Jump to content


Click to shop at Zamnesia
Photo
- - - - -

Knowing There's No God Vs. Believing There's No God




  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#71 unfocusedanakin

unfocusedanakin

    The Archaic Revival

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,792 posts
  • LocationYarmouth Road

Posted May 23 2017 - 04:11 PM

Then you know what egotism and haughtiness is. Just remember no matter how smart you think you are, Gods thoughts are higher than yours. Your his creation. What product is better and smarter than its creator?

 

You are not giving yourself enough credit saying God's thoughts are higher then yours. But I have noticed this a fundamental element of Christianity. You are broken and born with sin. Cursed because your ancestors did something wrong (eating an apple). Because of this your god is so angered that every person after must prove himself by worshiping his son.  It's an inferior existence. Simply put you just don't have self esteem about yourself. There are supposed to be limits on you as a human. You dare not go into certain areas but it's OK god will handle it he knows better anyway.  The idea that you are equal to god is evil because first god will punish you and second this is also what Satan did.

 

Because you are from god you are god. A lot of Christians interpret that statement in a Satanic way but that's not the case at all. It's all a manipulation that began with the Catholic Church in the centuries following the death of Jesus. True a man by that name probably did exist who was of influence but his original teachings were perverted by the church. A lot of evidence points to it being a more Buddhist style teaching. The idea that you as man could through discipline reach higher levels of consciousness. A "heaven" or Nirvana if you will. But ultimately the power to do that is within you only and can never be given by something else. Even Buddha himself said he was not a god, he is a man. So we should not worship him but instead question his words and ask if they still make sense. Because we too are men and therefore just as capable of deciding that. We too have the capability to achieve what he did. This means for example we can listen to new scientific evidence and not be limited by what Buddha or Jesus who lived thousands of years of before this knowledge could have known thought. The forbidden fruit of Christianity is knowledge but you don't have to think of that in a evil way. God does not dislike man learning and adapting.

 

The problem with Atheism Vs. Christianity is neither one is willing to admit the other one is a right in a way.

 

It's likely Jesus never said many of the things now taken as fact in Christianity.  For example the entire resurrection aspect of his story did not exist until the Middle Ages. Until then he just died. There are several stories written by various people that for some reason, are not in the bible. Entire years of this man's life do no exist in the offical Bible but they do in other texts. At some point someone who was himself a mortal man decided what to include. The Catholic Church has a long history of seeking political control especially in the Middle Ages and people had many prejudices and unscientific information in that time period. 

 

Isn't it possible you are reading what someone wanted "god" to be when skewed by their own biases of the day?This is why it's interesting to me that Christians take the Bible as fact.

 

The church told you need them so that you give them money and power. They speak on behalf of god whom is a force you can speak with on your own. They tell you it will be angry if you don't go to this certain place on a certain day every week yet this thing is everywhere and always watching according to your own logic. The concept of Hell also did not exist in the Middle Ages. Christians predating that still believed in a higher existence after death but the concept of being punished was not the same. It's all lies by man. "Hell" is simply the lack of that higher existence after death. It's possible to do it but you have to really want it or be truly evil. God is really very forgiving and understanding if you want to have true growth and education from your life experiences. It's not going to be mad you don't spend all your time worrying about it and worshiping it. It's simply there and being a good person is enough.

 

So the moral Atheist as many will claim to be will one day see they were wrong in a way but also right. Because god is not the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish idea of god. A lot of them can exist in that higher place if they wish to after death even with their life spent saying there is nothing.



#72 neonspectraltoast

neonspectraltoast

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,662 posts

Posted May 23 2017 - 05:00 PM

If you've ever questioned beliefs that
you hold you're not alone
But you oughtta realize that every myth
is a metaphor in the case of Christianity
and Judaism there exist the belief that
spiritual matters are enslaved to history
The Buddhists believe that the functional aspects
override the myth
while other religions use the literal
core to build foundations with See
half the world sees the myth as fact 
while it's seen as a lie by the other
half and the simple truth is that it's
none of that and somehow no matter
what the world keeps turning Somehow we
get by without ever learning
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive
In fact for better
understanding we take the facts of science and
apply them And if both
factors keep evolving then we continue
getting information but closing off
possibilities makes it hard to see the bigger
picture Consider the case of
the women whose faith helped her make it through
when she was raped and cut
up left for dead in a trunk her beliefs held true
It doesn't matter if it's
real or not cause some things are better left
without a doubt and if it
works then it gets the job done
Somehow, no matter what, the world keeps turning

 

- Science of Myth Screeching Weasel  Pretty much sums up how I feel.

 



#73 guerillabedlam

guerillabedlam

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 21,145 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted May 23 2017 - 08:01 PM

If you can't prove it, why should it bother anybody that people choose to believe in it?

 

 So long as our religious ideas are not contrary to reason and science, or harmful to others, what's the problem? 

 

The supernatural is an integral part of the vast majority of religions and the supernatural is a concept inherently contrary to reason and science. I'm sure someone with the philosophical acumen on idealism could make a compelling argument as to why someone's experience who thinks they saw Bigfoot is just as "real" as anyone else's experiences. In a vacuum, I wouldn't have any issues with this but when it comes to influencing public laws and such, as the evidence accumulates as to what is objective mounts against the Bigfoot observer's notions, I don't think the ideas should be held on the same level.

 

Unlike the Bigfoot seekers, Alien Abductees and such, religions do tend to have more of a say in influencing public legislation and what not.

 

 

 


In cosmology, as I understand it, the prevailing theory of the origin of the universe is the Big Bang, "universe from nothing" based on a supposed quantum vacuum fluctuation causing a small virtual particle to randomly "pop" into existence and immediately expand to provide our universe . And the prevailing theory accounting for the integrated complexity of the universe is the wave function of the universe and M-theory. These theories have in common the fact that they exist only on blackboards, and there seems to be not only a lack of empirical evidence for them but a lack of any prospect of falsifying them

 

There are some aspects of what you say, in which I agree, it does seem rather grim in terms of getting any kind of definitive theory of everything validated, however I note a distinction between these theories and the supernatural and that is that these theories are being preceded by many tested theories such as those regarding Relativity and interactions of the Fundamental Forces. The only reason as far I can tell these theories are being proposed is because those others which there is substantial evidence for have been proven with such consistency.


Edited by guerillabedlam, May 23 2017 - 08:03 PM.

3i6eiPI.png?

 


#74 guerillabedlam

guerillabedlam

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 21,145 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted May 24 2017 - 06:35 AM


 

 

 

The problem with Atheism Vs. Christianity is neither one is willing to admit the other one is a right in a way.

 

Isn't it possible you are reading what someone wanted "god" to be when skewed by their own biases of the day?This is why it's interesting to me that Christians take the Bible as fact.

 

The church told you need them so that you give them money and power. They speak on behalf of god whom is a force you can speak with on your own. They tell you it will be angry if you don't go to this certain place on a certain day every week yet this thing is everywhere and always watching according to your own logic. The concept of Hell also did not exist in the Middle Ages. Christians predating that still believed in a higher existence after death but the concept of being punished was not the same. It's all lies by man. "Hell" is simply the lack of that higher existence after death. It's possible to do it but you have to really want it or be truly evil. God is really very forgiving and understanding if you want to have true growth and education from your life experiences. It's not going to be mad you don't spend all your time worrying about it and worshiping it. It's simply there and being a good person is enough.

 

 

 

It's odd you make a post with such conviction coming on the heels of the terrorist attack killing and injuring many young children at the Grande concert. I'm not sure what you'd point to as God's forgiveness and understanding on display for those affected?


3i6eiPI.png?

 


#75 Okiefreak

Okiefreak

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,111 posts

Posted May 24 2017 - 09:25 AM

The supernatural is an integral part of the vast majority of religions and the supernatural is a concept inherently contrary to reason and science. I'm sure someone with the philosophical acumen on idealism could make a compelling argument as to why someone's experience who thinks they saw Bigfoot is just as "real" as anyone else's experiences. In a vacuum, I wouldn't have any issues with this but when it comes to influencing public laws and such, as the evidence accumulates as to what is objective mounts against the Bigfoot observer's notions, I don't think the ideas should be held on the same level.

 

Unlike the Bigfoot seekers, Alien Abductees and such, religions do tend to have more of a say in influencing public legislation and what not.

 

 

 

 

There are some aspects of what you say, in which I agree, it does seem rather grim in terms of getting any kind of definitive theory of everything validated, however I note a distinction between these theories and the supernatural and that is that these theories are being preceded by many tested theories such as those regarding Relativity and interactions of the Fundamental Forces. The only reason as far I can tell these theories are being proposed is because those others which there is substantial evidence for have been proven with such consistency.

I think of 'supernatural" as simply something that seems to operate outside our currently known laws of physics. I suppose that whatever is responsible for the laws of physics could be called "supernatural", if it is not itself governed by those laws. As I understand it, many scientists accept the possibility that if there are other universes the laws governing them are probably completely different from the laws governing ours, in which case I'd think that those laws would best be called not supernatural but "alternatively natural".

 

There are certain beliefs people hold that, while not contrary to reason, intuitively strike me as unlikely--ghosts, Bigfoot, alien abductees, etc. I'd put in the same category with the professor at Oxford, Nick Bostrom, who thinks our reality is  a Matrix-style computer program. A perfectly rational person would have to say that they could be right, just as Trump supporters could be right, Sara Palin could be a genius, etc. And yes, I'd have to admit that my intuition could be faulty, socially conditioned, etc. If those beliefs seem harmless, my tendency is to let them be, and to acknowledge I could be wrong. Some of those, however, like Sara and the Trump supporters, are not, in my opinion, harmless. More to the point, what they believe, while not exactly contrary to reason, is unsupported by substantial evidence. I also generally go by Carl Sagan's maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So when people tell me that somebody was born of a virgin, or that said virgin remained such during several decades of marriage and was taken bodily to heaven, etc,, I tend to disbelieve it  When people start using the Bible as a geology or history textbook, I find it hard not to jump in and say they're wrong, because what they're saying is contrary to science, and I think science is the best we can do in acquiring reliable knowledge. When people say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I find that hard to believe, in light of the many inconsistencies found there. Yet on matters where science is silent and logic fails, which tend to be the most important 'why" questions of existence, I have no problem betting my life (tentatively) on the basis of the available evidence to me, including life experiences, intuition, etc. I don't see science as equipped or even interested in answering these questions. I tend to agree with Viktor Frankl that meaning is an important human need. I notice how many atheists proudly state that atheism is simply an assertion of the non-existence of God, but it offers nothing positive to believe in. I have and atheist friend who, after declaring his atheism on his website, goes on to say: "now that I've told you what I don't believe, here is what I do believe--and goes on to describe humanism. I consider myself a Christian humanist.

 

As for religions having "more of a say in influencing public legislation and what not", it tends to be certain kinds of religions that get mixed up in politics--in the U.S., especially evangelicals and Catholics. I think it's important to hold firm on separation of church and state and to resist efforts of politicians to co-opt the churches, or vice versa. Christianity went majorly off the rails when the bishops climbed into bed with Constantine.


Edited by Okiefreak, May 24 2017 - 09:30 AM.





Click to shop at Herbies Head Shop