Does God Exist?

The title of this thread cracks me up everytime I sees it. That is all.

 

Using those quotes to prove you're right is what a bible thumper would do with his fav quotes It shows you have a dogmatic conviction that only your thoughts are right. I do not find it becoming for an atheist to be honest.

I did not consciously thought of it before but I see now it should be 'DO gods exist' Or wasn't it the spelling that's cracking you up?

 

I do not disagree with this concept. :2thumbsup:
After all, there is nothing wrong with my comprehension of reality.

Besides, what does it matter whether I directly quote the man or paraphrase in my own words? It would still get the same message across. The difference is that, unlike biblical quotes, the quotes I post are based on non-fiction.

 

If your comprehension of reality leads to conflict with other people and you are accusing other people of fucking things up because of their thoughts on god or religion than you seem just as wrong as they are to the objective person.

 

Does God exist would work nicely too. Its just all wrong lol

 

Ah well, OP was claiming to be a chinese canadian after all.

 

When the shoe fits.

 

And you seem to fit the shoe very well

You simply are on the other side of the fundamentalist coin. You can't accept people with opposite thoughts as you: who still believe in a deity or following a religion and for some reason you equate their belief with that of the most radical ones. This is making you behave as intolerant and come across as radical as the kind of person you are hating on.

 

I can tolerate them, but I also understand that religion is a major detriment to societal progress. Do I want religion to be obliterated so that reason and logic can gain a rational foothold? Certainly. Would I personally sanction any harm to religious people in order to ensure my end goal for society? Not at all, because I am a humanitarian. What I do suggest is a humanistic way, however that can be accomplished quickly I am uncertain, to ensure that religion is recognized as merely the mythology that it is rather than the faith that corrupts otherwise rational minds.

If I was to hold an irrational belief as truth, I would want to know that it was a lie rather than continue to believe the lie as truth merely for the sake of emotional comfort.

 

They already know others regard it as irrational It does not make it a conflict with the truth by default at all. I know for people who don't believe in it it seems a conflict but it isn't necessarily. I do see lots of conflict in you though Not between your truth and your convictions but between your convictions and being able to deal and accept that not everybody who has an opposing conviction is insane or irrational.

 

So god exists but you don't avail yourself of god? You are as devoted as any religious person and your devotion you did not create, although you like to choose where you place affection you can't help but have it.

Is god imagination, you have that. Some say god is love, you have that. As to the claim that everything is what it is, everything is something but nothing in particular so we choose specific names for the particulars so that we might understand everything with more specificity. Every word we speak is a symbol for a specific condition or conditional set. You are a man just as I am a man and to say god exists but not for you is like saying men exist but I am not one of them because I don't use the same name or the same word to describe conditions. The only difference which is not in fact essential that distinguishes you in this group is that you are known as Dejavu. Everyone has a god or a thing they are devoted to and where the treasure map, route to rightness is, authority, there is the heart also.

What is your invocation and how did you come by it?

I remember being newborn and the first time ever I wanted anything is when I saw the light as it's brilliance hurt my eyes but not in a way that wounded me and I wanted to know what it was. I never conceived being born but I am certainly a conception and as such am able to conceive. Giving love and looking for love are not the same. Finding love and looking for love are not the same. Giving and receiving are the same the same not being reciprocal but identical. Creation is a law without opposite or law absent subjective objective dichotomy. A call for joy is the belief you are separate from it or it is somewhere absent. The experience of joy is it's presence. The apparent uneven presence of joy is caused by assigning joy's cause to be outside yourself, a beautiful thing in a world where both beautiful and ugly may appear. The opposite of joyful being is resistance to being as it is obviously our joy to be that we invoke.

 

I think Asmodean has handled this adequately, but I'd just like to elaborate. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Kims of Korea were proclaimed atheists and they killed lots of people. In fact, in terms of body counts, they rank ahead of those of self-proclaimed Christians or Muslims who killed in the name of their religions. So the only question is whether or not they did their killings "in the name of" atheism. They did them in the name of Marxism-Lenninism, otherwise known as dialectical materialism which presupposes atheism. And they persecuted religion ruthlessly. So the line about "in the name of atheism seems like something of a technicality. The important part is the body count.

We're all fallible. Even scientists, even I and yes--even you. What do you mean by "verifiable"--scientific proof? Are you seriously suggesting that we can't believe in anything that hasn't been proven scientifically? Can you prove it? I think that civilization would grind to a halt if we tried such a thing. In the world of everyday living, we build highways, pump for oil and gas, take medications, etc., and all of these involve decisions by bureaucrats using the standard of substantial evidence, less than courtroom proof, but enough to convince reasonable people to go ahead with a course of action (even though other reasonable people might disagree).

Science is the gold standard in human knowledge--rigorously tested, refutable hypotheses subjected to peer review, and always tentative. But for everyday living it has its limitations. Not many scientists are going to touch the metaphysical stuff we argue about with a ten foot pole, because it doesn't lend itself readily to the kinds of methods that science is best at. Social scientists are bolder, but the hard scientists tend to look down their noses at them. And historians, pouring over scraps of parchment or table fragments and making inferences about long dead people? Should we simply throw history out the window and say it didn't happen, or can we relax the standards and accept conclusions on reasonable interpretations of the best available evidence? Science can't be beaten at doing what it is designed to do, protecting us from Type 1 statistical errors (False Positives) But it offers little protection against Type 2 errors--the risk of rejecting things that happen to be true. For those, we have to rely on blunter tools--judgement guided by experience, scholarly writings, reason, and yes, faith, which I understand to be intuitive risk-taking--a joyful bet based on as much evidence and logic as we can muster. Of course, these rougher, readier methods are less reliable--something we should always bear in mind when we start taking ourselves too seriously.

 

The Bible, the Homeric and Norse myths, the Bagavad Gita, ete., were the great sci-fi thrillers of their day, and as you say "more than mere fiction". Really they are timeless in conveying basic truths through metaphor and allegory. But seriously, dude, it's fiction. You make the fundamentalist error of taking sci-fi literally.

 

something that presupposes another thing does not mean that supposition drives that thing. These people/nations killed to keep power and that is all, not in the name of any other philosophy

 

:2thumbsup:

like I said, naive', naive', naive'

 

The same might be said of the people/nations who killed in the name of religion. Without the help of lots of atheist true believers, those Marxist-Leninist monsters never would have come to power.

 

thedope:

lol My devotion to life I do create, just not alone. I don't know how to avail myself of your god. True, I can't help but have affection for you, so let me avail myself of you my fellow humans!

No, everything is not nothing in particular, but something. I can always get it straight for you and I will never demand your worship or devotion. lol Me and my specificity. :-D

No, to say god exists but not for me is only my acknowledgment that I am done with the concept, and not just because it isn't mine. Others aren't yet done with it. If anyone can turn the supposition 'god' to the conception and birth of a living, physical being, I'll be there! My belief has never catered to an omnipresent absence.
:-D

The only difference?! LOL No, the essential difference that distinguishes me as me, is me. The difference has always been the individual. My devotion to life is love. If you want to invoke it as god that's your prerogative.

Read on! :-D

That's incredible. My earliest memories are from when I was around one to two years old.

Yes.

Not necessarily, no. They can be though.

lol What a leap from your previous premises! To who are they identical thedope? Life may be a given, but I feel sure we should host the worlds wedding before holding its reception. :-D

No, it's just law without opposite.

No, though it can be.

No kidding! lol

This is largely true. So what are you going to do for all who don't feel joyous in themselves?

 

Airyfox:

Religion has only ever been the creation of a system for thinking. It's always been based on the presumption that the nervous system is somehow deficient for the 'task'. Being not only utterly unnecessary, but not even desirable for life that wants to think, life that loves its thoughts, it dies a natural death.

That said, let's obliterate it! Not even the religious have time to await its end! lol :-D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIpfkfHoV88"]DJ Biggs - The hunter - YouTube

 

Not to offend, but your remarks here are pretty incomprehensible. If you're really interested in communicating, you might try to be clearer. E.g.,"Religion has only ever been the creation of a system for thinking." What are you trying to say? That religion has always been the product of some belief system? And:"It's always been based on the presumption that the nervous system is somehow deficient for the 'task'." What task?" Creation of a system of thinking", presumably, but what does that mean? The nervous system, or more specifically the brain, seems to be adequate in giving us religion. So what's the point? When you and the Dope get into these discussions, it's like watching an argument between the Delphic Oracle and the Sybil--an endless exchange of cryptic pronouncements that the two of you seem to enjoy but us ordinary folks find difficult to understand. The soundtrack you provided makes it all the more mysterious.

 

Just said it!

The 'task' of thinking. :-D It needn't be one.

lol Oh, it's just a soundtrack. Sorry you didn't 'like' my post Okes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F22mqVUCpU"]Remarc - Drum N' Bass Wise 1994 - YouTube