Okay ATHEISTS <rolls sleaves>

music to my ears! it's so funny how people worship christ, mohammed, even buddha, and never learn from them about how to actually live life. those men were brilliant prophets who put forth ideas that have sadly been misinterpreted over time....

Edit: some people love religion. some people hate it. i say we need to understand it and take it with a grain of salt.

 

I'm not gonna bother reading the other posts in this thread. I'm just going to take this one.

Ok, well, the big bang came from a jumble of all mass in this football sized super dense thing that exploded. Now, this is what science tells us today. Your books may say different, its stupid arguing which book is true.

And this jumble of mass, I believed, existed infinitely before that. If you call that a god, then fuck me I believe in god. But I ain't gonna pray to it, all it did was explode. And technically its part me anyways. I'm part god.

All you god people do, in my controversial offensive opinion, is take it back another step to make an imaginary friend to put blame on and get purpose and hope from. Thats what I believe.

I don't hate you for what you believe, but I do judge, I can't help it.

 

i feel you and i say the same thing. "God is an imaginary friend for grown ups."

 

I add my Namastes.

 

I think I understand exactly what an axiom is. I was making the point that if you accept it as a foundational proposition of any importance, you have confidence in it and therefore have faith in it. If you don't trust it, what is the point of a "system of belief" or "worldview"? I regard my belief system as essentially grounded on an axiom of sorts. I assume that there is a real world out there with real cliffs and precipices. I acknowledge that I could be wrong, and am aware that people more intelligent and better educated than I am have reached an opposite conclusion. But I instinctively trust my assumption. I don't regard it as simply arbitrary, nor do I think scientists regard theirs as completely arbitrary. By the way, I think Decartes' fascination with geometry got him confused. He stated, in a manner suggestive of formal logic, what is an intuitively obvious realization. Our own conscious existence is the one thing we can't doubt (although I had a behavioralist psych professor who did just that).

Luther defined faith as a "joyful bet", and that's the sense in which I use the term. I believe in SBWOT ("Something Big Within and Out There"). The finely tuned character of our universe, the remarkably fortunate emergence of intelligent, conscious life, seem otherwise too good to be true. It seems plausible to me that there is a divine transcendant order that gives our lives what keenness they have and inspired our idealism. I don't believe in a bearded Sky God who micromanages our lives. At the moment, I'm exploring panentheism (not pantheism) and process theology, and am constantly revising my views of this presence on the basis of my readings in science, metaphysics, and comparative religion. And yes, "Feelings", or intuition, play their part.

 

You cut me to the quick! I detest Pascal's wager, because it suggests we should believe in something we otherwise find implausible out of sheer expediency--i.e., because somebody has told us we'll get a reward for believing what they tell you or punishment for not believing it? Have you ever received a chain letter or email telling you just that, if you don't send it on to six other people? Pascal seems to be saying that you'd better send it on, to avoid losing out on the million dollars you were promised or suffering the curse that your teeth will fall out if you don't. Second, he seems to assume that there's nothing to lose in believing. If Pascal right, why are we wasting our time on this website instead of digging up our backyards in hopes of striking gold? If there's gold there, we could all be rich. If not, what have we lost--other than our time, labor, and the opportunity to be doing a lot of other more satisfying things with our lives! Pascal seems to think that living your life as a theist or a non-theist, same difference--except for what comes afterwards. Third, what kind of self-respecting deity would find this bet-hedging, acceptable? Certainly not the Yaweh of the Bible! Fourth, what if you bet on the wrong deity? Would Baal be understanding if you bet on Yaweh?
I think a case can be made for a diluted form of the wager. I'm an Okie existentialist at heart, which involves chosing beliefs in the face of uncertainty, recognizing the risks of being wrong, and accepting reponsibility for the consequences. In that sense, we're playing a game of "bet your life". I make my bets on the basis of what I think is reasonable or the best available evidence, realizing I could easily be wrong. If that's all we're saying here, I agree, but I think Pascal is saying something more questionable. If we make our bets on the basis of the scariest threats or most enticing promises of rewards, we're fair game for the hellfire and damnation preachers or bin Laden's forty virgins.

 

Try this on for size; the universe does not require creation in order to exist. It simply exists. I mean, if you could prove that "creation" is possible in any sense, be my guest, but no one thing in existence has ever been "created", nor will said thing ever be "destroyed". This goes not only for energy, but for atoms; atoms may only be (re)arranged, which takes energy, so the two eternal forces interact constantly.
The concept of creating a color, cool, but colors do not exist either, they are a product of our consciousness. The "colors" you see are a result of radiation from the sun reflecting certain wavelengths off of an object and to your eyes, which translate the wavelength into a color. No color is really the result of two colors mixing, but rather is the sum of the mixed colors' wavelengths (if the colors are physically mixed, like paints).

This is all true. Funny thing about the Bible; not only is it archaic, but it is also far too recent a creation to imply that it is the "true message of God". I mean, unless God abandoned all those who lived further back than 1,000 B.C., in which case he is not only a jerk, but contradicts his holiness, through creating evil, and contradicts either his intelligence or premonition (or creation of time) through proving himself wrong, and having a change of heart. I don't think any respectable Christian (or Jew) really takes the Bible all too seriously or literally, though; the awesome thing about spirituality is that it is uniquely individual, even for the "Universal Church". I just wish that people could be honest about their beliefs, instead of having to listen to major interpretations of the Bible; the church's enforcement, as a "moral authority" is it's major flaw. They often make it 'sinful' to feel contrary to the common moral principles a bunch of 70-80 year old men determine for them. To try to unite every person under a single belief, telling them how to follow through in everyday problems and tasks, this is what is impossible. It can be helpful, too, I know several people who find great advice on their problems through the church teachings; it's just the commanding. It's hard to find a balance between being autonomous in spirituality and seeking moral advice.

There's probably never going to be an answer to the question of where this funky football originated from, not in our time's at least. The cool thing, though, is that, yeah, we, everything we know and see, and all energy comes from this football. The thing I wonder is whether or not that pertains to consciousness, human thoughts and all ideas, because they sure as hell have the same origin.

Here's a concept, since you said it yourself, "I'm part god". If all human minds had originated from one source, "god", when all human minds combine they become god. This actually works out pretty well; all knowing yet stupidest, is both the most evil and kind-hearted, funniest and dullest entity in being, and is the source of all ideas and concepts.
(welcome to internet 3.0, where minds will truely meet)

I doubt any god (commonly held sense) requires prayer; prayer is a tool for those who gather strength from feeling that there is something they both know and don't know, who/that could guide their lives. I don't like that idea, but it works for some people. Any conventional god would probably guide people more directly than, say, through instructions in a human-written book from 3/2000 years ago. Which I guess he would do through making people feel like they have to pray to him. You can't go any more correctly than following what you feel is right, man, so take to heart whatever comes to it. You're actually already doing so, but that goes for everyone else too.

 

More like the God of Chasms. Science seems to be unable to explain many basic phenomena relevant for understanding the human situation: the origin of the universe, the fine tunedness of the universe,the origin of life, the origin and nature of DNA, consciousness,etc. Prevailing scientific explanations of these seem extremely improbable. Of course scientists are working on them, and who knows, they all may have naturalistic explanations. It's happened before. Should I wait and assume that these explanations will come about someday--maybe in my lifetime? Or do I follow my instincts that tell me this is all too good to be true as a result of "blind" natural processes?Maybe there's more to it than the scientists yet realize.

 

So, you're gonna judge this whole debate on a fraction of a post? LOL

 

I understand the basic science behind our vision. My point is and was...The human mind CANNOT create things without a P.O.R. There has to be something making us, most of us mind you, think there's a hand rocking the cradle.

 

Niklaus and the chick who thinks I said she called me stupid. Big hug again. Sorry, I hurt your feelings. You atheists are SO sensitive. GOD! (GET IT GOD) OH! By the way...The chick who DID call my stupid only posted once. It's the blonde haired girl a few pages back. I think people are reading into stuff I didn't even post about them and enjoying high fives with other people about it. LOL

It's not Zilla. It's ImaginePeace. Sometimes I feel like y'all aren't even reading the posts. LOL

 

So far you've failed to prove POA, Point of Anything. God doesn't need POR because HE DOESN'T EXIST!!!! On the other hand, humans have created something without POR, the FANTASY of GOD!!!

And why you ask, do most people believe in this illusion? Because they have been bred to. We are just now at the dawn of a new era where non believers can speak without being exiled or executed, at least in some parts of the world.

 

I'm not particularly fond of it either, and as a cynic myself, I find it to be a cynical hedge. Out of context, if employed as a rationalization for belief, then it is not a sincere one. Yahweh of the Bible, with the attributes ascribed to Him, would surely be able to see into the heart of the wagerer and understand that his faith is not genuine, and thus bogus.

Blaise Pascal was actually much more sophisticated than that, however, and his wager, such as it is, isn't the starting point. It is actually the result at which he arrived based on his writings and thoughts about uncertainty and the inability of reason alone to resolve the issue of the existence of God. Pascal was agnostic about God during his writings, and he then concluded that we are all forced to make a wager about God's existence, whether we deliberately choose to or not. Given his belief that he was forced into a choice anyway, he reasoned with expected values that the only rational choice was to believe in God. Using his decision matrix and the values he assigned to each possible choice, he was right, but only within those given parameters.

Furthermore, Pascal believed that his wager was the impetus for choosing faith, and for seeking to earnestly believe, but it was not a rationalization for faith. He believed that once he got off the fence of agnosticism and chose faith, that it was his duty to seek the counsel of others who already had faith, and to emulate them in an attempt to foster that genuine faith within himself.

He does get credit for using a decision matrix of sorts to access the relative merits of each of the four possible outcomes using his criteria, which is a precursor to modern game theory using expected values. He also employed the notion of infinite reward in an era when infinity was not a widely used concept.

If you do not believe in an afterlife, then your version of betting your life is much different from Pascal's. His was premised on the possibility of an afterlife as contemporary Christians around him defined it. Your betting your life sounds more like recognizing that with each decision you make that affects your life and the path it will take, you are doing so at an opportunity cost. As you follow a path and as you get further along down it, the opportunity to pursue other paths is lost, and you become more invested in the one you are on.

In my view, this is a form of recognition of our own mortality, and that life decisions have consequences, and that you can't have it all. Those facts often culminate in individuals as a mid-life crisis of sorts, as one ages and gets caught in between the finality of the end of youth and the beginning of a steady decline into one's eventual demise.

There's no doubt that a healthy familiarity with the Bible as a cultural touchstone and artifact is an essential part of a solid foundation in a liberal arts education in modern America, and probably in most other Western nations as well. Cultural and literary references to it abound. Without a familiarity with their Biblical origins, many of those references would go over our heads. I'm not a big fan of ignorance in that regard.

 

I saw what she said. I just didn't want to be confused with someone else. You said run along before your acid gets cold or something to that effect. I'm the one who mentioned LSD. now do you see?

 

by the way, you're a condescending asshole.

 

You're arguing with me about stuff I never even said to you on a debate about God and I should run along? By the way THIS POST IS TO ZILLA.

 

I'm the A Hole? You just came at me for nothing. I defended myself and you pout like a 4 year old. NICE COMEBACK. LOL

 

Hang on mate, what?

how does that prove the existance of god? all youve proved there is that its impossible to create something without reference points (and you havent really proved that at all)

so evolution over millions of years has created us: logical beings who create connections with objects and ideas around us, whose knowledge is entirely derivative of pas experience and information.

SO? what youve done there is prove that it is impossible for a logical being to create an entirely original idea. you cant make something out of nothing like for instance a universe in seven days. but then maybe thats just looking at it from a human perspective thats the way our minds work, this does not prove that there is any supreme logic in the universe.

and speaking of there never being a concept without reference ever heard of mithra?:

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

sound familiar?

 

Hey Autophobe...You know where that would be a post that made sense? On the CHRISTIAN FORUM. Try to stay on topic thanks.