Mane Atheists:

[Swedish Extrovert]

What kind of Atheist are you?


Me:

<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td></td><td>You scored as <b>Scientific Atheist</b>, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future. <br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Scientific Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>100%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Agnostic</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='83' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>83%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Militant Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='83' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>83%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Spiritual Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='75' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>75%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Theist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='25' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>25%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Angry Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='25' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>25%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathetic Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> </td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/run.php/Quiz?quiz_id=34703'>What kind of atheist are you?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>

[Tombstone RJ]

I'm and anti-atheist atheist. Does that help?

[Swedish Extrovert]

Yeah... you hate labels....

I'm an anti-atheist atheist too. I'm against people getting caught up in Dogma.

Dogmatic Atheists are just as bad, if not worse, than Christians and Muslims.

[Requiem]

Eh, I'm not going to bother taking that test - but I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in God, (will never believe probably) but I cannot deny the existence of one. Hell, people can believe whatever they want to, it's just not for me. Too many bad experiences.

[Swedish Extrovert]

No one can deny the existance of God.

Even Dawkins says in his book, that by the strictest definition of the word, he is an Agnostic.

I think people misdefine what an Atheist is. An Atheist is not someone who doesen't believe in God.

Most people define Atheists as people who *know* there is no God. This is impossible.

Atheism is non-theism. Or... someone who denies theism- a personal God whom man was created after.

I mean ****, there are Christian Atheists... like John-Shelby Spong for example - and Episcopalian high Bishop - who denies theism, and is in effect, a Christian Atheist.

[Sassy]

Take it to religion/politics...

[Swedish Extrovert]

Go ahead

[Atlas]

No one can deny the existance of God.

.
I can.

[atomicbloke]

<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td></td><td>You scored as <b>Scientific Atheist</b>, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future. <br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Scientific Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>100%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Spiritual Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='67' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>67%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathetic Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='58' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>58%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Agnostic</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='50' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>50%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Theist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='33' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>33%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Angry Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Militant Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='0' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>0%</font></td></tr> </td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/run.php/Quiz?quiz_id=34703'>What kind of atheist are you?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>

[Los Broncos]

I dont believe in god or a supreme being.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I can.

I'll say to you what I say to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims:

Prove it

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Theres really no way to prove it either way....in this case, no one is wrong. Though i side with the faction that says there probably isnt one. But i hope there is!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Im a 100% ex-athesit.

[Tombstone RJ]

Anyone can "deny" the existence for God, however, no one can prove without a doubt the existence of God or the non-existence of God.

Same with the "soul." No one can prove or disprove the existence of the soul.

Same with free will. No one can prove or disprove the existence of free will.

All are basic philosophical questions. If you ponder these profound questions, I suggest you take a basic philosophy course in college or continuing ed.

Take Western Philosophy 101.

If you have a brain, and really care, this basic course will change the way you think about life, and death.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I guess by "deny" I meant that you cant deny it 100% without reasonable cause.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Anyone can "deny" the existence for God, however, no one can prove without a doubt the existence of God or the non-existence of God.

Same with the "soul." No one can prove or disprove the existence of the soul.

Same with free will. No one can prove or disprove the existence of free will.

All are basic philosophical questions. If you ponder these profound questions, I suggest you take a basic philosophy course in college or continuing ed.

Take Western Philosophy 101.

If you have a brain, and really care, this basic course will change the way you think about life, and death.


Yay! :thumbsup:

[Tombstone RJ]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

[Popps]

I predict a lot of friends will be made on this thread.

[Atlas]

I'll say to you what I say to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims:

Prove it


What's there to prove? You said "No one can deny the existence of God."

I said "I can." So what do I have to prove?

[Atlas]

Theres really no way to prove it either way....in this case, no one is wrong. Though i side with the faction that says there probably isnt one. But i hope there is!


HAHAHA There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence to support evolution.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I predict a lot of friends will be made on this thread.

LOL

[Atlas]

I would like to know of the church goers here how many of them believe the Noah's Ark story? Too me that is no different than Greek Mythology with Medusa, Posiden, Zeus and the rest of their fables.

[Swedish Extrovert]

HAHAHA There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence to support evolution.

But whose to say that Gods hand didn't guide evolution?

I know the Pope says he did.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I would like to know of the church goers here how many of them believe the Noah's Ark story? Too me that is no different than Greek Mythology with Medusa, Posiden, Zeus and the rest of their fables.


Or Adam and Eve. You know I read Spong's "The Sins of Scripture" and he said "no one except for the most stringent fundamentalists take the Adam and eve story as literal truth anymore"

I was like, "wait... I used to"

[Tombstone RJ]

HAHAHA There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence to support evolution.

And just as many to disprove it as well.

I don't buy the "big bang" theory of the universe, in fact, I think it's a boat load of crap.

If you don't believe in God because you believe in evolution, then I have this puzzle for you: How do you know that God didn't make the Earth approximately 4000 years ago, as the bible says, with the evidence of evolution. That is, he indeed created this earth the way it is, with all the fossils and all the other stuff that suggests evolution.

How do you know that God didn't put fossils here just to TEST YOUR FAITH!?!

Fact is, you don't know. I know you don't know the answer to that question so you might as well not even try to answer that question.:thumbsup:

[TheDave]

And just as many to disprove it as well.

I don't buy the "big bang" theory of the universe, in fact, I think it's a boat load of crap.

If you don't believe in God because you believe in evolution, then I have this puzzle for you: How do you know that God didn't make the Earth approximately 4000 years ago, as the bible says, with the evidence of evolution. That is, he indeed created this earth the way it is, with all the fossils and all the other stuff that suggests evolution.

How do you know that God didn't put fossils here just to TEST YOUR FAITH!?!

Fact is, you don't know. I know you don't know the answer to that question so you might as well not even try to answer that question.:thumbsup:

Answer: because Radiometric Dating says otherwise...

[atomicbloke]

And just as many to disprove it as well.

I don't buy the "big bang" theory of the universe, in fact, I think it's a boat load of crap.

If you don't believe in God because you believe in evolution, then I have this puzzle for you: How do you know that God didn't make the Earth approximately 4000 years ago, as the bible says, with the evidence of evolution. That is, he indeed created this earth the way it is, with all the fossils and all the other stuff that suggests evolution.

How do you know that God didn't put fossils here just to TEST YOUR FAITH!?!

Fact is, you don't know. I know you don't know the answer to that question so you might as well not even try to answer that question.:thumbsup:

One way we can prove the age of the earth is more than 4000 years via carbon dating?

Did God foresee that we could discover the carbon dating technique, hence find the age of the earth, find that it contradicts the Bible and then, our faith is really tested?

[Swedish Extrovert]

And just as many to disprove it as well.

I don't buy the "big bang" theory of the universe, in fact, I think it's a boat load of crap.

If you don't believe in God because you believe in evolution, then I have this puzzle for you: How do you know that God didn't make the Earth approximately 4000 years ago, as the bible says, with the evidence of evolution. That is, he indeed created this earth the way it is, with all the fossils and all the other stuff that suggests evolution.

How do you know that God didn't put fossils here just to TEST YOUR FAITH!?!

Fact is, you don't know. I know you don't know the answer to that question so you might as well not even try to answer that question.:thumbsup:

I'll answer that in the form of another question....

Why would God test your faith with science?

Seems like an awfully cruel game to give mankind curiosity, so he can condemn himself for pursuing truth -

“He will repay each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but wrath and indignation for those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth” – Romans 2:6-8 (ESV)"

Here's a section of a chapter in a book I'm writing on this very subject ((C) - me) -

[skpac1001]

<TABLE class=tblBorderAll cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=10 width=370 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=heading18>What kind of atheist are you?</TD></TR><TR><TD class=txtNormal14>You scored as a Scientific Atheist</TD></TR><TR><TD class=txtNormal>These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future. </TD></TR><TR><TD class=txtNormal vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Scientific Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 75%</td> </tr> --><TBODY><TR><TD>Scientific Atheist
</TD><TD width=75><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=75 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>75% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Angry Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 50%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Angry Atheist
</TD><TD width=50><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=50 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>50% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Apathetic Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 50%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Apathetic Atheist
</TD><TD width=50><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=50 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>50% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Spiritual Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 33%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Spiritual Atheist
</TD><TD width=33><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=33 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>33% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Agnostic</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 33%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Agnostic
</TD><TD width=33><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=33 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>33% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Theist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 25%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Theist
</TD><TD width=25><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=25 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>25% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Militant Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 8%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Militant Atheist
</TD><TD width=8><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=8 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>8% </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Los Broncos]

If there is a god, is he responsible for all the bad things that happen?

[skpac1001]

And just as many to disprove it as well.

I don't buy the "big bang" theory of the universe, in fact, I think it's a boat load of crap.

If you don't believe in God because you believe in evolution, then I have this puzzle for you: How do you know that God didn't make the Earth approximately 4000 years ago, as the bible says, with the evidence of evolution. That is, he indeed created this earth the way it is, with all the fossils and all the other stuff that suggests evolution.

How do you know that God didn't put fossils here just to TEST YOUR FAITH!?!

Fact is, you don't know. I know you don't know the answer to that question so you might as well not even try to answer that question.:thumbsup:

Why do people assume if you dont believe in god then you believe in something else? I am an athiest, but I dont "believe" in the big bang theory, evolution, or anything else. I am comfortable with humans not having the absolute answer to everything right now.

[Atlas]

And just as many to disprove it as well.

I don't buy the "big bang" theory of the universe, in fact, I think it's a boat load of crap.

If you don't believe in God because you believe in evolution, then I have this puzzle for you: How do you know that God didn't make the Earth approximately 4000 years ago, as the bible says, with the evidence of evolution. That is, he indeed created this earth the way it is, with all the fossils and all the other stuff that suggests evolution.

How do you know that God didn't put fossils here just to TEST YOUR FAITH!?!

Fact is, you don't know. I know you don't know the answer to that question so you might as well not even try to answer that question.:thumbsup:

Carbon dating can tell how old something is.

The fact that there are a billion other planets should be enough to suggest there is no god. I mean it took him 7 days to create the Earth and how did he create the earth in the heavens on the first day when there was no sun? I mean how do you measure a day with out the sun revolving around the earth?

[skpac1001]

Anyone can "deny" the existence for God, however, no one can prove without a doubt the existence of God or the non-existence of God.

Same with the "soul." No one can prove or disprove the existence of the soul.

Same with free will. No one can prove or disprove the existence of free will.

All are basic philosophical questions. If you ponder these profound questions, I suggest you take a basic philosophy course in college or continuing ed.

Take Western Philosophy 101.

If you have a brain, and really care, this basic course will change the way you think about life, and death.

I think I would rather join a religion then spend much time with philosophy.

Now that I think about it, philosophy is like a religion where you are allowed to write your own bible.

[Tombstone RJ]

Answer: because Radiometric Dating says otherwise...

Again, if God created this planet, with all the old rocks, all the evidence of a past history, then you are being duped, correct?

If God chose to create this planet, in this way, just to test us, and our faith, you have no way of knowing if he exists or not.

You can point to things like scientific evidence, but in the end, if God created this world and all its intricate pieces to suggest that the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, indeed the entire universe is much older than Adam and Eve, then your lack of faith in him is being tested.

I'm just saying that it is possible that God did this. Radio Carbon Dating is nice but my point still stands: Its possible God created fossils and such just to test your faith.

[Atlas]

If the Earth is only 5,000 years old did God create dinosaurs? Then I imagine dinos and humans walked thye earth together? Talking science with religion is like trying to explain algebra to 4 years olds.

[Tombstone RJ]

I think I would rather join a religion then spend much time with philosophy.

Keep thinking small and that is where you will stay.

[atomicbloke]

Who created God?

[skpac1001]

Keep thinking small and that is where you will stay.

At least I will be thinking.

[TheDave]

Again, if God created this planet, with all the old rocks, all the evidence of a past history, then you are being duped, correct?

If God chose to create this planet, in this way, just to test us, and our faith, you have no way of knowing if he exists or not.

You can point to things like scientific evidence, but in the end, if God created this world and all its intricate pieces to suggest that the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, indeed the entire universe is much older than Adam and Eve, then your lack of faith in him is being tested.

I'm just saying that it is possible that God did this. Radio Carbon Dating is nice but my point still stands: Its possible God created fossils and such just to test your faith.


A little problem with this... Math and chemistry would not exist as we now understand it. Radiometric dating relies on the uniform decay of particular isotopes... If only the isotopes of "fossils" had these properties yet all molecular materials found in objects 4000 years old or newer had different properties the the laws of chemistry and some of math would never have come to be.

[Tombstone RJ]

If the Earth is only 5,000 years old did God create dinosaurs? Then I imagine dinos and humans walked thye earth together? Talking science with religion is like trying to explain algebra to 4 years olds.

Your missing the point.

Dinosaurs didn't exist (that's what I'm suggesting here in my arguement, so bare with me). God just put these fossils here to suggest that they did. Just like evolution suggests we evolved from lesser beings over millions of years.

Now, if you ask me, "hey Tombstone, are you saying Dinosaurs are a hoax?" What I'm saying is that it's possible all the evidence is being laid before us by God, and we are simply being asked to by him to make a choice.

You can deny God by saying "Radio Carbon Dating proves that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old, therefore, there is no God." Or, you can say "I live in a complicated world that constantly tests my faith, I chose to believe in God because I have faith that he exists."

Anyhow, just thought I'd throw that out there...

[Pat Bowlen]

Im a 100% ex-athesit.
I didn't read the thread, but I think I'm in the same boat as this guy. A hardcore atheist is the same thing as a hardcore religious person, in my opinion. Both of them are certain that they know what is going on.

MightySmurf, I've never liked you as a poster so this should be easier to handle, but what you're describing as atheism I call agnosticism.

I should also reiterate that I didn't read the thread beyond the post I replied to.

[TheDave]

Bowlen seems alot more pissed off on the mane than he does in real life... :)

[skpac1001]

Your missing the point.

Dinosaurs didn't exist (that's what I'm suggesting here in my arguement, so bare with me). God just put these fossils here to suggest that they did. Just like evolution suggests we evolved from lesser beings over millions of years.

Now, if you ask me, "hey Tombstone, are you saying Dinosaurs are a hoax?" What I'm saying is that it's possible all the evidence is being laid before us by God, and we are simply being asked to by him to make a choice.

You can deny God by saying "Radio Carbon Dating proves that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old, therefore, there is no God." Or, you can say "I live in a complicated world that constantly tests my faith, I chose to believe in God because I have faith that he exists."

Anyhow, just thought I'd throw that out there...


Why does god want to test our faith? Surely he can't hold it against us that we would rather trust him directly by testing and finding out about nature then trusting other, fallible men who transmit what they claim are ancient "words of god".

[Pat Bowlen]

Wow, I just read Tombstone RJ's post before me.

What comes to mind is something I read about 15 years ago, when the Vatican finally admitted that Galileo was right about the Earth rotating around the sun. Back then he was afraid for his life, because religious people saw so much conflict between his views and theirs that they sought to punish him for saying otherwise. Now everybody knows the truth.

Tombstone, you're a great poster, but I think you're living with blinders on if you believe that dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test us.

[Tombstone RJ]

A little problem with this... Math and chemistry would not exist as we now understand it. Radiometric dating relies on the uniform decay of particular isotopes... If only the isotopes of "fossils" had these properties yet all molecular materials found in objects 4000 years old or newer had different properties the the laws of chemistry and some of math would never have come to be.

I love science, I love math, I love chemistry and such. I also took a little astronomy in college too (talk about math gone haywire, it fried my brain).

I also took alot of Philosophy in college.

You'd be amazed at how science, math, religion, history, the arts and humanities are all tied together to form our way of looking at the world.

I'm not arguing one minute with you Dave on the science and math part of our universe. I'm just saying it's possible it's all being laid before us to test our faith.

[CBF1]

I would like to know of the church goers here how many of them believe the Noah's Ark story? Too me that is no different than Greek Mythology with Medusa, Posiden, Zeus and the rest of their fables.

Watch it with the "Greek" comments.

There has to be a god, how else can anyone explain Hixon?

[TheDave]

Watch it with the "Greek" comments.

There has to be a god, how else can anyone explain Hixon?

Could Hixon create a rock that Hixon could not lift? ;)

[skpac1001]

I didn't read the thread, but I think I'm in the same boat as this guy. A hardcore atheist is the same thing as a hardcore religious person, in my opinion. Both of them are certain that they know what is going on.

MightySmurf, I've never liked you as a poster so this should be easier to handle, but what you're describing as atheism I call agnosticism.

I should also reiterate that I didn't read the thread beyond the post I replied to.

If by hardcore athiets you mean those who make a scene whenever religion comes up, or who cannot allow others to believe, I think they are generally damaged people who are angry at someone religious from thier past. As far as athiests/ agnostics, you dont have to have 100 percent certaintly that god does not exist to be an athiest, any more then you need 100 percent certainty that an acme safe is not going to drop on your head during the next week to dismiss it.

[DenverBrit]

A creator?

Can't be a Christian or a Muslim.

Unless centuries of war, genocide, torture, hatred, prejudice, murder and inquisitions are what he had in mind.

In which case, I'll pass.....again.

[Tombstone RJ]

Wow, I just read Tombstone RJ's post before me.

What comes to mind is something I read about 15 years ago, when the Vatican finally admitted that Galileo was right about the Earth rotating around the sun. Back then he was afraid for his life, because religious people saw so much conflict between his views and theirs that they sought to punish him for saying otherwise. Now everybody knows the truth.

Tombstone, you're a great poster, but I think you're living with blinders on if you believe that dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test us.

I'm not saying that dinosaurs didn't exist. I'm just saying it's possible that they didn't exist.

What I'm really saying is that we don't know how God functions. Here's the ultimate truth: All we really know, is what we don't know.

[Deacon Blue]

But whose to say that Gods hand didn't guide evolution?

I know the Pope says he did.

Catholics don't interpret the Bible literally either like a lot of Protestants do.(not all of them)

[Pat Bowlen]

As far as athiests/ agnostics, you dont have to have 100 percent certaintly that god does not exist to be an athiest, any more then you need 100 percent certainty that an acme safe is not going to drop on your head during the next week to dismiss it.
From Dictionary.com:

a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I didn't read the thread, but I think I'm in the same boat as this guy. A hardcore atheist is the same thing as a hardcore religious person, in my opinion. Both of them are certain that they know what is going on.

MightySmurf, I've never liked you as a poster so this should be easier to handle, but what you're describing as atheism I call agnosticism.

I should also reiterate that I didn't read the thread beyond the post I replied to.

But you can use evidence to determine PROBABILITY

[Swedish Extrovert]

Catholics don't interpret the Bible literally either like a lot of Protestants do.(not all of them)

I'd say it's about 50-50 with the Catholics and about 80-20 with the Protestants.

I've been reading the Presbyterian doctrine and it's quite appealing to me. I think a Progressive Presbyterian can find God in nature, and still use the Bible as a non-literal interpretation.

I guess you could call me a Secular Humanist-Atheist-Presbyterian

[Hogan11]

I'm not against religion per se, but I'm against those who are militant about it....the ones who protest in front of clinics, the ones who try to introduce it into goverment and laws, the ones who try to force feed whatever faith they are onto the public at large.

The bottom line with me is this: I don't care what faith you are or aren't but I don't want to hear about it, see it or be forced by law to live it, period. Keep it in the church and the home only.

[skpac1001]

I'm not saying that dinosaurs didn't exist. I'm just saying it's possible that they didn't exist.

What I'm really saying is that we don't know how God functions. Here's the ultimate truth: All we really know, is what we don't know.

By the way, I feel bad for talking crap about philosophy when you took so much in school, so I apologize if I came off too strong. I am majoring in mathematics, which is probably far closer to philosophy then science, so you can take comfort that I am a hypocrite.

[ksBRONCOfan]

I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned this yet, God walks among us.

http://files.blog-city.com/files/A05/141484/p/f/photo_john_elway.jpg

[Swedish Extrovert]

Holy **** that was my 6,000th post

[skpac1001]

From Dictionary.com:

a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Right. We agree on the belief. We disagree on the justification for belief. You think 100 percent certainty is needed, I do not, just as I do not have 100 percent certainty that santa does not exist and I cannot prove he does not, but I am nevertheless quite firm in believing he does not.

[Tombstone RJ]

Who created God?

God, in the most philosophical terms is the Prime Unmoved Mover. He's the End and the Beginning. There's other philosophical terms that I've forgotten for God.

However, what we all are forgetting is that we are trying to understand God from a very limited frame of being.

Personally, I'm a Christian. I love the story of Christ, I believe his message. He speaks to my heart and my soul.

However, that being said, I'm just a three dimensional being who relys on 3D space and a constantly moving timeline. I think that death could be nothing more than moving into another dimension of being.

[Deacon Blue]

I'd say it's about 50-50 with the Catholics and about 80-20 with the Protestants.

I don't know about that. I've met very few Catholics who interpret it literally or priests who teach as if it should be taken literally.

I think its around 25-75.

[Deacon Blue]

I've been reading the Presbyterian doctrine and it's quite appealing to me. I think a Progressive Presbyterian can find God in nature, and still use the Bible as a non-literal interpretation.

I guess you could call me a Secular Humanist-Atheist-Presbyterian

My 11th grade theology teacher sounded kind of like that.

Still a Catholic though, but loved the Hindu doctrines.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Who created God?

Mankind created God.

[Swedish Extrovert]

My 11th grade theology teacher sounded kind of like that.

Still a Catholic though, but loved the Hindu doctrines.

Yeah, I cannot take the Bible as truth, but I think there is some truth in the Bible.

To me, the Presbyterians are the most rational of the Christian denominations.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Yeah, I cannot take the Bible as truth, but I think there is some truth in the Bible.

To me, the Presbyterians are the most rational of the Christian denominations.

Wow. I just found out that bitch Katherine Harris is a Presbyterian, and I retract my last statement.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Damn looks like Bill Frist, Tom Tancredo, Ronald Regan, and Condleeza Rice... also Presbyterians... maybe they aren't so great lol

[skpac1001]

God, in the most philosophical terms is the Prime Unmoved Mover. He's the End and the Beginning. There's other philosophical terms that I've forgotten for God.

However, what we all are forgetting is that we are trying to understand God from a very limited frame of being.

Personally, I'm a Christian. I love the story of Christ, I believe his message. He speaks to my heart and my soul.

However, that being said, I'm just a three dimensional being who relys on 3D space and a constantly moving timeline. I think that death could be nothing more than moving into another dimension of being.

Seems to me this is the problem that neither science or religion has come up with a satisfing answer to, what came before or caused the beginning, maybe because it is unanswerable. I dont consider "God didnt have to be created because he is god" any more legitimate then "the big bang didnt have to be created because it created time itself". Its also a good example of why I dont study philosopy, which is full of questions that you cant tell if they are even answerable and it is very hard to disprove any possible answers.

[Deacon Blue]

Yeah, I cannot take the Bible as truth, but I think there is some truth in the Bible.

Same here.

You should check out the Catholic Catechism too. The Presbyterian Doctrines sound pretty similar to it. From what I remember about the Catechism anyway. I haven't read it in a while.

More Catholics should pick it up too. I get surprised sometimes when one doesn't realize that we teach that Heaven and Hell aren't places but more states of being.

I've never really thought that someone could just go to a church service and get a good idea of what that religion is like.

They should read the Catechism, Doctrines, etc... to know what the different denominations are all about.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Sounds good.

I'm a fan of the liberal sect of Episcopalianism that I have been reading up on recently too.

I'm REALLY into the non-literal heaven and hell as well.

[Deacon Blue]

Sounds good.

I'm a fan of the liberal sect of Episcopalianism that I have been reading up on recently too.

My family almost converted to that when I was young but decided to go with Catholocism.

I don't know much about it though. There are a lot of them in my family.

I'll have to ask them about it.

[Swedish Extrovert]

This is why I have a tough time with labels:

Once you call yourself a Christian, you automatically adhere yourself to a theology where you and only you have a universal truth - and everyone else is going to hell. It's sad and condescending. You also put yourself in the same camp as the hate-mongers such as Jerry Fallwell and Fred Phelps, which I will not tolerate.

"It's okay, allow yourself a little hate,
Hatred is not so bad, when directed at injustice,
You can turn the other cheek, just dont turn the other way"
- NoFX "American Errorist (Hate the Haters)"

<div style="text-align: center; margin-left: auto; visibility:visible; margin-right: auto; width:450;"><embed style="width:435px; visibility:visible; height:270px;" allowScriptAccess="never" src="http://www.playlistproject.net/mc/mp3player.swf?config=http://www.playlistproject.net/mc/config/config_black_noautostart.xml&mywidth=435&myheight=270&file=http://www.playlistproject.net/loadplaylist.php?playlist=8816548" menu="false" quality="high" width="435" height="270" name="mp3player" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" border="0"/><BR><a href=http://www.playlistproject.net><img src=http://www.playlistproject.net/mc/images/create_black.jpg border=0></a><a href=http://www.playlistproject.net/standalone/8816548 target=_blank><img src=http://www.playlistproject.net/mc/images/launch_black.jpg border=0></a><a href=http://www.playlistproject.net/download/8816548><img src=http://www.playlistproject.net/mc/images/get_black.jpg border=0></a> </div>

[Deacon Blue]

Sounds good.

I'm REALLY into the non-literal heaven and hell as well.

Ya thats one thing I can't stand about some Protestant groups.

We teach that heaven is the state of being one with God and hell is being separated from God.

[Tombstone RJ]

Seems to me this is the problem that neither science or religion has come up with a satisfing answer to, what came before or caused the beginning, maybe because it is unanswerable. I dont consider "God didnt have to be created because he is god" any more legitimate then "the big bang didnt have to be created because it created time itself". Its also a good example of why I dont study philosopy, which is full of questions that you cant tell if they are even answerable and it is very hard to disprove any possible answers.

I have a hard time swallowing the big bang too because I always come back to the question: what was there before the big bang?

The big bang theory is magic of the highest order, nother more, nothing less.

When you study science and math you know that matter can only be transformed from one form into another. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, just shifted from one form to another. It's so ironic that scientists who know this to be true then buy into the "big bang" theory where everything is created all at once out of absolutely nothing.

My friend, that is called magic. And it's the biggest magic trick ever. That is exactly why it's load of crap.

[Deacon Blue]

This is why I have a tough time with labels:

Once you call yourself a Christian, you automatically adhere yourself to a theology where you and only you have a universal truth - and everyone else is going to hell. It's sad and condescending. You also put yourself in the same camp as the hate-mongers such as Jerry Fallwell and Fred Phelps, which I will not tolerate.

"It's okay, allow yourself a little hate"
- NoFX "American Errorist (Hate the Haters)"

I've always hated it too.

I've always believed, probably because of that theology teacher, that if your a good person, even if your an atheist, you're probably gonna make it to heaven.

I have a hard time believing that God would look down on someone who has lived separated from society and religions there entire life. Or someone whose religion has only small differences from another, or worships God by a different name would be condemned to hell.

[Pat Bowlen]

I'm REALLY into the non-literal heaven and hell as well.
Fill me in on both of these, please.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Ya thats one thing I can't stand about some Protestant groups.

We teach that heaven is the state of being one with God and hell is being separated from God.

See, people think I'm some sort of militant Atheist... but when I talk to the more liberal Christians theres really not a whole lot we disagree on.

I think more people are in the Jerry Falwell camp then they realize. And I think that even some of those who lambasted Falwell on this very board, should also be considered in the Falwell camp.

Couldn't help but notice your name... are you a Deacon?

[Deacon Blue]

See, people think I'm sort of militant Atheist... but when I talk to the more liberal Christians theres really not a whole lot we disagree on.

I think more people are in the Jerry Falwell camp then they realize. And I think that even some of those who lambasted Falwell on this very board, should also be considered in the Falwell camp.

Couldn't help but notice your name... are you a Deacon?

No, just a big Steely Dan fan. ;) (one of their songs, Deacon Blues)

I have been seriously thinking about becoming one though.

[Tombstone RJ]

No, just a big Steely Dan fan. ;)

I have been seriously thinking about becoming one though.


"They call Alabama the Crimson Tide,
They call me Deacon Blues."

I'm a big, big Steely Dan fan.

[Deacon Blue]

"They call Alabama the Crimson Tide,
They call me Deacon Blues."

I'm a big, big Steely Dan fan.

Awesome!

Thats got to be one of my all time favorite songs.

There are so many of theirs that I love.

Fagen's solo albums are great too.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I don't know about that. I've met very few Catholics who interpret it literally or priests who teach as if it should be taken literally.

I think its around 25-75.

I'll give you 35-65... I've met some pretty conservative Catholics.

[Tombstone RJ]

Awesome!

Thats got to be one of my all time favorite songs.

There are so many of theirs that I love.

Fagen's solo albums are great too.

A few years back I got to see Steely Dan in concert at Fiddlers Green, I was in the proverbial heaven. Deacon Blues happens to be one of my favorite songs but your right, there are sooo many great SD tunes and most of them never get played on the radio.

[Atlas]

I didn't read the thread, but I think I'm in the same boat as this guy. A hardcore atheist is the same thing as a hardcore religious person, in my opinion. Both of them are certain that they know what is going on.

MightySmurf, I've never liked you as a poster so this should be easier to handle, but what you're describing as atheism I call agnosticism.

I should also reiterate that I didn't read the thread beyond the post I replied to.


Yeah well, you could be a better owner.

[atomicbloke]

Seems to me this is the problem that neither science or religion has come up with a satisfing answer to, what came before or caused the beginning, maybe because it is unanswerable. I dont consider "God didnt have to be created because he is god" any more legitimate then "the big bang didnt have to be created because it created time itself". Its also a good example of why I dont study philosopy, which is full of questions that you cant tell if they are even answerable and it is very hard to disprove any possible answers.

What if the Universe as a whole is a conscious, sentient and intelligent being? I am referring to a Gaia-Universe concept.

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

What if the Universe created the Earth and the processes for evolution to take place?

Would you then call the Universe, God, and make the claim for intelligent design?

[Deacon Blue]

I'll give you 35-65... I've met some pretty conservative Catholics.

That sounds fair.

That can be a problem with the Catholic Church sometimes though.

One priest will say that the glass is half full and the other will say that its half empty.

But like I said before the vast majority of priests I've met are on the liberal side.

And I move around to different parts of the country a lot.

[Deacon Blue]

A few years back I got to see Steely Dan in concert at Fiddlers Green, I was in the proverbial heaven. Deacon Blues happens to be one of my favorite songs but your right, there are sooo many great SD tunes and most of them never get played on the radio.

I missed them last time I had a chance.

I've never made it to one of their concerts. I'll definately find a way to make it next time though.

They've got that sound that no one else has anything close to.

"Ill learn to work the saxophone
Ill play just what I feel
Drink scotch whisky all night long
And die behind the wheel
They got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose
They call alabama the crimson tide
Call me deacon blues"

[broncocalijohn]

I don't know about that. I've met very few Catholics who interpret it literally or priests who teach as if it should be taken literally.

I think its around 25-75.

Im Catholic and i say it is even less than that. Most Catholics go by what the priest is preaching so if the priest isnt going directly by the bible, then most of the worshipers there dont either.
Just wondering when the Athiest meeting is to discuss the non being of God? If you dont believe and arent on one of these down with everything religious, what the hell do you need to discuss? Jus ttake Sunday as any other day and be glad that those that go to church and are religious (not even the fanaticals) give much more in charitable works than those that arent religious. And yes, stats have been given on it.

[Northman]

This mine:

You scored as a Agnostic

Agnostics consider the possibility that they may be wrong about God's existence, no matter which side of the fence they stand on. Always willing to objectively evaluate the most ridiculous proof, nevertheless, these guys are skeptics of the Nth degree.

[Swedish Extrovert]

That sounds fair.

That can be a problem with the Catholic Church sometimes though.

One priest will say that the glass is half full and the other will say that its half empty.

But like I said before the vast majority of priests I've met are on the liberal side.

And I move around to different parts of the country a lot.

Yeah, you're exactly right....

I move around a lot too having been to 41 states and 38 of America's 50 largest cities... and having lived in Denver, Chicago, Baltimore, Stockholm, Jacksonville FL, and Brunswick ME, I can tell you that even within the US, location is prime in determining how one worships.

Lets divide out the country to: The West, Midwest, South, and Northeast

The west is typically liberal and non-religious
The Midwest seems rooted in conservative theology and liberal politics (much more so in the cities than in the rural areas)
The South is theologically and political ultra-conservative

The Northeast seems to me to be the most interesting though, because it's typically the most liberal part of the US in both theology and politics... yet they still hold on to traditional, conservative practices - but they are so open about it. It's kinda of like "your eternal soul is on the line, but you shouldn't make a big deal about it."

Catholics tend to be the most liberal of the Christians, which is weird, because their actual written Dogma is the most conservative.

I mean some of the things of the Catholic church - The Virgin Birth, The Physical Ascent of Mary, anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive - are not just contradictory, they are often dangerous.

Catholicism is much more into dogma while protestantism is much more into religion.

I think a return to spirituality would benefit both churches.

I can't agree with the Catholics because of the divinity they give to the church. Non-literal Protestantism, like the Presbyterians and Episcopals don't bother me nearly as much, but there are a lot of a-holes in those churches.

Methodist, Lutheran, Baptism, and Pentecostal are just dangerous nut-job philosophies.

And I hate to classify the Lutherans like that, because there are a lot of decent ones - in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa area - who are just in the Church because of tradition. There are high Scandinavian populations in that area, and of course modern-day politics Scandinavia has dominated by Lutheranism

Until of course recently, where Scandinavia is probably the most secularized part of the globe. When I lived in Sweden it felt weird when I told people when I said I attended the Swedish Orthodox Lutheran Church (The Church of Sweden)

I guess the same could be said about the Baptists in the south, although they are far more militant .

And Mormons... wow... I don't consider Mormons Christian at all.

Heres a good chart showing how Religion is distributed across the US. I don't remmember exactly, but Colorado was among the top non-religious states (Oregon is number 1, I think California was #2)
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

[Swedish Extrovert]

Looks like Colorado is 5th behind Washington, Oregon, California, and Vermont in percent of the population that are Atheists

[Deacon Blue]

Yeah, you're exactly right....

I move around a lot too having been to 41 states and 38 of America's 50 largest cities... and having lived in Denver, Chicago, Baltimore, Stockholm, Jacksonville FL, and Brunswick ME, I can tell you that even within the US, location is prime in determining how one worships.

Lets divide out the country to: The West, Midwest, South, and Northeast

The west is typically liberal and non-religious
The Midwest seems rooted in conservative theology and liberal politics (much more so in the cities than in the rural areas)
The South is theologically and political ultra-conservative

The Northeast seems to me to be the most interesting though, because it's typically the most liberal part of the US in both theology and politics... yet they still hold on to traditional, conservative practices - but they are so open about it. It's kinda of like "your eternal soul is on the line, but you shouldn't make a big deal about it."

Catholics tend to be the most liberal of the Christians, which is weird, because their actual written Dogma is the most conservative.

I mean some of the things of the Catholic church - The Virgin Birth, The Physical Ascent of Mary, anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive - are not just contradictory, they are often dangerous.

Catholicism is much more into dogma while protestantism is much more into religion.

I think a return to spirituality would benefit both churches.

I can't agree with the Catholics because of the divinity they give to the church. Non-literal Protestantism, like the Presbyterians and Episcopals don't bother me nearly as much, but there are a lot of a-holes in those churches.

Methodist, Lutheran, Baptism, and Pentecostal are just dangerous nut-job philosophies.

And I hate to classify the Lutherans like that, because there are a lot of decent ones - in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa area - who are just in the Church because of tradition. There are high Scandinavian populations in that area, and of course modern-day politics Scandinavia has dominated by Lutheranism

Until of course recently, where Scandinavia is probably the most secularized part of the globe. When I lived in Sweden it felt weird when I told people when I said I attended the Swedish Orthodox Lutheran Church (The Church of Sweden)

I guess the same could be said about the Baptists in the south, although they are far more militant .

And Mormons... wow... I don't consider Mormons Christian at all.

That sounds dead on.

I have lived in North Louisiana though and it seemed pretty theologically liberal.

You're right about The Catholic Church too. It can be pretty different.
There are some things that all Catholics are supposed to believe in like the Virgin Birth though.

But I remember going to a Jesuit school when I was a kid and one of the priests said that you can still be Catholic and not believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches. He said the Catholic Church is like one giant paradox.

My parents started going to my school masses and liked what they heard so we converted from Lutheranism.

[Swedish Extrovert]

That sounds dead on.

I have lived in North Louisiana though and it seemed pretty theologically liberal.

You're right about The Catholic Church too. It can be pretty different.
There are some things that all Catholics are supposed to believe in like the Virgin Birth though.

But I remember going to a Jesuit school when I was a kid and one of the priests said that you can still be Catholic and not believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches. He said the Catholic Church is like one giant paradox.

My parents started going to my school masses and liked what they heard so we converted from Lutheranism.

Well, Louisiana is the exception in the South. They have a very high Catholic population as per their very high French population.

I think you still have to hold on to a basic concept of a particular religion to consider yourself a part of it thought.

[Deacon Blue]

Well, Louisiana is the exception in the South. They have a very high Catholic population as per their very high French population.

I think you still have to hold on to a basic concept of a particular religion to consider yourself a part of it thought.

We moved next door to Texas from Louisiana where it was the complete opposite.

Ya, I think most Catholics have the same basic idea of what the Church is and stands for but there is some slight variation outside of the few hardcore conservatives.

[cdesignmaster]

<TABLE class=tblBorderAll cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=10 width=370 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=heading18>What kind of atheist are you?</TD></TR><TR><TD class=txtNormal14>You scored as a Agnostic</TD></TR><TR><TD class=txtNormal>Agnostics consider the possibility that they may be wrong about God's existence, no matter which side of the fence they stand on. Always willing to objectively evaluate the most ridiculous proof, nevertheless, these guys are skeptics of the Nth degree.</TD></TR><TR><TD class=txtNormal vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Agnostic</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 83%</td> </tr> --><TBODY><TR><TD>Agnostic
</TD><TD width=83><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=83 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>83% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Theist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 50%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Theist
</TD><TD width=50><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=50 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>50% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Spiritual Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 42%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Spiritual Atheist
</TD><TD width=42><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=42 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>42% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Scientific Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 33%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Scientific Atheist
</TD><TD width=33><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=33 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>33% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Apathetic Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 25%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Apathetic Atheist
</TD><TD width=25><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=25 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>25% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Militant Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 8%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Militant Atheist
</TD><TD width=8><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=8 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>8% </TD></TR><!-- <tr > <td class="txtNormal" width="30%">Angry Atheist</td> <td class="txtNormal" align="left">http://www.orangemane.com/view/common/images/bar.gif 0%</td> </tr> --><TR><TD>Angry Atheist
</TD><TD width=0><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=0 bgColor=#dddddd border=1><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD>0% </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
well, that was quite accurate, I already knew that answer, wasted my time taking that test.

[Rock Chalk]

Answer: because Radiometric Dating says otherwise...

Im no creationist, but given Rich's assertion, if God did simply create the Earth as is 4,000 years ago, he is a pretty powerful being and would be able to create the radioactive decay of said fossils without much effort to trick us.

I mean, Radiometric dating relies heavily upon how we have interpreted the decay of matter and the assumption that all matter decays at a given rate in any circumstance.

I believe in God, evolution and do not see that the two clash. I also believe that those who have chosen not to believe in Heaven or Hell, better hope they are right because if they are wrong, there is nochanging your mind after.

[Dedhed]

My favorite was "I don't know, and either do you, so shut the hell up about it!"

Quoted for truth.

[Dedhed]

Im no creationist, but given Rich's assertion, if God did simply create the Earth as is 4,000 years ago, he is a pretty powerful being and would be able to create the radioactive decay of said fossils without much effort to trick us.

I mean, Radiometric dating relies heavily upon how we have interpreted the decay of matter and the assumption that all matter decays at a given rate in any circumstance.

I believe in God, evolution and do not see that the two clash. I also believe that those who have chosen not to believe in Heaven or Hell, better hope they are right because if they are wrong, there is nochanging your mind after.

He'd also be able to keep the serpent out of the garden, or at least know he was coming. So, doesn't that mean that "the fall" was God's will?

[Rock Chalk]

He'd also be able to keep the serpent out of the garden, or at least know he was coming. So, doesn't that mean that "the fall" was God's will?

:shrug: Do you believe in God? Do you believe in teh Bible? Can you form your own opinion? I am not here to convince anyone one way or the other, nor to argue philosophical meaning of the context of the Bible. I do believe that the fall of man was man's fault. I believe that God gave to us free will. He did not design us to fall, but knew that we would for only He is perfect. Could he have kept the serpent out? Sure, He is God. But having given to us Free will, it was man's choice to listen to the serpent.

Looking at it philosophically one could surmise that the "fall of man" was merely the beginning of our imperfect lives on Earth, the gaining of our free will through the loss of paradise and eternal life. By living a mortal life with free will, through faith we can return to Eden.

I can no more prove that there is a God than science will ever prove the origins of the universe. So if you or anyone chooses to put their faith in science or in God, it makes no difference to me. If there is a God, and I believe there is, it probably makes a difference to Him however. Either way, since you are putting your faith into scientific theory that is unproven and will likely never be proven, might as well put your faith in God.

That does not in anyway mean you cannot be scientific in thought or believe that science cannot give us answers to our many questions. Indeed, I believe that science is a construct man created to better understand our place and why we are here....problems that God specifically left us to figure out.

[yavoon]

:shrug: Do you believe in God? Do you believe in teh Bible? Can you form your own opinion? I am not here to convince anyone one way or the other, nor to argue philosophical meaning of the context of the Bible. I do believe that the fall of man was man's fault. I believe that God gave to us free will. He did not design us to fall, but knew that we would for only He is perfect. Could he have kept the serpent out? Sure, He is God. But having given to us Free will, it was man's choice to listen to the serpent.

Looking at it philosophically one could surmise that the "fall of man" was merely the beginning of our imperfect lives on Earth, the gaining of our free will through the loss of paradise and eternal life. By living a mortal life with free will, through faith we can return to Eden.

I can no more prove that there is a God than science will ever prove the origins of the universe. So if you or anyone chooses to put their faith in science or in God, it makes no difference to me. If there is a God, and I believe there is, it probably makes a difference to Him however. Either way, since you are putting your faith into scientific theory that is unproven and will likely never be proven, might as well put your faith in God.

That does not in anyway mean you cannot be scientific in thought or believe that science cannot give us answers to our many questions. Indeed, I believe that science is a construct man created to better understand our place and why we are here....problems that God specifically left us to figure out.

why should it make a difference to god? u think he sits in front of his celestial TV going "yes yes! one more theist! I rock! now if only they would pray to me more, and use my name more often, cause I am a pretty big badass. I mean who else could have given the patriots three rings? brady's talent? HAHAHAHHAHA"

[BroncoInferno]

If you don't believe in God because you believe in evolution, then I have this puzzle for you: How do you know that God didn't make the Earth approximately 4000 years ago, as the bible says, with the evidence of evolution. That is, he indeed created this earth the way it is, with all the fossils and all the other stuff that suggests evolution.

How do you know that God didn't put fossils here just to TEST YOUR FAITH!?!


When I was 15 or 16, I asked the youth minister at the church I attended about dinosaurs fossils, and this was precisely the way he answered.

All I can say is that if God does exist, and did indeed plant such evidence to test faith, then God is a pretty evil bastard (not to mention silly), and I would not wish to worship such an utterly dishonest and inane being anyway.

[Swedish Extrovert]

We can ask one question based on this theory:

"Is the advancement of the theory of the possibility of God planting 'evidence' worth all the judgement, wars, and evil?"

I don't think that religion accurately touches who god is.... much less justifies all the things that are carried out in his name.

[BroncoInferno]

I believe in God, evolution and do not see that the two clash. I also believe that those who have chosen not to believe in Heaven or Hell, better hope they are right because if they are wrong, there is nochanging your mind after.

I was waiting for Pascal's wager to rear its ugly head.

Well, you better hope the Muslims aren't right, because there is no changing your mind in the here after, Infidel.

[yavoon]

I was waiting for Pascal's wager to rear its ugly head.

Well, you better hope the Muslims aren't right, because there is no changing your mind in the here after, Infidel.

maybe using pascals wager we should believe in the most violent and cruel god possible. I mean if buddhists are right I just come back as a dog or something, but if those muslims are right I get tortured for all eternity in a way thats so violent and cruel that we humans can not duplicate it as it would kill the person we are torturing.

[orangeatheist]

I don't buy the "big bang" theory of the universe, in fact, I think it's a boat load of crap.

That's exactly how Noah's Ark was described after it landed on Ararat!


If you don't believe in God because you believe in evolution, then I have this puzzle for you: How do you know that God didn't make the Earth approximately 4000 years ago, as the bible says, with the evidence of evolution. That is, he indeed created this earth the way it is, with all the fossils and all the other stuff that suggests evolution.

How do you know that God didn't put fossils here just to TEST YOUR FAITH!?!

Because it would make him a liar.

Feel free to believe in a god like that. Frankly, all it does it make me feel pity for you.


Fact is, you don't know. I know you don't know the answer to that question so you might as well not even try to answer that question.:thumbsup:

Nice of you to tell everyone what they do and do not know.

[BroncoInferno]

maybe using pascals wager we should believe in the most violent and cruel god possible. I mean if buddhists are right I just come back as a dog or something, but if those muslims are right I get tortured for all eternity in a way thats so violent and cruel that we humans can not duplicate it as it would kill the person we are torturing.

That must be the sort of god believed in by those who actually consider the wager as some sort of ironclad argument. As Dawkins mentions in his book, I can't imagine that a benevolent God would prefer cowardly bet-hedging to honest skepticism. He would have to be a malevolent dictator in order for the wager to carry any weight.

[mosca]

What if the Universe as a whole is a conscious, sentient and intelligent being? I am referring to a Gaia-Universe concept.

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

What if the Universe created the Earth and the processes for evolution to take place?

Would you then call the Universe, God, and make the claim for intelligent design?
This line of thought has always been somewhat appealing to me. I recently read Bernard Haisch's The God Theory (http://www.amazon.com/God-Theory-Universes-Zero-point-Fields/dp/1578633745/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3084868-8204623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181524271&sr=8-1), which is somewhat along those lines, not simply concerning the Earth but instead the entire Universe. I highly encourage anyone with a basic interest in both spirituality and science to check this book out. Here's a short YouTube clip by the author: <p><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9feXeL-3XA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9feXeL-3XA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[ZachKC]

Ran across this...

http://thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=41370&page=3

There’s no doubt about it: right now, God is on the side of the atheists.

The apostles of unbelief are having their Pentecostal moment. The spirit is upon them, endowing them with the gift of tongues and commanding them to spread the Bad News. British contrarian and journalist Christopher Hitchens’s current smash God Is Not Great (Twelve) was preceded on the bestseller lists by Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin) and Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf). Then there’s Tufts professor Daniel Dennett, whose Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Penguin) has also been doing quite well.

In pure publishing terms, this mini-boom in godlessness can be interpreted as a backlash against the mumbo-jumbo juggernaut of The Da Vinci Code and its ilk. More profoundly, it has provoked serious public discussion of the role of faith in our current politics, and in the prosecution of the so-called war on terror. And more profoundly still, it has given the average unreligious Seinfeld fan, well, something to believe in. Secularism is not glorious: it’s a dude in Starbucks tweaking his Blackberry. Now at last, with these champions going before him, this slumped figure can rise and partake of that cosmic gallantry on which the faithful, hitherto, have had a monopoly.

With the exception of Dennett’s work (he mildly researches “the belief in belief”), the manner of these books is urgent and intemperate: atheism, their authors insist, is an idea whose time has come, and the sooner this religion business gets knocked on the head, the better things will be for everyone. And since the antidote to piety is disrespect, the believer can count on few courtesies in their pages. Dawkins labels churchgoers “faith-heads”: a word to be pronounced, presumably, with the same asperity as “crackheads.” Hitchens returns again and again to the idea that religion belongs “to the infancy of mankind,” and scolds and chides the religious accordingly. Harris’s style is hoarse and didactic, fitted to what he sees as a state of global emergency: “You believe that Christianity is an unrivaled source of human goodness,” he writes. “You believe that the Bible is the most profound book ever written and that its contents have stood the test of time so well that it must have been divinely inspired. All of these beliefs are false.”

Even the genial Dennett, who is bearded like Santa Claus, proposes with a professorial twinkle that the God-free be called “brights,” and credits them with a significant moral edge: apparently, brights have the lowest divorce rate in the United States.

The atheists have also carried their crusade to the media, where, so far, their opponents have been brought low like something from Psalm 18 (“Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.”) Consider, for example, the recent woes of Al Sharpton. On May 7, the Reverend Al debated Christopher Hitchens at the New York Public Library, on the notion “God Is Not Great.” The debate was a rhetorical mismatch, without particular interest until the moment when the Creator, in His wisdom, allowed Sharpton to open his mouth spectacularly wide and insert the entirety of his own foot.

Alluding to the Mormonism of Republican candidate Mitt Romney, Sharpton grandly told his audience not to worry, because Romney would be defeated by “those who really believe in God.” Lazy chuckles from the crowd. But within hours, the Romney war machine had mobilized: the candidate went before the cameras complaining of “religious bigotry,” appealingly casting himself in the role of maligned believer and forcing the reverend into a blustery self-defense.

Worse, the suitability of Mormonism in a presidential candidate — a tricky area for Mitt — was suddenly off the table as an issue: which of Romney’s conservative opponents would want to be on the same side, even for a second, as Al Sharpton? Score one for the Mormonator. Hitchens, meanwhile, preened in triumph. He glittered with delight: here, on the front page, was the sort of low-brow tribal god-squabble that gave meaning to the subtitle of his book: “How Religion Poisons Everything.”

Hounds of Hell
Next, consider the fate of Ted Haggard. In 2005, the then-pastor of the New Life Church and chairman of the National Association of Evangelicals was interviewed-slash-confronted by Dawkins for a documentary on religion called The Root of All Evil? Filmed at the New Life compound in Colorado Springs, it was a leering, lip-curling encounter, a showpiece of contempt, in which the atheist Dawkins accused the Biblical literalist Haggard (somewhat tautologically, perhaps) of knowing nothing about evolution, while Haggard suggested that Dawkins’s grandchildren might one day “laugh at him” for his belief in natural selection. “You wanna bet?” snarled Dawkins, his mad-scientist eyebrows standing quill-like in fury. The pastor then threw Dawkins and the camera crew off his land, uttering the classic creationist retort: “You called my children animals!”

The events that have since overtaken Haggard do indeed bear the distinct imprint of what creationists call the argument from design. What more perfectly appointed doom could there be for an evangelical preacher than that he be revealed as a drug-snorting patron of male whores? Haggard, his ministry in ruins, was last seen emerging from three weeks of faith-based counseling with the declaration that he was now “completely heterosexual.” The infidel Dawkins has meanwhile sailed into riches and best-sellerdom. Even Mike Jones, the escort with whom Haggard shared his meth-romps, looks set to have a hit this summer with his upcoming kiss-and-tell I Had to Say Something: The Art of Ted Haggard’s Fall (Seven Stories). “My muscles seemed to be my biggest attraction,” writes Jones. “Until I took off my pants.” Truly, the Lord works in mysterious ****ing ways.

Or maybe not so mysterious. If there was one thing Jesus hated, it was a hypocrite: “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matthew 7:2). And atheism at its leanest is the bull****-detector of all bull****-detectors, scouring the complacent from their comfort zones. I cite once more the exploits of Hitchens, who on May 16 was invited to represent the constituency of the impious on the Jerry Falwell memorial edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes. Ranged against him was as Pharisaical a crew as can be imagined: the bad-cop/even-****tier-cop team of Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity, the oily Ralph Reed (Republican strategist, former director of the Christian Coalition, friend of Jack Abramoff), and, of course, the ghost of the just-departed Reverend Falwell.

Over loud pleas for “human decency” from the frequently indecent (and inhuman) Hannity, Hitchens put the boot in: Falwell was “a vulgar fraud and crook,” and it was a shame there was no hell for him to go to. Ralph Reed, as soon as he opened his mouth, was denounced as a “religious rip-off artist.” Hitchens’s last line, lobbed coolly into the prattling final seconds of the show (you have to listen for it), probably short-circuited a few senior TV sets: “If you gave Jerry Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.”

Hitchens has a particularly truculent way of filling the screen. He glowers, and under studio lights his large, low-slung face — with its rather delicate features gathered nouvelle-cuisine style in the center — is generally some odd shade of green or pale ochre. A very earthly, unsanctified figure. But seen here, knee-deep in a brood of vipers and laying about him the sword of righteousness, the sweating Hitchens was momentarily — one trembles to say it — Christ-like.

Sam Harris is less effective on TV: he sits quietly, not blinking, as if he’s decided that the proper demeanor for a rationalist is one of spooky robotic evenness. But in his writing, when given the proper theme, he, too, can blaze into near-messianic eloquence. On the Vatican’s recent deliberations on the subject of limbo, for example, he is splendidly scathing. Limbo, or so Pope Pius X declared in 1905, is where “children who die without baptism go . . . where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either.” The point is that they go there forever. To float about in grayness, waving wanly at each other.

The Vatican’s Internal Theological Commission has been chewing over this little nub of dogma for several years, much to Harris’s disgust. “Can we even conceive of a project more intellectually forlorn than this?” he seethes in Letter to a Christian Nation. “Is there the slightest possibility that someone will present evidence indicating the eternal fate of un-baptized children after death? How can an educated person think this anything but a hilarious, terrifying, and unconscionable waste of time? When one considers the fact that this is the very institution that has produced and sheltered an elite army of child-molesters, the whole enterprise begins to exude a truly diabolic aura of misspent human energy.” (On April 20, the commission issued its findings: “Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered . . . give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that un-baptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.”)

The limits of knowingness
The atheist authors are not without glibness. Their nose-in-the-air dismissal of centuries of religious tradition, of the hordes of worshipful dead who have gone before us, smacks frequently of what G.K. Chesterton called “the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” Tertullian, Maimonides, and Saint Augustine come in for a bit of anachronistic abuse, and some rather predictable fun is had with the God of the Old Testament — that perennial straight man for all freethinkers.

Richard Dawkins can be especially smug. “It is, when you think about it, remarkable,” he muses, “that a religion should adopt an instrument of torture and execution as its sacred symbol, often worn around the neck.” In fact, it is precisely when you think about it — when you consider, that is, what the cross means to its followers — that the crucifix worn close to the heart makes all the sense in the world. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris also share a peculiar quality of being pissed at God: for professed disbelievers in a Supreme Being, their attacks on him are rather personal. Dawkins says He’s lazy. Hitchens compares Him to Kim Jong-Il. “Our own bodies,” writes Harris irritably, “testify to the whimsy and incompetence of the creator.”

But perhaps we should allow them their smirkings and sulks. They’re only human, after all, and Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are in the fight of their lives against rocks-in-the-head religious fundamentalism. The woolly middle ground of faith — embraced by the majority whose devotions are more dubious — they’re less bothered about. “I have little doubt,” writes Harris, “that liberals and moderates find the eerie certainties of the Christian right to be as troubling as I do.”

If you’re neither a rancidly closeted anti-gay preacher nor a television blowhard for Christ, if you’re not a child-molesting priest or a suicide bomber, but simply one of the modestly fallible millions who suspects that you might have some other-than-biological relation to the force that brought you into being, you may feel that the current atheist crusade is not about you. You’d be wrong. Put your faith against the whetstone, brother and sister: these books can be read with profit by any believer, from the most frigid Catholic to the wishy-washiest homemade transcendentalist. (A joke from Hitchens: what did the Buddhist say to the hot-dog vendor? “Make me one with everything.”)

There might be something unwholesome, even slightly insane, in their attempt to remove the category of the divine from human experience. But by storming into the catacombs of doctrinal absurdity, and into television studios where the air is so thick with sanctimony one is surprised that the camera lenses are not in need of a regular wiping-down, the atheists are doing us all a favor. They’re turning up the glare of reality. You’d better thank God for them.

[sirhcyennek81]

I'll say to you what I say to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims:

Prove it


Ingenious. You want us to prove what you cant. You said in an earlier post you can't say without a doubt there is no God, you simply believe there is not one. On the flip side of this, I believe there is one, and the evidence that exists for me that a God exists would not be sufficient for you, which would create an argument that cannot be settled.


:Broncos:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ingenious. You want us to prove what you cant. You said in an earlier post you can't say without a doubt there is no God, you simply believe there is not one. On the flip side of this, I believe there is one, and the evidence that exists for me that a God exists would not be sufficient for you, which would create an argument that cannot be settled.
:Broncos:What would that be?

I should also reiterate that I didn't read the thread beyond the post I replied to.No sh*t?
Yeah well, you could be a better owner.
LOL

[sirhcyennek81]

What would that be?


Realizations and conclusions I have drawn from my own experiences. Also, what difference does it make to you what my evidence for belief in God is?


:Broncos:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Realizations and conclusions I have drawn from my own experiences. Also, what difference does it make to you what my evidence for belief in God is?
:Broncos:So no real evidence per say, just "realizations".

Why would it matter to you that I asked you for your (evidence), does that bother you?

[Dedhed]

:shrug: Do you believe in God? Do you believe in teh Bible? Can you form your own opinion? I am not here to convince anyone one way or the other, nor to argue philosophical meaning of the context of the Bible. I do believe that the fall of man was man's fault. I believe that God gave to us free will. He did not design us to fall, but knew that we would for only He is perfect. Could he have kept the serpent out? Sure, He is God. But having given to us Free will, it was man's choice to listen to the serpent.

Looking at it philosophically one could surmise that the "fall of man" was merely the beginning of our imperfect lives on Earth, the gaining of our free will through the loss of paradise and eternal life. By living a mortal life with free will, through faith we can return to Eden.

I can no more prove that there is a God than science will ever prove the origins of the universe. So if you or anyone chooses to put their faith in science or in God, it makes no difference to me. If there is a God, and I believe there is, it probably makes a difference to Him however. Either way, since you are putting your faith into scientific theory that is unproven and will likely never be proven, might as well put your faith in God.

That does not in anyway mean you cannot be scientific in thought or believe that science cannot give us answers to our many questions. Indeed, I believe that science is a construct man created to better understand our place and why we are here....problems that God specifically left us to figure out.I believe that there is a power greater than us, but that by the very definition of supreme being we are completely incapable of understanding what goes into that concept. I believe that the bible was written by men to control other men. I don't think there's anything divine about it. I believe that Jesus was a great man, but not the son of god any more than I am the son of god. I believe that every one and everything are "children" of "god"; not just humans. I believe that religion is at the root of many evils, and has done more harm in the world than it ever will good.

I believe that living a faith based existence is a cop out. I believe that it takes just as much faith to say there is no higher power as it does to say the bible is reality.

I believe that the notion that "god" is a "he" who looks like us is an absurd one. For the record, I don't believe in the serpent or the fall.

[sirhcyennek81]

So no real evidence per say, just "realizations".

Why would it matter to you that I asked you for your (evidence), does that bother you?


Nope, I simply refuse to explain what my evidence is. I dont have to explain why I believe the way I do. I dont ask anyone to explain themselves if they dont want to. What evidence works for an athiest in regards to a lack of a diety is what they choose to put stock in; which makes it personal for them, its an explanation that makes sense for them. So why would I take the time to disassemble it?

:Broncos:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nope, I simply refuse to explain what my evidence is. I dont have to explain why I believe the way I do. I dont ask anyone to explain themselves if they dont want to. What evidence works for an athiest in regards to a lack of a diety is what they choose to put stock in; which makes it personal for them, its an explanation that makes sense for them. So why would I take the time to disassemble it?

:Broncos:If that's convenient for you, I guess.

[sirhcyennek81]

If that's convenient for you, I guess.


I dont think tearing down what a person believes is a matter of convenience, what could I learn from it? That I could?


:Broncos:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I dont think tearing down what a person believes is a matter of convenience, what could I learn from it? That I could?
:Broncos:I didn't claim to have any "evidence", you did. I was only asking what it was.

[TDmvp]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[sirhcyennek81]

I didn't claim to have any "evidence", you did. I was only asking what it was.


I told you what it was, then you requested specifics.


:Broncos:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I told you what it was, then you requested specifics.
:Broncos:So no evidence, just ''realizations'', like I already said.
Many people on this planet need to use a crutch to define life and their existence, you're not alone.

[No1BroncoFan]

Who created God?
Man.

Ben

[No1BroncoFan]

Your missing the point.

Dinosaurs didn't exist (that's what I'm suggesting here in my arguement, so bare with me). God just put these fossils here to suggest that they did. Just like evolution suggests we evolved from lesser beings over millions of years.

Now, if you ask me, "hey Tombstone, are you saying Dinosaurs are a hoax?" What I'm saying is that it's possible all the evidence is being laid before us by God, and we are simply being asked to by him to make a choice.

You can deny God by saying "Radio Carbon Dating proves that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old, therefore, there is no God." Or, you can say "I live in a complicated world that constantly tests my faith, I chose to believe in God because I have faith that he exists."

Anyhow, just thought I'd throw that out there...
Thou shalt not bear false witness. If God expects us to live by his commandments, so must he. Lying to us isn't a good way to test our faith. Planting a bunch of false evidence is lying.

Ben

[W*GS]

I've seen God (or at least His hand):

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/meaning-of-life/thumbnails/07-hand-of-god.jpg

[Rock Chalk]

I believe that there is a power greater than us, but that by the very definition of supreme being we are completely incapable of understanding what goes into that concept. I believe that the bible was written by men to control other men. I don't think there's anything divine about it. I believe that Jesus was a great man, but not the son of god any more than I am the son of god. I believe that every one and everything are "children" of "god"; not just humans. I believe that religion is at the root of many evils, and has done more harm in the world than it ever will good.

That is a fair enough opinion. But, like mine, is just an opinion. Your beliefs, like mine, make you the man you are. We, as people, according to the bible, are God's children. Jesus, according to the Bible, was the flesh incarnate of God. Not so much his son, though metaphorically it is written as such, but as God himself in the Flesh. Whether you believe that or not is an issue of faith that no one can make you believe or not believe. I do not believe that the Bible was written by men to control other men, but rather by men through the word of God to inspire other men.

I believe that living a faith based existence is a cop out. I believe that it takes just as much faith to say there is no higher power as it does to say the bible is reality.

Define faith based existance? Because essentially everyone regardless of beliefs, lives a faith based existence. Let me explain: You get in your car, you drive to work. You are driving on the faith that the vehicle you are in is built correctly, and that nothing amiss is going to happen. You have faith that those around you will obey the laws of the road so that you are safe while you drive. You get on an airplane. You have faith that the airplane is going to function correctly and that the laws governing flight are all going to be followed. You do not know that the engines and wings and structure of said airplane are all in perfect or within tolerance working order. You have faith that the workers examining that plane did their job so that you are safe. Having faith in God is in many respects safer than living that faith based life of having faith in men, because with God, regardless of outcome, you are assured your seat in Heaven - in regards to your faith. With putting your faith in men you are assured of nothing, except death (and taxes). I am not here to judge you, nor anyone else, only that living a faith based existence is not a cop out, but is rather fulfilling and at least for me, the path to happiness. Whatever it does for you is for you to decide.

I believe that the notion that "god" is a "he" who looks like us is an absurd one. For the record, I don't believe in the serpent or the fall.
By He, and by man, I speak in the homogeneous. Since our language fails to have a non-gender specific pronoun, I, like most Americans of any persuasion, tend to use the mail gender pronouns to describe both people and God.

And why is it absurd that God would create us in God's image? Since there is much about pre-creation both in religion and science that we do not know, why is it out of the notion? Let's look at this from a theoretical scientific point of view. Let's assume that there is a supreme being that did create everything (yes, this is scientific, you will see where I am going with it). If our universe is just one of an infinite number and in one stage of an infinite number of stages which theoretical physics posits, then it is possible that a being from an earlier incarnation of our universe, or even another universe evolved so much that they were able to do things which we cannot fathom. Such as create matter from nothing, build stars, galaxies, planets, life. Plant the seeds of consciousness within that life. We know that many things in evolution are possible that we ourselves cannot do, such as immortality, suspended animation, shape shifting, color changing, etc. What we do not know is the limits to evolution, and if there are no limits, which science seems to suggest, there are only variables, then the existence of a Creator is not only possible, but extremely likely given the context that there are infinite universes living and dying an infinite number of times.

So while I cannot prove without a doubt that there is a God, and that he created all that we know, I can put forth a theory that is scientificly plausible even if outlandish. No more outlandish than billions of galaxies being created from...nothing anyway.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Define faith based existance?.I did (depending on a crutch to justify life and or one's existence).

[atomicbloke]

This line of thought has always been somewhat appealing to me. I recently read Bernard Haisch's The God Theory (http://www.amazon.com/God-Theory-Universes-Zero-point-Fields/dp/1578633745/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3084868-8204623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181524271&sr=8-1), which is somewhat along those lines, not simply concerning the Earth but instead the entire Universe. I highly encourage anyone with a basic interest in both spirituality and science to check this book out. Here's a short YouTube clip by the author: <p><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9feXeL-3XA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9feXeL-3XA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

This is extremely interesting. I shall definitely read this book.

Thanks a lot for the lead! :thumbsup:

[sirhcyennek81]

So no evidence, just ''realizations'', like I already said.
Many people on this planet need to use a crutch to define life and their existence, you're not alone.


No. Try again sparky. I gave you how I came to my evidence, not what it was. The evidence that proves God exists to me...is MY evidence. Why would I explain it to you? What good would it do for you to hear how I came to the conclusion God exists? I could state, based on what you have said, your crutch is your ego or faith in your intelligence. If everyone needs a crutch to lean on, obviously ego is yours.


:Broncos:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Like every other thing made seemingly infinitely complex by men, in reality this problem is reduced to a simple juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, neither of which has been proven beyond the reach of the other's apologia. Both contrasting ideas can be confirmed or denied by reason.

It boils down to what you choose to believe based on the truths that you have accumulated and interpreted. You can believe That a transcendental/superexistant/superintelligent thing had something to do with it, or that there was not a purposed intervention by a supreme being.

That is it, and it is nothing more.

Dont take someone else's word for it. Find out for yourself, because this is possibly the most important decision that you will ever face. It deserves an honest evaluation. If you enter into this problem with skepticism, be sure that your skepticism spans the breadth of both conflicting ideas. Do not be skeptical of only God, but also of the possibility that there is not a God.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I've seen God (or at least His hand):

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/meaning-of-life/thumbnails/07-hand-of-god.jpg

Save the planet:

[Swedish Extrovert]

I gave you how I came to my evidence, not what it was. The evidence that proves God exists to me...is MY evidence. Why would I explain it to you? What good would it do for you to hear how I came to the conclusion God exists?

Because there has to be a rational, scientific explaination.

"He will repay according to your works: wrath and indignation to those who are self-seeking" Romans 2:8

I just used scripture as a weapon. It's like someone attacked me with the Sword of the spirit (Galatians) and grabbed and and stabbed him in the scrotum... BURN

A new proposition:

Religion vs. Spirituality

Discuss.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Because there has to be a rational, scientific explaination.

"Rational" and "scientific" are not mutually inclusive.

"He will repay according to your works: wrath and indignation to those who are self-seeking" Romans 2:8
I just used scripture as a weapon. It's like someone attacked me with the Sword of the spirit (Galatians) and grabbed and and stabbed him... BURN

Odd. I must be missing something in an earlier post.

A new proposition:
Religion vs. Spirituality


A very old proposition. One could say that Jesus epitomized the creshendo and resolution of this dichotomy for western philosophy.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't think that religion accurately touches who god is.... much less justifies all the things that are carried out in his name.

I think that you should look beyond "religion", and look more to the wisdom of Jesus, and all that was his life. Narrow is the gate and few are those who find it. Not everyone who picks up a bible understands. People are fallible, they make mistakes. Both non-religious and religious people succumb to failures and personal disappointments. There are those out there who really seek God. I suggest that you read the works and look at the lives of those who provide that example.

Personally, I believe that there is a mighty change a' comin'. I believe that modern Christianity will be shown its self in a mirror. I believe that God will expect that some elements of it change radically. It will be little different than when Jesus turned over the tables in the Temple.

Modern Christianity has pushed its self into a subculture. Instead of being in the world and not of it, it has become of the world and not in it.

God does not want plastic people parading as desciples. He wants people that seek him earnestly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td></td><td>You scored as <b>Spiritual Atheist</b>, Ah! Some of the coolest people in the world are Spiritual Atheists. Most of them weren't brought up in an organized religion and have very little baggage. They concentrate on making the world a better place and know that death is just another part of life. What comes after, comes after.<br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Spiritual Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='50' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>50%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Agnostic</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='42' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>42%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathetic Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='42' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>42%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Scientific Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='42' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>42%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Angry Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='33' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>33%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Militant Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Theist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> </td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/run.php/Quiz?quiz_id=34703'>What kind of atheist are you?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>

[Swedish Extrovert]

I went out with a girl tonight. She is a Christian, and she is totally cool with me being an Atheist.

I flat out asked her if I was going to hell. Shes like "Yes... wait (hmm what did the Pastor say the other day)... well if you've never accepted Jesus as your savior than you're going to hell."

I though it was weird that shes letting a ****ing unqualified (IMO) pastor to think for her.

(This ****ing guy is such a fraud, he went to LSU, but I cant find any record of him ever going to seminary or being ordained, yet Celebration church is probably the most affluent in all of Jacksonville)

I always do a little background check on the Pastors before going to a Church. There are a LOT of frauds out there.

[yavoon]

I went out with a girl tonight. She is a Christian, and she is totally cool with me being an Atheist.

I flat out asked her if I was going to hell. Shes like "Yes... wait (hmm what did the Pastor say the other day)... well if you've never accepted Jesus as your savior than you're going to hell."

I though it was weird that shes letting a ****ing unqualified (IMO) pastor to think for her.

(This ****ing guy is such a fraud, he went to LSU, but I cant find any record of him ever going to seminary or being ordained, yet Celebration church is probably the most affluent in all of Jacksonville)

I always do a little background check on the Pastors before going to a Church. There are a LOT of frauds out there.

goto church much? as an atheist I like to lookup pastors myself and then stop by at churches...

[Denver Crush]

What kind of atheist are you?
You scored as a Spiritual Atheist
Ah! Some of the coolest people in the world are Spiritual Atheists. Most of them weren't brought up in an organized religion and have very little baggage. They concentrate on making the world a better place and know that death is just another part of life. What comes after, comes after.

Spiritual Atheist

67%

Agnostic

58%

Scientific Atheist

42%

Theist

33%

Apathetic Atheist

33%

Militant Atheist

25%

Angry Atheist

17%

[Spider]

atheist ........ I am just an asshole doing what he can to make his way through this world and support his family ......... I havent received any help from anyone, and that includes some god or gods , and I like it that way .......

[orangeatheist]

Like every other thing made seemingly infinitely complex by men, in reality this problem is reduced to a simple juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, neither of which has been proven beyond the reach of the other's apologia. Both contrasting ideas can be confirmed or denied by reason.

It boils down to what you choose to believe based on the truths that you have accumulated and interpreted. You can believe That a transcendental/superexistant/superintelligent thing had something to do with it, or that there was not a purposed intervention by a supreme being.

That is it, and it is nothing more.

Dont take someone else's word for it. Find out for yourself, because this is possibly the most important decision that you will ever face. It deserves an honest evaluation. If you enter into this problem with skepticism, be sure that your skepticism spans the breadth of both conflicting ideas. Do not be skeptical of only God, but also of the possibility that there is not a God.

Like every other thing made seemingly infinitely complex by men, in reality this problem is reduced to a simple juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, neither of which has been proven beyond the reach of the other's apologia. Both contrasting ideas can be confirmed or denied by reason.

It boils down to what you choose to believe based on the truths that you have accumulated and interpreted. You can believe That reincarnation follows earthly life, or that there is no such thing following death.

That is it, and it is nothing more.

Dont take someone else's word for it. Find out for yourself, because this is possibly the most important decision that you will ever face. It deserves an honest evaluation. If you enter into this problem with skepticism, be sure that your skepticism spans the breadth of both conflicting ideas. Do not be skeptical of only reincarnation, but also of the possibility that there is no such thing as rebirth.

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

Like every other thing made seemingly infinitely complex by men, in reality this problem is reduced to a simple juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, neither of which has been proven beyond the reach of the other's apologia. Both contrasting ideas can be confirmed or denied by reason.

It boils down to what you choose to believe based on the truths that you have accumulated and interpreted. You can believe That fairies exist in your backyard, or that there is no such thing.

That is it, and it is nothing more.

Dont take someone else's word for it. Find out for yourself, because this is possibly the most important decision that you will ever face. It deserves an honest evaluation. If you enter into this problem with skepticism, be sure that your skepticism spans the breadth of both conflicting ideas. Do not be skeptical of only fairies, but also of the possibility that there are no fairies.

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

Like every other thing made seemingly infinitely complex by men, in reality this problem is reduced to a simple juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, neither of which has been proven beyond the reach of the other's apologia. Both contrasting ideas can be confirmed or denied by reason.

It boils down to what you choose to believe based on the truths that you have accumulated and interpreted. You can believe That a monster lives in Loch Ness, or that there is no such thing.

That is it, and it is nothing more.

Dont take someone else's word for it. Find out for yourself, because this is possibly the most important decision that you will ever face. It deserves an honest evaluation. If you enter into this problem with skepticism, be sure that your skepticism spans the breadth of both conflicting ideas. Do not be skeptical of only the monster, but also of the possibility that there is no monster.

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

It's funny. When you make the rules, just about anything fits.

[orangeatheist]

I think that you should look beyond "religion", and look more to the wisdom of Jesus, and all that was his life. Narrow is the gate and few are those who find it. Not everyone who picks up a bible understands. People are fallible, they make mistakes. Both non-religious and religious people succumb to failures and personal disappointments. There are those out there who really seek God. I suggest that you read the works and look at the lives of those who provide that example.

Personally, I believe that there is a mighty change a' comin'. I believe that modern Christianity will be shown its self in a mirror. I believe that God will expect that some elements of it change radically. It will be little different than when Jesus turned over the tables in the Temple.

Modern Christianity has pushed its self into a subculture. Instead of being in the world and not of it, it has become of the world and not in it.

God does not want plastic people parading as desciples. He wants people that seek him earnestly.


I think that you should look beyond "religion", and look more to the wisdom of Mohammad, and all that was his life. Narrow is the gate and few are those who find it. Not everyone who picks up a Quran understands. People are fallible, they make mistakes. Both non-religious and religious people succumb to failures and personal disappointments. There are those out there who really seek Allah. I suggest that you read the works and look at the lives of those who provide that example.

Personally, I believe that there is a mighty change a' comin'. I believe that modern Islam will be shown its self in a mirror. I believe that Allah will expect that some elements of it change radically.

Modern Islam has pushed its self into a subculture. Instead of being in the world and not of it, it has become of the world and not in it.

Allah does not want plastic people parading as desciples [sic]. He wants people that seek him earnestly.

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

See what I mean?

[BroncoInferno]

LOL Llama and his pseudointellectual blatherings take another beating.

[W*GS]

<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td></td><td>You scored as <b>Scientific Atheist</b>, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future. <br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Scientific Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='58' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>58%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Angry Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='42' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>42%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Spiritual Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='33' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>33%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Militant Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='33' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>33%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathetic Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='25' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>25%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Agnostic</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Theist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='8' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>8%</font></td></tr> </td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/run.php/Quiz?quiz_id=34703'>What kind of atheist are you?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No. Try again sparky. I gave you how I came to my evidence, not what it was. The evidence that proves God exists to me...is MY evidence. Why would I explain it to you? Uh, because you can't?

What good would it do for you to hear how I came to the conclusion God exists? I could state, based on what you have said, your crutch is your ego or faith in your intelligence. Really, how and why is that?

If everyone needs a crutch to lean on, obviously ego is yours.
:Broncos:

Don't be offended or angered why you can't explain your "evidence".
For a lot of people it works.

[Spider]

Realizations and conclusions I have drawn from my own experiences. Also, what difference does it make to you what my evidence for belief in God is?


:Broncos:

Hold the phone here .... you are gay , you dont walk the path of the christens , so you cant have too much faith ...........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What kind of atheist are you?
You scored as a Agnostic
Agnostics consider the possibility that they may be wrong about God's existence, no matter which side of the fence they stand on. Always willing to objectively evaluate the most ridiculous proof, nevertheless, these guys are skeptics of the Nth degree.

Agnostic

67%

Scientific Atheist

58%

Apathetic Atheist

58%

Spiritual Atheist

50%

Angry Atheist

25%

Theist

25%

Militant Atheist

0%

[alkemical]

Who created God?

God's, god.

[alkemical]

I love science, I love math, I love chemistry and such. I also took a little astronomy in college too (talk about math gone haywire, it fried my brain).

I also took alot of Philosophy in college.

You'd be amazed at how science, math, religion, history, the arts and humanities are all tied together to form our way of looking at the world.

I'm not arguing one minute with you Dave on the science and math part of our universe. I'm just saying it's possible it's all being laid before us to test our faith.

This is called the "canon".

[Smiling Assassin27]

The problem is that most self proclaimed Atheists are:

a)reduced to rubble when confronted with the concept of the moral law
b)reduced to rubble when confronted with the concept of actually 'knowing' anything.
c)reduced to Agnosticism the moment they say 'I don't know'.

Atheism is not workable as a philosophy, as a religion, or as a practical world view because it either cannot address its philosophical, epistemological, and ideological gaps or simply chooses to ignore those gaps. Of course, discussing it on this board would be like tossing a puppy into a pool or piranhas--the frenzy is impressive but, in the end, it's just a bunch of irrational fish with large teeth killing by instinct and not by reason. Any atheists that have chops are more than welcome here and no need for shark repellent:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=ddec8ab09be8c84738731d7a41d5eaf7

Don't expect Kirk Cameron or some Bible thumping Fundies here, btw.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The problem is that most self proclaimed Atheists are:

a)reduced to rubble when confronted with the concept of the moral law
b)reduced to rubble when confronted with the concept of actually 'knowing' anything.
c)reduced to Agnosticism the moment they say 'I don't know'.

Atheism is not workable as a philosophy, as a religion, or as a practical world view because it either cannot address its philosophical, epistemological, and ideological gaps or simply chooses to ignore those gaps. Of course, discussing it on this board would be like tossing a puppy into a pool or piranhas--the frenzy is impressive but, in the end, it's just a bunch of irrational fish with large teeth killing by instinct and not by reason. Any atheists that have chops are more than welcome here and no need for shark repellent:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=ddec8ab09be8c84738731d7a41d5eaf7

Don't expect Kirk Cameron or some Bible thumping Fundies here, btw.
Why would "believers" ever try and separate themselves from anyone else using morality as a gauge?

[BroncoInferno]

a)reduced to rubble when confronted with the concept of the moral law

Dead wrong. In fact, both Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins demonstrate quite clearly how not even the religious get their morals from religion. Study up on the zeitgeist sometime. That you appeantly need God and religion in order to be moral says more about your own seedy nature than it does anyone else.

[skpac1001]

I have a hard time swallowing the big bang too because I always come back to the question: what was there before the big bang?

The big bang theory is magic of the highest order, nother more, nothing less.

When you study science and math you know that matter can only be transformed from one form into another. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, just shifted from one form to another. It's so ironic that scientists who know this to be true then buy into the "big bang" theory where everything is created all at once out of absolutely nothing.

My friend, that is called magic. And it's the biggest magic trick ever. That is exactly why it's load of crap.

I dont really have a problem with this, although I dont agree. From the very little I know, the big bang came from a singularity (matter compressed to a point, black hole kinda thing), not from absolute nothing. Nevertheless, it still has problems with "pre"-origin. I would like to point out that if you are so inclined you could turn such hard hitting scepticism on all your beliefs, and substitute "god" in for "big bang theory" in the above paragraphs.

[skpac1001]

Ingenious. You want us to prove what you cant. You said in an earlier post you can't say without a doubt there is no God, you simply believe there is not one. On the flip side of this, I believe there is one, and the evidence that exists for me that a God exists would not be sufficient for you, which would create an argument that cannot be settled.


:Broncos:

I agree. What you choose to believe depends on what you accept as evidence, which depends on what you believe. From my perspective, as long as you dont use your beliefs to justify hate or violence toward others then you should believe what makes you happy and not care what others think.

[orangeatheist]

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=ddec8ab09be8c84738731d7a41d5eaf7

Don't expect Kirk Cameron or some Bible thumping Fundies here, btw.

Are you serious?

This sounds EXACTLY like something Cameron or Comfort would say:

The burden of proof is actually on the atheist, here.

If there is no God, how can anybody claim that all those things mentioned in the bible are true evils? What makes hurting other human beings truly wrong (or not "nice") when there is no supreme arbiter of what constitutes a good or evil action in any given circumstance?

and

Why would one want to read any atheist, let alone a good one? There's a lot of spiritual danger in reading books (which is why the Church has historically had an 'Index of Forbidden Books' which the Pope, while still Card. Ratzinger, said "retained its moral force"). In general, one shouldn't read books by non-Catholics that treat of religious topics (unless one has the permission of one's superior or Ordinary).

Yeah..some real intellectual heavy weights over there.

[skpac1001]

And why is it absurd that God would create us in God's image?



Not absurd as much as awfully convienent. Everyone's gods are reflections of themselves. African tribe gods are African, Asian people's gods are Asian, lots of Christians picture Jesus's complection matching thier own, ect ect. As someone else has pointed out, if cows had gods they would no doubt be cows, and if aliens exist and they believe in god, no doubt it is in thier image.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
I have a hard time swallowing the big bang too because I always come back to the question: what was there before the big bang?

There was no "before" before the Big Bang. By before, you are implying
a passage of time. Time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Time is
an artifact of the Big Bang, just as matter and energy are a result.
In other words the Big Bang created time too.


The big bang theory is magic of the highest order, nother more, nothing less.

When you study science and math you know that matter can only be transformed from one form into another. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, just shifted from one form to another. It's so ironic that scientists who know this to be true then buy into the "big bang" theory where everything is created all at once out of absolutely nothing.

I'd say you need to do a little more studying on the subject.
Einstein shot the hell out of that idea almost 100 years ago.
Ever hear of the equation E=MC2?

[skpac1001]

atheist ........ I am just an a-hole doing what he can to make his way through this world and support his family ......... I havent received any help from anyone, and that includes some god or gods , and I like it that way .......

a-hole atheist should have its own catagory

[skpac1001]

The problem is that most self proclaimed Atheists are:

a)reduced to rubble when confronted with the concept of the moral law


Luckily us athiests can avoid this by asking to see the actual, concrete moral laws. The religious will immediatly start squabbling over what thier cannons say, citing and counter citing conflicting passages, and forget about us completely.

[orangeatheist]

Luckily us athiests can avoid this by asking to see the actual, concrete moral laws. The religious will immediatly start squabbling over what thier cannons say, citing and counter citing conflicting passages, and forget about us completely.


Not only that, but it always cracks me up when a theist (of the Abrahamic camp) says things like "absolute moral law." Absolute for whom? Is God beholden to these laws as well? Is pulling arms off 3-day old infants always bad? If so, does that mean God (if he is all-good) cannot ever pull arms off infants? Does the law apply equally to men and gods? And if it does...

[Swedish Extrovert]

goto church much? as an atheist I like to lookup pastors myself and then stop by at churches...

I go to Church a ton. Episcopalian on Sunday... Presbyterian on Wednesday... Jewish on Sunday.

I got an awesome picture of me driving my Volkswagen to Synagogue with my yamika and the caption "Jewish people driving German cars."

[Swedish Extrovert]

Not absurd as much as awfully convienent. Everyone's gods are reflections of themselves. African tribe gods are African, Asian people's gods are Asian, lots of Christians picture Jesus's complection matching thier own, ect ect. As someone else has pointed out, if cows had gods they would no doubt be cows, and if aliens exist and they believe in god, no doubt it is in thier image.

rep

Grammatical errors aside, you are dead on.

In the Sins of Scripture, Spong (a controversial Episcopalian Bishop) debunks this, and calls the God that most Christians worship an 'idol.'

"The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bibles Text of Hate to Reveal The God of Love" - by John Shelby Spong is one of the best books I've ever read and I would recommend it to anyone.

[Swedish Extrovert]

a-hole atheist should have its own catagory

Yeah, they're called "Antitheists"

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's funny. When you make the rules, just about anything fits.

Sure. Anything would fit if we werent discussing a specific topic, in which case you seem to have missed entirely.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The main problem I have with atheism is that it has very little of its own philosophical life apart from theistic religions, mainly Christianity. It is a reactionary idea, and one that is little more than saying "I am not convinced in a way that satisfies my curiosity, so in turn, I will believe that the opposite is true despite lack of evidence in both directions."

Atheism denies everything: a personal God, an impersonal God (a mechanistic god would fit here), etc. It leaves room for only one circumstance among many. At least the agnostic believes that some creative force spawned the universe. If science saw beyond the big bang into a creative process that stood alone, you could define that process as a god. Atheism denies the possibility of even this.

Atheism is the most closed-minded God philosophy, and general agnosticism is the most open-minded (save maybe Hinduism).

Atheism also fools itself in alilgning itself alone with skepticism. Skepticism is a cognitive trait that allows for all possibilities, but awaits belief until there is proof. Atheism denies that there is a possibility of proof. Atheism is not a true skepticism, it is a philosophy that limits itself to its own ends.

Ironically, the church at large is much more skeptical than atheism. Evidenced by the thorough academic evaluation of ideas before it takes them into its philosophy. Where some harp on this as a fault of the church, I see it as a strength. It makes sure that its believers are given tested truths.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Are you serious?

This sounds EXACTLY like something Cameron or Comfort would say:



and



Yeah..some real intellectual heavy weights over there.

Thats what Dr. Kent Hovind said.;)

[Swedish Extrovert]

The main problem I have with atheism is that it has very little of its own philosophical life apart from theistic religions, mainly Christianity. It is a reactionary idea, and one that is little more than saying "I am not convinced in a way that satisfies my curiosity, so in turn, I will believe that the opposite is true despite lack of evidence in both directions."

Atheism denies everything: a personal God, an impersonal God (a mechanistic god would fit here), etc. It leaves room for only one circumstance among many. At least the agnostic believes that some creative force spawned the universe. If science saw beyond the big bang into a creative process that stood alone, you could define that process as a god. Atheism denies the possibility of even this.

Atheism is the most closed-minded God philosophy, and general agnosticism is the most open-minded (save maybe Hinduism).

Atheism also fools itself in alilgning itself alone with skepticism. Skepticism is a trait that allows for all possibilities, but awaits belief until there is proof. Atheism denies that there is a possibility of proof. Atheism is not a true skepticism, it is a philosophy that limits itself to its own ends.

Ironically, the church at large is much more skeptical than atheism. Evidenced by the thorough academic evaluation of ideas before it takes them into its philosophy. Where some harp on this as a fault of the church, I see it as a strength. It makes sure that its believers are given tested truths.

wow

[epicSocialism4tw]

wow

Not what your liberal professors are teaching you, eh?

What do you study? English? If you study English, then why do you rest so assured in science to satiate your spiritual desires? As a person who both studies and works in science, I can tell you that you will be disappointed in what it can provide you with philosophically. I was once an atheist. Then I became an agnostic. Then I came to believe that Jesus was a phenomenon that cannot be overlooked.

[orangenblue2]

The main problem I have with atheism is that it has very little of its own philosophical life apart from theistic religions, mainly Christianity. It is a reactionary idea, and one that is little more than saying "I am not convinced in a way that satisfies my curiosity, so in turn, I will believe that the opposite is true despite lack of evidence in both directions."

The main problem that I have with you is that you make up grand sentences containing sweeping pronouncements that you think sound good, when in reality, it is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual fluffery. In other words, its the equivalent of masturbating while looking in the mirror. So here's my question, "Does atheism need its own philisophical life?"

Atheism denies everything: a personal God, an impersonal God (a mechanistic god would fit here), etc. It leaves room for only one circumstance among many.

You are really in over your head. Atheism allows for many possibilities and circumstances. The atheist only wants tangible, reality-based reasons or evidence, to believe or disbelieve in something. Faith alone doesn't cut it...

If science saw beyond the big bang into a creative process that stood alone, you could define that process as a god. Atheism denies the possibility of even this.

I could define alot of things as a god...processes, ideas, ruminations, salad, car tires, etc.. It is the atheist, and the skeptic, and the agnostic, and members of other religions and cults who look at your definitions of god and recognize them for the mass of contradictions that they are.


Atheism is the most closed-minded God philosophy, and general agnosticism is the most open-minded (save maybe Hinduism).

Ah, I was wondering when someone would accuse us of being "closed-minded". What you've set up is a text-book strawman. I don't know too many atheists, or people in general for that matter, that deny that "anything is possible". Even simpletons and "philosophers" like yourself, know that "anything is possible". The atheist is always prepared to change their mind. They just need the required proof, and until I see that, the idea that there is a "god" is so improbable as to mean nearly nothing...The simple fact that "anything is possible", means that your "god" is possible, but it doesn't make the probability of said "god's" existence any better...


Ironically, the church at large is much more skeptical than atheism. Evidenced by the thorough academic evaluation of ideas before it takes them into its philosophy. Where some harp on this as a fault of the church, I see it as a strength. It makes sure that its believers are given tested truths.

We are all dumber for having read that...I award you no points...and may "god" have mercy on your soul...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The main problem that I have with you is that you make up grand sentences containing sweeping pronouncements that you think sound good, when in reality, it is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual fluffery. In other words, its the equivalent of masturbating while looking in the mirror.

:giggle: ^5

Reminds me of his habit of filing all unpleasant news or inconvenient facts from the political front under "propaganda."

:D

[RkyMtnThunder]

You scored as a Spiritual Atheist
Ah! Some of the coolest people in the world are Spiritual Atheists. Most of them weren't brought up in an organized religion and have very little baggage. They concentrate on making the world a better place and know that death is just another part of life. What comes after, comes after.

Spiritual Atheist

83%

Agnostic

75%

Scientific Atheist

67%

Apathetic Atheist

58%

Angry Atheist

42%

Militant Atheist

42%

Theist

25%

[alkemical]

<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td></td><td>You scored as <b>Agnostic</b>, Agnostics consider the possibility that they may be wrong about God's existence, no matter which side of the fence they stand on. Always willing to objectively evaluate the most ridiculous proof, nevertheless, these guys are skeptics of the Nth degree.<br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Agnostic</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='83' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>83%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Spiritual Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='83' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>83%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Theist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='33' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>33%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathetic Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='33' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>33%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Scientific Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='33' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>33%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Angry Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='25' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>25%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Militant Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> </td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/run.php/Quiz?quiz_id=34703'>What kind of atheist are you?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>

[epicSocialism4tw]

You are really in over your head. Atheism allows for many possibilities and circumstances. The atheist only wants tangible, reality-based reasons or evidence, to believe or disbelieve in something. Faith alone doesn't cut it...

If you ever learn to love wisdom, you will discover in retrospect just how shallow this statement you made here really is.


I could define alot of things as a god...processes, ideas, ruminations, salad, car tires, etc.. It is the atheist, and the skeptic, and the agnostic, and members of other religions and cults who look at your definitions of god and recognize them for the mass of contradictions that they are.

That statement has neither relevance nor weight.

Ah, I was wondering when someone would accuse us of being "closed-minded". What you've set up is a text-book strawman. I don't know too many atheists, or people in general for that matter, that deny that "anything is possible".

I think that you need a little better familiarity with the term "atheism".

Here's a dictionary.com definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That there is no possible God. It is the complete denial of the the existence of god in the present tense, past tense, and future tense.

The possibility of God is eliminated in atheism. To stake that as the only claim to skepticism is completely dishonest and nothing but purposed propaganda.

If you are not committed to a firm belief in atheism, then why do you claim it? You are more of an agnostic. An atheist is convinced that there is zero possibility of God. Not that there is a possibility that God is not true. That's something different entirely.

I think that most atheists are unaware agnostics, and you seem to fall into that category.

The atheist is always prepared to change their mind.

Your generalization of "the atheist" is just plain naive. You are as ready to change your mind as a turd is ready to be worn as perfume.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Reminds me of his habit of filing all unpleasant news or inconvenient facts from the political front under "propaganda."



LOL

No. That is only reserved for you and your "facts" ROFL! from whatever far left liberal disinformation warehouse that you can get to quick enough.

Propaganda is your bag. You are the one who volunteered to spam this site for the DNC.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No. That is only reserved for you and your "facts" ROFL! from whatever far left liberal disinformation warehouse that you can get to quick enough.


Hilarious!

Ha ha ha!

Given the current state of the GOP, the "conservative movement," and GeeDubya's presidency, practically every media outlet in the country must look like a "far left liberal disinformation warehouse" from your point of view.

:D

[epicSocialism4tw]

The main problem that I have with you is that you make up grand sentences containing sweeping pronouncements that you think sound good, when in reality, it is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual fluffery. In other words, its the equivalent of masturbating while looking in the mirror. So here's my question, "Does atheism need its own philisophical life?"


Can you really be serious about atheism not needing a philosophical life? Atheism doesnt need to be logically viable on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas? You might be able to have blind faith in it, but other people probably need quite a bit more convincing.

Atheism, and specifically the type that undergirds secular humanism, is so full of holes that it makes swiss cheese look consistent. I find it unfortunate that so many unwitting people are wrapped up in its reactionary sensationalism. What is really unfortunate is that the zealots that try to beat the world over the head with their atheism have deluded themselves into thinking that they represent some sort of rational oasis, when in fact they only muddy the waters with their own self-righteous isolationism and are only biding their time before their shadowy, amorphous beliefs are splayed across the ground and revealed for all of their emptiness. I am convinced that any honest atheist will admit that atheism is shaky. I have been there, done that. It depends on too little. You are gambling against odds.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Given the current state of the GOP, the "conservative movement," and GeeDubya's presidency, practically every media outlet in the country must look like a "far left liberal disinformation warehouse" from your point of view.


Nope. You are the only volunteer from any political party that I have encountered in a fan forum. You just happen to be a far, far, way over in left field lefty. It explains the passion that you have for liberal causes, i.e. your volunteer work in propaganda and your contributions to the DNC.

Just dont act like you dont have a dog in the hunt.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nope. You are the only volunteer from any political party that I have encountered in a fan forum. You just happen to be a far, far, way over in left field lefty. It explains the passion that you have for liberal causes, i.e. your volunteer work in propaganda and your contributions to the DNC.

Ok - I'll play:

You are really Pat Robertson, and you're here to harvest the IP addresses of liberals, atheists, and homosexuals so your covert operatives can hunt them down and torture them until they give you the whereabouts of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Hugo Chavez.

This explains your passion for spamming the board with your psuedo-intellectual, evangelical poppyc*ck - it's just bait.

And you're so close to Jesus He had to take out a restraining order.

[alkemical]

The main problem that I have with you is that you make up grand sentences containing sweeping pronouncements that you think sound good, when in reality, it is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual fluffery. In other words, its the equivalent of masturbating while looking in the mirror.


I'm not going to into the middle of this. This is between the both of you, but i'd like to just go with the questions below.



So here's my question, "Does atheism need its own philisophical life?"


No, atheism is it's own philosophy.


You are really in over your head. Atheism allows for many possibilities and circumstances. The atheist only wants tangible, reality-based reasons or evidence, to believe or disbelieve in something. Faith alone doesn't cut it...


That's a paradox IMO. I'm only citing the bolded part.


I could define alot of things as a god...processes, ideas, ruminations, salad, car tires, etc.. It is the atheist, and the skeptic, and the agnostic, and members of other religions and cults who look at your definitions of god and recognize them for the mass of contradictions that they are.


A:) Then you'd be pagan!
B:) The agnostic is the true skeptic, and the true believer.



Ah, I was wondering when someone would accuse us of being "closed-minded". What you've set up is a text-book strawman. I don't know too many atheists, or people in general for that matter, that deny that "anything is possible". Even simpletons and "philosophers" like yourself, know that "anything is possible". The atheist is always prepared to change their mind. They just need the required proof, and until I see that, the idea that there is a "god" is so improbable as to mean nearly nothing...The simple fact that "anything is possible", means that your "god" is possible, but it doesn't make the probability of said "god's" existence any better...


I don't think people are that objective O&B2. Not atheists, not theists - i mean people as a whole. Look at how objective Tesla & Edison were. ;)

(i'm also not addressing anyone's specific god, cuz well i'm not!)



We are all dumber for having read that...I award you no points...and may "god" have mercy on your soul...

Blech - i'm not responding to that either

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ok - I'll play:
You are really Pat Robertson, and you're here to harvest the IP addresses of liberals, atheists, and homosexuals so your covert operatives can hunt them down and torture them until they give you the whereabouts of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Hugo Chavez.
This explains your passion for spamming the board with your psuedo-intellectual, evangelical poppyc*ck - it's just bait.
And you're so close to Jesus He had to take out a restraining order.

Strange. This is all you can muster up?

There has to be something in your DNC disinformation warehouse to address this. Maybe a bartcop image or something.

Come on, man. You're getting lazy. What would Hillary Clinton think?

[orangeatheist]

I think that you need a little better familiarity with the term "atheism".

Here's a dictionary.com definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That there is no possible God. It is the complete denial of the the existence of god in the present tense, past tense, and future tense.


I'm curious, angry. How do you feel about the existence of Odin? Or Osiris? How about Allah? Krishna? Zeus? Do these gods exist? Is there a possibilty that these gods exist? Even the remotest chance?

[alkemical]

I'm curious, angry. How do you feel about the existence of Odin? Or Osiris? How about Allah? Krishna? Zeus? Do these gods exist? Is there a possibilty that these gods exist? Even the remotest chance?



They do. But they are only aspects of god, not god 'itself' IMO. But i'm optimisitc this morning. Must have been the coffee & granola. :)

[Swedish Extrovert]

I'll take a picture of it if its still up, but driving home work yesterday I saw a Church sign that read like this:

"Hope Baptist Church
Avoid Criticism:
Say Nothing, Think Nothing,
Be Spiritual"

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm curious, angry. How do you feel about the existence of Odin? Or Osiris? How about Allah? Krishna? Zeus? Do these gods exist? Is there a possibilty that these gods exist? Even the remotest chance?


That is a much more complicated question than one that you can sweep away with the premise that has become popularized with Dawkins.

You cannot deny all of their existence by recognizing that they all, in fact, exist or have existed in the minds of humans. Their possible existence doesnt deny the existence of every possible god. You cannot say that just because they all exist, that none of them exist. That doesnt make logical sense.

You cannot say that because several theories exist for a phenomenon that has been observed across cultural boundaries, that none of them possibly exist. Personally, I find this to be truth that there is some phenomenon behind the veil covering human understanding that is worthy of exploration. I think that it is much more appropriate to carry this view as a scientist than to sweep away the entire subject because of personal reasons.

[alkemical]

The thinker thinks, and the prover proves.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Not what your liberal professors are teaching you, eh?

What do you study? English? If you study English, then why do you rest so assured in science to satiate your spiritual desires? As a person who both studies and works in science, I can tell you that you will be disappointed in what it can provide you with philosophically. I was once an atheist. Then I became an agnostic. Then I came to believe that Jesus was a phenomenon that cannot be overlooked.

Not exactly, it's just that what you said couldn't be further from the truth.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Not exactly, it's just that what you said couldn't be further from the truth.

How so?

[orangeatheist]

That is a much more complicated question than one that you can sweep away with the premise that has become popularized with Dawkins.

Nice way to avoid the question, angry!


You cannot deny all of their existence by recognizing that they all, in fact, exist or have existed in the minds of humans.

I'm not referring to them existing "in the minds of humans." If you were to ask me if I believe that some people believe in some sort of god, I'd be an idiot if I were an atheist regarding such a thing! Of course these gods exist, or once existed, in the minds of some people. Santa exists in millions of children's minds, too...

I'm asking you if you believe in the existence of these other deities in the same sense that you believe in your own. You do believe in God, right? And not just any god, but a specific one with specific attributes?


Their possible existence doesnt deny the existence of every possible god. You cannot say that just because they all exist, that none of them exist. That doesnt make logical sense.

You're right. To say that something exists means it doesn't exist makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't say that, though. In fact, I've made no positive assertion whatsoever so I'm not sure what you are answering. I asked, "How do you feel about the existence of Odin? Or Osiris? How about Allah? Krishna? Zeus? Do these gods exist? Is there a possibilty that these gods exist? Even the remotest chance?" I'm not sure what question you are answering but it wasn't mine.


You cannot say that because several theories exist for a phenomenon that has been observed across cultural boundaries, that none of them possibly exist.

None of what possibly exist? None of the theories? None of the phenomena? None of the cultures? What are you talking about?


Personally, I find this to be truth that there is some phenomenon behind the veil covering human understanding that is worthy of exploration.

The existense of a cross-cultural tendency to believe in gods and demons is indeed and interesting subject. Much in the same sense that it is interesting to study why all primates share the inability to self-synthesize vitamin C. I'm sure there's a common reason for these things (the latter requires understanding evolution, and so might the former, but I won't go there) and learning the reason is certainly worthwhile. I'll wager, however, based upon your bias and mine, that we have different suspicions as to what the reason will be.

Again, however, that doesn't answer my original question (at least not directly).



I think that it is much more appropriate to carry this view as a scientist than to sweep away the entire subject because of personal reasons.

So, to that end, how do you feel about the existence of Odin? Or Osiris? How about Allah? Krishna? Zeus? Do these gods exist? Is there a possibilty that these gods exist? Even the remotest chance?

[RkyMtnThunder]

I'm curious, angry. How do you feel about the existence of Odin? Or Osiris? How about Allah? Krishna? Zeus? Do these gods exist? Is there a possibilty that these gods exist? Even the remotest chance?

Allah is the same 'God' the Christians and Jews identify with. Its merely Arabic translation.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm not referring to them existing "in the minds of humans." If you were to ask me if I believe that some people believe in some sort of god, I'd be an idiot if I were an atheist regarding such a thing! Of course these gods exist, or once existed, in the minds of some people. Santa exists in millions of children's minds, too...

Santa and the God concept are not equivalent ideas. You will never get anywhere with the issue if you reduce it to absurd equalities. In no way does that define the God concept, its impact, or its relevance to human experience. Reducing it to absurdity does not do the problem justice. It is the wholesale dismissal that I was referring to in the last post. It may elicit high-fives from your fellow atheists, but it doesnt address the issue with anything of substance.

I'm asking you if you believe in the existence of these other deities in the same sense that you believe in your own. You do believe in God, right? And not just any god, but a specific one with specific attributes?

God is a mystery.



You're right. To say that something exists means it doesn't exist makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't say that, though. In fact, I've made no positive assertion whatsoever so I'm not sure what you are answering.

I skipped a few steps ahead of you to save us the problem of going round and round with something that will get us nowhere.


None of what possibly exist? None of the theories? None of the phenomena? None of the cultures? What are you talking about?


In that sentance, the theories.


The existense of a cross-cultural tendency to believe in gods and demons is indeed and interesting subject. Much in the same sense that it is interesting to study why all primates share the inability to self-synthesize vitamin C. I'm sure there's a common reason for these things (the latter requires understanding evolution, and so might the former, but I won't go there) and learning the reason is certainly worthwhile. I'll wager, however, based upon your bias and mine, that we have different suspicions as to what the reason will be.

This is the Dawkins angle I was getting at previously. The God concept is all pervasive, ubiquitous, and will always be able to conform to whatever new information that man presents to it. Give up for a second the idea that this is somehow a "copout" or one of those Dawkinsy buzzwords. If God indeed did exist, and created the universe into things that bore the fingerprints of himself as Van Gogh's work mimics Van Goghs mind and skill, would the brain with its simplistic perceptions its environment not subconsciously weave its reality above a common thread of the understanding of "God"? As we can innately understand Van Gogh's appreciation of beauty in the night sky or his peaceful reflection on a downtown cafe on a cool night, we can understand a little tiny bit of God's natue in the objects and conditions of the universe. Evolution is one of those possible glances into God's providence and his dominion over the temporal. I leave open the possibility of evolution, and I really hope that it is proven to be truth in some form, because I think that it is the most beautiful thing that science has proposed. Evolution could potentially do away with the traditional interpretation of the book of Genesis, but it doesnt do anything but support the possibility of God in my mind.



So, to that end, how do you feel about the existence of Odin? Or Osiris? How about Allah? Krishna? Zeus? Do these gods exist? Is there a possibilty that these gods exist? Even the remotest chance?

Just as Newton proposed a simplistic form of what we know as "gravity", just as Democritus proposed the atom, just as Freud proposed development, people have given us culturally and personally confused or limited theories about many things that later showed themselves to be a slight look at a bit of what we now consider truth. Heck, gravity is quite rudimentary and incomplete and it is so predictable that we call it a law. Not everything is known about gravity that could be known, but we can experience enough of it to know that it is dependable.

[BroncoInferno]

Just as Newton proposed a simplistic form of what we know as "gravity", just as Democritus proposed the atom, just as Freud proposed development, people have given us culturally and personally confused or limited theories about many things that later showed themselves to be a slight look at a bit of what we now consider truth. Heck, gravity is quite rudimentary and incomplete and it is so predictable that we call it a law. Not everything is known about gravity that could be known, but we can experience enough of it to know that it is dependable.

Interesting. So, you view other religions as "culturally or personally confused or limited theories"? What, then, do you think happens to followers of such faiths? Are they seperated from God because they did not worship the Christian God? Are they given a pass because they tried to understand but made misinterpretations of the divine spirit/will? If so, are there limits to this? For example, the Aztecs sincerely thought that by practicing human sacrifice they were appeazing the divine spirit as they understood it. If, as I presume you would think, God would be far from appeazed but angered by such rituals, why would He not clarify such a serious interpretive error? Are the Aztecs being punished for their honest misunderstanding of divine law? What about suicide bombers? Is their honest mistake to be punished? On the other hand, if groups are not given a free pass for their "culturally or personally confused or limited theories," why does God keep himself so mysterious as to create confusion over His true indentity and will, therefore sending honest people down a destructive path?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Interesting. So, you view other religions as "culturally or personally confused or limited theories"? What, then, do you think happens to followers of such faiths? Are they seperated from God because they did not worship the Christian God? Are they given a pass because they tried to understand but made misinterpretations of the divine spirit/will? If so, are there limits to this? For example, the Aztecs sincerely thought that by practicing human sacrifice they were appeazing the divine spirit as they understood it. If, as I presume you would think, God would be far from appeazed but angered by such rituals, why would He not clarify such a serious interpretive error? Are the Aztecs being punished for their honest misunderstanding of divine law? What about suicide bombers? Is their honest mistake to be punished? On the other hand, if groups are not given a free pass for their "culturally or personally confused or limited theories," why does God keep himself so mysterious as to create confusion over His true indentity and will, therefore sending honest people down a destructive path?


1. My God did not send man down any path. Man chose and continues to choose his own. I am not a Calvinist by any stretch.

2. My God is just. Perfectly just. I trust the judgment of my God.

I wanted to edit the post and add this...you ask me why and what are the truths about God. I have been convinced of my own view of the Lord. I am safe and secure in that belief. It is justified and formulated in a way that suits me just fine. This may not be the case for you. My answers to the questions you ask may not convince you, or you may not want to be convinced. That is why it is so important for you or anyone else who asks these questions to continue to pursue them until you have come to some real peace about the issue. I would love for you to know the God that I know. I think that this God is just utterly wonderful...so great that I cant put it into words. BUT, that is your journey and I respect that.

The only thing that I would ask you to do is to give it a real, honest, thorough consideration. No matter how boring it is at first, no matter how confusing, just give it an honest go for a reasonable period of time. I have been an atheist, I have been an agnostic, but trying to live the life that I believe God intended is much more satisfying and complete. The best part of it all is getting to see the mystery God and to realize that the mystery God from beyond the vail is both interacting with you and intending to show you love.

[BroncoInferno]

1. My God did not send man down any path. Man chose and continues to choose his own. I am not a Calvinist by any stretch.

Sure, but by "culturally and personally confused or limited theories", you seem to be saying that these people are picking up on the spirit but have just made misinterpretations. If these misinterpretations are made honestly, does that earn any quarter with God, in your opinion? Are the worshipers of Odin and Krishna both to be seperated from God based on these unfortunate but honestly committed errors? Does cultural geography get any special quarter? For instance, if someone is born in India, the odds are extremely high that they will become a Hindu and remain one for the course of their natural life and odds very low that they will ever be compelled to convert to Christianity, just as someone born in the U.S. will very likely become a Christian and remain one for the remainder of their natural life and never feel compelled to convert to Hinduism. Since geography is clearly a powerful influence on faith and how much exposure someone will have to Christianity (if any), is this given any consideration on judgement day, in your opinion?

2. My God is just. Perfectly just. I trust the judgment of my God.

Is this just your way of avoiding answering the questions above? As someone who professes a keen interest in philosophy, surely you've ponder those sorts of questions and formed your own opinions on the possible answers?

[alkemical]

No-one wants to play with me :(

[RkyMtnThunder]

I have been convinced of my own view of the Lord. I am safe and secure in that belief. It is justified and formulated in a way that suits me just fine. This may not be the case for you. My answers to the questions you ask may not convince you, or you may not want to be convinced. That is why it is so important for you or anyone else who asks these questions to continue to pursue them until you have come to some real peace about the issue. I would love for you to know the God that I know. I think that this God is just utterly wonderful...so great that I cant put it into words. BUT, that is your journey and I respect that.



Well said. Its interesting that almost anyone who fancies themselves a spiritual person, regardless of religion, belief system, philosophy or creed feels the same way as described above.

That said, its also very interesting (sad actually) to me to see how these different folks/groups cant get along.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Sure, but by "culturally and personally confused or limited theories", you seem to be saying that these people are picking up on the spirit but have just made misinterpretations. If these misinterpretations are made honestly, does that earn any quarter with God, in your opinion? Are the worshipers of Odin and Krishna both to be seperated from God based on these unfortunate but honestly committed errors? Does cultural geography get any special quarter? For instance, if someone is born in India, the odds are extremely high that they will become a Hindu and remain one for the course of their natural life and odds very low that they will ever be compelled to convert to Christianity, just as someone born in the U.S. will very likely become a Christian and remain one for the remainder of their natural life and never feel compelled to convert to Hinduism. Since geography is clearly a powerful influence on faith and how much exposure someone will have to Christianity (if any), is this given any consideration on judgement day, in your opinion?


Ironically, I had a nice discussion on this topic last night with a friend of mine. I am thoroughly convinced of the justice of God. I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and I believe that the sacrifice of Jesus was enormously valuable. It shows the nature of God to be both proactive and humble in his account of himself to men. I also think that the Lord will show similar traits in judgment of men as they live their lives in the eternal realm. Just as men choose to push themself indefinitely away from God by blaspheming the holy spirit (turning away from God), men choose to distance themselves from God. When making a conscious choice to do so, these people cast their own judgment and choose their place before the vail is dropped. I think that a person has to make a conscious choice to deny God to be placed into Gehenna.

Those are my personal beliefs. I believe God to be both a shrewd and merciful judge. The great thing about God is that he doesnt choose in absence of all of the evidence. He has access to both your mind and your soul.

[BroncoInferno]

Ironically, I had a nice discussion on this topic last night with a friend of mine. I am thoroughly convinced of the justice of God. I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and I believe that the sacrifice of Jesus was enormously valuable. It shows the nature of God to be both proactive and humble in his account of himself to men. I also think that the Lord will show similar traits in judgment of men as they live their lives in the eternal realm. Just as men choose to push themself indefinitely away from God by blaspheming the holy spirit (turning away from God), men choose to distance themselves from God. When making a conscious choice to do so, these people cast their own judgment and choose their place before the vail is dropped. I think that a person has to make a conscious choice to deny God to be placed into Gehenna.

So, just to clarify your view, you believe that an honest pursuit of the truth will be rewarded provided it leads to god belief, even if some of the conclusions drawn are misguided, and only those who deny God (Atheists) are placed into Gehenna?

[epicSocialism4tw]

So, just to clarify your view, your believe that an honest pursuit of the truth will be rewarded, even if the conclusions drawn are misguided, and only those who deny God (Atheists) are placed into Gehenna?

No, not the honest pursuit of truth. That is something different.

Entry into the kingdom of heaven is dependent on a right relationship with God.

This would require more than just the aknowledgment of God, but the pursuit of reciprocal interaction with God. He must "know" you. This would be quite complicated if the person was not seriously introduced to Jesus at any point in their life, but I think that it is possible. Like I said earlier, I am fully confident in God as a just judge.

[RkyMtnThunder]

No, not the honest pursuit of truth. That is something different.

Entry into the kingdom of heaven is dependent on a right relationship with God.

This would require more than just the aknowledgment of God, but the pursuit of reciprocal interaction with God. He must "know" you. This would be quite complicated if the person was not seriously introduced to Jesus at any point in their life, but I think that it is possible. Like I said earlier, I am fully confident in God as a just judge.

As a Christian, what do you feel the 'honest pursuit of truth' to be?


IMO - there is no heaven or hell. The 'reward/punishment' mentality is IMO a tool to achieve compliance to dogma. (regardless of the faith that employs this tactic)

[epicSocialism4tw]

As a Christian, what do you feel the 'honest pursuit of truth' to be?
I consider it to be part of my job. Literally. I also consider the "honest pursuit of truth." To be a valuable tool for men, thus my interest in science. But, I do not think that it is grounds for entrance into the Lord's presence. That is earned by much more difficult and simpler means.


IMO - there is no heaven or hell. The 'reward/punishment' mentality is IMO a tool to achieve compliance to dogma. Jesus referred both to a sort of "heaven" and a sort of "hell", both places being part of an eternal existence that can be experienced by men. I understand both to be dependent on proximity to God himself.

[orangenblue2]

So, just to clarify your view, you believe that an honest pursuit of the truth will be rewarded provided it leads to god belief, even if some of the conclusions drawn are misguided, and only those who deny God (Atheists) are placed into Gehenna?

:thanku: Take a bow...I think you've nailed it...

[Smiling Assassin27]

Here's a quite good read...Surprisingly, Hitchens got his clock cleaned. Not what I expected.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

[BroncoInferno]

No, not the honest pursuit of truth. That is something different.

Entry into the kingdom of heaven is dependent on a right relationship with God.

This would require more than just the aknowledgment of God, but the pursuit of reciprocal interaction with God. He must "know" you.

But you would agree that one could truly feel like they have reciprocal interaction with God, and that God "knows" them, but be mistaken, right? I mean, bin Laden is about as devout a believer as they come, and he no doubt thinks he has been lead in life by his personal interaction with God. I assume, of course, that you do not envision bin Laden in heaven, and that he is quite mistaken in believing that he has a true and holy interaction with God. How is one to know that their personal experience is true experience and not a misinterpretation?

This would be quite complicated if the person was not seriously introduced to Jesus at any point in their life, but I think that it is possible.

If it is so complicated, why did God keep, for instance, the Native Americans wholly ignorant of Jesus for 1500 years (many tribes two or three centuries longer)? Since you say a lack of knowledge of Jesus complicates the prospect of salvation, how is it just to make the process more difficult for many by having them born in places totally void of the knowledge of Jesus?

[orangenblue2]

Atheism denies that there is a possibility of proof.

Do you even realize when you contradict yourself? How about you explain how you went from your "atheism" phase (in which, presumably, you denied any possibility of proof), to where you are at now. Since you are so fond of making blanket statements, maybe you could enrich us with the story of how you were the only "atheist" to leave open the possibility of proof, yet somehow all other "atheists" are closed-minded and pathetic. Let's try and answer the question this time...

[epicSocialism4tw]

But you would agree that one could truly feel like they have reciprocal interaction with God, and that God "knows" them, but be mistaken, right? I mean, bin Laden is about as devout a believer as they come, and he no doubt thinks he has been lead in life by his personal interaction with God. I assume, of course, that you do not envision bin Laden in heaven, and that he is quite mistaken in believing that he has a true and holy interaction with God. How is one to know that their personal experience is true experience and not a misinterpretation?

Bin Laden is judged just like everyone else.



If it is so complicated, why did God keep, for instance, the Native Americans wholly ignorant of Jesus for 1500 years (many tribes two or three centuries longer)? Since you say a lack of knowledge of Jesus complicates the prospect of salvation, how is it just to make the process more difficult for many by having them born in places totally void of the knowledge of Jesus

Like I said, I believe in the justice of God, and I believe that he has tried to incorporate himself in the lives of every individual in history. Even before Jesus' time.

[RkyMtnThunder]

I consider it to be part of my job. Literally. I also consider the "honest pursuit of truth." To be a valuable tool for men, thus my interest in science. But, I do not think that it is grounds for entrance into the Lord's presence. That is earned by much more difficult and simpler means.


Jesus referred both to a sort of "heaven" and a sort of "hell", both places being part of an eternal existence that can be experienced by men. I understand both to be dependent on proximity to God himself.



I guess when I asked you the question about truth, I was not referring to physical, but spiritual truths. Of course, thats not fair of me to ask - its a loaded question because anyone who adheres to religious beliefs will claim theirs to be the only true path.

I am the type who believes all paths lead to Rome. There is no one faith, system, religion, philosophy that has a monopoly on truth. ALL seekers with genuine intent will find God and it doesnt matter what path they took.






If you take Gnostic scriptures into account - Jesus has been said to claim that 'the Kingdom of God is within you' (Gospel of Thomas). This does not ellude to an external supernatural plane.

[BroncoInferno]

Bin Laden is judged just like everyone else.

That doesn't really address my question. What distinguishes a true personal experience with God from a false one? How can an individual guard against falling into the trap of one of these false experiences?

Like I said, I believe in the justice of God, and I believe that he has tried to incorporate himself in the lives of every individual in history. Even before Jesus' time.

I'm afraid that is not a terribly convincing answer. Can you perhaps give an explanation about what sort of thing this incorporation would entail for an ancient Mayan (for example)?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I guess when I asked you the question about truth, I was not referring to physical, but spiritual truths. Of course, thats not fair of me to ask - its a loaded question because anyone who adheres to religious beliefs will claim theirs to be the only true path.

I am the type who believes all paths lead to Rome. There is no one faith, system, religion, philosophy that has a monopoly on truth. ALL seekers with genuine intent will find God and it doesnt matter what path they took.

If you take Gnostic scriptures into account - Jesus has been said to claim that 'the Kingdom of God is within you' - not externally. (Gospel of Thomas)

I believe that if you honestly ask God to show you truth, that he will give it to you as a gift to please your heart.

The "kingdom of heaven is within you" idea is also in the canon of new testament scripture.

[BroncoInferno]

Here's a quite good read...Surprisingly, Hitchens got his clock cleaned. Not what I expected.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html


You've got to be joking. Wilson's arguments are old hand, long discredited stuff that even theologians like N.T. Martin would likely cringe at.

[orangenblue2]

You've got to be joking. Wilson's arguments are old hand, long discredited stuff that even theologians like N.T. Martin would likely cringe at.

Exactly what I was thinking...

[orangeatheist]

Ok, I'm skipping a lot of what you wrote because addressing each and every point you made still didn't get me the answer to my question. This was the closest you got:

Just as Newton proposed a simplistic form of what we know as "gravity", just as Democritus proposed the atom, just as Freud proposed development, people have given us culturally and personally confused or limited theories about many things that later showed themselves to be a slight look at a bit of what we now consider truth. Heck, gravity is quite rudimentary and incomplete and it is so predictable that we call it a law. Not everything is known about gravity that could be known, but we can experience enough of it to know that it is dependable.

Still doesn't really answer the question directly and I'm really at a loss to understand why you can't just say, "Yes, I believe in Osiris", or "No, I don't believe in Zeus." It seems to me --and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue-- that what you are trying to say is that --like the blind men and the elephant-- humanity through the ages has glimpsed "god" and described "god" in a variety of ways (these ways "blinded" by personal and cultural bias). However, due to humanity's limitations regarding something so complex and vast, a full, true picture of "god" has not been drawn. Is that even approaching what you're trying to say?

[orangeatheist]

No-one wants to play with me :(

:kiss:

I think it's because your concept of deity is so ethereal, esoteric and sublime that there really isn't much there to grasp by the strict materialist. I mean, how do you argue/test against something that pretty much includes everything? All gods = a Something. It's tough!

[RkyMtnThunder]

I believe that if you honestly ask God to show you truth, that he will give it to you as a gift to please your heart.

The "kingdom of heaven is within you" idea is also in the canon of new testament scripture.

You are referring to the Gospel of Luke, and that particular quote is being taken out of context in this conversation. This idea (kingdom within you) in the New Testament - is allegedly a statement made by Jesus when he was asked to provide evidence of the location of the Kingdom of God by the Pharisees (a Jewish group). Of course one cannot provide evidence of such a thing, so essentially it is a statement about faith as there is no 'location' outside of one's heart


Both the New & Old Testament clearly implies that heaven is a supernatural plane that requires approval (judgment) to enter, those not approved go someplace else - equally supernatural. You have also supported this supernatural view of heaven/hell as being external locations earlier in this thread



Whereas the Gospel of Thomas implies that 'heaven' is a state of consciousness and not a place. (hence "found within you") And there is no judgment required to enter said state of awareness. There is no apparent belief in supernatural creatures or places in the gnostic scriptures. Jesus is portrayed more as a spiritual role model who is teaching people how to be like he is himself (enlightened - in tune with the cosmic, whatever you wish to call it) rather than worshipped as a litteral deity.

Gnostic Christianity and mainstream Christianity are different animals. Mainstream Christianity is heavy on the supernatural, Gnostic Christianity is heavy on the mystical. (there is a difference)

I think we have gotten off track, but I did want to clarify that the concept I referred to was not the same thing you see in Luke.

[orangenblue2]

Still doesn't really answer the question directly and I'm really at a loss to understand why you can't just say, "Yes, I believe in Osiris", or "No, I don't believe in Zeus."

He won't answer the question. He never does.

Hey Llama, surprise us just this once, and try answering a question put to you...

[orangeatheist]

Both the New & Old Testament clearly implies that heaven is a supernatural plane that requires approval (judgment) to enter, those not approved go someplace else - equally supernatural.

Food for thought:

Ecclesiastes 9:4-10:

But whoever is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun. Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has long ago approved what you do. Let your garments always be white; do not let oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that are given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-22

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them?

[alkemical]

:kiss:

I think it's because your concept of deity is so ethereal, esoteric and sublime that there really isn't much there to grasp by the strict materialist. I mean, how do you argue/test against something that pretty much includes everything? All gods = a Something. It's tough!


Well, i'm a true agnostic. I did address Inferno, but he was too busy trying to kick llama to answer.

I figure you guys don't really want a discussion, just a scratching post.

[BroncoInferno]

Well, i'm a true agnostic. I did address Inferno, but he was too busy trying to kick llama to answer.

I figure you guys don't really want a discussion, just a scratching post.

I tried to go back through the thread and find your post addressed to me, because I honestly missed it. I couldn't find one. Did you delete the post, or were you perhaps thinking of another thread?

[mosca]

I figure you guys don't really want a discussion, just a scratching post.
What else would you expect out of this forum? The direction this thread has taken was pretty predictable.

[alkemical]

I tried to go back through the thread and find your post addressed to me, because I honestly missed it. I couldn't find one. Did you delete the post, or were you perhaps thinking of another thread?

page 7

[alkemical]

What else would you expect out of this forum? The direction this thread has taken was pretty predictable.

A microcosom of man's behaviour on why "things will never change".

[BroncoInferno]

page 7

Your only post on that page was addressed to orangeblue2. You must have gotten us mixed up.

[alkemical]

Dammit you are right. That's what i get for being up till 3a for two nights in a row.

Apologies.

See now is the day to pick on me, now you now i'm tired and can't keep up! ;)

[orangeatheist]

I figure you guys don't really want a discussion, just a scratching post.

What's there to discuss with a guy who says, "Could be"?

Clavi, your definitions of the supernatural are so flimsy and inclusive that they're difficult to have a discussion over. From what I've read of your responses, pretty much anything is fair game and can be explained by any given hypothesis. For you, for example, the "mystery" of Loch Ness is equally 1.) fiction, 2.) a real dinosaur and 3.) something we just can't explain yet. What's there to discuss?

I'm not trying to argue with you. It's fine if you leave all the options open. But you can't have a discussion with someone like that. Folks like angry take a stand, have a position, want to defend a belief. They aren't open to other ideas so "scratching" them is --if not productive-- at least possible.

Frankly, I think any notion of a "divine" anything, or a supernatural somethingorother is rather absurd. But I think that because I've never seen anyone present any sort of convincing evidence. Oh, sure, people can wax philosophic on it all day long, but in the end, all they've done is bounce their gums. Never once has anyone produced something objective to back up their assertions. It boils down to, "well, most people throughout history have believed in some sort of god, therefore there must be something to the idea", or "I've had an experience that convinces me that something supernatural is out there and there's nothing anyone can say that will convince me that what I experienced wasn't real", or "When you think of premise A and then B, assuming that A is true because you can't 100% rule it out [maybe you can rule it out 99.99999999999999999999%, but...] then C follows and thus I think the possibility that something supernatural is there is logically possible and therefore I challenge anyone to argue that it is not [because, if they do, I'll pull out my 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that it MIGHT be true] and call you an agnostic rather than an atheist and thus you and I are the same, end of discussion."

It doesn't make for good internet conversation.

[orangeatheist]

What else would you expect out of this forum? The direction this thread has taken was pretty predictable.

Hmmm...an opportunity presented itself for you to add some value to what you deem a valueless thread when you pressed "Reply" and this is what you offer? Why didn't you use that time to actually contribute something of value to the discussion, taking it in a direction you'd rather see it go (at least give it a shot), rather than merely post your opinion on a thread that holds no interest for you in the first place?

[alkemical]

What's there to discuss with a guy who says, "Could be"?

Clavi, your definitions of the supernatural are so flimsy and inclusive that they're difficult to have a discussion over. From what I've read of your responses, pretty much anything is fair game and can be explained by any given hypothesis. For you, for example, the "mystery" of Loch Ness is equally 1.) fiction, 2.) a real dinosaur and 3.) something we just can't explain yet. What's there to discuss?

I'm not trying to argue with you. It's fine if you leave all the options open. But you can't have a discussion with someone like that. Folks like angry take a stand, have a position, want to defend a belief. They aren't open to other ideas so "scratching" them is --if not productive-- at least possible.

Frankly, I think any notion of a "divine" anything, or a supernatural somethingorother is rather absurd. But I think that because I've never seen anyone present any sort of convincing evidence. Oh, sure, people can wax philosophic on it all day long, but in the end, all they've done is bounce their gums. Never once has anyone produced something objective to back up their assertions. It boils down to, "well, most people throughout history have believed in some sort of god, therefore there must be something to the idea", or "I've had an experience that convinces me that something supernatural is out there and there's nothing anyone can say that will convince me that what I experienced wasn't real", or "When you think of premise A and then B, assuming that A is true because you can't 100% rule it out [maybe you can rule it out 99.99999999999999999999%, but...] then C follows and thus I think the possibility that something supernatural is there is logically possible and therefore I challenge anyone to argue that it is not [because, if they do, I'll pull out my 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that it MIGHT be true] and call you an agnostic rather than an atheist and thus you and I are the same, end of discussion."

It doesn't make for good internet conversation.



Sure it does. It makes for good conversation when you aren't looking to just attack and argue with people. That's not discussion, there's no involvement. It's just two apes yelling at each other, but no-one listening.

But the thinker thinks and the prover proves. I just find it so funny people don't understand how their belief systems construct how they interpret the world around them, but don't want to dissect and understand "why". They just accept it, as is - face value. Like the true believers they are.

You want to have something to back up your belief system, so you can hang your hat and say "See, see - we have proof!". But the proof is only as correctly identifiable as what you are looking for. Since you can only attack the construct of organized religion - and nothing more - you don't have much to go any further on. Which is why the discussion ends in circular infinitium.

Validation is every bit as important to you, as it is to any other believer. So you look for no-god and you see no-god.

The difference between an agnostic & an athiest - is agnostics haven't made up their minds. You already have, that's what makes you an athiest. Any other way to bend the definition is a way for you to create a paradox, that proves false - because "the thinker thinks, and the prover proves".

Definitions of the supernatural flimsy? That's because no-one can define it!

Which reminds me, when you are looking FOR something - you aren't seeing everything.

Thanks,

J.A.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Still doesn't really answer the question directly and I'm really at a loss to understand why you can't just say, "Yes, I believe in Osiris", or "No, I don't believe in Zeus." It seems to me --and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue-- that what you are trying to say is that --like the blind men and the elephant-- humanity through the ages has glimpsed "god" and described "god" in a variety of ways (these ways "blinded" by personal and cultural bias). However, due to humanity's limitations regarding something so complex and vast, a full, true picture of "god" has not been drawn. Is that even approaching what you're trying to say?

What I personally believe doesnt really add anything to the discussion. I could go down a list of my beliefs reading like an inventory, but it doesnt really matter what I believe. What matters in a philosophical discussion is what the possibilities are.

That was not an attempt to confuse. Only to add a little perspective by the neurological and sociological elements of God.

[BroncoInferno]

Llama, could you go back and address my questions in post 202 with some specificity? I'm honestly not trying to bait you. As someone who says he used to be an atheist and also claims an interest in philosophy, I'm sure you asked yourself such questions and were able to formulate satisfactory answers. Since I've never heard any explanation that was particularly convincing, I'm interested to hear your views.

[alkemical]

I also don't understand why personal expierences are just thrown out the window either - Everyone's personal expierences shape the world they see.

Author of this post included.

[orangenblue2]

Llama, could you go back and address my questions in post 202 with some specificity?

Or mine in post 199...

[BroncoInferno]

I also don't understand why personal expierences are just thrown out the window either

A car bombers personal experience tells him that God wishes him to kill civilians and himself in order to fulfill divine will. A fundamentalist Christian's personal experience tells them that God considers homosexuality a sin, therefore causing oppression of homosexuals. By your reasoning, we can't discredit these types of personal experiences as invalid? All personal experience and belief is cut of same cloth and beyond reproach, as far as you're concerned?

[Swedish Extrovert]

How so?

First off, my professors at UNF are notoriously conservative, which is funny since I'll be doing graduate school and New Hampshire college where they are notoriously liberal.

I kinda take offense to the idea that you said Atheists don't believe in anything.

Although Atheism is compatible with Nihilism, so is it with Secular Humanism, Skepticism, and Scientific Reason.

I'm not denying that some peolpe need God to be moral, and that Godless people aren't capable of committing horrible atrocities; but God has been used as an excuse and means of great atrocities, and anyone who needs God as a moral compass, or a person to turn to when times are rough is incredibly weak.

[orangeatheist]

Sure it does. It makes for good conversation when you aren't looking to just attack and argue with people. That's not discussion, there's no involvement. It's just two apes yelling at each other, but no-one listening.

True to an extent. I think you make a good point.


But the thinker thinks and the prover proves. I just find it so funny people don't understand how their belief systems construct how they interpret the world around them, but don't want to dissect and understand "why". They just accept it, as is - face value. Like the true believers they are.

Agreed.


You want to have something to back up your belief system, so you can hang your hat and say "See, see - we have proof!".

Or, "We have the best that evidence can buy us beyond a reasonable doubt!"


But the proof is only as correctly identifiable as what you are looking for. Since you can only attack the construct of organized religion - and nothing more - you don't have much to go any further on. Which is why the discussion ends in circular infinitium.

Naw, I don't think so. It's not just about the construct of organized religion. It's the entire notion of "something" beyond this thing and "someone" conscious of the whole process. It's not just the construct, it's the idea.


Validation is every bit as important to you, as it is to any other believer. So you look for no-god and you see no-god.

How can I look for a negative? That's like saying I want to validate my "belief" that there are no faries in my backyard so I go out not-looking for them. Huh?

I, and other "non-believers", are not the positive affirmants in this discussion. We're only waiting on what we qualify as enough positive evidence for someone else's positive assertions. And, in the case of the divine and the supernatural, these are extraordinary positive assertions. Because they extraordinary claims they require extraordinary evidence; not just the philosophical musings of someone who is comforted by the idea. And, again, this goes back to definition. Exactly WHAT is being asserted?


The difference between an agnostic & an athiest - is agnostics haven't made up their minds. You already have, that's what makes you an athiest. Any other way to bend the definition is a way for you to create a paradox, that proves false - because "the thinker thinks, and the prover proves".

The decision is made because of the lack of evidence and the odds of probability for a given assertion. It also depends on definition. I am a strong atheist when it comes to gods like Yahweh, Osiris and Zeus. I am probably more of an agnostic when it comes to some other, esoteric, non-conscious, non-goal-driven, non-personal type "Force" which may permiate the universe and tie all the laws together. It really depends on what we're talking about.


Definitions of the supernatural flimsy? That's because no-one can define it!

Depends on who you're talking to. Some folks have a pretty firm definition of the supernatural. And its with these folks that, IMO, the most interesting and fun discussions (arguments) can be made!


Which reminds me, when you are looking FOR something - you aren't seeing everything.

That's very true. But when you try to accept everything, you begin to lose the ability to know when to make a stand.

[orangeatheist]

What I personally believe doesnt really add anything to the discussion.

Yes, it does. You chastised that some readers here don't understand the term "atheist." And you defined atheism as "a belief that there is no god. That there is no possible God. It is the complete denial of the the existence of god in the present tense, past tense, and future tense." This was in response to OrangeBlue2's statement, "Ah, I was wondering when someone would accuse us of being 'closed-minded'. What you've set up is a text-book strawman. I don't know too many atheists, or people in general for that matter, that deny that 'anything is possible'."

The implication here in your reply is obvious. You were trying to support your prior insinuation that OrangeBlue picked up on: Atheists are closed-minded when it comes to god(s).

So, your belief in Zeus, Oriris, Allah, Odin and the rest becomes very relevant to the discussion. I'd like to see just how atheistic you are regarding these deities. Do you have the belief that there is no Zeus. That there is no possible Zeus. Do you have the complete denial of the existence of Zeus in the present tense, past tense, and future tense? Do you have the belief that there is no Osiris. That there is no possible Osiris. Do you have the complete denial of the existence of Osiris in the present tense, past tense, and future tense?

Do you see the relevancy now?

Because, when I say I'm an atheist, I say there is no Zeus. I say there is no possible Zeus. I completely deny the existence of Zeus in the present tense, past tense, and future tense. I feel that way toward all such gods. That's why I'm an atheist. Now, if you agree that there is no such thing as Zeus --never was, never will be-- then you and I agree. The difference remaining is that I take it one god further than you do. As an atheist, I say there is no Yahweh. I say there is no possible Yahweh. I completely deny the existence of Yahweh in the present tense, past tense, and future tense.

And that's how I define atheism and if Webster disagrees he can kiss my Funk and Wagnals.

Now, what does that mean for the existence of some heretofore undetectable (by modern scientific instruments) binding force that explains magnetism, gravity and nuclear forces and is the "music" behind vibrating strings that some people want to call "god"? It means nothing. Because that isn't how I (or Webster's or Funk) define "god." God --in the popular venacular of atheism-- is a personal, Supreme BEING with conscious awareness, thought and purpose. I'd wager that this is the god of your own belief system. Your god is conscious. Your god is goal-driven. Your god is knowledgable, powerful and good. And it's this sort of god I deny exists.


I could go down a list of my beliefs reading like an inventory, but it doesnt really matter what I believe. What matters in a philosophical discussion is what the possibilities are.

Ok. So discuss the possiblities of ...what? You haven't defined what we're discussing the possibilities for because you keep saying it isn't relevant. How can we discuss the possibility of something if we can't define what that something is? And, if that discussion involves you, you are going to have to come to the table with a definition of what it is you believe in so we can discuss it's possiblity of existence! So, again, what you believe is extremely relevant here. And, on the flip side, what you DON'T believe in is extremely relevant. I'd like to know what you don't believe in and why, and compare this with what you do believe in and why.

So, (for the third --or is it fourth--time) how do you feel about the existence of Odin? Or Osiris? How about Allah? Krishna? Zeus? Do these gods exist? Is there a possibilty that these gods exist? Even the remotest chance? If not, why not?


That was not an attempt to confuse. Only to add a little perspective by the neurological and sociological elements of God.

Great. Thanks for the perspective, but it really didn't answer the question I asked. It may be an interesting perspective to review in the future, but not quite yet.

[alkemical]

A car bombers personal experience tells him that God wishes him to kill civilians and himself in order to fulfill divine will. A fundamentalist Christian's personal experience tells them that God considers homosexuality a sin, therefore causing oppression of homosexuals. By your reasoning, we can't discredit these types of personal experiences as invalid? All personal experience and belief is cut of same cloth and beyond reproach, as far as you're concerned?


They aren't invalid are they? They are very much real to those that expierence them. Why are you picking out the extremes of those type of groups? Why didn't you pick - say - Mother Theresa or Ned Flanders?

Now as far as considering homosexuality a sin, i guess it's aiken to an atheist's opinion on 'religion' - isn't it? ;)


Reality is the original Rorschach.

[BroncoInferno]

They aren't invalid are they?

They most certainly are.

They are very much real to those that expierence them.

Which is precisely why it's important to point out the problems, contradicitons, evils, and ultimately the illusory nature of such experiences. These expereiences cause real world problems for others who do not agree. On what grounds, if any, can you tell these people that their behavior is unacceptable, in your view?

Why are you picking out the extremes of those type of groups?

Because those are the elements I'm concerned with, and unfortunately the numbers of adherents to such dangerous beliefs are not small. As Hitchens said in his debate with the charaltan Wilson in the link posted earlier, I'm perfectly happy to leave folks alone in their belief, provided they are content to leave me alone in my unbelief. Unfortunately, too many refuse to do this. They wish to infiltrate the schools, to tell consenting adults who they can and can't marry, to blow up infidels, etc. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine the beliefs that lead to such things and attack them if warranted.

Why didn't you pick - say - Mother Theresa or Ned Flanders?

I'm not concerned with harmless belief that leaves others be, though Hitchens has argued very well than Mother Theresa has her own issues (see his book The Missionary Position for more).

Now as far as considering homosexuality a sin, i guess it's aiken to an atheist's opinion on 'religion' - isn't it? ;)

Not in any sense. I'm perfectly willing to leave them alone in their belief, though I don't share that belief. My only caveat is that they leave me and others who disagree alone in kind. They certainly do not give the homosexual the same courtesy.

[alkemical]

Quote:
Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis
You want to have something to back up your belief system, so you can hang your hat and say "See, see - we have proof!".

Or, "We have the best that evidence can buy us beyond a reasonable doubt!"


Here's an example on how I sort of look at it:

Big Bang Vs. "God's Will"

Both are the same thing. Both are acceptence on "faith". One may include a probablity of which is 'scientifically more probable'. Or, really the big bang was 'God's Will'. I guess for me (Under dawkins label of the esoterica form of god, which i subscribe to for my reality construct). I don't have a problem with science figuring out the 'five W's' of it all - but i feel it can be looked at in different lenses.




Naw, I don't think so. It's not just about the construct of organized religion. It's the entire notion of "something" beyond this thing and "someone" conscious of the whole process. It's not just the construct, it's the idea.


That's what i'm hoping for science to help figure out. That's why i'm so interested in quantum mechanics, radionics, etc.


How can I look for a negative? That's like saying I want to validate my "belief" that there are no faries in my backyard so I go out not-looking for them. Huh?




I, and other "non-believers", are not the positive affirmants in this discussion. We're only waiting on what we qualify as enough positive evidence for someone else's positive assertions. And, in the case of the divine and the supernatural, these are extraordinary positive assertions. Because they extraordinary claims they require extraordinary evidence; not just the philosophical musings of someone who is comforted by the idea. And, again, this goes back to definition. Exactly WHAT is being asserted?



If you want to find something, you have to look for it, correct? You are always looking to "disprove", correct? So if you are looking for proof that something does not exist, you will find it does not exist. Why not try to find it does exist and see what happens. See if you can prove your own reality-thesis wrong. Is there really any proof that would really make you change your mind?




The decision is made because of the lack of evidence and the odds of probability for a given assertion. It also depends on definition. I am a strong atheist when it comes to gods like Yahweh, Osiris and Zeus. I am probably more of an agnostic when it comes to some other, esoteric, non-conscious, non-goal-driven, non-personal type "Force" which may permiate the universe and tie all the laws together. It really depends on what we're talking about.


I think those Gods of Old were very much, very real. Not in terms of an actual physical being, they represented much much more than that. (From my studying and perspective) They explained the laws of the universe that tied it all together. Think of each god as a 'computer program'. (Osiris - sun rise/sets - etc)



Depends on who you're talking to. Some folks have a pretty firm definition of the supernatural. And its with these folks that, IMO, the most interesting and fun discussions (arguments) can be made!



Only if you are looking for combat.



That's very true. But when you try to accept everything, you begin to lose the ability to know when to make a stand.

Not for me.

[alkemical]

They most certainly are.



Which is precisely why it's important to point out the problems, contradicitons, evils, and ultimately the illusory nature of such experiences. These expereiences cause real world problems for others who do not agree. On what grounds, if any, can you tell these people that their behavior is unacceptable, in your view?



Because if it's not "religion" - it's something else. People riot and kill over soccor teams, political ideals, etc. Just because you remove one "passion" does not mean the problem goes away. You just redirect it.



Because those are the elements I'm concerned with, and unfortunately the numbers of adherents to such dangerous beliefs are not small. As Hitchens said in his debate with the charaltan Wilson in the link posted earlier, I'm perfectly happy to leave folks alone in their belief, provided they are content to leave me alone in my unbelief. Unfortunately, too many refuse to do this. They wish to infiltrate the schools, to tell consenting adults who they can and can't marry, to blow up infidels, etc. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine the beliefs that lead to such things and attack them if warranted.


"everybody wants to rule the world"..... Again my thought above - remove one, replace with the other.


I'm not concerned with harmless belief that leaves others be, though Hitchens has argued very well than Mother Theresa has her own issues (see his book The Missionary Position for more).


I've heard the stories on Theresa's money laundering - but i was just using an example.


Not in any sense. I'm perfectly willing to leave them alone in their belief, though I don't share that belief. My only caveat is that they leave me and others who disagree alone in kind. They certainly do not give the homosexual the same courtesy.

Well, do some homosexuals give us the same courtesy? ;) (I'm talking the fundamentalist gays ;) )

[alkemical]

I'm not denying that some peolpe need God to be moral, and that Godless people aren't capable of committing horrible atrocities; but God has been used as an excuse and means of great atrocities, and anyone who needs God as a moral compass, or a person to turn to when times are rough is incredibly weak.

Don't blame god for man's shortcomings. I know that sounds so fundamentlist - but seriously - Fred Phelps is only using god to cash in on. Pat Robertson used god to cash in on -

IMO - the devil goes to church.

[orangenblue2]

Not for me.

Herein lies the rub, Clav. I think what O-Atheist is saying about you and your beliefs are pretty close to what I think about you and your beliefs. I sincerely think you have a very lively mind. It is obvious that you have thought deeply about religion/gods, etc.. The point is that I doubt we could find even 1/10th of 1% of the world's population that believes the same things that you do. Consequently, I feel it is more important to deal directly with those who have the power, numbers, and a holy book or two.:peace: Your expansiveness and all-inclusive nature tends to short circuit any meaningful discussion (at least for me). When I ask for answers from "believers", I'm usually more interested in those who believe in and practice some sort of "organized", usually abrahamic (but not always), monotheistic religion. The reason I'm more interested in these is because that is what we "atheists" are normally confronted with. Your thoughts and ideas aren't uninteresting, they are just so "out there" as to be almost "undefinable". There is nothing wrong with that, but we have to have a common language to start. "God could be DNA", as I've read from your posts, doesn't mean anything to me. If nothing else, most of your posts in this area are a must read...I have to get going, I've got a tee time calling my name...

[BroncoInferno]

Because if it's not "religion" - it's something else. People riot and kill over soccor teams, political ideals, etc. Just because you remove one "passion" does not mean the problem goes away. You just redirect it.

I have yet to hear of a suicide bombing or riot acted out in the name of reason, free inquiry, and humanism. I doubt I ever will.

Well, do some homosexuals give us the same courtesy? ;) (I'm talking the fundamentalist gays ;) )

If you are referring to PDA, I dislike that whatever the sexual orientation. If you mean gays marching loudly for civil rights, no, I don't see why they should sit back and accept oppressive bigotry.

[alkemical]

Herein lies the rub, Clav. I think what O-Atheist is saying about you and your beliefs are pretty close to what I think about you and your beliefs. I sincerely think you have a very lively mind. It is obvious that you have thought deeply about religion/gods, etc.. The point is that I doubt we could find even 1/10th of 1% of the world's population that believes the same things that you do. Consequently, I feel it is more important to deal directly with those who have the power, numbers, and a holy book or two.:peace: Your expansiveness and all-inclusive nature tends to short circuit any meaningful discussion (at least for me). When I ask for answers from "believers", I'm usually more interested in those who believe in and practice some sort of "organized", usually abrahamic (but not always), monotheistic religion. The reason I'm more interested in these is because that is what we "atheists" are normally confronted with. Your thoughts and ideas aren't uninteresting, they are just so "out there" as to be almost "undefinable". There is nothing wrong with that, but we have to have a common language to start. "God could be DNA", as I've read from your posts, doesn't mean anything to me. If nothing else, most of your posts in this area are a must read...I have to get going, I've got a tee time calling my name...


Fair enough.

The God/DNA thing to me is important - it would explain alot of why things operate on such a simple archetype, but made of may complex subsytems. It could explain why people are wired to be 'believers', homosexuals, artists, engineers, etc.

An ant through it's compulsion does what needs to do, in the larger scope of the ecosystem, nature - et, al. As does maybe a serial killer (through complusion - i'm not dealing with morales, just pure darwinism).

I think it has enough merit scientifically - that it poses an interesting presentable situation as to humankind, evolution and civilizations. It may not be "God" in your abraham traditions - but something so complex in function, so simple in design - for lack of better terms - IMO - is divine.

[alkemical]

I have yet to hear of a suicide bombing or riot acted out in the name of reason, free inquiry, and humanism. I doubt I ever will.


The third reich was founded on several principles of Pan-Germanism, Anti-semitism, and Social Darwinism. (Authors note: I am not equating atheism to nazism). A man was worshiped as a god to many of his followers. One of the agendas pushed was the social darwinism that lead to the termination of millions of people. These principles were exploited for powre. What i'm showing here is that - any "ism" can be construed and used to gain power and monopoly over a population.



If you are referring to PDA, I dislike that whatever the sexual orientation. If you mean gays marching loudly for civil rights, no, I don't see why they should sit back and accept oppressive bigotry.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070610-111445-6957r.htm

Suit to decide workplace 'hate speech'

The words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" can be punished as "hate speech" in government workplaces, according to a lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[mosca]

Hmmm...an opportunity presented itself for you to add some value to what you deem a valueless thread when you pressed "Reply" and this is what you offer? Why didn't you use that time to actually contribute something of value to the discussion, taking it in a direction you'd rather see it go (at least give it a shot), rather than merely post your opinion on a thread that holds no interest for you in the first place?
Nice job at putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that the thread was "valueless", nor that it held no interest for me. I was commenting on the direction the thread had taken.

In regards to your question, I attempted to do just that earlier in the thread.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Don't blame god for man's shortcomings. I know that sounds so fundamentlist - but seriously - Fred Phelps is only using god to cash in on. Pat Robertson used god to cash in on -

IMO - the devil goes to church.

Yeah, but if God exists, than it's kinda silly to kill in his name, right?

I think EVERYONE uses God - whether he exists or not. Be it as a crutch for being weak, to justify prejudice, or by creating idols in the Church to assume that we may ever possibly know the true nature of a being so supreme that he could have created life.

I think very few people are genuinely spiritual.

[orangeatheist]

Here's an example on how I sort of look at it:

Big Bang Vs. "God's Will"

Both are the same thing. Both are acceptence on "faith". One may include a probablity of which is 'scientifically more probable'. Or, really the big bang was 'God's Will'. I guess for me (Under dawkins label of the esoterica form of god, which i subscribe to for my reality construct). I don't have a problem with science figuring out the 'five W's' of it all - but i feel it can be looked at in different lenses.

Well, of course it can be looked at any way you wish. I can look at a flower and ponder how the petals evolved to be shaped a certain way, why it reflects a certain spectrum of light, why it may be giving off an odor, etc. and keep everything in a scientific context. Someone else could come along and just comment that every conclusion I come to in my musings is a discovery of God's amazing creative process. How can I say this isn't so? The only thing is the Principle of Parsimony. I don't see the need for inserting god in these sorts of things. Big Bang vs God's Will, if you just want to play semantics, is the same thing except that the Big Bang ("how God did it") just doesn't require a god and I see no reason to insert one. Why insert a lens if it serves no explanatory purpose?

You sound a lot like me right before I tipped over into atheism. I started out as most people do, believing God and Jesus to be as real as George Washington and John F. Kennedy. My beliefs then morphed to include Jesus as an ascended Master, the champion of escaping the wheel of rebirth. Then, I incorporated Jung's idea of the Universal Unconscious until I finally equated God with something like "microwaves" in the 17th century. God was just another natural, synthesizing Force that bound all things together, started the Universe, kept the life-force in the body and was the sum total (and more!) of all human consciousness. I explained God as being to us as microwaves were to a citizen of the 17th century. Microwaves are real. Always have been. But in the 17th century no one could detect them. If I were to show a person of that era a microwave oven, how it could heat something without flame, they would be amazed. If I explained the process as using microwaves, they might ask me to prove it to them. And, in their era, I would have been unable to. So, I surmised, God is like that today. Maybe some day in the future we'll be able to detect God and show how God works. But we just don't have the tools yet. But that doesn't make God unreal. Just as the inability to detect microwaves in the 17th century didn't make microwaves unreal.

It wasn't much longer until I abandoned the whole idea.


That's what i'm hoping for science to help figure out. That's why i'm so interested in quantum mechanics, radionics, etc.

So, as I had hoped before, are you hoping science will eventually find "god" with these new tools? "Locate those microwaves?"


If you want to find something, you have to look for it, correct? You are always looking to "disprove", correct?

No. I'm not looking to disprove. The "proof" is brought before me and then I evaluate it. In every instance it has been lacking. I'm not looking for disproof. I wouldn't even know what "disproof" would look like. The only thing I find is the lack of evidence. I'm not looking for it; the lack of evidence just presents itself every time someone tells me it's "proof" of god instead.


So if you are looking for proof that something does not exist, you will find it does not exist. Why not try to find it does exist and see what happens. See if you can prove your own reality-thesis wrong. Is there really any proof that would really make you change your mind?

Certainly there is theoretically proof that would change my mind. But that proof would have to be extraordinary and I haven't seen it yet. And don't think for a minute that my standards of evidence has always been this high. They weren't. In time past I saw God everywhere and in every thing. It's just that when I decided to see if what I thought was really God or just what I thought was God, it always turned out that when I drew back the curtain God was never there, but I was--turning the cranks and pulling the levers.


I think those Gods of Old were very much, very real. Not in terms of an actual physical being,

Ok, you see this is what I'm talking about. You can't use words and terms that have certain meanings and then change them when the mood strikes you. I'm going to tell you something and then assume what your reaction would be. Here it goes: I was walking out of my house yesterday and it was raining. It was real rain. Very much, very real rain.

What do you think I mean by that? Do you think when I say the rain was real --very much, very real-- that I mean it was raining in the sense of an atmospheric event that, if you had been with me you would have experienced, too? And that, regardless of culture or upbringing, that others standing with me would have experienced, too?

Or do you think I mean it rained in a metaphoric sense when I use such descriptions? What does "very much, very real" mean if it doesn't mean "very much, very real"?


they represented much much more than that. (From my studying and perspective) They explained the laws of the universe that tied it all together. Think of each god as a 'computer program'. (Osiris - sun rise/sets - etc)

Ok, but then I'd say those gods weren't real at all. They were mental constructs used to explain phenomena to an unscientific (in the modern sense) mind. They were no more real than saying the sun rises and sets. Regardless of how you spin it (no pun intended) the sun DOES NOT rise or set in any real sense. It's an illusion. It's a way to describe something that is not objectively true.

Go to this page and look at the blinking green dot.

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/index.html

Do the yellow dots "really" go away? Or is this an illusion? What is real? That the dots disappear --as our perception tells us? Or that that they remain, regardless of what we believe?


Only if you are looking for combat.

Which is sometimes a wonderful outlet for work-related stress!

[orangeatheist]

Nice job at putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that the thread was "valueless", nor that it held no interest for me. I was commenting on the direction the thread had taken.

Then you have my apologies. Still not quite sure what "direction" that is and why you felt you needed to comment on it.


In regards to your question, I attempted to do just that earlier in the thread.

Can you point me to the relevant post. I am genuinely interested in what you had to say. Especially since you don't like the direction the thread is currently taking.

[orangeatheist]

I sincerely think you have a very lively mind. It is obvious that you have thought deeply about religion/gods, etc.. The point is that I doubt we could find even 1/10th of 1% of the world's population that believes the same things that you do.

Your thoughts and ideas aren't uninteresting, they are just so "out there" as to be almost "undefinable". There is nothing wrong with that, but we have to have a common language to start. "God could be DNA", as I've read from your posts, doesn't mean anything to me.

Could not agree more. Clav is awesome and I see a lot of my (old) self reflected in his musings. I really do. And I don't mean to imply that I have "graduated" from that type of thinking to a more "correct" or "mature" way of thinking. It's just a differnet perspective.

And I agree with Orangeblue...it's finding a common ground of language and belief. Clav just has his own and it really isn't the sort of belief that lends itself to good debate. It is INTERESTING to be sure. It is valuable, to be sure. It is worth discussing, to be sure. I guess just not in the present context (?).

[alkemical]

Yeah, but if God exists, than it's kinda silly to kill in his name, right?

I think EVERYONE uses God - whether he exists or not. Be it as a crutch for being weak, to justify prejudice, or by creating idols in the Church to assume that we may ever possibly know the true nature of a being so supreme that he could have created life.

I think very few people are genuinely spiritual.

Who isn't weak though Mighty. We are all human. None of us have evolved really.

[BroncoInferno]

The third reich was founded on several principles of Pan-Germanism, Anti-semitism, and Social Darwinism. (Authors note: I am not equating atheism to nazism). A man was worshiped as a god to many of his followers. One of the agendas pushed was the social darwinism that lead to the termination of millions of people. These principles were exploited for powre. What i'm showing here is that - any "ism" can be construed and used to gain power and monopoly over a population.

Atheism only means one thing: lack of belief in a diety. Theoretically, any complimentary philosophical system can be attached, from nihilism to Social Darwinism to humanism. Atheists like Dawkins and Harris (and myself for that matter) propose humanism lead by reason and free inquiry. Social Darwinism is unrelated (it isn't even related to Darwin's theory of evolution for that matter). Again, you won't hear of any mass murders committed in the name of humanism lead by reason and free inquiry.

[alkemical]

Well, of course it can be looked at any way you wish. I can look at a flower and ponder how the petals evolved to be shaped a certain way, why it reflects a certain spectrum of light, why it may be giving off an odor, etc. and keep everything in a scientific context. Someone else could come along and just comment that every conclusion I come to in my musings is a discovery of God's amazing creative process. How can I say this isn't so? The only thing is the Principle of Parsimony. I don't see the need for inserting god in these sorts of things. Big Bang vs God's Will, if you just want to play semantics, is the same thing except that the Big Bang ("how God did it") just doesn't require a god and I see no reason to insert one. Why insert a lens if it serves no explanatory purpose?


You would look through different lenses if you were trying to find an answer to prove/disprove a hypothesis.



You sound a lot like me right before I tipped over into atheism. I started out as most people do, believing God and Jesus to be as real as George Washington and John F. Kennedy. My beliefs then morphed to include Jesus as an ascended Master, the champion of escaping the wheel of rebirth. Then, I incorporated Jung's idea of the Universal Unconscious until I finally equated God with something like "microwaves" in the 17th century. God was just another natural, synthesizing Force that bound all things together, started the Universe, kept the life-force in the body and was the sum total (and more!) of all human consciousness. I explained God as being to us as microwaves were to a citizen of the 17th century. Microwaves are real. Always have been. But in the 17th century no one could detect them. If I were to show a person of that era a microwave oven, how it could heat something without flame, they would be amazed. If I explained the process as using microwaves, they might ask me to prove it to them. And, in their era, I would have been unable to. So, I surmised, God is like that today. Maybe some day in the future we'll be able to detect God and show how God works. But we just don't have the tools yet. But that doesn't make God unreal. Just as the inability to detect microwaves in the 17th century didn't make microwaves unreal.

It wasn't much longer until I abandoned the whole idea.



That's fine for you. But i've dealt with some things that make it impossible for me to deny the 'aetheral'. By studying jung, you should also relaize that you construct syncronicities based upon your beliefs/perceptions as well. Which is why after doing a medition and talking to what A. Crowley called "Guardian Angel" - it further divides my percpetion of what is.



So, as I had hoped before, are you hoping science will eventually find "god" with these new tools? "Locate those microwaves?"


Why not?


No. I'm not looking to disprove. The "proof" is brought before me and then I evaluate it. In every instance it has been lacking. I'm not looking for disproof. I wouldn't even know what "disproof" would look like. The only thing I find is the lack of evidence. I'm not looking for it; the lack of evidence just presents itself every time someone tells me it's "proof" of god instead.



Certainly there is theoretically proof that would change my mind. But that proof would have to be extraordinary and I haven't seen it yet. And don't think for a minute that my standards of evidence has always been this high. They weren't. In time past I saw God everywhere and in every thing. It's just that when I decided to see if what I thought was really God or just what I thought was God, it always turned out that when I drew back the curtain God was never there, but I was--turning the cranks and pulling the levers.


Like finding out santa wasn't real, eh?


Ok, you see this is what I'm talking about. You can't use words and terms that have certain meanings and then change them when the mood strikes you. I'm going to tell you something and then assume what your reaction would be. Here it goes: I was walking out of my house yesterday and it was raining. It was real rain. Very much, very real rain.

What do you think I mean by that? Do you think when I say the rain was real --very much, very real-- that I mean it was raining in the sense of an atmospheric event that, if you had been with me you would have experienced, too? And that, regardless of culture or upbringing, that others standing with me would have experienced, too?


Which is why i don't discount the teachings in religous books. Each culture has it's own reality grid. One man's god is another's heresy.


Or do you think I mean it rained in a metaphoric sense when I use such descriptions? What does "very much, very real" mean if it doesn't mean "very much, very real"?


See above.


Ok, but then I'd say those gods weren't real at all. They were mental constructs used to explain phenomena to an unscientific (in the modern sense) mind. They were no more real than saying the sun rises and sets. Regardless of how you spin it (no pun intended) the sun DOES NOT rise or set in any real sense. It's an illusion. It's a way to describe something that is not objectively true.

Some people saw this

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_face_on_mars/icon.gif

and concluded it was a carving of a face. Is it? Is it a real carving of a face because people perceive it that way? Is it perception and explanatory power that gives something its reality?


Does god contemplate you as much as you it?


Which is sometimes a wonderful outlet for work-related stress!

just be honest about it

[mosca]

Then you have my apologies. Still not quite sure what "direction" that is and why you felt you needed to comment on it.
The "direction" I was referring to had to do with the argumentative nature of the thread. I was more or less agreeing with clav's calling it a "scratching post".

Can you point me to the relevant post. I am genuinely interested in what you had to say. Especially since you don't like the direction the thread is currently taking.
Post #105 (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1612371&postcount=105).
My recent opinion of the thread's direction might have changed a bit, honestly. In the time since I made that remark, there's been quite a few good posts. I have genuinely enjoyed reading the views that many of you guys have put forth.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Who isn't weak though Mighty. We are all human. None of us have evolved really.

We're all human. Atheists are just generally smarter than Christians.

[Hotrod]

<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td></td><td>You scored as <b>Theist</b>, Why did you take a quiz specifically for atheists? Are you illiterate as well as deluded? Go sing at a brick wall or give your money to a corrupt pedophile or something. <br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Theist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>100%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Agnostic</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='42' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>42%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathetic Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Spiritual Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Scientific Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='17' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>17%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Militant Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='8' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>8%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Angry Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='0' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>0%</font></td></tr> </td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/run.php/Quiz?quiz_id=34703'>What kind of atheist are you?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>


LOL I guess I failed

[TheDave]

You scored as <b>Theist</b>, Why did you take a quiz specifically for atheists? Are you illiterate as well as deluded? Go sing at a brick wall or give your money to a corrupt pedophile or something.

Ok now that's funny

[TheDave]

Not a big shock... then again i think of myself more as an apathetic agnostic... but whats a lable...


<table border='0' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' width='600'><tr><td></td><td>You scored as <b>Scientific Atheist</b>, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future. <br><br><table border='0' width='300' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'><tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Scientific Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>100%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Apathetic Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='75' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>75%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Agnostic</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='58' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>58%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Militant Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='50' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>50%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Spiritual Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='42' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>42%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Angry Atheist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='33' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>33%</font></td></tr> <tr><td><p><font face='Arial' size='1'>Theist</font></p></td><td><table border='1' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='25' bgcolor='#dddddd'><tr><td></td></tr></table></td><td><font face='Arial' size='1'>25%</font></td></tr> </td></tr></table><br><a href='http://quizfarm.com/run.php/Quiz?quiz_id=34703'>What kind of atheist are you?</a><br><font face='Arial' size='1'>created with <a href='http://quizfarm.com'>QuizFarm.com</a></font></table>