God does not exist

"History of religion proves this fact"? What history? LOL History is as fallible as any religious document once it passes through the hands of a fallible human being. Go read two history books or two biographies about the same subject and you'll get vastly different stories. Do you think the divinely inspired books of the old and new testament are any more immune to human error, and editorializing than any history book (or science book) you're likely to read today? Do you think all "believers" are unaware of this fact?


"The burden of proof lies upon the shoulders of the believer" Why? Faith is the antithesis of proof, and proof is by definition never required of faith - that IS FAITH DEFINED. A believer of any god, requires NO EVIDENCE. And believe me when I say that there have been celebrated holy men and saints who have and will continue to openly admit that they have continually struggled, lost and regained, lost again, and regained FAITH in their respective deity(s) (including Mother Teresa of Calcutta) and despite their repeated doubts, remained a believer, ultimately.

I know why atheist and agnostics are offended when "believers" try to cram their beliefs down their skeptical throats, but what I cannot for the life of me understand is why in the hell they would turn around and try to do exactly the same thing to someone else? I'll never understand this. If you don't believe in a supreme being or beings, what the hell do you care what the hell the guy next to you believes?

Oh, I know all about the Zeitgeist and Venus Project's take on this . . . Religion is the root of all human suffering. Bullshit. Christianity and Islam would be benign if fuck-head psychopaths going straight back to Constantine weren't continually trying to use it for their own worldly aspirations. Do you think Science, Logic and Reason haven't been used to the same ends? We humans are a greedy, murderous and insatiable cancer on this planet, and until we (if ever) evolve away from being a species of ALL CONSUMING CANCER, no system of belief is going to be immune from our proficiency at turning it into a tool of our own ultimate destruction.

You want my solution? Subject every child with a fully developed personality to Hare's Psychopathy Checklist and if they score above 20, prohibit them from ever holding a position of power over anyone or anything else for the entirety of their lives, including their own offspring. Put that in Peter Joseph's pipe so he can smoke it.

 

thedope:

No, a reality. And you do create your parents in your image. They'd probably spank you for it if they weren't also doing it in their own. :-D Are you creative in your recreation? Nothing transcends spacetime. Let's give that our thought, and live in our highest feeling.

Ok, let's. We are lovelike.

 

Response is always tempered by the organization of the mind.

If you believe the person in front of you to be of suspicious character, then your emotional response is different than if you believe the person in front of you shares the same humanity as yourself. The real nature of ourselves is that we are all in the same condition, or subject to the same conditions or ever potentially subject to the same conditions. To love your brother as yourself removes an unpleasant specter of emotional response from our spectrum of emotional responses.

If you no longer perceive an enemy then you become invulnerable to the plague of fear. You become invulnerable for example, to being offended.

 

Welcome to the discussion.

 

I think there are degrees of fallibility. History is certainly a matter of interpretation, and whenever interpretation comes in, so does subjectivity. And yet today no respected historian would make wild claims without being able to back them up with documentation and plausible arguments. Like any scientific process, claims and theories are constantly being tested and refined by the process of peer review, fact checking and the need to back up claims with evidence. No human knowledge is infallible, but that would certainly include religious claims of authority from sacred documents and revelations. The best we can do is see which explanations best fit the available evidence. For example, scholars from a wide variety of disciplines have reached overwhelming consensus, based on mountains of evidence, that humans had domesticated animals, art, and religion long before 6,000 years ago. Weighing their findings against the conclusions of fundamentalists who use biblical genealogy to date the dawn of humanity, I'd give the edge to the scholars. That's my "faith", just as its my opinion that Sara Palin would make a terrible president, although some disagree. I don't think that all opinions or "faiths" are on the same plane. Some are more reasonable than others. Faith shouldn't be used as a shortcut to rational inquiry. Sure pseudoscience and faulty logic can be used to support bogus claims. The best we can do is insist on the evidence, scrutinize it closely, and subject it to continuous critical analysis. That would get rid of the Zeitgeist nonsense.

 

I create an image of my parents, not my parents.

There are no idle thoughts.

Now does.

How would I know my highest feeling. There is what we become and there is what we may yet become.

 

thedope:

In your image you do.

No, it is spacetime.

:-D Yes, how would you? Would it matter so long as you wanted to?

 

I would have really expected this thread to die a fast, natural, death, but it keeps growing wings and oming back to life to haunt all of us for our personal beliefs.

 

OWB,

The glaring inconsistency within the account of Balaam's ass is that whomever it was that God inspired to tell it did not think through the issue of Balaam's response to the talking ass. He doesn't blink an eye. As soon as the ass is done making his case to Balaam, asking, "Why hast thou smitten me these three times? Have I not carried you around all my life without complaint (truly I paraphrase)," Balaam immediately accepts the ass's challenge and starts in on him.

"Because!" Balaam begins. And then he points out why the beatings were justified.

One thing we know for sure about our friend Balaam, besides the fact that he was no friend to animals (didn't even have a name for him), is that he was not easily surprised. Myself, I would have been looking around the area to make sure that some of my buddies weren't playing a trick on me; keep in mind that there was no tv back then and you had to make your own fun. But I haven't researched the history of ventriloquism. It may not even have existed back then. So, I could be dead wrong about that. Or maybe the account is accurate, and the author was recording Balaam's response without mentioning the fact that Balaam was onto the joke his buddies were playing on him, and he was simply playing along.

The story leaves one with the idea that if a UFO would had landed in Balaam's backyard, he would have went out there and he would have scolded the aliens for leaving a big, round burn mark right in the middle of his yard. But again, having not researched things much, Balaam might not even have had a yard. So, I could very well be wrong about that, too.

 

Is the imaginary real? My image of you is not the same as, you.

It is always now, everywhere. It takes no time to get here. To transcend means go beyond the perception of.

It would matter if it were possible. Wanting gives the experience of wanting. Giving gives the experience of having. The highest is a boundary. I would rather be free to explore and be thrilled to recognize anything.

 

This is so true. It is the job of the historian to read and interpret not only what was occurring at the time in the past but also the mind of the writer as well. Historians are underrated.

 

It is your expectation within this statement that haunts you for your beliefs. You aren't genuinely haunted, but you are in the throws of disillusionment as your belief is shown to be inaccurate of what is genuinely constituted.

 

Only by people who are not really into history. Yes that seems to be quite a lot though

edit: wtf, I was quoting Maelstrom!

 

History is overrated. Nothing happens in the past. Your story makes an account of everything and your story as well as history is always told in the present.

 

That is what is stated by those who never learn from the past. After all, those who do not learn from it are absolutely doomed to repeat it. And the repetition is more important than the fact that I alluded to a cliche.

 

It is not about nothing happens there, it is that it has happend and is gone now wether it influenced something after it or not. Only being intrigued by what happened makes history a worthy subject of study but often it serves more purpose I think. Definately not overrated by our society. Although we could leap this back to the original topic I;m sure, perhaps we take it a bit too far off topic if it just concerns history?

 

I agree, Asmodean, and it is my fault. We should reroute the topic of the thread to the fact that no one has yet provided me with proof of God's existence.

 

It has been pointed out several times no believer in God's existence can and should provide you with that, though it is still a good topic to exchange opinions about.

 

Opinions are like....forget it, no use in stating another cliche. Facts. I am not interested in maybes or ifs, but certainties. There is no certainty that God exists.

 

I think no one denies that if you don't have faith you can not experience it as a certainty indeed. And it is also a rather valid opinion that faith doesn't provide certainty for everyone. But does that mean you should ask or even demand this certainty from people who do happen to have that faith over and over again? Do you think there will someone come up at last and says here is the concrete proof? If not, what is the purpose of asking for the certainty of something you don't have faith in even when the people who do have faith admit there is no concrete proof to show? You can proclaim my post as jibberish nonsense again but I am asking sincerely.