have to be careful that they describe the science justifying this correctly otherwise their opponent will jump on it. That is why they go to great pains to explain what they mean by the Big Bang and in particular the mathematical singularity using scientific evidence. If they get this evidence wrong, the other one could use that against them.

All of this science could change in the future, but based on what it is now I think it shows that the Big Bang beginning implies the existence of some other dimension where a choice was made, hence the existence of some sort of God. This forces scientists and philosophers who don't want this conclusion to scramble for an explanation that does not involve choice. 

I was reading Paul Frampton's _Did Time Begin? Will Time End?_. He tries to argue that the Big Bang didn't happen at all. Other people will provide theories like the Multiverse which I find even more improbable than positing a God dimension, but it at least removes the all important _choice_ which is what brings God into the picture. All of these speculations are useful because they help solidify the current theory by forcing it to provide counter-arguments and look for better empirical data.

----------


## stuntpickle

> It could be said that he "beat" Hitchens.


Could be? Craig gutted Hitchens while Hitchens sweated like a pig. It really has nothing to do with who is actually right. Craig is probably the fiercest debater around right now. He could probably beat Hitchens in a debate over the contents of Hitchens's sock drawer.

For all the people who seem to be analyzing Craig's arguments presented in the debate, you need to realize those aren't Craig's complete arguments you're seeing, but rather his dumbed-down, public-friendly versions with lots of intermediate premises omitted.

----------


## Darcy88

There seems to me to be a leap in going from the universe having a beginning to the universe having been brought about through a choice. A big leap.

----------


## Darcy88

I still think the Hawking pronouncement that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws squelches Craig's cosmological argument, but, looking past that, it seems that his assault on infinity itself undermines his own argument. If there is no infinity and the universe therefore had to have had a beginning, then, by the same logic, God Himself is not infinite and must also have had a beginning. So he is self-created? That would seem outrageously absurd.

----------


## G L Wilson

Apply occam's razor to God and he simply disappears.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Apply occam's razor to God and he simply disappears.


Let's see....a universe created with a purpose by an Intelligent, Powerful Creator versus something coming from nothing through billions of failed options with nothing of no intelligence driving the process. Occam's Razor seems to be pointing to the former than the latter.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Let's see....a universe created with a purpose by an Intelligent, Powerful Creator versus something coming from nothing through billions of failed options with nothing of no intelligence driving the process. Occam's Razor seems to be pointing to the former than the latter.


As has been said before, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> As has been said before, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.


Yes, you've said it....it just doesn't make any sense.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Yes, you've said it....it just doesn't make any sense.


God is just sheer nonsense that gives rise to infinite regress which a beginning in nothingness doesn't.

Gravity is a necessary hypothesis.

----------


## YesNo

> Let's see....a universe created with a purpose by an Intelligent, Powerful Creator versus something coming from nothing through billions of failed options with nothing of no intelligence driving the process. Occam's Razor seems to be pointing to the former than the latter.


I agree. 

Besides, I don't see how chance could do anything. If it were up to chance and we started with nothing--literally nothing: no physical laws, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no vacuum where quantum particles can pop in or out of existence--_then nothing would happen_. There would be no Multiverse at all, if it were up to chance. There would be nothing.




> I still think the Hawking pronouncement that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws squelches Craig's cosmological argument, but, looking past that, it seems that his assault on infinity itself undermines his own argument. If there is no infinity and the universe therefore had to have had a beginning, then, by the same logic, God Himself is not infinite and must also have had a beginning. So he is self-created? That would seem outrageously absurd.


I think one would say that God is uncreated and eternal, outside any potential infinity that space or time would provide. But all one gets from this cosmology argument for the existence of God is the existence of some ground that can make a choice to say yes to the universe. For most people that is enough and they would happily label it God and let their religion fill in the details.

No one can squelch an argument by making a pronouncement against it. An argument is squelched by _showing_ that it doesn't make sense. So how did Hawking justify his atheism given the fact that he acknowledges that the universe had a beginning?

----------


## G L Wilson

The ancient Greeks believed that beauty played a part in the winning of an argument. To put it simply, science has the more beautiful argument for being not a literal statement.

----------


## Darcy88

> I agree. 
> 
> Besides, I don't see how chance could do anything. If it were up to chance and we started with nothing--literally nothing: no physical laws, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no vacuum where quantum particles can pop in or out of existence--_then nothing would happen_. There would be no Multiverse at all, if it were up to chance. There would be nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I think one would say that God is uncreated and eternal, outside any potential infinity that space or time would provide. But all one gets from this cosmology argument for the existence of God is the existence of some ground that can make a choice to say yes to the universe. For most people that is enough and they would happily label it God and let their religion fill in the details.
> 
> No one can squelch an argument by making a pronouncement against it. An argument is squelched by _showing_ that it doesn't make sense. So how did Hawking justify his atheism given the fact that he acknowledges that the universe had a beginning?


He said that the universe's beginning was the _inevitable_ result of physical laws. He said that God is not needed in order to explain how the universe came to be. When a theologically oriented philosopher makes statements about cosmology that directly contradict the opinion of the world's foremost cosmologist ... doubts are raised in my mind.

And I honestly don't think you can have it both ways. If infinity is impossible then God cannot be infinite.

We still don't know for certain what happened yet. The experiments going on in Switzerland with the particle accelerator are going to reveal a lot more about our universe in the coming years.

----------


## G L Wilson

> He said that the universe's beginning was the _inevitable_ result of physical laws. He said that God is not needed in order to explain how the universe came to be. When a theologically oriented philosopher makes statements about cosmology that directly contradict the opinion of the world's foremost cosmologist ... doubts are raised in my mind.
> 
> And I honestly don't think you can have it both ways. If infinity is impossible then God cannot be infinite.
> 
> We still don't know for certain what happened yet. The experiments going on in Switzerland with the particle accelerator are going to reveal a lot more about our universe in the coming years.


In the infinite and the finite is the possibility of God.

----------


## YesNo

> He said that the universe's beginning was the _inevitable_ result of physical laws. He said that God is not needed in order to explain how the universe came to be. When a theologically oriented philosopher makes statements about cosmology that directly contradict the opinion of the world's foremost cosmologist ... doubts are raised in my mind.
> 
> And I honestly don't think you can have it both ways. If infinity is impossible then God cannot be infinite.
> 
> We still don't know for certain what happened yet. The experiments going on in Switzerland with the particle accelerator are going to reveal a lot more about our universe in the coming years.


If it is just a matter of picking sides in a culture war I think Craig has the better odds of being right. At the moment, the evidence is all on his side.

I don't know what this God is that is implied by the beginning of the universe. All I know is something started it outside of space and time and that involved a choice. It might be some demi-god for all I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than a demi-god and that our consciousness is related to it somehow. 

I agree that we will no doubt learn more and I'm all in favor of further experimentation and creating alternate scenarios that we could try to test. The last time I looked they hadn't found the Higgs boson so there might be some shakeup in the quantum mechanics community should they announce that it likely doesn't exist. I don't know what that would have to do with this current discussion, but a lot of our knowledge is still in flux. 

What I liked about Craig's contribution is that he helped clarify some of the issues related to the question. I didn't think Smith did as good of a job with it and he seemed a bit desperate, but by participating in the discussion Smith did help Craig to clarify his position.

----------


## Darcy88

> If it is just a matter of picking sides in a culture war I think Craig has the better odds of being right. At the moment, the evidence is all on his side.
> 
> I don't know what this God is that is implied by the beginning of the universe. All I know is something started it outside of space and time and that involved a choice. It might be some demi-god for all I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than a demi-god and that our consciousness is related to it somehow. 
> 
> I agree that we will no doubt learn more and I'm all in favor of further experimentation and creating alternate scenarios that we could try to test. The last time I looked they hadn't found the Higgs boson so there might be some shakeup in the quantum mechanics community should they announce that it likely doesn't exist. I don't know what that would have to do with this current discussion, but a lot of our knowledge is still in flux. 
> 
> What I liked about Craig's contribution is that he helped clarify some of the issues related to the question. I didn't think Smith did as good of a job with it and he seemed a bit desperate, but by participating in the discussion Smith did help Craig to clarify his position.


I don't know how you can say that all the evidence is on Craig's side when his conclusions on cosmology flatly contradict those of the world's most renowned cosmologist. I simply can't get past that. 

I can't even take him seriously anyway. Arguing that Christ's resurrection can be considered objective historical fact and proof of God's existence? 

It comes down to the authority of a theologian dabbling in science versus that of the world's most renowned cosmologist in addition to the overwhelming majority of the remaining cosmologists, nearly all of whom are atheists. 

Its not a culture war - its science. If the science was on Craig's side then the cosmologists would be ranged alongside him as well. As it stands they are not.

----------


## YesNo

> I don't know how you can say that all the evidence is on Craig's side when his conclusions on cosmology flatly contradict those of the world's most renowned cosmologist. I simply can't get past that. 
> 
> I can't even take him seriously anyway. Arguing that Christ's resurrection can be considered objective historical fact and proof of God's existence? 
> 
> It comes down to the authority of a theologian dabbling in science versus that of the world's most renowned cosmologist in addition to the overwhelming majority of the remaining cosmologists, nearly all of whom are atheists. 
> 
> Its not a culture war - its science. If the science was on Craig's side then the cosmologists would be ranged alongside him as well. As it stands they are not.


I'm actually not interested in what Craig might have to say about Christianity and so far Christianity has not come up in what I have read. Nor does authority play any role in this for me. 

The empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning--from nothing--under 14 billion years ago is what is crucial, not someone's religious beliefs or their status in their field. An atheist faced with the Big Bang has to find an explanation for how it could have occurred by _chance_, not by _choice_. It is as simple as that. Craig, however, doesn't have to do anything but challenge any such explanation they might come up with. That is why the evidence is all on his side. Amusingly, it is evidence many atheists themselves collected and accept.

----------


## Darcy88

> I'm actually not interested in what Craig might have to say about Christianity and so far Christianity has not come up in what I have read. Nor does authority play any role in this for me. 
> 
> The empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning--from nothing--under 14 billion years ago is what is crucial, not someone's religious beliefs or their status in their field. An atheist faced with the Big Bang has to find an explanation for how it could have occurred by _chance_, not by _choice_. It is as simple as that. Craig, however, doesn't have to do anything but challenge any such explanation they might come up with. That is why the evidence is all on his side. Amusingly, it is evidence many atheists themselves collected and accept.


Hawking does have an alternative. As I keep saying, he can account for the universe's origin without relying on this notion of choice. I take the opinion of the world's leading cosmologist to be of greater import than that of a theologian/philosopher. 

Authority is central here. On matters of medicine I would consult the doctor, not the engineer.

----------


## G L Wilson

I think that there is something in the Bible which says in effect not to argue with a fool lest you look the fool.

----------


## YesNo

> Hawking does have an alternative. As I keep saying, he can account for the universe's origin without relying on this notion of choice. I take the opinion of the world's leading cosmologist to be of greater import than that of a theologian/philosopher. 
> 
> Authority is central here. On matters of medicine I would consult the doctor, not the engineer.


It looks like we have different personalities. I don't trust authority. I don't even trust a medical doctor, although I will listen to a doctor's opinion if the need arises. There may be need for a second opinion.

The alternatives I'm aware of from Craig's listing are (1) the "oscillating universe", (2) the "chaotic inflationary universe" which leads to a multiverse, (3) the "vacuum fluctuation universe" and (4) the "quantum gravity universe" which I think is the one you are referring to that Hawking promotes. According to Craig, and I agree, (1), (2) and (4) all still have a universe with a beginning, and therefore need a creator God. They just move around the beginning from a Big Bang singularity to a point in a deeper past, hopefully hiding it. 

(3) is the only real alternative. The claim is that there exists an eternal vacuum out of which our universe popped by chance. If that vacuum really is eternal and made _no choice_ then our universe should have popped out long ago. Why is our universe so young? Why did the eternal vacuum wait so long?

Are there any other alternatives?

None of the four alternatives mentioned above is anything more than an opinion or speculation. None of them have any evidence like the cosmic background radiation that validates the Big Bang to support it. If any of them did, there wouldn't be four opinions. There would be only one.

To avoid choice a cosmologist needs something _eternal_ that cannot make a choice, but which can also cause a Big Bang. Prior to the evidence for the Big Bang, a cosmologist could say the universe itself was eternal and brush the issue of beginnings aside. That is no longer possible.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I think that there is something in the Bible which says in effect not to argue with a fool lest you look the fool.


I doubt anyone will argue with you about that.

----------


## Darcy88

> It looks like we have different personalities. I don't trust authority. I don't even trust a medical doctor, although I will listen to a doctor's opinion if the need arises. There may be need for a second opinion.
> 
> The alternatives I'm aware of from Craig's listing are (1) the "oscillating universe", (2) the "chaotic inflationary universe" which leads to a multiverse, (3) the "vacuum fluctuation universe" and (4) the "quantum gravity universe" which I think is the one you are referring to that Hawking promotes. According to Craig, and I agree, (1), (2) and (4) all still have a universe with a beginning, and therefore need a creator God. They just move around the beginning from a Big Bang singularity to a point in a deeper past, hopefully hiding it. 
> 
> (3) is the only real alternative. The claim is that there exists an eternal vacuum out of which our universe popped by chance. If that vacuum really is eternal and made _no choice_ then our universe should have popped out long ago. Why is our universe so young? Why did the eternal vacuum wait so long?
> 
> Are there any other alternatives?
> 
> None of the four alternatives mentioned above is anything more than an opinion or speculation. None of them have any evidence like the cosmic background radiation that validates the Big Bang to support it. If any of them did, there wouldn't be four opinions. There would be only one.
> ...


Personality has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether in a scientific debate you would side with the world renowned expert or with the dilettante. Craig is first and foremost a theologian. He shouts his bias from the roof-top. It is absurd to place his scientific conclusions in the same class as Hawking`s, a man widely considered to possess one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. And you can go beyond Hawking - hardly a credible cosmologist would categorically state that the universe began by choice. My previous objections still stand(no infinite God, no mind beyond time and space) but they are not necessary to reiterate considering the plain fact that the science and scientists are against Craig on this. 

Is it not possible that Stephen Hawking the quantum cosmologist has a better handle on cosmology than William Lain Craig the theologian/philosopher? I have a hard time even calling him a philosopher. A Christian philosopher would be more accurate. Theologian would be the most accurate. Scientific authority? I think not.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Personality has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether in a scientific debate you would side with the world renowned expert or with the dilettante. Craig is first and foremost a theologian. He shouts his bias from the roof-top. It is absurd to place his scientific conclusions in the same class as Hawking`s, a man widely considered to possess one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. And you can go beyond Hawking - hardly a credible cosmologist would categorically state that the universe began by choice. My previous objections still stand(no infinite God, no mind beyond time and space) but they are not necessary to reiterate considering the plain fact that the science and scientists are against Craig on this. 
> 
> Is it not possible that Stephen Hawking the quantum cosmologist has a better handle on cosmology than William Lain Craig the theologian/philosopher? I have a hard time even calling him a philosopher. A Christian philosopher would be more accurate. Theologian would be the most accurate. Scientific authority? I think not.


Darcy88, why are you wasting your time with the fool?

----------


## Darcy88

> Darcy88, why are you wasting your time with the fool?


I don't think YesNo is a fool. Craig is a very persuasive individual. He's a sophist of remarkable skill. Add to this an aspect of wishful thinking and you've got the recipe for credulity. 

Why do I persist in this argument? Because Craig is emblematic of a pernicious movement that in America is attempting to have creationism taught as science in public schools. Its been rebranded as "Intelligent Design," dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb and presented to people as legitimate science. 

Also, I can't stand it when people try to take the faith out of faith, when they think they can believe without making any leap. Its dishonest.

The irony is that there's nothing I'd personally like more than some compelling evidence of God's existence.

----------


## YesNo

> I don't think YesNo is a fool. Craig is a very persuasive individual. He's a sophist of remarkable skill. Add to this an aspect of wishful thinking and you've got the recipe for credulity. 
> 
> Why do I persist in this argument? Because Craig is emblematic of a pernicious movement that in America is attempting to have creationism taught as science in public schools. Its been rebranded as "Intelligent Design," dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb and presented to people as legitimate science. 
> 
> Also, I can't stand it when people try to take the faith out of faith, when they think they can believe without making any leap. Its dishonest.
> 
> The irony is that there's nothing I'd personally like more than some compelling evidence of God's existence.


Thanks for responding, Darcy88. These discussions allow each of us to think through our positions. That is all. There is no winning or losing in these arguments.

I don't know much about Craig, but I assume if I learned more he would claim that the something that made a choice triggering the Big Bang was Jesus or Yahweh. He probably wouldn't think it was Vishnu or Rama or Krishna or some generic dimension of consciousness where choices could be made. However, I don't think this cosmological argument does more than show something outside the universe made a choice. It leaves the issue wide open to _any_ religious development, not just Christianity.

Also Craig isn't the one who gave me the basic idea. I've had it already. Craig just added details, both philosophical and scientific, that I was not aware of. Previously, I thought the Big Bang was part of an endless cycle of beginnings and endings until I found out that it was a more radical beginning than I had imagined. So don't blame Craig. He is expressing ideas that reasonably arise when someone understands what the evidence of the Big Bang actually means. 

My own view is that I think there is a dimension of consciousness outside but permeating the universe of matter and energy that explains our consciousness, explains near-death and shared-death experiences and explains general "paranormal" experiences that people have. It is these experiences that I am more interested in. The realization that the universe had a radical beginning from nothing only confirms it.

----------


## laidbackperson

> Though I have seen much to make me believe there might very well be a God, I couldn't prove it. And though I have seen much that would leave me to believe there isn't a God, I couldn't prove that either. There for Agnosticism seems to make sense.


What you say is very true and both believers and non-believers face this question. But then have you wondered what makes the believers stick with God. 
I think a real believer has two traits:
First is humility. It comes from a clear belief that there is a benevolent Power far superior to him/her and his/her success is not solely due to him/her but also due to Gods grace. Hence success does not enter his/her head. I can also add here that a person with humility, ( believer or non-believer) will not rant unnecessarily and insult others, but quietly take his /her option, after trying to see both sides of a coin in all matters.
Second trait is acceptance of all bad, tragic events, out of their control, as Gods will. This quality enables him/her face the rough of the world and get up on his/her feet after he /she has been thrown to ground.
And from where he /she gets these traits. 
I think It is a type of wisdom that comes from Gods grace and your personal experiences in life begin to supplement it. 
I will just narrate one experience of believers (Mind you, getting true humility is still a long journey for them) which I know from close quarters.
Husband and wife go for their regular 30minutes evening walk, locking their house from front, leaving behind their teenage daughter who was studying for exams in upper room. 
Just three minutes later wife gets a call on her cell phone from her sister that some relatives will be coming to their house in an hour. Instead of continuing the walk, she decides to return home, another reason for which being was she also started having a headache. She is back in house in total time less than five minutes.
In this short time a stalker who must have been watching the set up for quite some time has got inside the house with a duplicate key. 
Seeing the door open the wife is angry at the daughter thinking she has been casual and calls out angrily to her from down. 
The stalker unable to go out from the front door, runs up through the shocked daughters room, opens her balcony door and runs away jumping in the neighboring house terrace. 
Anything could have happened that day.
Believers will call it Gods grace, non-believers can call it a lucky chance.
P.S. : The stalker was not caught but he would not make another attempt.

----------


## cafolini

As far as religion and any of its branches go, I think you may believe or disbelief anything you wish safely, so long as you don't confuse the belief or disbelief with knowledge. Confusing it is not safe unless you are a good hypocrite.

----------


## Brett Cottrell

My dog Tico is dyslexic, so he prays to the Dog. I, for one, believe him.

----------


## Vonny

> My dog Tico is dyslexic, so he prays to the Dog. I, for one, believe him.


Dogs know. He's beautiful.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> As far as religion and any of its branches go, I think you may believe or disbelief anything you wish safely, so long as you don't confuse the belief or disbelief with knowledge. Confusing it is not safe unless you are a good hypocrite.


I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you are saying, but I don't agree with your blanket statement about Belief and knowledge.

----------


## Vonny

> As far as religion and any of its branches go, I think you may believe or disbelief anything you wish safely, so long as you don't confuse the belief or disbelief with knowledge. Confusing it is not safe unless you are a good hypocrite.


I find this rather profound.

----------


## osho

What is God? Is your belief God? Is what you have learned from your scriptures or what you have heard from your elders God? 

Our knowledge of God cannot go beyond these peripheries. Our knowledge of God is our environment's impression on us and nobody can experience anything beyond the realities one is surrounded by his environment.

Do you have any real experience? Does your post here make people convinced about the existence of God? This is a very subtle domain, unearthly and unexplained

----------


## YesNo

> What is God? Is your belief God? Is what you have learned from your scriptures or what you have heard from your elders God? 
> 
> Our knowledge of God cannot go beyond these peripheries. *Our knowledge of God is our environment's impression on us and nobody can experience anything beyond the realities one is surrounded by his environment.*
> 
> Do you have any real experience? Does your post here make people convinced about the existence of God? This is a very subtle domain, unearthly and unexplained


I agree with the part I put in bold, assuming I understood it. 

There are people who have had mystical experiences. There are people who have had near-death experiences. There are people who have had shared-death experiences, where they see or experience a loved one who recently died. There are people who have had other paranormal experiences. These are all experiences that come from the environment and can lead to a knowledge of God or something beyond what we normally take to be the space-time matter-energy reality that some people claim is all that is real.

----------


## osho

> I agree with the part I put in bold, assuming I understood it. 
> 
> There are people who have had mystical experiences. There are people who have had near-death experiences. There are people who have had shared-death experiences, where they see or experience a loved one who recently died. There are people who have had other paranormal experiences. These are all experiences that come from the environment and can lead to a knowledge of God or something beyond what we normally take to be the space-time matter-energy reality that some people claim is all that is real.


Your ideas are moving me and I immensely second your opinion, for we all are whether it is the community of scientists, philosophers, thinkers, spiritualists or the common man, all are very mystified and no logic will prove to say there is power or no power beyond our understanding. The universe is mysterious and physics cannot fathom the depth of the mystery or even they cannot have theories. 

Both theism and atheism is nonsense and their conclusion never convincing. I do not mean this is an agnostic idea. I do not want to theorize this mystery and I am satisfied by calling it a mystery and whether I call it so or do not do so or theorize, or analogize or hypothesize this will always remain a mystery

----------


## mazHur

Why should we believe in God?
Here is an answer from Christian viewpoint.

''"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."the Bible

Not so long ago a school district here in the United States was ordered by a judge to remove stickers from biology text books that said that evolution was a theory, not a fact.

How interesting in this so-called day of diversity that we allow evolution to be taught as fact but are not allowed to teach that there might be another way to look at lifeincluding Intelligent Designeven if not God!

Even Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, said a century and a half ago, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

And as Chuck Colson said, "And Darwin didn't know nearly as much as we do about the sophistication of the signal processing from the eye and the nose."3 Not to mention the miracle of birth and millions of other miracles that we live with every day of our life. Even our little dog that is so bright and so loving absolutely amazes me.

In life we pretty much hear what we want to hear and turn a deaf ear to what we don't want to hear. We also see what we want to see and turn a blind eye to what we don't want to see. Belief is basically the same and not based on rational thinking. It's based on choice. Generally speaking, we believe what we want to believe, what we are most comfortable with, and what we choose to believe.

True, none of us has ever seen God and many use this as an excuse not to believe in him. I can't see electrons either, but every time I turn on my light switch, I see the evidence of electrons in action. I can't see radio waves either, or TV signals that come from satellites, or the wind, but I see and hear the evidence of their existence continually.

The fact is if we want to "see" God, we will because the evidence of his existence is everywhere we look. But if we don't want to see him, we won't.

Again, it is choice, not chance, that not only determines our belief in God but also our eternal destiny. So choose wisely. Your life depends on it. Eternity awaits us all.'' (source: ACTS)

----------


## cafolini

> Your ideas are moving me and I immensely second your opinion, for we all are whether it is the community of scientists, philosophers, thinkers, spiritualists or the common man, all are very mystified and no logic will prove to say there is power or no power beyond our understanding. The universe is mysterious and physics cannot fathom the depth of the mystery or even they cannot have theories. 
> 
> Both theism and atheism is nonsense and their conclusion never convincing. I do not mean this is an agnostic idea. I do not want to theorize this mystery and I am satisfied by calling it a mystery and whether I call it so or do not do so or theorize, or analogize or hypothesize this will always remain a mystery


I agree with Osho completely about the inevitability of mystery no matter what. It has no resolution other than true mystery. All tolerance for other people's beliefs or disbeliefs part from that position of awareness of inability to know the ultimate conclusive answer.

----------


## Delta40

I agree that there is no reason to exclude the theory of creation from schools. It's embedded in humankind's history. I wrote to my kids school about this but met with a tentative response that a school was not a place for politics!

----------


## cafolini

> I agree that there is no reason to exclude the theory of creation from schools. It's embedded in humankind's history. I wrote to my kids school about this but met with a tentative response that a school was not a place for politics!


I would accept a history course on religion in school. But it would have to be taught as history, not as religion. As religion it would have to be taught in contrast to religions not chosen for the course and, as such, a boring and damaging imposition on the freedom of religion.
Furthermore, a history course on religion would have to have a lot of variety so as not to be biased toward one side or the other. I don't think there would be enough teachers capable of giving such a class. If religion is to be genuine, thousands of belief and disbelief systems would have to be exposed. A very difficult task.

----------


## Delta40

I don't believe the theory of creation is about teaching religion. I appreciate that it may be a difficult task but schools are prepared to teach kids about other cultures. Why not throw cultural theories of creation into the mix?

----------


## cafolini

> I don't believe the theory of creation is about teaching religion. I appreciate that it may be a difficult task but schools are prepared to teach kids about other cultures. Why not throw cultural theories of creation into the mix?


To be fair, you would have to teach many courses as electives. Far too many. Even at a university level they would be far too many.
There are more than 4000 religions in the world. In the United States alone there are more than 300 denominations in monotheism alone.

----------


## Delta40

lol. I don't care enough about the subject to keep debating it, only to say that the theory of creation is a worthwhile topic.

----------


## cafolini

> lol. I don't care enough about the subject to keep debating it, only to say that the theory of creation is a worthwhile topic.


One of the most interesting religions exists on the basin of the Orinoco in Venezuela. The natives there, being black, clain that after creating the world, God saw a lot of bad people and punished them by turning them white.

----------


## usman.khawar

> Why should we believe in God?
> Here is an answer from Christian viewpoint.
> 
> 
> In life we pretty much hear what we want to hear and turn a deaf ear to what we don't want to hear. We also see what we want to see and turn a blind eye to what we don't want to see. Belief is basically the same and not based on rational thinking. It's based on choice. Generally speaking, we believe what we want to believe, what we are most comfortable with, and what we choose to believe.
> 
> True, none of us has ever seen God and many use this as an excuse not to believe in him. I can't see electrons either, but every time I turn on my light switch, I see the evidence of electrons in action. I can't see radio waves either, or TV signals that come from satellites, or the wind, but I see and hear the evidence of their existence continually.
> 
> The fact is if we want to "see" God, we will because the evidence of his existence is everywhere we look. But if we don't want to see him, we won't.
> ...


Awsome...

AOA Mazhar.. i would say that one can find God through rational mind as well. and infact i beleive rational mind ,whose base is strong argument and logic, is one who can only recogonize lord. 

evidences everywhere , yes u r right , strongest argument is quran. full with scientific facts, prove one fact wrong rationaly and get rid of Lord. this suggestion is for those who think that they have rational mind.

----------


## mazHur

> One of the most interesting religions exists on the basin of the Orinoco in Venezuela. The natives there, being black, clain that after creating the world, God saw a lot of bad people and punished them by turning them white.


sounds quite funny yet it may be true. Bad people have been stated in other literature as well to have been turned into elephants and monkeys,etc. This statement cannot be set aside on the mere basis that it doesn't have proof. It is also clear from the belief in Awagon, ie from the theory of reincarnation.
By what other name would you call ''animism'??

----------


## osho

I cannot feel the types of personal gods most religions have faiths in. My God if any is universal. My God is all pervasive and does not care whether prayed or not.

I do not believe the God in heaven. There is nothing called heaven or hell. This is just an idea, an invented idea. God is much subtler than what we understand. The cohesive force that keeps the planets moving and the earth revolving comes from that force and I do not have to name it as Jesus or any other things.

My God does not live in temples. God lives only in understanding and the ones we come upon in societies are ideologically warring Gods

----------


## cafolini

> I cannot feel the types of personal gods most religions have faiths in. My God if any is universal. My God is all pervasive and does not care whether prayed or not.
> 
> I do not believe the God in heaven. There is nothing called heaven or hell. This is just an idea, an invented idea. God is much subtler than what we understand. The cohesive force that keeps the planets moving and the earth revolving comes from that force and I do not have to name it as Jesus or any other things.
> 
> My God does not live in temples. God lives only in understanding and the ones we come upon in societies are ideologically warring Gods


I believe in pistachio parfait.

----------


## osho

> I believe in pistachio parfait.


It is really interesting caf

----------


## cafolini

> It is really interesting caf


Ah, yes. But I disbelieve in strawberry shortcake.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Ah, yes. But I disbelieve in strawberry shortcake.


Just want to point out that your disbelief in it does not make the strawberry shortcake any less existent or tasty, Cafolini.

----------


## cafolini

> Just want to point out that your disbelief in it does not make the strawberry shortcake any less existent or tasty, Cafolini.


I fully agree with that. Neither does it make it stop being a three-dimensional occurrence when it comes to tasty. Good point.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Just want to point out that your disbelief in it does not make the strawberry shortcake any less existent or tasty, Cafolini.


Well, yeah - except that strawberry shortcake was invented by Emily Penn-Fulwell in her 1897 novel _The Road to Marianneville_, and was only then actually made real by the Elbury Confectionery Company of Westfield, Mass, who marketed it as a sort of comestible tie-in to the book.

In other words, a storyteller made it up and readers made it real. Like God.

----------


## Scheherazade

> In other words, a storyteller made it up and readers made it real. Like God.


Except that you cannot see, smell, touch or taste God (nor digest for that matter) ... Which is more reason to believe, I guess.

----------


## cafolini

> Except that you cannot see, smell, touch or taste God (nor digest for that matter) ... Which is more reason to believe, I guess.


Or disbelieve. As you please. No doubt. And when it comes to reason, I'll make it plural. Again on bull's eye.

----------


## expressionism

I think it's a good thing that there is God. But a lot of harm can be done if we misunderstand Him. That's why I like how Apostle John described God as love, and how the Gospels of Christ tell us to reach out to God by faith in His grace. I think this is a well of grace for us and for our lives. 

The problem of evil can be really huge though. Sometimes I speak with christians from poor places and how hard and difficulty they have it. They often can't afford a doctor, must contend with litte food and a cold home. I don't think I could handle it if I had to live such a life. I feel burdened already, and I'm living in a western place.

But I suppose one must just look for how even poor people often retain their happiness. I think God can make us happy even in bad circumstances. And happiness is much better than grim survival. Even dying in happiness is preferable to living but being bitter, I think.

----------


## mazHur

[


> QUOTE=osho;1086036]I cannot feel the types of personal gods most religions have faiths in. My God if any is universal


. 

One way or the other almost all religions (except agnostic) universally believe in the same God, by whatever name they call it. As you say your God is universal then He falls in the same domain.





> My God is all pervasive and does not care whether prayed or not.


That's your point of view. Whether you pray Him or not will not make him any difference because he is 'without need'. Apart from praying to Him, He ordains better way of worshipping Him by caring and loving His Creation.
God says demolishing Ka'aba is not as bad as harming someone. For a God of such attributes one has to be grateful to Him for His kindness and love for us. If you don't thank people how can you deem to thank your Lord???All depends on your outlook.






> I do not believe the God in heaven. There is nothing called heaven or hell. This is just an idea, an invented idea. God is much subtler than what we understand. The cohesive force that keeps the planets moving and the earth revolving comes from that force and I do not have to name it as Jesus or any other things.



Jesus may not be minding the business of the Universe but Someone surely is. Force, yes, force that you are alluding to doesn't come of itself unless someone had Created it. Can you tell me who is the CReator or Causator of that Force??? I call Him God, and you??
Heaven and Hell may be sybolic but they tend to mean that every person would be accountable for his actions. I don't believe putting all the blame on Jesus for ridding us of our sins. No, why should he??? at least I would be guilty of bad conscience if i put the blame of my sins on anyone else, including Jesus.



> My God does not live in temples. God lives only in understanding and the ones we come upon in societies are ideologically warring Gods


Yes, God doesn't need splendid edifices to live in. But people do need a ''proper place'' to offer their thanks (prayers) to Him, in this case worship edifices of all sorts. As you need a cozy corner to find relaxation so do worshippers need a comfortable corner to offer their thanks or prayers to God.

----------


## cafolini

You got a well-deserved deluge, Osho.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

If the OP read what was previously here, my apologies. I got threads mixed up.

----------


## Big Dante

Going to a Catholic School that contained about one actual Catholic in it my religion teacher once said something along the lines of. "I believe in a soul because music can touch it."

Obviously never went to a Michael Jackson concert.

But seriously, I liked what he was saying yet; no.

----------


## Chris1991

I am a believer also , I don't even remember a time in my childhood not believing , i think nature is the best example , everything is in a balance ,i have some insects in artificial ember(bought for educational purpose) and watching the scorpion how beautiful the design is,nothing chaotic the exoskeleton design so simetric so perfect, the diversity of the fauna and many wild creatures have a design that is not chaotic , a talent for something is another proof , greatest artists create from stone perfect imitations of life, musicians create a sound that resonates with your soul
If you know where or how to look you can find enough proof

----------


## mazHur

> I am a believer also , I don't even remember a time in my childhood not believing , i think nature is the best example , everything is in a balance ,i have some insects in artificial ember(bought for educational purpose) and watching the scorpion how beautiful the design is,nothing chaotic the exoskeleton design so simetric so perfect, the diversity of the fauna and many wild creatures have a design that is not chaotic , a talent for something is another proof , greatest artists create from stone perfect imitations of life, musicians create a sound that resonates with your soul
> If you know where or how to look you can find enough proof


So true!! :Smile:

----------


## Paulclem

> I am a believer also , I don't even remember a time in my childhood not believing , i think nature is the best example , everything is in a balance ,i have some insects in artificial ember(bought for educational purpose) and watching the scorpion how beautiful the design is,nothing chaotic the exoskeleton design so simetric so perfect, the diversity of the fauna and many wild creatures have a design that is not chaotic , a talent for something is another proof , greatest artists create from stone perfect imitations of life, musicians create a sound that resonates with your soul
> If you know where or how to look you can find enough proof


Is everything in a balance, and what does that mean? Global warming, third world poverty and animal extinction suggests that nature is not in balance. Also the appreciation of beauty is so subjective. A beautiful meadow is one way of looking at a natural landscape, but if you look closer you see a field where animals and insects are eating each other and suffering. 

I remember the hymn "All Things Bright and Beautiful" which continues "All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful, the Lord God made them all."
It's a nice song, but the message grates. Life for humans and animals is not nice a lot of the time.

----------


## mazHur

> Is everything in a balance, and what does that mean? Global warming, third world poverty and animal extinction suggests that nature is not in balance. Also the appreciation of beauty is so subjective. A beautiful meadow is one way of looking at a natural landscape, but if you look closer you see a field where animals and insects are eating each other and suffering. 
> 
> I remember the hymn "All Things Bright and Beautiful" which continues "All creatures great and small,
> All things wise and wonderful, the Lord God made them all."
> It's a nice song, but the message grates. Life for humans and animals is not nice a lot of the time.


The idea behind everything being in balance is that 'mother nature keeps everything in balance' through the instrument of Life and Death. Nature maintains 'variety' which in fact is the beauty of this universe. If all things were equal there would be no Variety, nothing to choose from. Nature is amazing indeed and seems 'cruel' but it has its own 'priorities' which must not amaze anyone. If there weren't poor who would work for the rich?? If there was no day who would survive the night?? This change of weathers, this global warming, this big fish eating the small fish, etc are all mechanisms of Nature. Nothing to be amazed or surprised at. Variety, yes variety, is the beauty of this Creation, this Universe!

----------


## paulanderson114

I have faith in god.He listens to our prayers he is almighty our savior.

----------


## Chris1991

in beauty i meant how well the "design" is , how beautiful placed are the exoskeleton plates on the scorpion, what i mean is that i see a certain order to these characteristics ,they do not look random 

global warming third world poverty and animal extinction are caused by human hands , and extinctions happened before humans, climate changed before humans,what we see today are consequences of our actions

----------


## mazHur

> in beauty i meant how well the "design" is , how beautiful placed are the exoskeleton plates on the scorpion, what i mean is that i see a certain order to these characteristics ,they do not look random 
> 
> global warming third world poverty and animal extinction are caused by human hands , and extinctions happened before humans, climate changed before humans,what we see today are consequences of our actions


well said!!  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Ecurb

> in beauty i meant how well the "design" is , how beautiful placed are the exoskeleton plates on the scorpion, what i mean is that i see a certain order to these characteristics ,they do not look random 
> 
> global warming third world poverty and animal extinction are caused by human hands , and extinctions happened before humans, climate changed before humans,what we see today are consequences of our actions


If you take the letters "c", "t" and "a" and arrange them in every possible ways, it won't be long before we spell, "cat". It would not be fair to assume that it would be impossible to spell cat through random arrangement of the letters. In fact, it happens 1/6 of the time that the letters are randomly arranged.

In sexual reproduction, genes are distributed randomly (50% of each parent's genes). However, the extent to which they become widely distributed in the population is not random. It is the product, over time, of natural selection. So the patterns we see are NOT random, although the process through which they evolved involves some randomness.

----------


## cafolini

Hey guys, leave something for imbalance. So much balance is unbalanced.

----------


## mazHur

> If you take the letters "c", "t" and "a" and arrange them in every possible ways, it won't be long before we spell, "cat". It would not be fair to assume that it would be impossible to spell cat through random arrangement of the letters. In fact, it happens 1/6 of the time that the letters are randomly arranged.
> 
> In sexual reproduction, genes are distributed randomly (50% of each parent's genes). However, the extent to which they become widely distributed in the population is not random. It is the product, over time, of natural selection. So the patterns we see are NOT random, although the process through which they evolved involves some randomness.


You seem to miss the 'survival of the fittest' factor!!

----------


## osho

> in beauty i meant how well the "design" is , how beautiful placed are the exoskeleton plates on the scorpion, what i mean is that i see a certain order to these characteristics ,they do not look random


If you do not consider them random who knows the intelligence behind the order of things? Your religious gurus or the scriptures invented by some fictitious pundits? Your source of all what you call cosmic or divine design is cultivated by someone. You are hard wired to believe their notions from the time you started questioning in awe and wonder

----------


## Varenne Rodin

It's easier to pick a fake thing to believe in than it is to have your mind ripped apart by questions that don't have definitive answers. Religion is a defense mechanism. It is certainly not proven by individual beliefs. It's born out of fear and sociocultural tradition. People cling very stubbornly to their norms.

The sky could open up and a giant talking silk worm could speak aloud to tell us that he's not a god and never was. He could say he never had sway in our personal lives, but that he simply spun the delicate strands of string holding our reality together. He could say there are lots more creatures like him and none of them have any idea who or what started it all, or what the point was. All of these ridiculous nonsense things I just made up could happen, and the masses would still call it a divine act from their loving lord and savior Jesus Christ. 

My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.

----------


## osho

> It's easier to pick a fake thing to believe in than it is to have your mind ripped apart by questions that don't have definitive answers. Religion is a defense mechanism. It is certainly not proven by individual beliefs. It's born out of fear and sociocultural tradition. People cling very stubbornly to their norms.
> 
> The sky could open up and a giant talking silk worm could speak aloud to tell us that he's not a god and never was. He could say he never had sway in our personal lives, but that he simply spun the delicate strands of string holding our reality together. He could say there are lots more creatures like him and none of them have any idea who or what started it all, or what the point was. All of these ridiculous nonsense things I just made up could happen, and the masses would still call it a divine act from their loving lord and savior Jesus Christ. 
> 
> My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.


You sound wise and I second your thoughts and you presented better what I myself wanted to say. Yes as you said we have cults springing up one after another. In this eon we have Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and the like and all these cults are likely to die out the way so many did in the past and another will come up with new cults and thoughts and we are simply dancing in the dark dungeon

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Thank you, Osho.  :Smile:

----------


## mazHur

> It's easier to pick a fake thing to believe in than it is to have your mind ripped apart by questions that don't have definitive answers. Religion is a defense mechanism. It is certainly not proven by individual beliefs. It's born out of fear and sociocultural tradition. People cling very stubbornly to their norms.
> 
> The sky could open up and a giant talking silk worm could speak aloud to tell us that he's not a god and never was. He could say he never had sway in our personal lives, but that he simply spun the delicate strands of string holding our reality together. He could say there are lots more creatures like him and none of them have any idea who or what started it all, or what the point was. All of these ridiculous nonsense things I just made up could happen, and the masses would still call it a divine act from their loving lord and savior Jesus Christ. 
> 
> My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.


I think there is room for you to be appreciative of Nature, this Universe and its Creator. Nobody sticks to his religion because of so-called 'fear' ( we are not in the stone ages, are we??) or sociocultural bondage. Humans have been endowed with intellect ( where did it come from?? Nothing to do with Darwinism which is basically related to physical forms) and can choose his own way.

let the babies have their bottles is a nice way to get out of trouble but it's not the solution- the babies are now quite grown up and sensible!

----------


## mazHur

> You sound wise and I second your thoughts and you presented better what I myself wanted to say. Yes as you said we have cults springing up one after another. In this eon we have Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and the like and all these cults are likely to die out the way so many did in the past and another will come up with new cults and thoughts and we are simply dancing in the dark dungeon


These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.

You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.

----------


## osho

> These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.
> 
> You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.


We do not know our destiny and in fact I do not want to count on the ideas promulgated by religious theorists and do not want to draw upon scriptural sources and in fact I want to investigate if possible on my own without superstitiously relying on some stale thoughts. 

I want to carve out my own way without groping for someone or some religious trashes.

You can say I am spiritual or materialistic I do not care. I do not want to revert to the idea already scientifically proved baseless.

----------


## mazHur

> We do not know our destiny and in fact I do not want to count on the ideas promulgated by religious theorists and do not want to draw upon scriptural sources and in fact I want to investigate if possible on my own without superstitiously relying on some stale thoughts. 
> 
> I want to carve out my own way without groping for someone or some religious trashes.
> 
> You can say I am spiritual or materialistic I do not care. I do not want to revert to the idea already scientifically proved baseless.


I think, in that case, you ought to stick to 'pure sciences' to satisfy your feelings. However, I don't think this world grew out of nothing....because even in science you ''need a seed for a tree to sprout'!! What is your 'seed' re this universe?? None so far....

----------


## osho

> I think, in that case, you ought to stick to 'pure sciences' to satisfy your feelings. However, I don't think this world grew out of nothing....because even in science you ''need a seed for a tree to sprout'!! What is your 'seed' re this universe?? None so far....


We can keep on asking eternally and we can say God is the reason behind everything. What is behind the God that makes everything possible. Another God will emerge and there will be a series of Gods. Whose God is capable of holding this expanding / contracting? universe. If that God exists our mind or brains cannot fathom the depth of the design engineered by that God and I do not to look to religious thoughts to indoctrinate my minds and act foolishly. I want to think independently. I want to explore on my own. 

I do not want to side with any pre-thought and believed facts and these facts are based on some primordial imaginations and fears. That lead us to our savagery mindsets and I do not want to reverse the course of science.

Galileo had staked his life and was called heretic and today we worship his ideas and not the idea of the one who launched a campaign against his thoughts. You and I talk here on the Internet because those few scientists voiced against those outworn primitive philosophies

----------


## mazHur

> We can keep on asking eternally and we can say God is the reason behind everything. What is behind the God that makes everything possible. Another God will emerge and there will be a series of Gods. Whose God is capable of holding this expanding / contracting? universe. If that God exists our mind or brains cannot fathom the depth of the design engineered by that God and I do not to look to religious thoughts to indoctrinate my minds and act foolishly. I want to think independently. I want to explore on my own. 
> 
> I do not want to side with any pre-thought and believed facts and these facts are based on some primordial imaginations and fears. That lead us to our savagery mindsets and I do not want to reverse the course of science.
> 
> Galileo had staked his life and was called heretic and today we worship his ideas and not the idea of the one who launched a campaign against his thoughts. You and I talk here on the Internet because those few scientists voiced against those outworn primitive philosophies


Homo sapiens are past Galileo days...but now the style of 'scientific savagery' rules the world. You are free to believe in anything but it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.

----------


## MarkBastable

> it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.



Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.

The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.

----------


## mazHur

> Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.
> 
> The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.


as many 'ideas' as there are minds! The number of planets keeps increasing.......
Go through Aesop's fable: Father, son and donkey.

----------


## MarkBastable

> as many 'ideas' as there are minds! The number of planets keeps increasing.......
> Go through Aesop's fable: Father, son and donkey.



Well, yes. Exactly. That's why no truth has a capital T.

----------


## cafolini

> These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.
> 
> You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.


What do you mean they are not cults? What do you mean by "you cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone?" Ridiculous. The only thing Osho is not seeing is that they already died where the action is. They are all in a museum already and as he says, many are still victims of the mental vestiges they left lingering in the dungeons.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.
> 
> You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.


It's more arrogant to claim to know the actions, intentions, and the mind of a god or "creator." In doing so people make themselves into little gods, or spokesmen for their deity and, recognizing that the deity is invisible and unproven in reality, "believers" are anything but "grown up and sensible." Whimsy and mythology have nothing to do with making sense. You say people aren't in sociocultural bondage, but I'll bet you wear clothes from time to time. Clothing and religion are man-made habits. There isn't a logical argument against what I just said. Please don't tell me people simply wear clothes and worship nonsensical sky men because they are adults. Having matured beyond that point, that argument can only be considered preposterous and a waste of time.

Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.
> 
> The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.


That's brilliant. You should be a famous person, Mark.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I'm going to beat my analogy to death by simplifying it.

Your parents put clothes on you from birth, and you've still got clothes on as an adult.

Tribal parents kept their children mostly naked from birth, and those children grew up with a general tendency to remain mostly naked.

Parents or society put religion on you from birth, and you still have it on you.

That's what sociocultural means. There isn't some logic that can deny you have been influenced by other people. Following that, you have zero ways of knowing whether you have been influenced by gods.

----------


## Ecurb

> You seem to miss the 'survival of the fittest' factor!!


"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are almost identical. I don't like saying, "survival of the fittest" because it suggests (to the naive) that "survival" and "fitness" are the key elements in natural selection. They aren't. Male Black Widow spiders spread their genes most effectively by failing to survive, and impoverished, third worlders are spreading their genes more effectively than rich Americans (who, by some definitions, might be more "fit").

----------


## Ecurb

> It's easier to pick a fake thing to believe in than it is to have your mind ripped apart by questions that don't have definitive answers. Religion is a defense mechanism. It is certainly not proven by individual beliefs. It's born out of fear and sociocultural tradition. People cling very stubbornly to their norms.
> 
> The sky could open up and a giant talking silk worm could speak aloud to tell us that he's not a god and never was. He could say he never had sway in our personal lives, but that he simply spun the delicate strands of string holding our reality together. He could say there are lots more creatures like him and none of them have any idea who or what started it all, or what the point was. All of these ridiculous nonsense things I just made up could happen, and the masses would still call it a divine act from their loving lord and savior Jesus Christ. 
> 
> My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.


In a later post, Varenne, you call religion a socio-cultural phenomenon. But here you use a reductionist explanation for religion – it’s a “defense mechanism” or psychological phenomenon. Of course, religion could be both. But the reductionist explanation seems trivial and silly (to me). Why do people “need” “definitive answers”? 

Varenne says:



> “My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.”


This is not only rude, but silly. Faith may or may not be “soothing for the fragile brain” and it may or may not soothe the powerful mind. Methinks Varenne protests too much, and makes wild assertions she cannot support. How is the notion of eternal damnation (as just one example) “soothing”?

Varenne goes on in the same vein:



> Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion.


Of course this paragraph assumes that there must be some psychological “point or benefit” to religion. Why? Because it is a “delusion”, and therefore explicable only as a psychological defense mechanism, according to Varenne. 

Good grief! Isn’t this a literary discussion board? Is our attraction to the “delusions” of fiction only explicable through our “fragile brains'” inability to accept reality? Just as intelligent Christians must cringe reading the opinions of Literalists and Fundamentalists, I cringe reading the arguments of new atheists like Varenne, with their rude attacks and unsupported neo-Freudian theories.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

What wild assertions did I make?

Why do people need definitive answers? Beats me. Ask religious people. I say religion is a defense mechanism because that's what it looks like. If people aren't doing it because it feels good, why are they doing it at all?

What part of what I said was rude? I didn't make anything personal. There are groups of people who get offended if they are not placated. They call it "respecting personal beliefs." I do respect the rights of the religious to their beliefs, in exactly the same way I respect the happy joy joy feeling Santa Claus gives to kiddos. For me, it can only be placating because I cannot genuinely give over to nonsense. You seem to see something wrong with both placating and NOT placating 

So, you have called me rude, but you have in no way demonstrated how I have been rude. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. As you said, religion can be both sociocultural and a defense mechanism. It's not born of genetics and that has been proven many times over. If the unfamiliarity of psychological terms offends, I suggest taking psych courses. Happy Holidays. Love love.

----------


## Ecurb

You didn't hurt my feelings (since I'm an atheist), except inasmuch as I hate to see my own position (atheism) so badly defended.

This statement is rude, "My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain." You are implying (incorrectly) that religion is for juvenile people with "fragile brains". This is both rude and obviously incorrect. Many of the world's greatest thinkers have been religious.

Varenne continues: "Why do people need definitive answers? Beats me. Ask religious people. I say religion is a defense mechanism because that's what it looks like. If people aren't doing it because it feels good, why are they doing it at all?"

It's strange that Varenne is unable to recognize the irony of her statements here. Who is it that "needs definitive answers"? The religious person? Or Varenne, who offers a "definitive answer" to the complicated question of why people are religious because "that's what it looks like". Well, maybe people believe in God because "that's what the world looks like" to them.

I do agree with Varenne about the socio-cultural aspect of religion. Many people believe in God for the same reason I believe in Darwinism -- it's the accepted reality of their parents and other people they respect and trust. That's how all of us come to learn things -- not through doing all the experiments ourselves, nor through reasoning from First Principles, but by accepting the knowledge of those we respect and trust. As G.K. Chesterton once said, You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it. Its easy to recognize the social aspect of knowledge in other people. Perhaps we should learn to recognize it in ourselves, as well. 

(Sorry if I was rude, Varenne.)

----------


## cafolini

When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.
> 
> The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.


Great post.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I wasn't badly defending atheism. There is no reason to defend atheism. I might speak up for myself if you say you hate the type of atheist I am, because you don't know me or my "type" of atheism. My type of atheism is simply that I don't have faith in deities. If you hate that type of atheist, that's your issue and it doesn't bother me. I don't think you're rude. No offense taken.

I'm not unable to recognize irony. Are you, as an atheist person, unable to recognize that modern religion is in contradiction to the physical world? There seems such a strong opposition to criticism of religion, that I have to wonder what type of atheist would be so angry when they suspect someone of condescending. It may have escaped notice, but I was trying to give people an excuse for what I would consider to be completely inexcusable behavior if it were to come from me instead. I have an understanding that I don't know it all and CAN'T know it all. Religious people clinging to a specific religion do not have that understanding. I am trying to be nice by calling them naive. If they are not naive, it's a far more malicious insanity. I think it would be much more "rude" of me to call them insane.

People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool. That's nice. I don't think they could handle not having faith, and I think they would tell you the same thing. They need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs). It should make no atheist rise to their defense simply because this atheist does not need that sort of sustenance. I hope I have made myself clear.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.


Exactly right. Thank you, cafolini.  :Smile:

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I have also said nothing of the intelligence of Christians. Being naive and having delusions doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid. I used to be Christian. I don't think I was stupid then. I simply hadn't outgrown that attachment. If that's offensive, I don't know how to avoid offense.

----------


## Ecurb

> When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.


Of course she was. The notion that religion is childish is, however, both insulting and incorrect. 

Varenne continues in her former vein:



> I'm not unable to recognize irony. Are you, as an atheist person, unable to recognize that modern religion is in contradiction to the physical world? There seems such a strong opposition to criticism of religion, that I have to wonder what type of atheist would be so angry when they suspect someone of condescending. It may have escaped notice, but I was trying to give people an excuse for what I would consider to be completely inexcusable behavior if it were to come from me instead. I have an understanding that I don't know it all and CAN'T know it all. Religious people clinging to a specific religion do not have that understanding. I am trying to be nice by calling them naive. If they are not naive, it's a far more malicious insanity. I think it would be much more "rude" of me to call them insane.
> 
> People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool. That's nice. I don't think they could handle not having faith, and I think they would tell you the same thing. They need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs). It should make no atheist rise to their defense simply because this atheist does not need that sort of sustenance. I hope I have made myself clear.


First of all, the notion that “religious people clinging to a specific religion (do not have the understanding that they don’t know it all and can’t know it all)” is naïve, silly and ridiculous. “For who can know the Mind of God?” asks the Bible, rhetorically. Christians accept that God is ineffable, and for Varenne to unfairly accuse them of being know-it-alls is ridiculous. 

Varenne goes on to claim that religious people are either naïve or insane. Good one! This is both rude, and an ad hominem argument. It is belied by the fact that many religious people are obviously sane, and very sophisticated (although, like the rest of us, they may be wrong about some things). 

Varenne continues with her reductionist “explanation” of religion: “People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool.” Does she have any evidence for this? Of course not. Instead, she is merely spewing some psychological mumbo-jumbo. She claims the religious, “need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs).” But if the religious are either naïve or insane, why should we accept their opinion? Doubtless some religious people do say they need their faith to sustain them, but they also say that Jesus was the incarnation of God. Why does Varenne accept their (naïve or insane) opinion in the one case, but not in the other?

So, Varenne, you HAVE made your position clear. Unfortunately, it is you (not the religious) who are naïve and unsophisticated. By “explaining” a complicated, rich, human tradition as a manifestation of the psychological neediness of a naïve or insane group of emotionally immature babies, you have reduced one of the luminous achievements of mankind -- a tradition from which ethical wisdom, artistic beauty, and literary glories have sprung – to a trivial psychological defense mechanism for the juvenile. 

I don’t buy it.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

It's not an achievement, it's a hindrance. You've gone on such a rabid attack of me, Ecurb. You're not atheist, man. It's obvious. I have never heard of an atheist person worshipping religion so stringently. What is your motivation? To convince people that religion has been wonderful for mankind? I wholeheartedly disagree. If you love it so much, why are you atheist? I'm genuinely curious.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

"Atheist" is a noun. Ecurb isn't _an_ atheist.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

It's also an adjective, Juniper. I've read some opinions that say it is ONLY an adjective, but I agree that it's a noun too because it's a label. It's been used in the descriptive form for a long time; "atheist leanings." Thank you for mentioning that though.

----------


## MarkBastable

> "Atheist" is a noun. Ecurb isn't *an* atheist.


Hang on. Run the grammatical logic of that past me. 

If it's a noun, why can't it take the indefinite (or indeed, definite) article. Why is he not _an_ atheist?

----------


## Ecurb

> It's not an achievement, it's a hindrance. You've gone on such a rabid attack of me, Ecurb. You're not atheist, man. It's obvious. I have never heard of an atheist person worshipping religion so stringently. What is your motivation? To convince people that religion has been wonderful for mankind? I wholeheartedly disagree. If you love it so much, why are you atheist? I'm genuinely curious.


I would hardly call my attack "rabid". You (not I) are the one who began insulting people in this thread. 

Religion consists of myth, ritual and belief (among other things). It seems to me that those who participate on a literary discussion board would at least see the value of myth -- if not of ritual or belief. After all, myth is the foundation of literature -- or, at least, of history, fiction, and poetry. If religion is naive, childish, and needy, does that mean literature is naive, childish and needy?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

At times it is. Obviously, that does not detract from its enjoyment, a point I made.

Again, who did I insult? It's not an insult to say that taking mythology seriously is naive. By your thinking, all naive beings should feel insulted simply because they are naive.

----------


## mazHur

> "Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are almost identical. I don't like saying, *"survival of the fittest"* because it suggests (to the naive) that "survival" and "fitness" are the key elements in natural selection. They aren't. Male Black Widow spiders spread their genes most effectively by failing to survive, and impoverished, third worlders are spreading their genes more effectively than rich Americans (who, by some definitions, might be more "fit").


We are talking about Humans......
'survival' and 'fitness' are not the same as Natural Selection which is mainly concerned with adaptation and changes in physique. "Survival of the fittest"
as I get is,. is females looking for Alpha males for good propagation of genes.

The analogy drawn by you is fallacious in that it relates more to 'economic factors' than evolution. An ant can reproduce more than an elephant and even fell it!!

----------


## mazHur

> Well, yes. Exactly. That's why no truth has a capital T.


As the saying goes, When confused over a matter take the easier route'' Or ' when faced with a difficulty opt for a smaller error over the bigger one'....
Unfortunately, the non-God believers are doing none.

----------


## mazHur

> Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.
> 
> The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.


I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!

----------


## mazHur

> It's more arrogant to claim to know the actions, intentions, and the mind of a god or "creator." In doing so people make themselves into little gods, or spokesmen for their deity and, recognizing that the deity is invisible and unproven in reality, "believers" are anything but "grown up and sensible." Whimsy and mythology have nothing to do with making sense. You say people aren't in sociocultural bondage, but I'll bet you wear clothes from time to time. Clothing and religion are man-made habits. There isn't a logical argument against what I just said. Please don't tell me people simply wear clothes and worship nonsensical sky men because they are adults. Having matured beyond that point, that argument can only be considered preposterous and a waste of time.
> 
> Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion?




Nothing convincing from your side...just arguing for the sake of argument.

I live in an apartment for years and don't know who my neighbors are. I haven't even seen or met any!! Does that mean there are no neighbors in my block?? Similarly, God is known through His signs....manifestations. No one has seen Him yet His existence is felt. You therefore got no reason not to believe His existence.

----------


## billl

> Hang on. Run the grammatical logic of that past me. 
> 
> If it's a noun, why can't it take the indefinite (or indeed, definite) article. Why is he not _an_ atheist?


Varenne had posted "ECurb isn't atheist" and juniper seems to be suggesting that "ECurb isn't _an_ atheist" would be better. Varenne then defends her usage of it as a modifier (an "attributive noun", that is, which is different than an adjective, so everyone here is at least a little right in the end).

EDIT: to be fair to Varenne, I was just now able to find one online dictionary that listed "atheist" as an adjective as well, so it looks like the bleeding of an attributive noun convention into the category of full-blown adjective is underway.

----------


## mazHur

let alone semantics. get to the point. :Smile:

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Thanks, Billl. I love opportunities to improve my English. Your input is much appreciated.  :Smile:

----------


## cafolini

> I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!


That was very funny, mazHur. Ridiculously funny.
And Ecurb, you are a fountain of disinformation. But I wouldn't get entangled with you if I were her.

----------


## Ecurb

> We are talking about Humans......
> 'survival' and 'fitness' are not the same as Natural Selection which is mainly concerned with adaptation and changes in physique. "Survival of the fittest"
> as I get is,. is females looking for Alpha males for good propagation of genes.
> 
> The analogy drawn by you is fallacious in that it relates more to 'economic factors' than evolution. An ant can reproduce more than an elephant and even fell it!!


I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes -- an ant can reproduce more than an elephant, if it's the right kind of ant. Some ants can't reproduce at all (or is that Bees?). What does that have to do with anything I've ever written?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

mazHur, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm not the one with something to prove. You're asserting that there is a god and clear evidence of a god, so the burden of proof lies with you, sugarplum. I'm not worried about it either way. I'm aware of reality and what humans are capable and incapable of knowing about the history of the universe at this point. I'm aware that additional evidence could present itself in the future. As of now I have never met a deity. No one I know has met a deity. Deities don't seem able to interact with the physical world, if they do exist. That makes me reasonably certain that you haven't met deities either, and can't truthfully assert that they factually exist. I agree with you on one point, however, there's nothing worth arguing here.

----------


## mazHur

> I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes -- an ant can reproduce more than an elephant, if it's the right kind of ant. Some ants can't reproduce at all (or is that Bees?). What does that have to do with anything I've ever written?


I was pointing out to the fallacious analogy given by you concerning reproduction rate between the rich Americans and the poor Asians. 

As the Arabian Nights says: A poor man sleeps peacefully all night while a rich man cannot because the former has nothing to lose but................reproduce more and more and that too speedily!! :Smile:

----------


## Ecurb

> At times it is. Obviously, that does not detract from its enjoyment, a point I made.
> 
> Again, who did I insult? It's not an insult to say that taking mythology seriously is naive. By your thinking, all naive beings should feel insulted simply because they are naive.


Yes, it is an insult to say someone who "takes mythology seriously" is naive. I'll grant that it is not an EFFECTIVE insult, because I'm sure that almost every serious poster on these boards (including me) "takes mythology seriously". 

To return your insult, I'll only say that anyone who DOESN'T take mythology seriously is naive. I prefer the sophisticated approach, and take not only mythology, but also fairy tales, novels, and epic poems seriously.

----------


## mazHur

> cafolini;1091674]That was very funny, mazHur. Ridiculously funny.


Funny for the Lady lioness (or lion) sad for the poor dead deer! :Smile:

----------


## MarkBastable

> I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!


Oh, get a grip.

----------


## mazHur

> mazHur, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm not the one with something to prove. You're asserting that there is a god and clear evidence of a god, so the burden of proof lies with you, sugarplum. I'm not worried about it either way. I'm aware of reality and what humans are capable and incapable of knowing about the history of the universe at this point. I'm aware that additional evidence could present itself in the future. As of now I have never met a deity. No one I know has met a deity. Deities don't seem able to interact with the physical world, if they do exist. That makes me reasonably certain that you haven't met deities either, and can't truthfully assert that they factually exist. I agree with you on one point, however, there's nothing worth arguing here.


The only way to meet a deity is first to taste the flavor of Death!
BTW deities are not interested in meeting anyone...they don't need to.they are too busy-just as all and sundry like me cannot meet even the human President of a country!!

We can only visualize 'deity' through'' His manifestations and signs just as you can predict a storm by looking at the sky or racing wind!!

----------


## Ecurb

> I was pointing out to the fallacious analogy given by you concerning reproduction rate between the rich Americans and the poor Asians. 
> 
> As the Arabian Nights says: A poor man sleeps peacefully  all night while a rich man cannot because the former has nothing to lose but................reproduce more and more and that too speedily!!


"Fallacious analogy"? My observation wasn't "fallacious" and it wasn't an "analogy". Other thant that, you're probably right. "Fitness" has a special meaning in evolutionary biology:

Fitness 
Definition 

noun 

(1) (biology) A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population. 

(2) A relative measure of reproductive success of an organism in passing its genes to the next generation. 

(3) The relative ability of an individual (or population) to survive, reproduce and propagate genes in an environment.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Yes, it is an insult to say someone who "takes mythology seriously" is naive. I'll grant that it is not an EFFECTIVE insult, because I'm sure that almost every serious poster on these boards (including me) "takes mythology seriously". 
> 
> To return your insult, I'll only say that anyone who DOESN'T take mythology seriously is naive. I prefer the sophisticated approach, and take not only mythology, but also fairy tales, novels, and epic poems seriously.


I meant, and I think this was clear, that it is either naive or insane to take mythology so seriously that it becomes a person's perceived reality. I can safely say that a lot of the posters here do not seriously believe we are ruled by Greek gods. They don't think centaurs are roaming the woods near their houses. They aren't out on quests to kill dragons and ogres. I love the Dark Tower series, but I don't think I'll stumble upon magical doors into other dimensions, or be held prisoner by a talking psychotic train, or have mystical sex with a shape-shifting demonic apparition. Sure, it sounds thrilling, but I would never expect anyone to respect those crazy ideas if I thought they were real and wanted to act them out. I would expect them to laugh and think me a weirdo.

The steam has gone out of my argument though. I've been cooking and talking about delicious veggie feasts over on the vegetarian holiday manners thread. Now all I can think about is the fantastic dinner I have planned for family and friends tomorrow. I forfeit all of my remaining battle points for this round to you, Ecurb. Many happy returns.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Ecurb

Have a good Thanksgiving!

----------


## osho

Is it necessary to believe and pray? I do not think prayer is something that helps us. We are told to renounce everything to God and this is a form of servility. We often like to behave slavishly since we crave security. Why people are not rebellious? The reason is they are afraid of being stranded. We like to comply with what we are told. My parents told me in my babyhood that there is a God and since we are Buddhists by birth and Buddhism if you make an advanced study of Buddhism God is not an important 
issue the way Hinduism, Christianity or Islam accentuate it. 

Why should God need our service and prayer? God must be indifferent to prayer or condemnation. We have a certain shape and size or idea or fabrication of God and we believe God resides in heaven and there is nothing called heaven and hell. These all are mythological tales. Today children read Harry Potter and it has so many imagined stories invented by J K Rowling. I have recently read Heart of Darkness, a very interesting and exploratory story written by Conrad and one of the characters in the novel finds himself in an African land and his stature there is likened to a God any religious community believes and the community who likes to worship that character like a God has in fact incarcerated him there and the rest of characters coming across him find the place and situation despicable.

God is not a person if God does exist at all. God is not something the way your scriptures have written about. The word God is not God or the idea you have imported from your Guru or book is not God. God if there is is this cosmic wholeness, pervasiveness and presence. 

You have foolishly invented your personal Gods since you want to have a distinctiveness to identify yourself with. Your idea of God has divided the world and that ended up in the break of so many wars and the world is threatened more by the idea of God and religion than without them. 

If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God

----------


## mazHur

[QUOTE=osho;1091862]


> Is it necessary to believe and pray?




```

Why should God need our service and prayer? 


```

God does not want us to do anything for Him, only you suffer from that idea.
As for prayer, friends 'pray' for success and prosperity to their friends and loved ones; they wish nice things to other people. If someone does not believe in 'praying' or 'wishing' well to others he is infact something out of this world.... a weird non-human being perhaps. Similarly, one prays to God for no charge!! It's not necessary that He grant you all you wish or pray for. 
Praying or wishing well to someone is like thanking them and needless to say a 'thankless person' is not the sign of a good personality.

Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings. Other religions such as Islam and Christianity teach struggle and love and hold one's life as a trust to God. Suicide is haram in Islam and perhaps other religions too and is a sign of cowardice and hopelessness. If 'to pray' to the Supreme being for goodness for self or others is bad then 'to hope' is no better.


```

You have foolishly invented your personal Gods since you want to have a distinctiveness  to identify yourself with. Your idea of God has divided the world and that ended up in the break of so many wars and the world is threatened more by the idea of God and religion than without them. 


```

Are you wise enough to call the billion believers fools?? That is an insult to them. Wars are not the result of 'religion' alone- lust and greed for domination and power is.




> If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God



Who do you have for succor?? Social security? pension? servility to rules and laws of land? allegiance to your family and country?? wealth and power?? Knowledge and wisdom?? You lose all these things with time.....and finally you feel the brunt of not praying or wishing ........

----------


## cafolini

It is true that prayer and hope are one and the same, but they don't have anything to do with religion objetifying them. The world is already innundated with prayer for betterment without any need for religion.

----------


## YesNo

> I do not think prayer is something that helps us. We are told to renounce everything to God and this is a form of servility.
> 
> If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God


I agree with mazHur's comments on prayer. 

Personally, I find mantra recitation helpful. I suspect this could be called "prayer". Basically, it keeps the mind focused on words that have been repeated so often they come to mind immediately like the lyrics of a song one recently heard. Although I think there are personal benefits in doing this, it is not a just a self-help activity. It works because it is directed to an Other.

If I had to be servile to anything, I would prefer that to be the highest God I could imagine. Religious stories help me imagine a higher God than _money_, _pleasure_, or _fame_. These petty Gods are just not good enough for me. One problem with atheism, among other things, is that it leaves these petty Gods as the only ones available for the imagination.

----------


## mazHur

> It is true that prayer and hope are one and the same, but they don't have anything to do with religion objetifying them. The world is already innundated with prayer for betterment without any need for religion.


Who do you pray to?? Who do you wish by ?? Without 'Faith' no prayer no wish can come true. Call it religion, faith, belief, soul, spirit, whatever, it ends up in 'Religion'...

A thief's 'religion' is stealing; a pick-pocket's is in ripping off pockets; 
a generals is in martial matters; a politician's 'religion' is in how much he can fool people; a priest's faith is in his piety, fake or true. You ought to have a faith to hold you up in times of challenge and that faith is only provided by your FAITH OR RELIGION. Unless you have faith in your parents or friends you cannot be loyal to them nor ever pray or wish them good.

Inundation of prayers is just like habitually buying a million lottery tickets but no jackpot showing up. Prayers have to be ''genuine' ie from heart and soul. I have had many experiences of failed prayers as well as some successful ones....all depends on intentions and faith.




> I agree with mazHur's comments on prayer. 
> 
> Personally, I find mantra recitation helpful. I suspect this could be called "prayer". Basically, it keeps the mind focused on words that have been repeated so often they come to mind immediately like the lyrics of a song one recently heard. Although I think there are personal benefits in doing this, it is not a just a self-help activity. It works because it is directed to an Other.
> 
> If I had to be servile to anything, I would prefer that to be the highest God I could imagine. Religious stories help me imagine a higher God than _money_, _pleasure_, or _fame_. These petty Gods are just not good enough for me. One problem with atheism, among other things, is that it leaves these petty Gods as the only ones available for the imagination.


Great message, highly inspirational even for non-believers!!  :Hurray:  :Thumbs Up: 

But who performs these miracles, 


"People usually consider walking on water
or in thin air a miracle.
But I think the real miracle, someone should have told HanH!!
is not to walk either on water or in thin air,
but to walk on earth.
Every day we are engaged in a miracle
which we don't even recognize:
a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves,
the black, curious eyes of a child--
our own two eyes.
All is a miracle."

Thich Nhat Hanh
Vietnamese Bhuddist Monk, Author and Poet

----------


## Varenne Rodin

It wasn't inspirational for this non-believer. It was ludicrous.

I loved your post, Osho. Everything you said made so much sense. Thank you.

----------


## mazHur

> It wasn't inspirational for this non-believer. It was ludicrous.
> 
> I loved your post, Osho. Everything you said made so much sense. Thank you.


sorry, that was not meant for you .... there are non-believers who might love the post and even if they confusedly don't that's their prerogative.

----------


## cafolini

> Who do you pray to?? Who do you wish by ?? Without 'Faith' no prayer no wish can come true. Call it religion, faith, belief, soul, spirit, whatever, it ends up in 'Religion'...
> 
> A thief's 'religion' is stealing; a pick-pocket's is in ripping off pockets; 
> a generals is in martial matters; a politician's 'religion' is in how much he can fool people; a priest's faith is in his piety, fake or true. You ought to have a faith to hold you up in times of challenge and that faith is only provided by your FAITH OR RELIGION. Unless you have faith in your parents or friends you cannot be loyal to them nor ever pray or wish them good.
> 
> Inundation of prayers is just like habitually buying a million lottery tickets but no jackpot showing up. Prayers have to be ''genuine' ie from heart and soul. I have had many experiences of failed prayers as well as some successful ones....all depends on intentions and faith.


You are getting better all the time. Ha!

----------


## ftil

> Is it necessary to believe and pray? I do not think prayer is something that helps us. We are told to renounce everything to God and this is a form of servility. We often like to behave slavishly since we crave security. Why people are not rebellious? The reason is they are afraid of being stranded. We like to comply with what we are told. My parents told me in my babyhood that there is a God and since we are Buddhists by birth and Buddhism if you make an advanced study of Buddhism God is not an important 
> issue the way Hinduism, Christianity or Islam accentuate it. 
> 
> Why should God need our service and prayer? God must be indifferent to prayer or condemnation. We have a certain shape and size or idea or fabrication of God and we believe God resides in heaven and there is nothing called heaven and hell. These all are mythological tales. Today children read Harry Potter and it has so many imagined stories invented by J K Rowling. I have recently read Heart of Darkness, a very interesting and exploratory story written by Conrad and one of the characters in the novel finds himself in an African land and his stature there is likened to a God any religious community believes and the community who likes to worship that character like a God has in fact incarcerated him there and the rest of characters coming across him find the place and situation despicable.
> 
> God is not a person if God does exist at all. God is not something the way your scriptures have written about. The word God is not God or the idea you have imported from your Guru or book is not God. God if there is is this cosmic wholeness, pervasiveness and presence. 
> 
> You have foolishly invented your personal Gods since you want to have a distinctiveness to identify yourself with. Your idea of God has divided the world and that ended up in the break of so many wars and the world is threatened more by the idea of God and religion than without them. 
> 
> If you think disinterestedly and detachedly you will keep mind from the idea of God



It is interesting what you wrote about God. Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophical Society, visited Tibet where she received her teachings. She had a very different idea about God. 
Well, her God.  :Biggrinjester: 



Excerpt from The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky  Vol. 2





> *VOL. 2, PAGE 233 HOLY SATAN.
> *
> The true esoteric view about Satan, the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled The Secret of Satan, to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsfords Perfect Way. No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: 
> 
> 1. And on the seventh day (seventh creation of the Hindus),* there went forth from the presence of God a mighty Angel, full of wrath and consuming, and God gave him the dominion of the outermost sphere.
> 
> 2. Eternity brought forth Time; the Boundless gave birth to Limit; Being descended into generation.
> 
> 4. Among the Gods is none like unto him, into whose hands are committed the kingdoms, the power and the glory of the worlds:
> ...






> *VOL. 2, PAGE 234 THE SECRET DOCTRINE*
> 
> 33. *Satan is the minister of God, Lord of the seven mansions of Hades* . . . .
> The seven or Saptaloka of the Earth with the Hindus; for Hades, or the Limbo of Illusion, of which theology makes a region bordering on Hell, is simply our globe, the Earth, and thus Satan is called 
> 33 . . . . the angel of the manifest Worlds.
> *It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god, and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity. For he is one with the Logos, the first son, eldest of the gods, in the order.*






> *VOL. 1, PAGE 350 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.*
> 
> The latter is, in the Chaldean Kabala, a pure abstraction; the Word or LOGOS, or DABAR (in Hebrew), which Word, though it becomes in fact a plural number, or Words  D(a)B(a)RIM, when it reflects itself, or falls into the aspect of a Host (of angels, or Sephiroth, numbers) is still collectively ONE, and on the ideal plane a nought  0, a No-thing. IT is without form or being, with no likeness with anything else. (Franck, Die Kabbala, p. 126.) And even Philo calls the Creator, the Logos who stands next God, the SECOND GOD, and the second God who is his (Highest Gods) WISDOM (Philo. Quaest. et Solut). *Deity is not God. It is NOTHING, and DARKNESS.* It is nameless, and therefore called Ain-Soph  the word Ayin meaning nothing. See Franck Die Kabbala, p. 153. See also Section XII., Theogony of the Creative Gods. The Highest God (the unmanifested LOGOS) is its Son.

----------


## mazHur

Buddhism, as all know, had its origin in India. Irony of fate is that it has been almost wiped out of Indo-Pakistan and is extinct in its ORIGINAL form, the form that Mahatama Gautam Budh gave it. The present day great religion of Mahatama has been modified to suit various far eastern regions of the world. 
If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty! This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!

----------


## Paulclem

> Buddhism, as all know, had its origin in India. Irony of fate is that it has been almost wiped out of Indo-Pakistan and is extinct in its ORIGINAL form, the form that Mahatama Gautam Budh gave it. The present day great religion of Mahatama has been modified to suit various far eastern regions of the world. 
> If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty! This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!


Mazhur - I remember you saying things before about Buddhism and Ashoka that are patently untrue. 

The Southern Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Burma and Vietnam claim that they preserve the original teachings in the Therevada in the books of the Tripitaka, whilst the Mahayana traditions claim that their teachings merely build upon the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The Therevada claims it is the original form, and there is no reason to say otherwise. the writings are even written in a form that suits the rendering of an oral tradition. 

If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty!

This is not in the Buddhist teachings. Ashoka stopped the campaign of his victorious armies after witnessing the suffering that was caused. He was moved by compassion and then became an iconic Buddhist practitioner, and created the Pillar of Ashoka, which was found by later archaeologists and proved that Buddhism was not a mere branch of Hinduism. 

This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!

What is food for thought is why you think it is ok to peddle this cod version of Buddhist history. I remember a post from last year you made claiming similar things. I don't see many Buddhists on here coming up with false histories of Islam, and I don't see why you should either.




> Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings. 
> [PHP]


This is completely untrue. The Buddha's Path is the Middle Way - neither cultivating suffering, nor over indulging oneself. A quick and cursory read of The Life of the Buddha will confirm this. I also remember you claiming to have studied Buddhism before settling on Islam. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a balanced way of deciding upon a spiritual path. Now this. Either you didn't study it, or you did, but have decided to write untruths to people you think will not know. So which is it?

I found our previous conversation on the thread "Is God a projection of our thoughts" - page 9.

----------


## ftil

> This is completely untrue. The Buddha's Path is the Middle Way - neither cultivating suffering, nor over indulging oneself. A quick and cursory read of The Life of the Buddha will confirm this. I also remember you claiming to have studied Buddhism before settling on Islam. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a balanced way of deciding upon a spiritual path. Now this. Either you didn't study it, or you did, but have decided to write untruths to people you think will not know. So which is it?
> 
> I found our previous conversation on the thread "Is God a projection of our thoughts" - page 9.



Hm..you cant forget that Buddhism involves Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Tantric Buddhism. Within Hanayana or Mahajana we find many sets that differ in their doctrine. Tantric Buddhism also evolved over several centuries. We cant have discussion about Buddhism without specifically referring to Hanayana, Mahayana, or Tantric. It would be the same mistake like making generalizations about Christianity. Within Christianity there are so many sects and denominations with distinct doctrines.

I think that to understand that subject requires years of intense study.  :Biggrin5:

----------


## BlackCat

I believe in God because of the equilibrium that He brought to my life. I also believes in God because it was God who inspired me to learn all things possible. It was God who inspired me to study beauties of the world, to see the universe as a united singularity. I also believe in God because I study, and as subjective as it is because I can hear Him speak to my heart (no Schizophrenia  :Smile:  )

----------


## cafolini

> I believe in God because of the equilibrium that He brought to my life. I also believes in God because it was God who inspired me to learn all things possible. It was God who inspired me to study beauties of the world, to see the universe as a united singularity. I also believe in God because I study, and as subjective as it is because I can hear Him speak to my heart (no Schizophrenia  )


Sometimes I believe in God because I have fun imagining all that I could not do.

----------


## Paulclem

> Hm..you cant forget that Buddhism involves Hinayana Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Tantric Buddhism. Within Hanayana or Mahajana we find many sets that differ in their doctrine. Tantric Buddhism also evolved over several centuries. We cant have discussion about Buddhism without specifically referring to Hanayana, Mahayana, or Tantric. It would be the same mistake like making generalizations about Christianity. Within Christianity there are so many sects and denominations with distinct doctrines.
> 
> I think that to understand that subject requires years of intense study.


The three aspects of the path are not incompatible, but follow the Buddha's path. It's still the Middle way, but the emphasis of each differs. They are unlike Christianity in that the doctrines of each are not at odds. How does what I've said change according to the tradition?




> It is interesting what you wrote about God. Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophical Society, visited Tibet where she received her teachings. She had a very different idea about God. 
> Well, her God. 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt from The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky  Vol. 2


Which part of these quotes did she get from Tibet? Tibet had been a Buddhist country for centuries then. It all reads like a re-interpretation of Christian doctrine and seems to have nothing to do with Buddhism.

Also, Madame Blavatsky has been associated with Spiritualists and the Spiritualist movement in the past. It is very different from Buddhist teachings.

----------


## ftil

> The three aspects of the path are not incompatible, but follow the Buddha's path. It's still the Middle way, but the emphasis of each differs. They are unlike Christianity in that the doctrines of each are not at odds. How does what I've said change according to the tradition?



Hm.I have been reading about Tantric Buddhism and I see many differences with Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. To be honest, I didnt know about Tantric Buddhism as I read Hanayana and Mahayana teachings. Buddhist tantric practice is classified as secret practice and it influenced by Hindu teachings. Interestingly enough, study of Tantrayana on west are in early stages. Those who study that subject made it very clear that there is still lots of secrecy even though there is a large number of tantric scriptures.

So, we may simplify Buddhist teaching to one doctrinebut then we will talk about New Age or pop version of Buddhist teachings. Secondly, Christianity doctrines within protestant church, for example, are not at odds as you said but there are differences like in Buddhism. 

My point was that if we want to talk about Buddhism, we need to be very specific and aware of the limitations of our knowledge.




> Which part of these quotes did she get from Tibet? Tibet had been a Buddhist country for centuries then. It all reads like a re-interpretation of Christian doctrine and seems to have nothing to do with Buddhism.
> 
> Also, Madame Blavatsky has been associated with Spiritualists and the Spiritualist movement in the past. It is very different from Buddhist teachings.


It would answer your question. 





> According to biographers, H.P. Blavatskys path laid to Tashilunpo monastery (near Shigatse). A book "The Voice of the Silence", published for the request of Panchen Lama IX in 1927 by Chinese society for Buddhism study at Peking, reports that H. Blavatsky during several years was studied in Tashilunpo and knew well Panchen Lama VIII Tenpay Vangchug. Blavatsky also confirmed her living at Tashilunpo and Shigatse. In a letter, she depicted her correspondent a solitary temple of Tashi Lama near Shigatse.
> S. Cranston asserts that, according to H.P. Blavatsky, it is not known would she was at Lhasa in that time, but V. Jelihovsky affirmed the follows: "It is reliably that she (Blavatsky) sometimes was at Lhasa, capital of Tibet, and also at Shigatse, main Tibetan religious centre  and at Karakoram mountains in Kunlun Shan. Her living stories about this proved that for me many times".
> 
> According to the biographers, last period of her living at Tibet H.P. Blavatsky has conducted in the home of her Teacher Koot Hoomi (K.H.). He helps Blavatsky to get to several lamaseries where any European was not before her. In the letter from October 2, 1991 she wrote to M. Hillis-Billing that the house of Teacher K.H. "is in the region of Karakoram mountains beyond Ladakh which is at minor Tibet and related now to Kashmir. This is a large wooden building in China style looking like to pagoda located between lake and a nice river".
> Researchers believe that just at this time (during living in Tibet) Blavatsky began to study the texts which later will come to the book "The Voice of the Silence".
> 
> In 1927, one of the eminent explorers of Tibet and its philosophy W.Y. Evans-Wentz wrote in introduction to his translation of "The Tibetan Book of the Dead": "As concerning an esoteric meaning of forty ninth day of Bardo, please see about this in H.P. Blavatskys The Secret Doctrine (London, 1888, v.1, P.238, 411; v.2, p. 617,628). Late lama K.D. Samdup believed that in spite of malevolent critics of Blavatskys works, this author has undisputable proofs that she was well acquainted with the highest lamaist teaching, and for this she needs to get an initiation". Doctor Malalasekera, founder and President of the World Buddhist brotherhood, wrote about Blavatsky in a monumental "Buddhism Encyclopedia": "Her acquaintance with Tibetan Buddhism and also with esoteric Buddhism practices is indubitable". Thus, Japan philosopher and Buddhologist D. T. Suzuki supposes that
> 
> 
> ...


She introduced the concept of Ascended Masters from whom she received her teachings.
The question that I ask who they really are and if they are so evolved why they need humans as a vehicle to transmit their knowledge.  :Biggrinjester: 




> http://www.answers.com/topic/ascended-master
> Ascended Masters are enlightened beings whom many in the esoteric field believe have evolved beyond the need to reincarnate on earth and now act from a higher plane of existence to assist humans in their movement toward enlightenment and guide the race in its destined evolution. The concept of ascended masters was popularly introduced by Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, cofounder of the Theosophical Society, and described in some detail in her most important book, The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky taught that both individuals and the human race were engaged in an upward evolutionary process. At the same time, she pictured a hierarchy of Masters headed by a being known as the Solar Logos. Those masters at the lowest level of the hierarchy regularly interacted with humanity. The Masters El Morya and Koot Hoomi have had a special role in the formation and guidance of the society. One of the early members of the society, A. P. Sinnett, also received regular communications from the masters that became the basis of two important theosophical texts, Esoteric Buddhism and the Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett.
> Together, the masters constituted the Great White Brotherhood. A number of the spiritual leaders from past history were pictured as members of the hierarchy. For example, the person known as Jesus, revered as the fountainheadof Christianity, is believed to hold the office of Maitreya in the hierarchy. The work of the masters was championed by Blavatsky's successor Annie Besant and her colleague Charles W. Leadbeater, whose works further elaborated upon the nature and work of the masters.
> Blavatsky also introduced the idea of ascension as a goal for humans, a concept made central of "I AM" Religious Activity, an organization founded by Guy W. Ballard, who further developed theosophical concepts. Ballard taught that it was possible through following the disciplines of the movement, including vegetarianism, to so purify the self that the individual need not die but could ascend to the next level of conscious existence. Ballard's own untimely death necessitated some revision of that ideal, and the natural process of death was integrated into the understanding of the process of ascension. Ballard is now believed to have assumed a position as an ascended master, as has Mark Prophet, the founder of the Summit Lighthouse (now the Church Universal and Triumphant), a group similar to the "I AM."

----------


## mazHur

> Mazhur - I remember you saying things before about Buddhism and Ashoka that are patently untrue. 
> 
> The Southern Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Burma and Vietnam claim that they preserve the original teachings in the Therevada in the books of the Tripitaka, whilst the Mahayana traditions claim that their teachings merely build upon the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The Therevada claims it is the original form, and there is no reason to say otherwise. the writings are even written in a form that suits the rendering of an oral tradition. 
> 
> If Buddha hadn't believed in God, his most ardent convert the Great Ashoka and Grand Chandra Gupt Mauria wouldn't have given up bloodshed without feeling scruples of the fear of Almighty!
> 
> This is not in the Buddhist teachings. Ashoka stopped the campaign of his victorious armies after witnessing the suffering that was caused. He was moved by compassion and then became an iconic Buddhist practitioner, and created the Pillar of Ashoka, which was found by later archaeologists and proved that Buddhism was not a mere branch of Hinduism. 
> 
> This should also be a food for thought for those who want to understand God!
> ...


Where did I 'compare' any religion with Buddhism??? False history of Islam??? When, where??

I live in the ancient Buddhist zone,,,,the Ghandara civilization, stupas all around but NOT a single Buddhist?? It is almost the same all over India! Buddhism been split into a myriad of sects or faces is no more the same as taught by the Great Buddha. It is favored, though in a different mode, more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant--the Hindu's and Jains. And that is a fact. 

It is irony of fate that two of the greatest Kings of India namely Mauriya and Asoka lost their empires and dynasty AFTER they converted to Buddhism....
it was not only 'suffering' they caused that made them realize to opt for a new religion but they kinda attained Nirvana...or unification with God!

Buddhism in its Original form is almost history...what we see today is modifications of Buddhism...and Buddha teachings except his Eight Paths.

Basic teachings of almost all religion lay emphasis on 'morals' and 'way of living' so does Buddhism and I don't have any disagreement on that. The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION ...and doesn't condemn self-infliction which is not considered legitimate in other religions including Islam. FYI it is HARAM in Islam to commit suicide or kill anyone-it says : the Killing of one person is the same as Killing humanity. Well, if people do not comply with the tenets of their religion that cannot be the fault of their religion, any religion for that sake.




> This is completely untrue. The Buddha's Path is the Middle Way - neither cultivating suffering, nor over indulging oneself. A quick and cursory read of The Life of the Buddha will confirm this. I also remember you claiming to have studied Buddhism before settling on Islam. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a balanced way of deciding upon a spiritual path. Now this. Either you didn't study it, or you did, but have decided to write untruths to people you think will not know. So which is it?
> 
> I found our previous conversation on the thread "Is God a projection of our thoughts" - page 9.


BTW which religion doesn't teach the middle way??? What if the adherents of a religion do not obey its tenets?? What if the teachings of a religion are adulterated and obliterated by human hands??

I am not a religious man...I talk from experience and practical observation.
Buddhism was a shift from Hinduism....It teaches peace to the extent of death which is NOT moderation. It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!

Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself. Dividing religious norms and scriptures into 'open' and 'secret' sections too isn't good...for it was for this reason that Martin Luther revolted.

In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea!

----------


## Paulclem

> Hm.I have been reading about Tantric Buddhism and I see many differences with Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism. To be honest, I didnt know about Tantric Buddhism as I read Hanayana and Mahayana teachings. Buddhist tantric practice is classified as secret practice and it influenced by Hindu teachings. Interestingly enough, study of Tantrayana on west are in early stages. Those who study that subject made it very clear that there is still lots of secrecy even though there is a large number of tantric scriptures.
> 
> So, we may simplify Buddhist teaching to one doctrinebut then we will talk about New Age or pop version of Buddhist teachings. Secondly, Christianity doctrines within protestant church, for example, are not at odds as you said but there are differences like in Buddhism. 
> 
> My point was that if we want to talk about Buddhism, we need to be very specific and aware of the limitations of our knowledge.


Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha. 

This practice is not necessarily secret, such as Vajrasattva practice. The secret practices include wrathful forms of the Buddhas such as Vajrayogina and Mahakala. They are secret because these practices utilise wrathful energy and sexual energy for the path. I must stress that the practices do not involve sexual acts, but are practiced by Monks and Nuns who are abstinent and must maintain their vows. They are secret because of misinterpretation and literalism. This has been a problem in the past.

I wasn't trying to simplify Buddhism. It isn't simple, and the accretion of cultures uponthe different forms add a lot of variety. But the core beliefs and principles remain the same throughout. 

My point was to address Mazhur's false claims about Buddhism. Nowhere does it say that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering.




> It would answer your question. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She introduced the concept of Ascended Masters from whom she received her teachings.
> The question that I ask who they really are and if they are so evolved why they need humans as a vehicle to transmit their knowledge.


It doesn't answer my question. Where in that is there any sniff of Buddhism. There is a lot of name dropping of places, but I don't recall Madame Blavatsky being credited with any teachings that are anything like Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism.




> Where did I 'compare' any religion with Buddhism??? False history of Islam??? When, where??
> 
> I live in the ancient Buddhist zone,,,,the Ghandara civilization, stupas all around but NOT a single Buddhist?? It is almost the same all over India! Buddhism been split into a myriad of sects or faces is no more the same as taught by the Great Buddha. It is favored, though in a different mode, more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant--the Hindu's and Jains. And that is a fact. 
> 
> It is irony of fate that two of the greatest Kings of India namely Mauriya and Asoka lost their empires and dynasty AFTER they converted to Buddhism....
> it was not only 'suffering' they caused that made them realize to opt for a new religion but they kinda attained Nirvana...or unification with God!
> 
> Buddhism in its Original form is almost history...what we see today is modifications of Buddhism...and Buddha teachings except his Eight Paths.
> 
> Basic teachings of almost all religion lay emphasis on 'morals' and 'way of living' so does Buddhism and I don't have any disagreement on that. The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION ...and doesn't condemn self-infliction which is not considered legitimate in other religions including Islam. FYI it is HARAM in Islam to commit suicide or kill anyone-it says : the Killing of one person is the same as Killing humanity. Well, if people do not comply with the tenets of their religion that cannot be the fault of their religion, any religion for that sake.


I specifically addressed your assertion that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering. They do not. The Middle Way was developed by The Buddha to counter the extremes of asceticism, and also the extremes of over indulgence. The Middle way is a specific path and not a generalisation that you can apply to general ethics practiced in other religions. It involves following the 8 Fold Path which is a Buddhist construct. 

The only thing I pointed out inso far as Buddhism is concerned that it retards ACTION and REACTION

This is not what I was taking issue with, but since you bring it up, Buddhism teaches that you should act in the right way. If that include action - then act. If it requires inaction. Don't act. 

Buddhism's view of suicide is that it is wrong. But the view of a person who does this is one of compassion.

Your assertion that Buddhism isn't practiced as it was originally intended is refuted by modern Buddhists in the Therevada tradition. 

I'm also not impressed that you claim to come from that region. What has that got to do with anything? I also take issue that Buddhism was intended for any particular people - more by the outsiders than those for whom it was meant- in your words. It is intended for anyone who wishes to practice it, and it is very clear on that - including Hindu untouchables and anyone else. 

.




> BTW which religion doesn't teach the middle way??? What if the adherents of a religion do not obey its tenets?? What if the teachings of a religion are adulterated and obliterated by human hands??
> 
> I am not a religious man...I talk from experience and practical observation.
> Buddhism was a shift from Hinduism....It teaches peace to the extent of death which is NOT moderation. It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!
> 
> Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself. Dividing religious norms and scriptures into 'open' and 'secret' sections too isn't good...for it was for this reason that Martin Luther revolted.
> 
> In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea!


Buddhism is not a shift from Hinduism if you mean that it is a branch of it. I have no idea what you mean by peace to the extent of death. Perhaps you mean that it is better to die than to kill another person in anger. If you mean that then yes. it has high ideals. 

It was this moderation that brought the downfall of novo-impressed great kings and dynasties in as much as that only their stones and pillars remain to remind of them!

You could look at this and say it was the greed and violence of the victorious.

Staying hungry and almost 'killing' yourself is not a pride in itself so is committing Suicide or killing others. Bringing yerself pain and suffering is not a way to eradicate or mitigate sufferings of others or oneself.

This is not a part of the Buddhist teachings. The Middle Way is.

In my humble opinion any religion which does not teach ACTION is not my cuppa tea

Ok, but in my humble opinion, you should inform yourself about the basic tenets of a religion before you go pronouncing on it.

----------


## MarkBastable

> in my humble opinion, you should inform yourself about the basic tenets of a religion before you go pronouncing on it.


That's his humble opinion too...

_Originally Posted by mazHur 
it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth._


...apparently.

----------


## BlackCat

this might come off a tad bit stupid and lazy, but what are y'all talking bout Buddhism?

----------


## usman.khawar

> I believe in God because of the equilibrium that He brought to my life. I also believes in God because it was God who inspired me to learn all things possible. It was God who inspired me to study beauties of the world, to see the universe as a united singularity. I also believe in God because I study, and as subjective as it is because I can hear Him speak to my heart (no Schizophrenia  )


quite true but ur argument in favor of God may be express on wider canvas like this " its a supper beauty that this universe and all in btw is in perfect equlibrium"

isnt it ?

----------


## Paulclem

> this might come off a tad bit stupid and lazy, but what are y'all talking bout Buddhism?


Yes. No harm in asking.

----------


## BlackCat

> quite true but ur argument in favor of God may be express on wider canvas like this " its a supper beauty that this universe and all in btw is in perfect equlibrium"
> 
> isnt it ?


I'm not making an argument, that was just a reason why I believe in God. That would be why I present a subjective proof.

----------


## Paulclem

> That's his humble opinion too...
> 
> _Originally Posted by mazHur 
> it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth._
> 
> 
> ...apparently.


Yes. I've referred to a previous conversation with Mazhur too. We've been here before, which makes me wonder why he's persisting in this.

----------


## BlackCat

> Yes. No harm in asking.


sorry, just too long though, just wondering what aspects of Buddhism you folks are on

----------


## Paulclem

I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.

----------


## BlackCat

> I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.


which was why Buddha set out to seek a new path in the first place. However I kinda disagree with him

----------


## mazHur

> I was contradicting a posting that claimed that Buddhism advocated Enlightenment through suffering, which is at odds with the teachings.


maybe I've become old to get past discussion out of my mind :Smile:  
Will you please enlighten me about how Buddhism teaches us to get over our sufferings which other religions don't?

----------


## BlackCat

> maybe I've become old to get past discussion out of my mind 
> Will you please enlighten me about how Buddhism teaches us to get over our sufferings which other religions don't?


Can I offer my insight to this? I don't know every religions, but I can at least compare Buddhism to mine, Christianity.

In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons. In Buddhism, upon tempted by the mara and his daughters, the Buddha did nothing to be distracted. Instead it was earth and heaven that instantaneously recognized the Buddha's sovereignty. Upon being tempted with the pleasures of the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind.

In Christianity however is a different story. Jesus not only not ignore the Devil, he had an actual dialogue with him and rebuked the Devil with the Word of God. Jesus was not meditating, he was fasting, he experienced suffering in its rawest forms. There were no wipping and kneeling for hours, those were just the simplest forms of human weakness: hunger, fear, greed... Unlike the Buddha who ignored everything, Jesus gone through everything. This reflects the whole aspect of Christianity, which peach that the only way one can rise gloriously with Christ is to suffer like Christ.

Both faiths have great aspects and great truths, but to me simply to be like the Buddha is almost impossible. I am a Christian because to me Christianity and Jesus is more realistic, because I believe that man must evolve only through understanding the natures of his struggles.

 :Banana:  :Banana:  :Banana:

----------


## ftil

> Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha. 
> 
> This practice is not necessarily secret, such as Vajrasattva practice. The secret practices include wrathful forms of the Buddhas such as Vajrayogina and Mahakala. They are secret because these practices utilise wrathful energy and sexual energy for the path. I must stress that the practices do not involve sexual acts, but are practiced by Monks and Nuns who are abstinent and must maintain their vows. They are secret because of misinterpretation and literalism. This has been a problem in the past.
> 
> I wasn't trying to simplify Buddhism. It isn't simple, and the accretion of cultures uponthe different forms add a lot of variety. But the core beliefs and principles remain the same throughout. 
> 
> My point was to address Mazhur's false claims about Buddhism. Nowhere does it say that Buddhists seek Enlightenment through suffering.


I know enough about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted system it is. Please don’t forget that Buddhism like every other religions has evolved over time. I have read that the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century.




> Historians have identified an early stage of Mantrayana beginning in the 4th century, and argue that assigning the teachings to the historical Buddha is "patently absurd".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana


I have read that there is a lot of secrecy. I guess we read different scholars.

Secondly, don’t forget that Tantric Buddhism came from India. It is sexual in nature.You may create your own explanations why Tantric Buddhism is secret but I would rather stay with scholars who are committed to scientific study. Well, they have many questions......you have all the answers.  :Biggrinjester: 

Finally, you may do some research about the abstinence of monks. I have posted on your tread a documentary video about sexual scandal of Soygal Rinpoche. You may say it that women who were sexually used by Rinpoche didn’t tell the truth. Well, my friend’s mother spent 3 years in Buddhist center in France. I remember saying her that it was a common knowledge that he was promiscuous. I didn’t know that he used his power of authority to do so……I thought that he was simply handsome and charming and women couldn’t resist.  :FRlol: Unfortunately, it is not true at all. 

So, we may ask many questions. For example, why Blavatsky who was initiated into mahayana esoteric teachings wrote that Satan or Lucifer was the only god. :Reddevil:

----------


## mazHur

[QUOTE=BlackCat;1092317]Can I offer my insight to this? I don't know every religions, but I can at least compare Buddhism to mine, Christianity.



```

In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons. ............ the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind. 


```

I have no doubt in that all founders of other religions too were tempted by demons. But they held to their ground of goodness.






> Unlike the Buddha who ignored everything, Jesus gone through everything. This reflects the whole aspect of Christianity, which peach that the only way one can rise gloriously with Christ is to suffer like Christ.


Oh,no.Nobody wants to get up the cross like Jesus and why should he?? 
Why should we we hold Jesus responsible for our sins? Why should Jesus claimed to be God's son be made a scapegoat for others and crucified by his own father?? All this doesn't appeal to me.


As a Muslim I believe that their is only ONE GOD, a Unity. Every person is accountable for his own deeds, that there is a Day of Judgment; that a Muslim must believe in all holy Scriptures and Prophets, including Jesus and Moses; that a Muslim is forbidden to talk ill of any other religion; etc.
Many of the things of Islam 'resemble' Christianity and Judaism. Islam implores Muslims to constructive action .....struggle to end his sufferings.
Just meditating and rubbing one's head on the ground ain't not going to kill the butterflies fluttering in a hungry man's stomach!
As compared to Buddhism, the main difference is that Islam holds for action...the former sticks to rituals and secretive religious syllabi and is closer to Sufism.(ie mysticism). 



```

I believe that man must evolve only through understanding the natures of his struggles. 


```

a good pursuit ends in success..no doubt about it.

----------


## Paulclem

> I know enough about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted system it is. Please dont forget that Buddhism like every other religions has evolved over time. I have read that the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that there is a lot of secrecy. I guess we read different scholars.
> 
> Secondly, dont forget that Tantric Buddhism came from India. It is sexual in nature.You may create your own explanations why Tantric Buddhism is secret but I would rather stay with scholars who are committed to scientific study. Well, they have many questions......you have all the answers. 
> 
> Finally, you may do some research about the abstinence of monks. I have posted on your tread a documentary video about sexual scandal of Soygal Rinpoche. You may say it that women who were sexually used by Rinpoche didnt tell the truth. Well, my friends mother spent 3 years in Buddhist center in France. I remember saying her that it was a common knowledge that he was promiscuous. I didnt know that he used his power of authority to do soI thought that he was simply handsome and charming and women couldnt resist. Unfortunately, it is not true at all. 
> ...


Please dont forget that Buddhism like every other religions has evolved over time. I have read that the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century.

Yes. I said it developed from the Mahayana teachings. 

I have read that there is a lot of secrecy. I guess we read different scholars.

Yes there is secrecy about some Tantric prctices. I said that. 

Secondly, dont forget that Tantric Buddhism came from India. 

Buddhism came from India, and so this follows. 

It is sexual in nature.You may create your own explanations why Tantric Buddhism is secret but I would rather stay with scholars who are committed to scientific study. Well, they have many questions......you have all the answers. 

We must be reading different scholars because I can assure you that Tantric buddhism is not about sex - the act with a human partner, but is a way of utilising sexual energy. It takes great training to practice Tantra. It has nothing to do with celebrity Tantric sex, and does involve vows which are karmically serious. Apart from the misapprehension of and literalisation of the teachings, there are Karmic repercussions for its misuse and abuse. The secrecy is to protect the teachings and those who would practice without a teacher or the proper training. Apparently it involves the development of personal power, and without the pre-requisite development of a stable Bodhicitta which focuses the efforts of the practitioner upon compassion for all beings, it can lead to bad results. 

I haven't created my own answers to this despite your insinuation. It is from teachings and discussions I have had, and from the books I have read. I am not a practitioner of secret Tantra but I do know of it. 

We all know about Sogyal Rinpoche. Unfortunate, but very human. 

So, we may ask many questions. For example, why Blavatsky who was initiated into mahayana esoteric teachings wrote that Satan or Lucifer was the only god

She says she was initiated into Mahayana Esoteric teachings, but what evidence is there of that in her writings? What has Satan or Lucifer got to do with it? I don't give much credit to her or her writings, especially about Tibetan Buddhism. At the time Tibet was a closed country. For Western travellers it represented a land of mystery and magic, which reputation probably attracted her to the idea of it. Alexandra David-Neel really did travel to Tibet, and explains how difficult it was in Magic and Mystery in Tibet. Someone looking to that time would be better seved with that. If someone wanted to read about Tantra, there are more modern books written by real teachers.

----------


## BlackCat

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092335]


> Can I offer my insight to this? I don't know every religions, but I can at least compare Buddhism to mine, Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> 
> In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons. 
............ the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind. 
> 
> 
> ...


The purpose for Jesus suffering and death is to reconcile people to God, just as the Christmas carol said. He is the agnus dei, lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world through His sacrifice. This reveals an another character of Christianity. How can a man cleanses his own sins? The Jews first understood this through the teachings of Moses of making a scapegoat for their sins. Only something pure, innocent, can take away the sins of man. Just as only by putting your laundry in the washing machine can successfully take away the stains (that is if you use the right detergent). There is no point rubbing that dirty shirt to an another dirty shirt.

No one holds Jesus responsible for our sins, Jesus Himself declared to the be the lamb of God.

----------


## mazHur

[QUOTE=BlackCat;1092343]


> The purpose for Jesus suffering and death is to reconcile people to God, just as the Christmas carol said. He is the agnus dei, lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world through His sacrifice. This reveals an another character of Christianity. How can a man cleanses his own sins? The Jews first understood this through the teachings of Moses of making a scapegoat for their sins. Only something pure, innocent, can take away the sins of man. Just as only by putting your laundry in the washing machine can successfully take away the stains (that is if you use the right detergent). There is no point rubbing that dirty shirt to an another dirty shirt.
> 
> No one holds Jesus responsible for our sins, Jesus Himself declared to the be the lamb of God.


Okay, that's your belief but makes little sense to me. I as a Muslim honor Jesus just like Muhammad..and every Muslim is bound to do that otherwise he is out of the religion. 

BTW How far has the modus operndi you allude to Jesus has been successful till this date? any idea??

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *Paulclem* 
> 
> She says she was initiated into Mahayana Esoteric teachings, but what evidence is there of that in her writings? What has Satan or Lucifer got to do with it? I don't give much credit to her or her writings, especially about Tibetan Buddhism. At the time Tibet was a closed country. For Western travellers it represented a land of mystery and magic, which reputation probably attracted her to the idea of it. Alexandra David-Neel really did travel to Tibet, and explains how difficult it was in Magic and Mystery in Tibet. Someone looking to that time would be better seved with that. If someone wanted to read about Tantra, there are more modern books written by real teachers.





Well, you may not give a credit to her teachings and I dont give it, either. However, I have spent some time to read her writings to make connections and to make up my mind. I dont make any conclusions without studying a subject. So, how can you make your assumptions without knowing her work or reading her biography? You will find a lot of resource on that subject and I gave you a few links to begin with. I guess I wasted my time, didn't I?  :Tongue: 


Sorry, but it is silly to ask about the evidence. You have to find on your own answer and it will take time to do so. Rejecting it without studying ..let say is not scientific. Again, researchers made it clear that there is a lot secrecy and study of tantric Buddhism studies are in early stages. So, we definitely read different scholars. 





> Tantric Buddhism is not a seperate form of Buddhism, but grows from the Mahayana. As such it follows the Buddha's path and extends it into practices such as medicine Buddha Practice. You therefore need a grounding in the teachings of The Buddha.


If you take your time and study it, you may change your mind. I think that the difference between you and me is the fact that I dont have any interest to defend any religious system but I seek the truth. We have not been told the truth about Hindu religion and there is a vast research on that subject. We have not been told the truth about Buddhism or Catholic religion, either.

Please, dont forget that denying the truth always backfires at us. I dont do that.  :Ihih:

----------


## BlackCat

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092351]


> BTW How far has the modus operndi you allude to Jesus has been successful till this date? any idea??


I'm giving a reflection and my opinion, as well as defending my faith, I'm not on a marathon

----------


## Paulclem

> Well, you may not give a credit to her teachings and I dont give it, either. However, I have spent some time to read her writings to make connections and to make up my mind. I dont make any conclusions without studying a subject. So, how can you make your assumptions without knowing her work or reading her biography? You will find a lot of resource on that subject and I gave you a few links to begin with. I guess I wasted my time, didn't I? 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but it is silly to ask about the evidence. You have to find on your own answer and it will take time to do so. Rejecting it without studying ..let say is not scientific. Again, researchers made it clear that there is a lot secrecy and study of tantric Buddhism studies are in early stages. So, we definitely read different scholars. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you take your time and study it, you may change your mind. I think that the difference between you and me is the fact that I dont have any interest to defend any religious system but I seek the truth. We have not been told the truth about Hindu religion and there is a vast research on that subject. We have not been told the truth about Buddhism or Catholic religion, either.
> ...


I have no reason to read Madame Blavatsky as she has no relevance to Buddhism - which is what we were discussing here. I gleaned enough about her work in the past to throw doubt upon any assertions she might make about it. You did waste your time I'm afraid. I was acquainted with spiritualism and Madame Blavatsky in the past. 

 Sorry, but it is silly to ask about the evidence. You have to find on your own answer and it will take time to do so.


It was silly of me to ask you to qualify your reference to Madame Blavatsky in terms of Buddhism. You were the one who referenced her, not me, and I asked you to justify it. If you can't then fine. I'm not the one who brought her up in terms of this discussion.

I must say that it is an interesting technique you use to deflect any attempt to question your knowledge about a subject. -I'm not telling you anything - go and find out yourself. 
It does leave what you say rather hollow though. 

Again, researchers made it clear that there is a lot secrecy and study of tantric Buddhism studies are in early stages. So, we definitely read different scholars. 

Again I said there is secrecy in Tantra for a reason, and you don't need to be a scholar to know that - just acquainted with Buddhism. Anyone can read about Tantra in general terms, so I'm not sure why you are referring to scholars anyway. This is from Wikipedia - hardly obscure. 

Esoteric transmission
Three ritual implements: vajra, bell, and counting beads.
Main article: Esoteric transmission

Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book. Many techniques are also commonly said to be secret, but some Vajrayana teachers have responded that secrecy itself is not important and only a side-effect of the reality that the techniques have no validity outside the teacher-student lineage.[29] In order to engage in Vajrayana practice, a student should have received such an initiation or permission.

Reginald Ray writes that "If these techniques are not practiced properly, practitioners may harm themselves physically and mentally. In order to avoid these dangers, the practice is kept "secret" outside the teacher/student relationship. Secrecy and the commitment of the student to the vajra guru are aspects of the samaya (Tib. damtsig), or "sacred bond", that protects both the practitioner and the integrity of the teachings."[19]

The teachings may also be considered "self-secret", meaning that even if they were to be told directly to a person, that person would not necessarily understand the teachings without proper context. In this way the teachings are "secret" to the minds of those who are not following the path with more than a simple sense of curiosity.[30][31]

The esoteric transmission framework can take varying forms. The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism uses a method called Dzogchen. The Tibetan Kagyu school and the Shingon school in Japan use an alternative method called Mahamudra.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana

If you take your time and study it, you may change your mind. I think that the difference between you and me is the fact that I dont have any interest to defend any religious system but I seek the truth. We have not been told the truth about Hindu religion and there is a vast research on that subject. We have not been told the truth about Buddhism or Catholic religion, either.

If I take the time to study Buddhism? I have. 

I am interested in getting the facts straight about Buddhism. Mazhur made some false claims about Buddhism on this forum, which I found to be completely against the teachings. You took it upon yourself to begin to question me on that topic too, and I hope I have answered you. Everything I've said about buddhism is truthful. if you see that as defending a religious system - fine. I'm not sure what you mean about the truth of Buddhism. All I am writing here is what I have read, seen and heard of the Buddhist path.

Please, dont forget that denying the truth always backfires at us. I dont do that. 

What truth am I denying? Please elucidate.




> maybe I've become old to get past discussion out of my mind 
> Will you please enlighten me about how Buddhism teaches us to get over our sufferings which other religions don't?


I wouldn't like to compare Buddhism to other religions in terms of which is better. I have no problem with your religion or anyones. I have a problem when false assertions are made. 

The basic idea in Buddhism is that life is suffering - as exemplified in the Four Noble Truths, and The Buddha offers us the path to escape from this world of samsara into Enlightenment. There's no quick fix. Lives must be lived. The path must be followed.




> In both religions, the founder (Jesus and Gautama Buddha) were tempted by demons. In Buddhism, upon tempted by the mara and his daughters, the Buddha did nothing to be distracted. Instead it was earth and heaven that instantaneously recognized the Buddha's sovereignty. Upon being tempted with the pleasures of the flesh, the Buddha simply ignored the daughters of Mara. This relfect a great aspect of Buddhism, which sees all things that take man out of his focus to Nirvana and enlightenment as illusions, and all efforts must be taken to ignore them altogether, to meditate, to take ascendence over your own body and mind.


The struggle that The Buddha experienced upon the night of his Enlightenment has been described as with Mara - The Buddhist Satan, but the nature is very different, and so I'm afraid your comparison isn't valid. 

The illusion that is Mara - the Lord of Death - is the illusion of this samsaric world. it wasn't that the Buddha ignored Mara and his demons, but that he saw their inherently illusory nature. He perceived Emptiness - the ultimate nature of reality.

----------


## BlackCat

so Buddhism believes that things are illusory in nature?

----------


## ftil

> I have no reason to read Madame Blavatsky as she has no relevance to Buddhism - which is what we were discussing here. I gleaned enough about her work in the past to throw doubt upon any assertions she might make about it. You did waste your time I'm afraid. I was acquainted with spiritualism and Madame Blavatsky in the past.


Hm…if you were acquainted with Blavatsky's teachings, you should have known about her connections with Tibet and Buddhism. Secondly, you have asked me which part from The secret Doctrine I have quoted Blavatsky got from Tibet. I hope that you know how unrealistic your question was.






> I must say that it is an interesting technique you use to deflect any attempt to question your knowledge about a subject. -I'm not telling you anything - go and find out yourself. 
> It does leave what you say rather hollow though.



Please, don’t project your issues upon me. I haven’t said anywhere that I was the authority on Buddhism, On the contrary, I have said that I have enough knowledge about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted Buddhism is. You may consider the purpose of discussion to impress people with knowledge. I don’t do that. As I said, I have more questions than answers and I value scholars who have the same approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in those researches who know all the answers.  :Biggrinjester: 





> Again I said there is secrecy in Tantra for a reason, and you don't need to be a scholar to know that - just acquainted with Buddhism. Anyone can read about Tantra in general terms, so I'm not sure why you are referring to scholars anyway. This is from Wikipedia - hardly obscure.


Again, we have a very different approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in pop Buddhism. I have quoted from Wikipedia as I didn’t have time to find quotes from other books. I have too many books on my lists to read. Different proprieties.  :Biggrin5: 





> What truth am I denying? Please elucidate.


Well, I will leave it for you to find the answer.

Food for thought.

*Confucius:* *“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance"*

----------


## MarkBastable

> *Confucius:* *Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance"*



"Real advice consists of avoiding the tendency to coin trite little paradoxes." Charles de Russon

----------


## ftil

> "Real advice consists of avoiding the tendency to coin trite little paradoxes." Charles de Russon



"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either." 

Albert Einstein

 :Wink5:

----------


## mazHur

Several kinds of Buddhism, Buddhists:

1. Resident Buddhist
2. Tibetan Buddhism
3. Pure Land Buddhism
4. Orthodox Buddhism
5. Zen Buddhist
6. Theravada Buddhist

Which kind are we discussing about?? Since it doesn't seem to believe in God, does it matter we researched more on this religion?

----------


## Paulclem

> Hm…if you were acquainted with Blavatsky's teachings, you should have known about her connections with Tibet and Buddhism. Secondly, you have asked me which part from The secret Doctrine I have quoted Blavatsky got from Tibet. I hope that you know how unrealistic your question was.
> 
> 
> Please, don’t project your issues upon me. I haven’t said anywhere that I was the authority on Buddhism, On the contrary, I have said that I have enough knowledge about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted Buddhism is. You may consider the purpose of discussion to impress people with knowledge. I don’t do that. As I said, I have more questions than answers and I value scholars who have the same approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in those researches who know all the answers. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we have a very different approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in pop Buddhism. I have quoted from Wikipedia as I didn’t have time to find quotes from other books. I have too many books on my lists to read. Different proprieties. 
> ...


I asked you to show if there is anything in Blavatsky's teachings that refers to Buddhism. You quoted something that has no connection to Buddhism. It's up to you to justify what you say. 

Please, don’t project your issues upon me. I haven’t said anywhere that I was the authority on Buddhism, On the contrary, I have said that I have enough knowledge about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted Buddhism is. You may consider the purpose of discussion to impress people with knowledge. I don’t do that. As I said, I have more questions than answers and I value scholars who have the same approach to studying a subject. I am not interested in those researches who know all the answers.

Presumably I am the one referred to who has all the answers, but you seem to ignore my questions to you. I ask you to provide backup, which you don't. I don't think I have an issue. It is natural and normal to ask for someone to justify what you say. I mention your technique because I have seen you use this on the forum to stop any questioning of your sources. 

Your very different approach to the subject seems to include obscure references to a Spiritualist and unknown scholars. I have referenced what I said to Wikipedia which demonstrates the commonality of the views I expressed as an example. What have you actually demonstrated in your posts to me except to question the truth of what I am saying, my inferior scholarship, and the extent of my knowledge?

Also, why do you put smilies when what you say is rather cutting?

----------


## MarkBastable

> "Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either." 
> 
> Albert Einstein



"The world is full of morons who think that 'serious' and 'funny' are mutually exclusive. Don't be one of them." Ellen Faustinelli

----------


## ftil

> "The world is full of morons who think that 'serious' and 'funny' are mutually exclusive. Don't be one of them." Ellen Faustinelli


God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.

~ Voltaire

----------


## MarkBastable

> God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
> 
> ~ Voltaire



"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

----------


## mazHur

> "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
> 
> Ralph Waldo Emerson


Ignorance is bliss  :Smile:

----------


## MarkBastable

> Ignorance is bliss


We'll take your word for it.

----------


## mazHur

> We'll take your word for it.


I am not an authority. Why make a 'hero' of me?? :Shocked:

----------


## cafolini

> I know enough about Buddhism to know how complex and multifaceted system it is. Please dont forget that Buddhism like every other religions has evolved over time. I have read that the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that there is a lot of secrecy. I guess we read different scholars.
> 
> Secondly, dont forget that Tantric Buddhism came from India. It is sexual in nature.You may create your own explanations why Tantric Buddhism is secret but I would rather stay with scholars who are committed to scientific study. Well, they have many questions......you have all the answers. 
> 
> Finally, you may do some research about the abstinence of monks. I have posted on your tread a documentary video about sexual scandal of Soygal Rinpoche. You may say it that women who were sexually used by Rinpoche didnt tell the truth. Well, my friends mother spent 3 years in Buddhist center in France. I remember saying her that it was a common knowledge that he was promiscuous. I didnt know that he used his power of authority to do soI thought that he was simply handsome and charming and women couldnt resist. Unfortunately, it is not true at all. 
> ...


Blavatsky might have thought like I do that the postulation of God is the truly atheistic act of civilization. Hence Satanic.

----------


## Paulclem

I like the duelling quotations. Should it have a theme tune?

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

----------


## mazHur

> Blavatsky might have thought like I do that the postulation of God is the truly atheistic act of civilization. Hence Satanic.


Collin Wilson, the Occult makes a nice account of adepts and imposters, including info about Blavatsky. And, BTW, OCCULT is not a religion at all!!

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *Paulclem:*
> 
> Your very different approach to the subject seems to include obscure references to a Spiritualist and unknown scholars. I have referenced what I said to Wikipedia which demonstrates the commonality of the views I expressed as an example. What have you actually demonstrated in your posts to me except to question the truth of what I am saying, my inferior scholarship, and the extent of my knowledge?


You didnt provide a list of your scholars either. But I would never ask you to do so because I know how big that subject is. BTW, have you ever considered that fact that people may use library. Did you really expect that I would waste my time to go to the library to pick books to quote certain researchers? HmI thought that we were mature adults.  :Brow: 

Again, since you didnt hear me, I said that I have enough knowledge to know how complex Buddhism is and I didnt claim that I was the authority.
Well, you may feel that I have questioned your knowledge. Let me explain it again. I have questioned it it because you have tried to simplify Buddhism. Secondly, you have tried to intimidate another member that he didnt study that subject. Thirdly, I know that you studied it but I didnt know that you view yourself as a Buddhist scholar. You have to accept that we choose whom we call a scholar or not.  :Wink5: 
I absolutely agree with Dalai Lama as he said that if we want to choose a spiritual teacher, we need to know him and observe him very carefully for 12 years I hope that it will help you not to be defensive.

Finally, I have noticed in our previous discussion that you made assumptions without reading a book or checking references based on which the author wrote his book. I have a very different approach to study. I dont make assumptions without reading a work.

The problem is that we cant find the platform based on which we may build our discussion. I have questions, you have all the answers. In other words, I question everything. I dont have any authority that I would blindly accept without questioning. I have done that and I dont do it anymore.  :Biggrin5:  When we accept a belief, we close our minds and stop seeking alternative explanations. Secondly, I am not interested in exoteric knowledge for masses. Through centuries, gods cults in ancient Egypt, Greece, or Mysteries of Mithra, for example, had esoteric knowledge only for priests and initiated. Nothing has change as Buddhism today has also esoteric knowledge. I ask why they have the knowledge only for initiated. I dont ask you that question as you have already answered it and I was not satisfied with the answer.





> I asked you to show if there is anything in Blavatsky's teachings that refers to Buddhism. You quoted something that has no connection to Buddhism. It's up to you to justify what you say.


Hmyou still didnt get why I said that your question was unrealistic. She was initiated into esoteric knowledge of Mahayana. I read that she didnt reveal her teachings she received in Tibet. So, how would I or anybody else know what esoteric teachings she received? Wikipedia mentioned that researchers believe that just at this time (during living in Tibet) Blavatsky began to study the texts which later will come to the book "The Voice of the Silence". I havent read it so that I cant make any comments. 

Why dont we leave our discussion here and accept that we have the rights to disagree.

*Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.* 

*Thomas Jefferson*

----------


## Paulclem

> You didnt provide a list of your scholars either. But I would never ask you to do so because I know how big that subject is. BTW, have you ever considered that fact that people may use library. Did you really expect that I would waste my time to go to the library to pick books to quote certain researchers? HmI thought that we were mature adults. 
> 
> Again, since you didnt hear me, I said that I have enough knowledge to know how complex Buddhism is and I didnt claim that I was the authority.
> Well, you may feel that I have questioned your knowledge. Let me explain it again. I have questioned it it because you have tried to simplify Buddhism. Secondly, you have tried to intimidate another member that he didnt study that subject. Thirdly, I know that you studied it but I didnt know that you view yourself as a Buddhist scholar. You have to accept that we choose whom we call a scholar or not. 
> I absolutely agree with Dalai Lama as he said that if we want to choose a spiritual teacher, we need to know him and observe him very carefully for 12 years I hope that it will help you not to be defensive.
> 
> Finally, I have noticed in our previous discussion that you made assumptions without reading a book or checking references based on which the author wrote his book. I have a very different approach to study. I dont make assumptions without reading a work.
> 
> The problem is that we cant find the platform based on which we may build our discussion. I have questions, you have all the answers. In other words, I question everything. I dont have any authority that I would blindly accept without questioning. I have done that and I dont do it anymore.  When we accept a belief, we close our minds and stop seeking alternative explanations. Secondly, I am not interested in exoteric knowledge for masses. Through centuries, gods cults in ancient Egypt, Greece, or Mysteries of Mithra, for example, had esoteric knowledge only for priests and initiated. Nothing has change as Buddhism today has also esoteric knowledge. I ask why they have the knowledge only for initiated. I dont ask you that question as you have already answered it and I was not satisfied with the answer.
> ...


Are you trying to get in the last word on this note? I will reply. 

As I said earlier, everything I have said is is common knowedge to Buddhists and easily referenced. There's no need to reference any scholars. Even the stuff on secret Tantra is on Wikipedia. 

Why would I expect you to go to the Library. I asked - since you quoted her - if you could support your reference to Madame Blavatsky in your assertion that she had knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism. An explanation would do. The quote from Blavatsky - as i said - does a lot of name dropping but demonstrates no knowledge of Buddhism. 

I question the authority of people who spread incorrect ideas about Buddhism. The thing with Mazhur is, he had made the selfsame point last year. Why would he repeat an untruth about another religion? You weren't party to that discussion, but you can read it on the thread I referred to in my post to him. 

Well, you may feel that I have questioned your knowledge. Let me explain it again. I have questioned it it because you have tried to simplify Buddhism.


I don't think I have. All the Buddhist schools are built on the original teachings. It might be a surprise, but they are consistent in this.

Let me just say that I am not a Buddhist scholar, but I have studied it. I've been talking about the basics which can be checked by anyone. 

I absolutely agree with Dalai Lama as he said that if we want to choose a spiritual teacher, we need to know him and observe him very carefully for 12 years I hope that it will help you not to be defensive.


I don't know what you mean by this. I am aware that Spiritual teachers need to be tested. If you are suggesting that I consider myself a teacher, then I don't. 

Finally, I have noticed in our previous discussion that you made assumptions without reading a book or checking references based on which the author wrote his book. I have a very different approach to study. I dont make assumptions without reading a work.

Would you care to elucidate what assumptions I have made? You keep on saying how you never do this, or follow the truth etc etc, without actually providing anything of substance. This discussion began about Buddhism - Tantra and what the relationship is between the three aspects and different schools. You don't seem to be talking about this, but merely using this discussion to question - not what I say, but my ethics of study, my integrity and whether or not I actually am truthful in my replies. Do you want to continue to discuss Buddhism, or do you want to go on trying to criticise my ...integrity?

----------


## mazHur

[QUOTE]


> I question the authority of people who spread incorrect ideas about Buddhism. The thing with Mazhur is, he had made the selfsame point last year. Why would he repeat an untruth about another religion? You weren't party to that discussion, but you can read it on the thread I referred to in my post to him.


If you think I am incorrect please let me know where?? Start with telling the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism which can possibly aid to its better understanding as well as help someone convince about it for a possible 'conversion'.

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

----------


## ftil

> Originally posted by *Paulclem*:
> 
> Would you care to elucidate what assumptions I have made? You keep on saying how you never do this, or follow the truth etc etc, without actually providing anything of substance. This discussion began about Buddhism - Tantra and what the relationship is between the three aspects and different schools. You don't seem to be talking about this, but merely using this discussion to question - not what I say, but my ethics of study, my integrity and whether or not I actually am truthful in my replies. Do you want to continue to discuss Buddhism, or do you want to go on trying to criticise my ...integrity?


Why dont you read your response about Kalachakra Tantra. We might have had an interesting discussion if you took your time to read that book. Please dont make assumptions that I criticize your integrity. How can I do that if I dont know you????? I raised a question how could you make assumptions about the author or about the website that posted that book without reading it and checking the references the author provided. Please, dont make more assumptions.  :Devil: 





> Are you trying to get in the last word on this note? I will reply.


I am not trying to get a last word. I just dont see any reason to continue our discussion. We have the rights to disagree. It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong.  :Brow:  I don't have any need to prove to anybody what I know.

Secondly, I am tired of repeating myself. I wrote a few posts where I have explained where we differ in our approach to seeking the knowledge. Finally, I understand that you feel comfortable with accepting common knowledge about Buddhism. But you have to understand that not everybody is like you. There are people who are not followers and who question every belief that hold as truth. It is as simple as that.

----------


## irishpixieb

I personally would simply just go with Pascal's Wager if any of the logical arguments aren't flying for you. It's a win win situation either way!

But, my favorite argument for God is Thomas Aquinas' in the Summa Theologica! I love that guy!!

----------


## BlackCat

> I personally would simply just go with Pascal's Wager if any of the logical arguments aren't flying for you. It's a win win situation either way!
> 
> But, my favorite argument for God is Thomas Aquinas' in the Summa Theologica! I love that guy!!


Thomas is a great guy  :Party:

----------


## MarkBastable

Except there's a huge flaw in Pascal's wager too.

----------


## Darcy88

> Except there's a huge flaw in Pascal's wager too.


I'm curious, what would you say the flaw is?

----------


## deryk

> I begin with why I think certain people do not believe in God. Then I will write about why I still believe in God.
> 
> One main reason why some people do not believe in God is that they do not find a direct proof of God. Today science has changed the way people live and think. People have tremendous faith in science and science shows concrete results, often magic like. Science goes by pure logical evidence and God does not seem to fit there as a loving father capable of performing any miracle. The idea that someone is controlling everything in the universe does not seem to ring true to these people.
> 
> Secondly, God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and omni-powerful, but the control of real world seems to be in hand of other people. Injustice, cruelty, corruption and poverty are often evident in social life and many times wrong people seem to be controlling affairs or enjoying life. At the same time, some good people undergo great sufferings without any fault from their side. However, the all-powerful and just God who is also said to be a benevolent father seems to pay no heed and appears completely passive and indifferent.
> 
> Now, why I begin believe in God.
> 
> When I was young, my parents believed in God and so we followed those religious practices and I thought that a God is there. As we grew up and gain experiences, we begin to reason and apply logic to God. I think believing in God provides a comfort. Believers, have something to fall back upon - something to cling to in case of adversity or after we die. However, is this comfort feeling has a basis in fear for unknown? Alternatively, can we apply some logic to it? 
> ...


Lots of tossing around abstractions and no earned conclusions. 

I think bad things happen because the universe does not unequivocally revolve around us, not because some anthropomorphic, astronomical presence rolled the dice to spice things up. 

I've considered both sides of the opposition you've created for a very long time.

I doubt you can say the same.

Your aim isn't truth, it's self-fulfillment.




> I'm curious, what would you say the flaw is?


The flaw is that the wager can easily be inverted. What if the afterlife sounds like a hideous fate? In that scenario the believer has everything to lose. It's still a matter of Kantian perception. It isn't really science.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I'm curious, what would you say the flaw is?


Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside. 

So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.

Go on. Believe it. _Really_ believe it. Go _on_. What's stopping you?

----------


## deryk

> Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside. 
> 
> So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.
> 
> Go on. Believe it. _Really_ believe it. Go _on_. What's stopping you?


So in essence, Occam's Razor axes Pascal's Wager.

----------


## OrphanPip

There's also the fact that for Pascal's Wager to be really effective, we would essentially have to sincerely believe in a number of contradictory doctrines. As you can't simultaneously follow all the religious dictates of Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism or what have you.

----------


## YesNo

> Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside. 
> 
> So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.
> 
> Go on. Believe it. _Really_ believe it. Go _on_. What's stopping you?


The following is closer to Pascal's wager since for Pascal there is a severe penalty in not believing.

_If you believe in pink pixies you will get a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe, a million dollars will be taken away from you on your sixtieth birthday._ 

How would you scientifically test the pink pixie hypothesis? You just look at the bank accounts of people who turn sixty. 

How would you scientifically test whether there might be something like a God that Pascal would believe in? Some evidence comes from near death and shared death experiences. Other evidence comes from the near certainty that the universe had a beginning 13.73, plus or minus 1%, billion years ago. 

However, these lines of evidence only give you partial support for Pascal's God who demands belief using heaven and hell to influence your choice. The evidence could imply all kinds of Gods, but not the pink pixies which we can disprove quickly.

----------


## MarkBastable

> The following is closer to Pascal's wager since for Pascal there is a severe penalty in not believing.
> 
> _If you believe in pink pixies you will get a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe, a million dollars will be taken away from you on your sixtieth birthday._ 
> 
> How would you scientifically test the pink pixie hypothesis? You just look at the bank accounts of people who turn sixty. 
> 
> How would you scientifically test whether there might be something like a God that Pascal would believe in? Some evidence comes from near death and shared death experiences. Other evidence comes from the near certainty that the universe had a beginning 13.73, plus or minus 1%, billion years ago. 
> 
> However, these lines of evidence only give you partial support for Pascal's God who demands belief using heaven and hell to influence your choice. The evidence could imply all kinds of Gods, but not the pink pixies which we can disprove quickly.


I think you're missing both Pascal's point and mine. However, if you prefer, the pink pixies will give you invisible immortality. They really will. So start believing in them immediately.

I don't think that the severe threat makes any difference to the difficulty of sincerely believing something because the logic suggest it's a good idea to.

In fact, we can try that now.

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will call you a rude name.

Feel like believing in them yet?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will throw a tennis ball at you.

Any glimmerings of faith?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will destroy a foreign city you've barely heard of.

Ready to welcome the pixies into your heart?

If you don't believe in the pink pixies, you will be cast into the fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity.

Aha! Has that swung it? Do you now believe in the pixies?

I suspect not, and that's for three reasons.

1) It's necessary to have a pre-existing belief in the pink pixies to take seriously the threat of what they might do to you - so Pascal doesn't apply.

2) In any case, the ability to believe isn't really increased by the escalation of the threat. 

3). Even if you knew for a fact that some other agency than the pink pixies was going to fulfil the threat - let's say it's me, in my capacity as the pixies' self-declared representative on Earth - you wouldn't be able to make yourself believe in them, although you might decide it was a good idea to pretend to.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside. 
> 
> So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.
> 
> Go on. Believe it. _Really_ believe it. Go _on_. What's stopping you?


I believe it! It was the fuschia that sold me.

----------


## Paulclem

> Why dont you read your response about Kalachakra Tantra. We might have had an interesting discussion if you took your time to read that book. Please dont make assumptions that I criticize your integrity. How can I do that if I dont know you????? I raised a question how could you make assumptions about the author or about the website that posted that book without reading it and checking the references the author provided. Please, dont make more assumptions. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to get a last word. I just dont see any reason to continue our discussion. We have the rights to disagree. It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong.  I don't have any need to prove to anybody what I know.
> 
> Secondly, I am tired of repeating myself. I wrote a few posts where I have explained where we differ in our approach to seeking the knowledge. Finally, I understand that you feel comfortable with accepting common knowledge about Buddhism. But you have to understand that not everybody is like you. There are people who are not followers and who question every belief that hold as truth. It is as simple as that.


You came into this discussion stating I must remember there are three aspects of Buddhism - Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantra. My response was that they are not different in the sense of their basis, but they have a different focus for practice. Tantra grows from practising the Mahayana. It is not seperate in the sense that you become a Tantric Buddhist and not one of the others. 

If you want to discuss this I will. 

As for the Kalachakra Tantra - was that in a previous discussion? The one on your thread where you are using a site which is full of anti-Dalai Lama sentiments?

Please dont make assumptions that I criticize your integrity. 

You have criticised my integrity - not that I am offended. Every time you mention me making assumptions - you are criticising my integrity. 

If you want to argue that Madame Blavatsky knew anything at all about Buddhism and the teaching of Tantra - then go on. 

It is you who have the need to convince that you are right and others are wrong.

Some of the things that have been written are incorrect. Are you criticising me for pointing this out? You can check what I say. I'm just about to respond to Mazhur's last post where he has stated something incorrect in previous posts.




> Buddhism believes in self-torture to get rid of sufferings.


Mazhur - this is fundamentally incorrect. A reading of the Buddha's life will establish that he rejected such asceticism for the Middle way. As he was sitting in a starved state he realised that this was not going to answer the question of solving the suffering of life. He then began to take food again and resumed his quest for Enlightenment. What you said is fundamentally against The Buddha's own example.

[QUOTE=mazHur;1092661]


> If you think I am incorrect please let me know where?? Start with telling the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism which can possibly aid to its better understanding as well as help someone convince about it for a possible 'conversion'.
> 
> I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.


I have absolutely no wish to convert anyone. I respect your religion, and wish you well in the practice of it. HH he Dalai Lama said some years ago that people should follow the religion they grow up with unless they have a very strong attachment to another. 

I still hold on to my idea that Buddhism is a ''passive' kinda religion disfavoring ACTION and laying more stress on mysticism, rituals, esoteric and occult.

It's true that Buddhism advocates peace, as Ashoka demonstrated. It is not a passive, sit about, doormat, let it happen to you religion though. It basically gives an individual the tools to try to locate the sources of suffering and to change their behaviour or situation in order to improve that. It teaches action, but right action through a correct appraisal of the situation rather than by reacting with destructive or negative emotions like anger. The result of acting unskillfully is to incur negative Karma, which leads to more suffering.

----------


## ftil

> You have criticised my integrity - not that I am offended. Every time you mention me making assumptions - you are criticising my integrity.


Well, we have a very different understanding what assumptions mean. When I said that you made assumptions I didnt criticized your integrity but I said that you were wrong about my thoughts. You may try to sit in my head and read my thoughts,........ believing that it is true.  :FRlol:  




> Some of the things that have been written are incorrect. Are you criticising me for pointing this out? You can check what I say. I'm just about to respond to Mazhur's last post where he has stated something incorrect in previous posts.


Well, I have noticed that you also questioned others who wrote about Blavatsky or Kalachakra. 
Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack. You use the same tactic so that dont be surprised that I brought this up. To make very clear, I am not talking about myself but about others who studied that subject in depth. 




> As for the Kalachakra Tantra - was that in a previous discussion? The one on your thread where you are using a site which is full of anti-Dalai Lama sentiments?


Well, it was not a site. It was a book that the site you mentioned posted it. This book can be found on a number of websites. May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? You will find a number of important scholars. Dont be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... dont expect others to be afraid to challenge and question.  :Tongue:

----------


## MarkBastable

> It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.



To be fair, old love, the same could be said of you, or me, or anyone who mounts an argument in order to defend a position. So it's hardly a useful observation about someone you're arguing with. In fact, it smacks a bit of desperation.

----------


## mazHur

> Mazhur - this is fundamentally incorrect. A reading of the Buddha's life will establish that he rejected such asceticism for the Middle way. As he was sitting in a starved state he realised that this was not going to answer the question of solving the suffering of life. He then began to take food again and resumed his quest for Enlightenment. What you said is fundamentally against The Buddha's own example.


Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.

What is Kalachakra??? Literally it means ''Black Circle''

----------


## YesNo

> I think you're missing both Pascal's point and mine. However, if you prefer, the pink pixies will give you invisible immortality. They really will. So start believing in them immediately.


From my view, we all already have "invisible immortality". There is no need to believe in anything to get this. So why bother wagering at all for something we already have?




> I don't think that the severe threat makes any difference to the difficulty of sincerely believing something because the logic suggest it's a good idea to.
> 
> In fact, we can try that now.
> 
> If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will call you a rude name.
> 
> Feel like believing in them yet?


Let's test this scientifically. I don't believe in the pink pixies. I am waiting to hear the rude name. Ah, I don't hear one. I can conclude either the pink pixies don't exist or they do not have the ability to call me a rude name.




> If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will throw a tennis ball at you.
> 
> Any glimmerings of faith?


OK, let's test this. I don't believe in pink pixies, but no one is throwing a tennis ball at me. I can dismiss the pink pixies.




> If you don't believe in the pink pixies, they will destroy a foreign city you've barely heard of.
> 
> Ready to welcome the pixies into your heart?


I think it is safe to assume that there are more people in the world who don't believe in pink pixies than there are cities in the world. Since these cities still exist, the pink pixie threat is not real.




> If you don't believe in the pink pixies, you will be cast into the fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity.
> 
> Aha! Has that swung it? Do you now believe in the pixies?


I don't believe in a fiery furnace where you will languish in agony for all eternity. There might be other hells, however.




> II suspect not, and that's for three reasons.
> 
> 1) It's necessary to have a pre-existing belief in the pink pixies to take the threat seriously - so Pascal doesn't apply.
> 
> 2) In any case, the ability to believe isn't really increased by the escalation of the threat. 
> 
> 3). Even if you knew for a fact that some other agency than the pink pixies was going to fulfil the threat - let's say it's me, in my capacity as the pixies' self-declared representative on Earth - you wouldn't be able to make yourself believe in them, although *you might decide it was a good idea to pretend to*.


There are people who live under oppressive environments where they have to pretend to like what a government is doing just to survive. In this case there is no need to believe in anything. They are fully aware of the dangers they face.

----------


## MarkBastable

> From my view, we all already have "invisible immortality".



I wasn't intending to talk about what each of us individually believed, but to talk about whether Pascal's Wager worked. If you start from the idea that we all have immortality whether we believe in God or not, then Pascal doesn't apply, whether or not it works.





> OK, let's test this. I don't believe in pink pixies, but no one is throwing a tennis ball at me. I can dismiss the pink pixies.
> .


Remember, this is analagous to the punishment that God will visit upon us - which is the flipside of eternal heavenly life. Like God, the pixies won't be throwing the tennis ball - or doing anything else to you, nice or nasty - until after you're dead. That's the basis of Pascal's Wager, and of Bastable's Pixies (Invisible Immortality Version).

Of course, the beauty of Pascal is that he doesn't preclude Bastable's Pixies or anything else, as long as they aren't mutually-contradictory. You can believe in just about everything that might be beneficial. If it were possible to believe things on the strength of seeing that they might do you some good, Pascal would have the maximum spread-bet chance of believing the thing that turned out to matter.

----------


## cafolini

If you don't believe in the pink pixies you know of no pisses of pixies well pissed.

----------


## Paulclem

> Well, I have noticed that you also questioned others who wrote about Blavatsky or Kalachakra. 
> Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack. You use the same tactic so that dont be surprised that I brought this up. To make very clear, I am not talking about myself but about others who studied that subject in depth. 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it was not a site. It was a book that the site you mentioned posted it. This book can be found on a number of websites. May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? You will find a number of important scholars. Dont be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... dont expect others to be afraid to challenge and question.


The question about the Kalachakra - from what I recall - I'll go and have another look at the thread in a bit - the book on the site you mentioned has a very skewed interpretation of the meaning of Tantric Buddhism. Reading further on, I noticed denigrating references to HH The Dalai Lama. I assume you had looked at this site in good faith, but were perhaps unaware of the agenda behind it. I have read enough of the pages to understand that it does have an agenda. The reason I picked up on this - as I was browsing a link you provided - were some very basic mistakes in the explanation of some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. It was when I looked further that it became clear that this is a site full of misconceptions and misinterpretation which is intended to show Tibetan Buddhism in general, HH The Dalai lama and Tantra in particular, in a negative light. I was merely pointing out to you that this is the case, and anyone reading it should be aware of it. 

Although Tibetan Buddhism, and Buddhism in general, is usually well regarded, there are agencies that seek to denigrate it. The obvious one is the Chinese Govt, who maintain that HH is a splittist wanting to separate Tibet from China again. China is very sensitive to criticism, and past policy regarding Tibet by Mao resulted in an _orchestrated_ famine that killed over a million Tibetans. HH has stated that he is willing to work with the Chinese, and won't be seeking independance - it is politically impossible given China's resources. 

May I ask you again how can you make a judgment without reading a book and checking references the author provided? 

The judgement is from what it says in the text of the site. My reading of it was clear. I feel the site is written in an intentionally misleading way, and so I don't feel reading the references - which may include texts that have valid information or not - is particularly relevant. If you like, I'll go back and have a look at the things that stand out as either intentionally misleading, a negative interpretation or just plain wrong. 

Yes, I criticized that. It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.

Attack - challenge - correct - question. I prefer the last three labels, but I will continue to do so when something is so obviously incorrect. There are already a lot of misconceptions regarding Buddhism.

Dont be afraid to challenge your beliefs but if you do, please,..... dont expect others to be afraid to challenge and question.

In the cases on here I've never had belief challenged. The concepts about Buddhism I challenge are well known in terms of being rock solid Buddhist concepts. The thing I challenged Mazhur about - that Buddhism is about finding Enlightenment through suffering is completely the opposite of the Buddha's message. I don't see anything wrong in challenging a wrongly stated fundamental question. 

You know I will respond if you take issue with anything, but if I am wrong, or find I am wrong, I will admit it freely. Tell me where I have been wrong and I'll hold up my hands if you're right.




> Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.


He went through an ascetic stage, but rejected this as a valid way to gain freedom from birth, ageing, sickness and death. There are statues of the Buddha as virtually a skeleton, but the message was probably intended to refute Hindu asceticism as a way to truth.




> Maybe you are right but I thought Buddha believed in 'self-punishment' to achieve nirvana.





> What is Kalachakra??? Literally it means ''Black Circle''


I've heard it referred to as The Wheel of Time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalachakra

----------


## cafolini

There were only a few years when Buddha suffered indigestion with lotus pizza.

----------


## mazHur

> I've heard it referred to as The Wheel of Time.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalachakra


No, Kala (in my language) means black, chakra means wheel or circle, together they mean Black Wheel or perhaps metaphorically black 'magic' or esoteric , occult or misfortune.




> There were only a few years when Buddha suffered indigestion with lotus pizza.


I am so sorry...
I love Buddha!

----------


## ftil

> To be fair, old love, the same could be said of you, or me, or anyone who mounts an argument in order to defend a position. So it's hardly a useful observation about someone you're arguing with. In fact, it smacks a bit of desperation.


Do you think so? You dont know me.but make assumptions that it is an act of desperation. LOL!
I am not afraid to challenge my belief system. One of the reasons that I am not afraid is the fact that flexible belief system is a sign of psychological health. Dont you think that it is very freeing?
I dont have any need to defend my belief system. I guess you didnt read my posts, otherwise you would know that I dont have answers but I have questions and I keep my mind open while I search for truth. 




> Originally Posted by *Paulclem*
> 
> The question about the Kalachakra - from what I recall - I'll go and have another look at the thread in a bit - the book on the site you mentioned has a very skewed interpretation of the meaning of Tantric Buddhism. Reading further on, I noticed denigrating references to HH The Dalai Lama. I assume you had looked at this site in good faith, but were perhaps unaware of the agenda behind it. I have read enough of the pages to understand that it does have an agenda. The reason I picked up on this - as I was browsing a link you provided - were some very basic mistakes in the explanation of some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. It was when I looked further that it became clear that this is a site full of misconceptions and misinterpretation which is intended to show Tibetan Buddhism in general, HH The Dalai lama and Tantra in particular, in a negative light. I was merely pointing out to you that this is the case, and anyone reading it should be aware of it.


To make a final comment, I can say that I dont have any need to defend any religious figure whether it is Dalai Lama or Pope. Dalai Lamas followers may believe that he is holly. I dont. I dont believe that Pope is holly either. If you see it that it was an agenda, so be it. I dont have any interest to convince otherwise. But I have a lot in common with the author. I have always found fascinating that when we look for truth we arrive to the same conclusions that take us deeper. 

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves. To bottom line is that people may think whatever they want. But it is not my business what others think. They are free to choose their beliefs. But I dont like when the truth is not being told. And I clearly see it regarding tantra and Blavatsky. Since you deny connections Blavatsky with Buddhism which is very important, we have to end here. This was a reason I said that I didnt want to continue our discussion.  :Wink5:

----------


## mazHur

Okay folks enough, let's now talk ''why I believe in God''!!

----------


## MarkBastable

> You dont know me.but make assumptions that it is an act of desperation.


Well, I know you as well as you know Paul - about whom you seem able to say 'It sounds that if somebody challenges your belief system, you become defensive and attack.' 

You may say that you are not making a judgement of him, but of what he has written here. Hence 'It sounds that..." I'd say the same of you, hence 'It smacks of..."

----------


## Darcy88

> Okay, it's my contention that gravity is operated by a colony of small fuschia pixies who live in an eggbox in my attic. If you sincerely believe that too (and incidentally, the pixies will know if you're faking), I'll give you a million dollars on your sixtieth birthday. If you don't believe it - no matter. There's no downside. 
> 
> So - a million dollars for believing in the pink gravity pixies in my attic - and no downside.
> 
> Go on. Believe it. _Really_ believe it. Go _on_. What's stopping you?


I suspected you would say something to that effect. And, really, I don't think there's a good defense to made against your objection. Once you violate the laws of plausibility and empiricism you are kind of left with a belief system in which anything goes.

----------


## Paulclem

> To make a final comment, I can say that I dont have any need to defend any religious figure whether it is Dalai Lama or Pope. Dalai Lamas followers may believe that he is holly. I dont. I dont believe that Pope is holly either. If you see it that it was an agenda, so be it. I dont have any interest to convince otherwise. But I have a lot in common with the author. I have always found fascinating that when we look for truth we arrive to the same conclusions that take us deeper. 
> 
> Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves. To bottom line is that people may think whatever they want. But it is not my business what others think. They are free to choose their beliefs. But I dont like when the truth is not being told. And I clearly see it regarding tantra and Blavatsky. Since you deny connections Blavatsky with Buddhism which is very important, we have to end here. This was a reason I said that I didnt want to continue our discussion.


It's true I do defend HH, but not , I hope, unfairly. I've made some postings on the book/site you were referring to. I'm trying to show why it is biased and full of inacurracies and assumptions. I'm not personally having a go at you when I do this, but sincerely trying to demonstrate that the site is badly flawed. Don't rely on it, or rather check up on what it says. 

I still maintain that Blavatsky has no knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, and you haven't provided any connection either. You don't say why you think it is important even. I could discuss that with you if you could tell me what it is that Blavatsky wrote that has any importance at all concerning Tantra. We can leave it at that impasse though if you wish. 

Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves. 

Interestingly, The Buddha says that each should find out the truth of the path for themselves. This is a very important point in choosing a teacher and investigating Buddhist beliefs. I don't isagree with this sentiment in principle, and Buddhism is about challenging and changing yourself.




> No, Kala (in my language) means black, chakra means wheel or circle, together they mean Black Wheel or perhaps metaphorically black 'magic' or esoteric , occult or misfortune.


I can see that, but this particular reference is to the Wheel of Time.

----------


## cafolini

> I suspected you would say something to that effect. And, really, I don't think there's a good defense to made against your objection. Once you violate the laws of plausibility and empiricism you are kind of left with a belief system in which anything goes.


But Darcy, anything does go that goes. Otherwise it couldn't happen.

----------


## ftil

> It's true I do defend HH, but not , I hope, unfairly. I've made some postings on the book/site you were referring to. I'm trying to show why it is biased and full of inacurracies and assumptions. I'm not personally having a go at you when I do this, but sincerely trying to demonstrate that the site is badly flawed. Don't rely on it, or rather check up on what it says. 
> 
> I still maintain that Blavatsky has no knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, and you haven't provided any connection either. You don't say why you think it is important even. I could discuss that with you if you could tell me what it is that Blavatsky wrote that has any importance at all concerning Tantra. We can leave it at that impasse though if you wish. 
> 
> Secondly, by not being afraid to challenge belief system, I meant not to be challenged by others but to challenge ourselves. 
> 
> Interestingly, The Buddha says that each should find out the truth of the path for themselves. This is a very important point in choosing a teacher and investigating Buddhist beliefs. I don't isagree with this sentiment in principle, and Buddhism is about challenging and changing yourself.



You have the rights to believe whatever you want, including defending Dalai Lama. I don’t do it any more. Years ago, I defended Pope. LOL! Life is beautiful as I can outgrow beliefs that thwart my understanding of reality.

You are free to keep your beliefs about Blavatsky. You want me to explain the connections …….How can I do it since it took me more than a decade to pick up the pieces and make connections. I wish it were that simple as I would not need years of study, not mentioning money I have wasted. To explain what I mean, I can say that if somebody told me what I know today, I would have to believe it but I wouldn’t see it. More likely I would refuse to believe it. How human consciousness works is quite fascinating, yet it can be pain in the neck if we are committed to seeking the truth. Too many lies and deceptions. Unless we understand how our consciousness works, we have to BELIEve.  :Biggrin:  I don’t invest my energy into believing but I keep my mind open.

----------

