I was wondering if anyone in this forum considers God to be an impossibility? I understand atheist do not believe God exists, but do you believe God never existed and never will exist?
Microphone to you...
I like to see proof before making judgment.
At the moment I would consider the chances of meeting the Christian god on par with the chances of meeting Peter Pan's Tinker Bell.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 07:37:57 AM
I was wondering if anyone in this forum considers God to be an impossibility? I understand atheist do not believe God exists, but do you believe God never existed and never will exist?
How in the world could I or anyone possibly know a thing like that?
One can't prove a negative, so anything you can think of; e.g. the Flying spaghetti Monster, unicorns, faeries etc. could exist on the logical basis that you can't disprove it. So from this point of view and concept of god(s) could exist. So god is not logically impossible.
But is the existence of a god(s) probably? That's the real question. And then what is the probability that any one of the 10,000+ gods then humans have literary dreamt up are actually the right god. Then you have to determine if the god you have placed your bet on is a theistic interventionist god or a deistic non-interventionist god. And then of course it would be completely irrational to believe in a theistic interventionist god without solid objective evidence of that gods interventionalist nature.
So god isn't impossible but is so unlikely that one can happily live one's life confident there will be no surprises when one dies ;D
Quote from: Stevil on December 15, 2011, 08:29:20 AM
I like to see proof before making judgment.
At the moment I would consider the chances of meeting the Christian god on par with the chances of meeting Peter Pan's Tinker Bell.
And I'd much rather meet Tink as she's so cute!
Yeah, I'm really an atheist, as are a lot of other folk on the forum.
I don't discount the possibility of a deistic god, but I do discount the likelihood of any of the deities of antiquity as actually existing, including the Christian god.
I think you might view atheism differently to me, atheism literally means 'without gods'. I live my life without believing in gods, ergo I'm an atheist.
I'm happy to state unequivocably that there is no god.
OK, the philosophers tell us you can't disprove an unrestricted negative and that anything might therefore exist. I say that's irrelevant for practical purposes. There absolutely and definitely is no god, no headless horseman appears by our village bridge at midnight, Russel's teapot in not up there in orbit.
If I were to make real-world plans not to pass our bridge at midnight just because, philosophically, the headless horseman might be there - they would lock me up, and quite rightly. The same applies to whichever version of the deity Egor believes in.
I would consider myself to be less certain about a deistic god or gods, but the ones described by theists both look too human and too much like the people describing them at times to take them seriously. A much simpler explanation would be that both people and cultures mold these god concepts to suit their own purposes and that if there is a god or gods, then theism is not representative of them.
It's also wholly possible that some sort of god exists that no human has ever dreamed up yet. Can't prove that assertion wrong...
Ultimately, I don't know (agnostic) but I don't believe (atheist), at least until I find that there's sufficient reason to believe.
I may be nitpicking but IMO agnostic and atheist are two different epistemological things, so claiming that one doesn't know and that there is always possibilities does not mean that one isn't an atheist.
I am vey much an atheist. While there is no solid evidence to disprove of a god(s) existing, there is no evidence to prove he does.
I live my life as if a god is not there, because in all of recorded history no god has come down from space. I also see the disgusting evils (and yes, I feel it is evil) ways the church allows people to be sexist, racist, prejudice, homophobic, and say it is okay because god hates fags and abortions and whores.
Even in the dellusion of a god, these...lower level humans create disgusting things. I truly believe god is a man made dellusion used as a security blanket, or to control the idiots willing to waste their lives in worship of an invisible being.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 07:37:57 AMI was wondering if anyone in this forum considers God to be an impossibility? I understand atheist do not believe God exists, but do you believe God never existed and never will exist?
The title of the thread and the question you ask implies that you think one needs to accept that there is no chance for there to be a god before one simply lacks the belief in any god or gods. Or you once again might just have your own version of a word. I think you need to clear this up before we can have a useful discussion.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god; not necessarily someone who thinks it's possible to know with no doubt that a god doesn't exist or never existed.
I don't believe in god.
I acknowledge that some deist or pantheist idea of god is not outside possibility but there is no proof of one either.
So, yes, that would make me an atheist.
I also don't care if you want to label me as atheist or not...it's really not that important to me.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 07:37:57 AM
I understand atheist do not believe God exists, but do you believe God never existed and never will exist?
I'm not an atheist, but the question "do you believe God never existed and never will exist" implies or suggests that you are inquiring whether it would be possible for God to exist, and then stop existing, or that it would be possible for God not to exist, and then start existing. That's sort of a novel concept of God. Is that what you meant to say?
Yep, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god due to lack of evidence. Similarly I don't believe in unicorns for the same reason. I am an a-the-ist in the same way that I am an a-unicorn-ist.
However, I am willing to consider any new evidence and reconsider my position based on that.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 15, 2011, 08:32:19 AM
How in the world could I or anyone possibly know a thing like that?
So, what do you base your atheism on? Why not just be an agnostic?
Quote from: Stevil on December 15, 2011, 08:29:20 AM
I like to see proof before making judgment.
At the moment I would consider the chances of meeting the Christian god on par with the chances of meeting Peter Pan's Tinker Bell.
Seriously, what would be the proof that you couldn't doubt?
Quote from: Tank on December 15, 2011, 09:41:02 AM
One can't prove a negative, so anything you can think of; e.g. the Flying spaghetti Monster, unicorns, faeries etc. could exist on the logical basis that you can't disprove it. So from this point of view and concept of god(s) could exist. So god is not logically impossible.
But is the existence of a god(s) probably? That's the real question. And then what is the probability that any one of the 10,000+ gods then humans have literary dreamt up are actually the right god.
I don't believe you think that concretely. I think you're too smart for that. Of course there have been many versions of God. I suppose the last being Islam's version. But those are all just revelations of God, some better some worse. But any thinking person knows that God is something far greater and more abstract—even than the revelation of Jesus Christ.
So, tell me, are you really waiting for a burning bush?
Quote from: OldGit on December 15, 2011, 12:26:47 PM
I'm happy to state unequivocably that there is no god.
Doesn't that kind of make you the redneck version of an atheist?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2011, 01:21:34 PM
I would consider myself to be less certain about a deistic god or gods, but the ones described by theists both look too human and too much like the people describing them at times to take them seriously. A much simpler explanation would be that both people and cultures mold these god concepts to suit their own purposes and that if there is a god or gods, then theism is not representative of them.
It's also wholly possible that some sort of god exists that no human has ever dreamed up yet. Can't prove that assertion wrong...
Ultimately, I don't know (agnostic) but I don't believe (atheist), at least until I find that there's sufficient reason to believe.
Added to which you don't think it's important enough to bother searching. I mean, you're not really searching for God, either, are you?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 15, 2011, 02:13:04 PM
I am vey much an atheist. While there is no solid evidence to disprove of a god(s) existing, there is no evidence to prove he does.
What about the fact that the universe seems to operate according to hard and fast rules?
QuoteI live my life as if a god is not there, because in all of recorded history no god has come down from space.
Do you think God is an alien?
QuoteI also see the disgusting evils (and yes, I feel it is evil) ways the church allows people to be sexist, racist, prejudice, homophobic, and say it is okay because god hates fags and abortions and whores.
Well, apparently Jesus cared nothing about homosexuality and was friends with what the church of his day considered sinners, including whores.
QuoteEven in the dellusion of a god, these...lower level humans create disgusting things. I truly believe god is a man made dellusion used as a security blanket, or to control the idiots willing to waste their lives in worship of an invisible being.
But you believe in evil. On what do you base that belief? If atheism is true, how can anything be considered evil. Wouldn't you have to say that those evil stimuli you experience are just that, noxious stimuli to you personally as an organism, but not evil. Right?
Quote from: Davin on December 15, 2011, 03:06:46 PM
The title of the thread and the question you ask implies that you think one needs to accept that there is no chance for there to be a god before one simply lacks the belief in any god or gods. Or you once again might just have your own version of a word. I think you need to clear this up before we can have a useful discussion.
Clear up what? I asked if you believe God is impossible.
Quote from: Whitney on December 15, 2011, 03:20:07 PM
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god; not necessarily someone who thinks it's possible to know with no doubt that a god doesn't exist or never existed.
I don't believe in god.
I acknowledge that some deist or pantheist idea of god is not outside possibility but there is no proof of one either.
So, yes, that would make me an atheist.
I also don't care if you want to label me as atheist or not...it's really not that important to me.
Well of course it's important to you, otherwise you wouldn't be the moderator of an atheist forum. Actually, I don't understand it. If you truly don't believe there is a God, if you are truly areligious, why even bother talking about it. Why not just go your own way as an organism being stimulated by various environmental conditions? Why have a forum. Why work your way into a prominent position in the forum?
Obviously, you have some lack of faith in your lack of faith, yes?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 15, 2011, 03:44:29 PM
I'm not an atheist, but the question "do you believe God never existed and never will exist" implies or suggests that you are inquiring whether it would be possible for God to exist, and then stop existing, or that it would be possible for God not to exist, and then start existing. That's sort of a novel concept of God. Is that what you meant to say?
Sure. I suppose. I just wonder whether atheists consider God an impossibility. It would seem if God ever did exist, He couldn't really stop existing without everything else ceasing to exist as well.
Quote from: squidfetish on December 15, 2011, 08:42:13 PM
Yep, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god due to lack of evidence. Similarly I don't believe in unicorns for the same reason. I am an a-the-ist in the same way that I am an a-unicorn-ist.
However, I am willing to consider any new evidence and reconsider my position based on that.
What proof do you need? What proof could you have? Are you saying you don't want to be an atheist, but you just can't see any proof. Because you sound pretty proud of the fact that you're an a-the-ist.
I think that the question of wether a god exists or not is a scientific question, and that it is a question that we will be able to answer, in time, as our understanding of science and the universe improves.
But until we are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (meaning hard evidence that cannot be interpreted in any more likely way) it is logically nonsensical to assume that it must have been a god and just plain arrogant to assert that it is the god that you by a chance of geography happened to have been indoctrinated into believing.
To sum up, I am open to the possibility of the existence of a deiety, but I am very sceptical of anyone who asserts to have infallible knowledge of one (be it some dude in a chatroom or the pope in Rome). And until credible and irrefutable evidence is presented, I will not commit to one particular belief system. And because I don't believe in a particular god or worship such, I am an atheist.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 07:37:57 AM
I was wondering if anyone in this forum considers God to be an impossibility? I understand atheist do not believe God exists, but do you believe God never existed and never will exist?
Microphone to you...
Yes I really am an atheist but your definition of atheism is just a straw man.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Well of course it's important to you, otherwise you wouldn't be the moderator of an atheist forum.
I don't find the label important.
QuoteActually, I don't understand it. If you truly don't believe there is a God, if you are truly areligious, why even bother talking about it.
Aside from debate being fun from time to time; I wouldn't talk about it or give it much further thought if it were not for the religious influence on both government and society. Living in a predominantly Christian culture forces atheists to have to think about it at least a little. It also forces us to choose between hiding our views or working to make it at least less dangerous (socially, employment, and even physically in some areas) to be open about nonbelief.
QuoteWhy have a forum.
Explanation for why the forum exists is on the main page http://www.happyatheistforum.com/
QuoteWhy work your way into a prominent position in the forum?
It doesn't take much work to buy a domain and pay for hosting ;)
QuoteObviously, you have some lack of faith in your lack of faith, yes?
no.
I'm an atheist because I don't think the universe requires a god to be its creator or caretaker and certainly don't believe we were created superior to anything else. Humanity in my eyes is another manifestation of the multiple possibilities of life that can arise on our planet due to its relationship with the sun and planets around it.
The concept of a god is hard to define, even within a single subdivision of one religion. Those who do believe in a god have a personal concept of what is god and is ultimately a manifestation of their self. This is why no evidence will ever be presented to make all people of the world believe in a single god but at the same time there is enough evidence for those that do, in my opinion for the vast majority of believers that foundation of belief is built on sand, and why there has been a constant weakening of the various religions initial teachings.
I'm not looking for evidence of any kind to whether a god exists or not, I started reading religious texts because I was intrigued by others worldview and doing so shocked me at how immoral and mental I found the majority to be, I also found some that were inline with my own way of thinking and worldview and none of those even touched upon the concept of any god. It is honestly not important to me if a god does or doesn't exist but I don't think one does be it the monotheistic, polytheistic, or deistic sense as I don't think they are necessary, especially from what science has been able to present so far.
I don't think it is impossible for a god to exist, I do however think it is highly unlikely and in fear of repeating myself again unnecessary. For argument sake I will consider that the universe was created intentionally but why would that creator be a god? maybe it was an experiment similar to that of the LHC or a programmer creating the equivalent of a video game, would that be worthy of worship? Would the creator/creators still be worthy of a god title? there are so many possibilities and reasons for why that start even more questions and deliver no answers, so why worry about what happens after death when nobody knows and just enjoy the now.
As you do believe in god would you be willing to express your views on the concept in the topic The God Hypothesis (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8102.0)?
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 15, 2011, 08:32:19 AM
How in the world could I or anyone possibly know a thing like that?
So, what do you base your atheism on? Why not just be an agnostic?
I think the difference between atheism and agnosticism is really splitting hairs. It really comes down to a world view and about what guides your morals and day to day living - is it based on religious dogma, or isn't it? I'm sure there are a lot of people who call themselves "Christian" who are actually agnostic, or even atheist, who deny the titles because they find the label unsettling. Actually, come to think of it, that's what I did for a while (I'm an ex-Christian)
Quote from: Egor
Quote from: Stevil on December 15, 2011, 08:29:20 AM
I like to see proof before making judgment.
At the moment I would consider the chances of meeting the Christian god on par with the chances of meeting Peter Pan's Tinker Bell.
Seriously, what would be the proof that you couldn't doubt?
How about God actually answering prayers or doing any other things he is alleged to do in any real measurable way?
Quote from: Egor
Quote from: Tank on December 15, 2011, 09:41:02 AM
One can't prove a negative, so anything you can think of; e.g. the Flying spaghetti Monster, unicorns, faeries etc. could exist on the logical basis that you can't disprove it. So from this point of view and concept of god(s) could exist. So god is not logically impossible.
But is the existence of a god(s) probably? That's the real question. And then what is the probability that any one of the 10,000+ gods then humans have literary dreamt up are actually the right god.
I don't believe you think that concretely. I think you're too smart for that. Of course there have been many versions of God. I suppose the last being Islam's version. But those are all just revelations of God, some better some worse. But any thinking person knows that God is something far greater and more abstract—even than the revelation of Jesus Christ.
So, tell me, are you really waiting for a burning bush?
The prevalence of the belief in God does not indicate that God actually exists, it indicates that there is something in the human psyche that is drawn to supernatural belief. There are a lot of theories as to why this is the case. Tank wrote a really good one recently, actually. (psst. Where is that again, Tank?)
Quote from: Egor
Quote from: OldGit on December 15, 2011, 12:26:47 PM
I'm happy to state unequivocably that there is no god.
Doesn't that kind of make you the redneck version of an atheist?
What? ???
Quote from: Egor
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2011, 01:21:34 PM
I would consider myself to be less certain about a deistic god or gods, but the ones described by theists both look too human and too much like the people describing them at times to take them seriously. A much simpler explanation would be that both people and cultures mold these god concepts to suit their own purposes and that if there is a god or gods, then theism is not representative of them.
It's also wholly possible that some sort of god exists that no human has ever dreamed up yet. Can't prove that assertion wrong...
Ultimately, I don't know (agnostic) but I don't believe (atheist), at least until I find that there's sufficient reason to believe.
Added to which you don't think it's important enough to bother searching. I mean, you're not really searching for God, either, are you?
I spent the first 18 years of my life as a religious Christian. I went to several "Christian camps", I got a cross tattoo. I did all of the right things and prayed for all of the right things. It is a Christian illusion that the reason atheists exist is because they just won't "look". Many of us did look, or were raised with a very strong belief background, but it just didn't hold up. I gave "God" and "Jesus" every reasonable chance imaginable.
Quote from: Egor
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 15, 2011, 02:13:04 PM
I am vey much an atheist. While there is no solid evidence to disprove of a god(s) existing, there is no evidence to prove he does.
What about the fact that the universe seems to operate according to hard and fast rules?
That indicates order, it doesn't indicate a sentient being who wishes to send people to heaven/hell.
Quote from: Egor
QuoteI live my life as if a god is not there, because in all of recorded history no god has come down from space.
Do you think God is an alien?
He certainly seems to be described as one. What do you think he is? Where do you think heaven is?
Quote from: Egor
QuoteEven in the dellusion of a god, these...lower level humans create disgusting things. I truly believe god is a man made dellusion used as a security blanket, or to control the idiots willing to waste their lives in worship of an invisible being.
But you believe in evil. On what do you base that belief? If atheism is true, how can anything be considered evil. Wouldn't you have to say that those evil stimuli you experience are just that, noxious stimuli to you personally as an organism, but not evil. Right?
What you are saying is that an atheist cannot have a definitive basis for morality. I think that's a whole other thread to be discussed, really.
Quote from: Egor
Quote from: Whitney on December 15, 2011, 03:20:07 PM
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god; not necessarily someone who thinks it's possible to know with no doubt that a god doesn't exist or never existed.
I don't believe in god.
I acknowledge that some deist or pantheist idea of god is not outside possibility but there is no proof of one either.
So, yes, that would make me an atheist.
I also don't care if you want to label me as atheist or not...it's really not that important to me.
Well of course it's important to you, otherwise you wouldn't be the moderator of an atheist forum. Actually, I don't understand it. If you truly don't believe there is a God, if you are truly areligious, why even bother talking about it. Why not just go your own way as an organism being stimulated by various environmental conditions? Why have a forum. Why work your way into a prominent position in the forum?
Obviously, you have some lack of faith in your lack of faith, yes?
We talk about it because religion is highly politicized. If I'm sitting on the bus, do I really care if the person sitting next to me is a Christian/Atheist/Muslim/Wiccan? No, of course not. But, religion is still very prevalent, and it's nice to have a "safe place" to go to.
OP, why exactly do I have to be religious in order to see horrible people doing evil things. Look at any news paper in any country.
You make no sense. I am making a point that I can be a loving humanitarion without being religious or having a belief in a god(s.)
Almost every horrible mass murder is created in god's name, ie: Oslo masacre and recent belgium attack.
Don't even let me get into the middle east and africa extreme radicals.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 15, 2011, 08:29:20 AM
I like to see proof before making judgment.
At the moment I would consider the chances of meeting the Christian god on par with the chances of meeting Peter Pan's Tinker Bell.
Seriously, what would be the proof that you couldn't doubt?
Seriously, why do you believe without proof or evidence?
Why don't you carry that same logic through to all the other gods or mythical or fictional characters?
Quote from: Stevil on December 16, 2011, 12:11:54 AM
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 15, 2011, 08:29:20 AM
I like to see proof before making judgment.
At the moment I would consider the chances of meeting the Christian god on par with the chances of meeting Peter Pan's Tinker Bell.
Seriously, what would be the proof that you couldn't doubt?
Seriously, why do you believe without proof or evidence?
Why don't you carry that same logic through to all the other gods or mythical or fictional characters?
I don't get that either.
They dismiss Zeus, Odin, Izanagi , etc so easily...but not Christ. Oh brother.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 15, 2011, 01:21:34 PM
I would consider myself to be less certain about a deistic god or gods, but the ones described by theists both look too human and too much like the people describing them at times to take them seriously. A much simpler explanation would be that both people and cultures mold these god concepts to suit their own purposes and that if there is a god or gods, then theism is not representative of them.
It's also wholly possible that some sort of god exists that no human has ever dreamed up yet. Can't prove that assertion wrong...
Ultimately, I don't know (agnostic) but I don't believe (atheist), at least until I find that there's sufficient reason to believe.
Added to which you don't think it's important enough to bother searching. I mean, you're not really searching for God, either, are you?
I would prefer that you try not to put words in my mouth, I already have hordes of self-proclaimed experts on 'me' as it is. ::)
I come to an atheist forum, I've already been a member and posted on a couple of Christian forums. I even obsess a little about religion.
What theists say just isn't good enough. They don't provide any compelling evidence, and they don't provide any good enough reason to believe on pure faith, in the absence of evidence. I will base what I think on what I know, not recognise that I am ignorant and so accept the first under-thought god of the gaps argument that comes my way.
Confirmation bias is a problem. If you go looking for something that is interpretational, you will find it. Problem is, god is not measurable, is not falsifiable and so can not be known with certainty. Belief is not a choice, I have high standards that have to be met before I believe.
Plus the whole god thing just isn't important to me, I'm not looking for anything based on emotional reasons rather than actual reasoned and as-scientific-as-possible.
Quote from: Stevil on December 15, 2011, 08:29:20 AM
I like to see proof before making judgment.
At the moment I would consider the chances of meeting the Christian god on par with the chances of meeting Peter Pan's Tinker Bell.
What he said...*grinnin*
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 16, 2011, 01:07:01 AM
Belief is not a choice, I have high standards that have to be met before I believe.
I agree with this. It's like the whole pascal's wager tomfoolery. Even if you
wanted to believe in something, it doesn't mean that you
can. When I was in the process of becoming atheist, there were many many times that I wished I could go back to unwavering faith. I just couldn't. I'm much happier for it now, but human brains aren't switches. We're all a huge bundle of genetics, experiences, thoughts and feelings.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 07:37:57 AM
I was wondering if anyone in this forum considers God to be an impossibility?
Some do. Me, I just don't care.
QuoteI understand atheist do not believe God exists,
That's what atheism is about, really, only we do apply it to more than the one god you are talking about.
Quotebut do you believe God never existed and never will exist?
Believe it..? No. but I do assume as much until proven otherwise.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 15, 2011, 08:32:19 AM
How in the world could I or anyone possibly know a thing like that?
So, what do you base your atheism on? Why not just be an agnostic?
I base it on my belief that a universe without a god makes more sense than a universe with a god, so until somebody provides something concrete in the way of proof that's how I live -- as if there were no god.
I see god or gods as the least likely explanation for any data. Even if god appeared before me and demonstrated things I'd understand to be impossible, a better explanation would be that I'm witnessing advanced technology. Based on that line of logic, I'd say that I really don't believe and I'm deeply concerned about those who do believe, even those who are good, well-meaning people.
So why is there a thread for us to restate everything everyone has already discussed from the beginning of the forum, did you just not care to read through any of it?
My view is atheist, specifically that the christian god strictly does not exist, based on the first two decades of my life being raised a baptist and praying and worshiping and singing and praising as I was taught to. World events, an education, and some seriously stupid things that our church had done over the years helped me to spend time reconsidering my faith. I didn't get here because of my views on science or scientific method, that all kinda came later for me as I branched out and learned what others thought. I really got here following my heart and my feelings. Everything I had been through and done in the end I should have at least known he was with me or felt something that told me I should hold strong and believe. What I had was nothing. What my family had, was nothing, save for each other.
What I found when I realized HE was not there was amazing, suddenly my world made sense, and the pieces all fit together. I didn't have to struggle to try to bend reality around in my head to try to make up for why his word isnt reflected in the real world.
OP: "Are you really an atheist?"
Yes, I am.
My three-year-old son? I'm not so sure he is. Last week I was watching him have trouble building a castle with his blocks. When one of his towers fell, he exclaimed "JESUS CHRIST!"
Now, where do you suppose he learned that?
When I was a kid it was my understanding that to find Jesus you had to want to, you had to read the bible wanting to find him. You were told it isn't easy, you had try try try, get a mantra going, I want to believe, want to, want to want to. Gawen's 12 step thread has this line "When you think you feel good, you look bad." Those that were intoxicated by belief didn't look good to me. There's the many faiths but this is the right one thing, it's inherent truth wasn't evident but I was supposed to convince myself it was. I understood why people desired a protector and that they could delude themselves in many ways. You can't create truth, faith for me was an invitation to deny truth, what a dangerous thing.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 16, 2011, 03:16:48 AM
Gawen's 12 step thread has this line "When you think you feel good, you look bad." Those that were intoxicated by belief didn't look good to me.
I have to agree with that wholeheartedly even people praying looks deranged to me. Oh and this Baptizia pt2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQdIiEUFtqk) (most likely you have seen it before) but that is beyond deranged.
Quote from: Crow on December 16, 2011, 05:12:39 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 16, 2011, 03:16:48 AM
Gawen's 12 step thread has this line "When you think you feel good, you look bad." Those that were intoxicated by belief didn't look good to me.
I have to agree with that wholeheartedly even people praying looks deranged to me. Oh and this Baptizia pt2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQdIiEUFtqk) (most likely you have seen it before) but that is beyond deranged.
LOL I think it's amusing. More than slightly odd would be church-goers speaking in tongues IMO.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 16, 2011, 03:16:48 AM
When I was a kid it was my understanding that to find Jesus you had to want to, you had to read the bible wanting to find him. You were told it isn't easy, you had try try try, get a mantra going, I want to believe, want to, want to want to. Gawen's 12 step thread has this line "When you think you feel good, you look bad." Those that were intoxicated by belief didn't look good to me. There's the many faiths but this is the right one thing, it's inherent truth wasn't evident but I was supposed to convince myself it was. I understood why people desired a protector and that they could delude themselves in many ways. You can't create truth, faith for me was an invitation to deny truth, what a dangerous thing.
How do you know what the truth is? You say faith was an invitation to deny truth, so what is the truth? If God is possible, and if so many people smart and dumb believe in Him, and there are many logical arguments and thought experiments that seem to make sense, and these have been developed over thousands of years, by people like Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Spinoza, Berkeley, Descartes, the influence of Jesus Christ, and on and on, what pray tell then is the truth that you know? That there is no God? That none of these people have convinced you enough?
Why is it so hard to admit you simply want to be an atheist? I want to be a Christian; I admit it. That's why I am one. Isn't the truth—the truth—that you simply hope there is no God and you can live your life as if there weren't?
I have read every post since my last post, and I don't see any that need my comments, per se, but if someone has asked me a question and I missed it. Please ask again. I just figure most replies are made not looking for a response.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 16, 2011, 05:36:05 AM
LOL I think it's amusing. More than slightly odd would be church-goers speaking in tongues IMO.
When I was 11, I went up to the front of a Pentecostal church one evening in Canada, and they laid hands on me and prayed for me to receive the Holy Spirit. A feeling came over me, and I began to speak in tongues uncontrollably. Even during my twenties when I was pretty much fallen away, I would never dare speak in tongues. There was something too sacred about it, something too strange and frightening.
Today, I don't speak in tongues. I'm not afraid of it, but I choose to practice other spiritual gifts that God has given me. It never proved to me that there was a God. I simply do not understand it. The greatest proof of God for me comes from trusting an authority. It is the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, because I agree with C.S. Lewis when he says either Jesus was evil or insane, or he was truly the Son of God. There is no way Jesus was evil, and if he was insane, given his influence on and reverence from the world, then there is no such thing as sanity.
Some people go crazy with speaking in tongues, and I'm not sure it does much good. St. Paul didn't seem to think it was too important even back in his day. I can see why: It just doesn't seem to accomplish much.
Not trying to preach here; just thought I share my thoughts on speaking in tongues since you brought it up.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 07:37:57 AM
I was wondering if anyone in this forum considers God to be an impossibility? I understand atheist do not believe God exists, but do you believe God never existed and never will exist?
Microphone to you...
I wouldn't say that I consider god to be an "impossibility". I do not believe that the Christian god exists, and I am not familiar enough with any other gods (other than the Greek gods, which I can say with certainty do not exist) to be confident in declaring their non-existence.
If a god did exist, though, I would expect that it would be one that did not interfere with natural laws (physics, biology, etc) in a way that would make it conspicuous. Perhaps to know god simply means to understand all of the laws of nature.
What exactly is speaking in tongues and how is it useful in today's world? o_o I am actually curious.
Quote from: Egor on December 16, 2011, 06:26:50 AM
How do you know what the truth is? You say faith was an invitation to deny truth, so what is the truth? If God is possible, and if so many people smart and dumb believe in Him, and there are many logical arguments and thought experiments that seem to make sense, and these have been developed over thousands of years, by people like Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Spinoza, Berkeley, Descartes, the influence of Jesus Christ, and on and on, what pray tell then is the truth that you know? That there is no God? That none of these people have convinced you enough?
I've seen many defences of god, they are all flawed, there's always some obvious leap made, it often looks dishonest to me but I think it's just a delusional faith thing, I sometimes give them the benefit of doubt anyway. Delusion is better than dishonesty isn't it?
Quote from: Egor on December 16, 2011, 06:26:50 AM
Why is it so hard to admit you simply want to be an atheist? I want to be a Christian; I admit it. That's why I am one. Isn't the truth—the truth—that you simply hope there is no God and you can live your life as if there weren't?
I don't want to be an atheist, I don't want there to be no god.
I want to live forever in paradise, in a wonderful state of existence I can't even begin to imagine, I'm not ungrateful by nature, I don't like grovelling but I could learn.
But this is a bias, if you have a bias you should guard against it leading you to a wrong conclusion, it is the sensible thing to do.
This isn't what the faithful would have me do, they want me to try to believe stories written by men.
Similar stories written are considered silly, wicked even, but I can trust these guys even though they gain power and wealth be propagating the faith.
I don't live the life of sin either, decades in a monogamous relationship, you don't even have to threaten me with hell, I behave well because I want to.
Quote from: EgorI agree with C.S. Lewis when he says either Jesus was evil or insane, or he was truly the Son of God.
It's a bit older than that - the basic idea goes back at least to St. Augustine of Hippo. It's naïve and facile - many prophets and doomsayers are neither evil nor technically insane, merely sincere but deluded.
IF Jesus made all the claims now attributed to him - and that's a big if - he was probably just another deluded wandering preacher in the hothouse atmosphere of religious obsession that prevailed in that time and place.
How's about I claim that all christians are either evil or insane, since their beliefs clearly have no foundation in reality, and some of them suddenly start babbling and ranting in meaningless gibberish?
Quote from: Egor on December 16, 2011, 06:26:50 AM
Why is it so hard to admit you simply want to be an atheist? I want to be a Christian; I admit it. That's why I am one. Isn't the truth—the truth—that you simply hope there is no God and you can live your life as if there weren't?
I have read every post since my last post, and I don't see any that need my comments, per se, but if someone has asked me a question and I missed it. Please ask again. I just figure most replies are made not looking for a response.
Then you clearly ignored mine, it asked you a question, and it addressed your ignorant suggestion that i just want to be atheist. The statement is turning your post troll.
Atheist is what I arrived at after reviewing a life that was dedicated to christ and recognizing it for a lie. Hardly something that was wanted.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 16, 2011, 09:24:53 AM
What exactly is speaking in tongues and how is it useful in today's world? o_o I am actually curious.
It has no actual purpose.
here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqXHbPeJciI
don't say I didn't warn you.
you know If I could just pick something to believe in and magically believe, wouldn't an earth based religion be lovely. Something like what is on Avatar where everything is one together in harmony.
Just saying...if we are simply picking what we want to believe why not choose something fun? Oh, that's right, people who care about facts can't just make themselves believe things simply because they are cool.
Quote from: Whitney on December 16, 2011, 03:32:05 PM
you know If I could just pick something to believe in and magically believe, wouldn't an earth based religion be lovely. Something like what is on Avatar where everything is one together in harmony.
Just saying...if we are simply picking what we want to believe why not choose something fun? Oh, that's right, people who care about facts can't just make themselves believe things simply because they are cool.
For me it's not a matter of wanting or not wanting to be an atheist -- it's a default position based on no religion/supernatural/spiritual view of life making any sense to me. I
want to be Pagan, I would love to be an unconflicted earth-worshipper and I did try for quite a number of years when I was younger but that just ain't happening either.
Quote from: Egor on December 16, 2011, 06:37:43 AM
When I was 11, I went up to the front of a Pentecostal church one evening in Canada, and they laid hands on me and prayed for me to receive the Holy Spirit. A feeling came over me, and I began to speak in tongues uncontrollably. Even during my twenties when I was pretty much fallen away, I would never dare speak in tongues. There was something too sacred about it, something too strange and frightening.
Out of interest have you ever witnessed anybody outside of Pentecostalism speaking in tongues? Actually same question goes to anyone with a christian background.
Quote from: Crow on December 16, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
Out of interest have you ever witnessed anybody outside of Pentecostalism speaking in tongues? Actually same question goes to anyone with a christian background.
I've been many churches of various denominations yet have never seen anyone speaking in tongues in person.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 16, 2011, 11:25:06 AM
I don't want to be an atheist, I don't want there to be no god.
I want to live forever in paradise, in a wonderful state of existence I can't even begin to imagine, I'm not ungrateful by nature, I don't like grovelling but I could learn.
But this is a bias, if you have a bias you should guard against it leading you to a wrong conclusion, it is the sensible thing to do.
This isn't what the faithful would have me do, they want me to try to believe stories written by men.
Pudding, this is fascinating to me, it reminds me of myself quite a bit. Only in the sense that I wish I could believe that God is good, that God actually cares, and God is fair. I so deeply wish I could believe these things, and I
have to set this sentiment aside in order to deal with life in a pragmatic way. Different, yet similar. If only... :(
Quote from: Whitney on December 16, 2011, 04:25:26 PM
Quote from: Crow on December 16, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
Out of interest have you ever witnessed anybody outside of Pentecostalism speaking in tongues? Actually same question goes to anyone with a christian background.
I've been many churches of various denominations yet have never seen anyone speaking in tongues in person.
I speak in tongues quite often, usually to myself.
Quote from: Egor on December 15, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
1 What proof do you need?
2 What proof could you have?
3 Are you saying you don't want to be an atheist, but you just can't see any proof.
4 Because you sound pretty proud of the fact that you're an a-the-ist.
1 & 2 - I'll take anything that points to the existence of a deity and falls outside the results of natural cause and effect. If you want to impress me, an absence of evil would be a good start.
3 - In case you missed it, I said I don't believe in God because there is no evidence to support such a conclusion, same goes for unicorns. If that doesn't explain it, try asking yourself why you don't believe in Rama, Shiva, Vishnu, Enki, Shamash or the Soul Cake Duck - there's the same amount of evidence to support their existence. Also factor in the problem that the bible is a book written by human beings to reflect a worldview from a time where they believed that the Earth was flat and there was a glassy dome covering it called a firmament. Might have implications for the space program, right? We made it up to control the peasants and service our fragile egos and make us feel special. The bible was written in the childhood of our species. Some of us grew up and took responsibility for our own actions and morality.
4 - What does pride have to do with anything? How does one 'sound proud' in written media on an internet forum without the nuance or inflexion of the spoken word?
Quote from: Crow on December 16, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
Out of interest have you ever witnessed anybody outside of Pentecostalism speaking in tongues? Actually same question goes to anyone with a christian background.
Coming from a midwest baptist background, this was blasphemous. That is all I know or remember. Never seen it happen in person.
Quote from: Egor on December 16, 2011, 06:26:50 AM
How do you know what the truth is? You say faith was an invitation to deny truth, so what is the truth? If God is possible, and if so many people smart and dumb believe in Him, and there are many logical arguments and thought experiments that seem to make sense, and these have been developed over thousands of years, by people like Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Spinoza, Berkeley, Descartes, the influence of Jesus Christ, and on and on, what pray tell then is the truth that you know? That there is no God? That none of these people have convinced you enough?
Plato and Aristotle were pre-Christian, so didn't believe in your god anyway, but these people all lived hundreds or thousands of years ago and knew a fraction of what we know today. If I want to learn something about geography or medicine or astronomy i don't consult books written hundreds of years ago, I consult modern up-to-date books. I don't see why i should treat cosmology any differently.
I would trust the views of modern scientists far more than the ideas of people living in much more ignorant times. In a survey of American scientists in 1998, 93% described themselves as atheists or agnostics, only 7% believed in a personal god.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
QuoteWhy is it so hard to admit you simply want to be an atheist? I want to be a Christian; I admit it. That's why I am one. Isn't the truth—the truth—that you simply hope there is no God and you can live your life as if there weren't?
I don't think want comes into it, I imagine most of us have rationally assessed the evidence and decided there's no real evidence to support the belief in gods, and certainly not the Christian one.
We don't need to be atheists to live our lives the way we do, we could still believe in god(s) and behave no differently than we do now. If I thought the evidence was there I could happily believe in a god, just not a mythical god like yours.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 16, 2011, 01:07:01 AM
Problem is, god is not measurable, is not falsifiable and so can not be known with certainty.
He should be measurable, if he is real.
I don't swallow the xtian "he's not measurable" attribution.
Not in the way they claim it anyway. I'd agree a non existent thing is not measurable though.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 16, 2011, 04:27:27 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 16, 2011, 11:25:06 AM
I don't want to be an atheist, I don't want there to be no god.
I want to live forever in paradise, in a wonderful state of existence I can't even begin to imagine, I'm not ungrateful by nature, I don't like grovelling but I could learn.
But this is a bias, if you have a bias you should guard against it leading you to a wrong conclusion, it is the sensible thing to do.
This isn't what the faithful would have me do, they want me to try to believe stories written by men.
Pudding, this is fascinating to me, it reminds me of myself quite a bit. Only in the sense that I wish I could believe that God is good, that God actually cares, and God is fair. I so deeply wish I could believe these things, and I have to set this sentiment aside in order to deal with life in a pragmatic way. Different, yet similar. If only... :(
I don't want to believe in what isn't there.
I'm not prepared to sacrifice reality for a comforting delusion.
There are a bunch of posts I would like to answer since my last post. Is there a multi-quote option? I don't want there to be a string of my responses, or does that not bother anyone (especially moderators?)
Quote from: squidfetish on December 16, 2011, 04:36:18 PM
1 & 2 - I'll take anything that points to the existence of a deity and falls outside the results of natural cause and effect. If you want to impress me, an absence of evil would be a good start.
But no supernatural things tell you about are going to impress you, like answered prayers, visions, healings. And actually, I'm not sure how that would convince you there's a God. I don't think it would convince me. Speaking in tongues for me was pretty supernatural, but it never convinced me God exists.
Quote3 - In case you missed it, I said I don't believe in God because there is no evidence to support such a conclusion, same goes for unicorns. If that doesn't explain it, try asking yourself why you don't believe in Rama, Shiva, Vishnu, Enki, Shamash or the Soul Cake Duck - there's the same amount of evidence to support their existence.
I don't know what the soul cake duck is, but as for other versions of God, I do believe in them. I just don't think they are an adequate revelation of God. You could talk about Vishnu, but that's not the same as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a greater revelation. That's why Christianity has been so successful in terms of spreading throughout the world.
QuoteAlso factor in the problem that the bible is a book written by human beings to reflect a worldview from a time where they believed that the Earth was flat and there was a glassy dome covering it called a firmament. Might have implications for the space program, right? We made it up to control the peasants and service our fragile egos and make us feel special. The bible was written in the childhood of our species. Some of us grew up and took responsibility for our own actions and morality.
Why so paranoid? The Bible is 66 books all written at different times. By the time of the New Testament, Civilization was pretty advanced. Long before that someone built the Great Pyramids and Stonehenge. Besides, there's nothing about our currrent knowledge of technology that does anything to diminish the existence of God, not even evolution. Which is really an argument for God. And it was only relatively recently that we pretty much proved the Big Bang, and discovered some of the strange properties of sub-atomic particles. All of which point to super-natural foundation to the universe.
Quote4 - What does pride have to do with anything? How does one 'sound proud' in written media on an internet forum without the nuance or inflexion of the spoken word?
I don't know. Word choice, I suppose.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:38:20 AM
There are a bunch of posts I would like to answer since my last post. Is there a multi-quote option? I don't want there to be a string of my responses, or does that not bother anyone (especially moderators?)
You can start by quoting one post then scroll down through the posts and select "insert quote"
The quoted post will be put where you had your cursor in the reply box.
Sometimes copying things to a word document makes things easier than using the small reply window.
It's easier IMO if you use Word, otherwise sometimes quotes go within quotes and you get a complete mess...
Quote from: Egor on December 16, 2011, 06:37:43 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 16, 2011, 05:36:05 AM
LOL I think it's amusing. More than slightly odd would be church-goers speaking in tongues IMO.
When I was 11, I went up to the front of a Pentecostal church one evening in Canada, and they laid hands on me and prayed for me to receive the Holy Spirit. A feeling came over me, and I began to speak in tongues uncontrollably. Even during my twenties when I was pretty much fallen away, I would never dare speak in tongues. There was something too sacred about it, something too strange and frightening.
Today, I don't speak in tongues. I'm not afraid of it, but I choose to practice other spiritual gifts that God has given me. It never proved to me that there was a God. I simply do not understand it. The greatest proof of God for me comes from trusting an authority. It is the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, because I agree with C.S. Lewis when he says either Jesus was evil or insane, or he was truly the Son of God. There is no way Jesus was evil, and if he was insane, given his influence on and reverence from the world, then there is no such thing as sanity.
Some people go crazy with speaking in tongues, and I'm not sure it does much good. St. Paul didn't seem to think it was too important even back in his day. I can see why: It just doesn't seem to accomplish much.
Not trying to preach here; just thought I share my thoughts on speaking in tongues since you brought it up.
I think that neurologically, the whole speaking in tongues things is actually quite interesting. Apparently it has been confirmed that people don't really have control over what comes out of their mouths when they're in that mental state, or trance, as in they don't think ahead on what they're going to invent or plan to speak, but on the other hand, it's just a bunch of phonological meaningless gibberish, without anything that wouldn't be expected. If there were some sort of underlying grammar or meaningful structure to it, then that would be very interesting. Or sounds that aren't part of the person's native language, perhaps.
There is a fourth option of course, and that is that JC's followers are deluded.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
Jesus Christ is a greater revelation. That's why Christianity has been so successful in terms of spreading throughout the world.
You know this for a fact? That is was the greatness of JC's revelation rather than the murderous crusades or the forced conolisation or the evangalist behaviour of Christians?
Hindu's don't seem to go door knocking or conquering countires or pushing their religion on others.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
I don't know what the soul cake duck is, but as for other versions of God, I do believe in them. I just don't think they are an adequate revelation of God. You could talk about Vishnu, but that's not the same as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a greater revelation. That's why Christianity has been so successful in terms of spreading throughout the world.
Egor...you are a bit naive ;)
Anyways, soon Islam is likely to outgrow christianity, so that must mean that Mohammed was the greater revelation.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 17, 2011, 03:56:37 AM
Sometimes copying things to a word document makes things easier than using the small reply window.
Yes, thank you. That seems to be the best solution.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 17, 2011, 04:12:13 AM
I think that neurologically, the whole speaking in tongues things is actually quite interesting. Apparently it has been confirmed that people don't really have control over what comes out of their mouths when they're in that mental state, or trance, as in they don't think ahead on what they're going to invent or plan to speak, but on the other hand, it's just a bunch of phonological meaningless gibberish, without anything that wouldn't be expected. If there were some sort of underlying grammar or meaningful structure to it, then that would be very interesting. Or sounds that aren't part of the person's native language, perhaps.
There is a fourth option of course, and that is that JC's followers are deluded.
You explained it well until the little quip at the end. I don't really like speaking in tongues. I don't feel right about it. I don't like it, and I can't really say why. I don't want to disparage it, but I don't see any particular glory to God in it. And also, Jesus never did it, nor did his disciples when he walked the earth. So, I don't care to repeat the experience.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 17, 2011, 04:28:10 AM
Anyways, soon Islam is likely to outgrow christianity, so that must mean that Mohammed was the greater revelation.
To a Muslim perhaps. I guess we'll just have to go to war in the end and let God sort it out.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 08:53:41 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 17, 2011, 04:28:10 AM
Anyways, soon Islam is likely to outgrow christianity, so that must mean that Mohammed was the greater revelation.
To a Muslim perhaps. I guess we'll just have to go to war in the end and let God sort it out.
Or option B would be to respect other people's beliefs, under an inclusive secular law and cohabitate peacefully.
Do you think that would be better than war?
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:38:20 AM
There are a bunch of posts I would like to answer since my last post. Is there a multi-quote option? I don't want there to be a string of my responses, or does that not bother anyone (especially moderators?)
Personally I think a lot of shorter resonses are better as it saves you the effort of creating a mega-post and then it's easier for the responder as they don't have to unpick your carefully constructed mega-pos to respond to just on part of it.
Quote from: Stevil on December 17, 2011, 09:21:33 AM
Or option B would be to respect other people's beliefs, under an inclusive secular law and cohabitate peacefully.
Do you think that would be better than war?
No. There's no honor or dignity in that. And life without honor is a waste of life. I'm not suggesting we should exterminate Muslims, but neither should they mess with us. But even that's not realistic. Christians and Muslims will always fight. The attacked us. We attacked them. Maybe it will quiet for a while, but there will be more wars. I thank God for our advanced nuclear weapons and missle technology. The nuclear submarine is a blessing to our nation.
As bad as that may sound, it's better than atheism ruling the world. For if atheists keep gaining influence in the Western World, Islamic Fundamentalism will take over. It's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 09:24:54 AM
Personally I think a lot of shorter resonses are better as it saves you the effort of creating a mega-post and then it's easier for the responder as they don't have to unpick your carefully constructed mega-pos to respond to just on part of it.
Okay. Sure. It's easier for me to keep track as well.
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 09:24:54 AM
Personally I think a lot of shorter resonses are better as it saves you the effort of creating a mega-post and then it's easier for the responder as they don't have to unpick your carefully constructed mega-pos to respond to just on part of it.
I see a pattern developing here, using the short for your own selfish purposes.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 10:11:51 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 17, 2011, 09:21:33 AM
Or option B would be to respect other people's beliefs, under an inclusive secular law and cohabitate peacefully.
Do you think that would be better than war?
No. There's no honor or dignity in that. And life without honor is a waste of life. I'm not suggesting we should exterminate Muslims, but neither should they mess with us. But even that's not realistic. Christians and Muslims will always fight. The attacked us. We attacked them. Maybe it will quiet for a while, but there will be more wars. I thank God for our advanced nuclear weapons and missle technology. The nuclear submarine is a blessing to our nation.
As bad as that may sound, it's better than atheism ruling the world. For if atheists keep gaining influence in the Western World, Islamic Fundamentalism will take over. It's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.
Christians and Muslims killing each other by the billion. I win-win scenario if I ever saw one. Isn't there something about the meek (atheists) inheriting the Earth?
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 10:15:02 AM
Christians and Muslims killing each other by the billion. I win-win scenario if I ever saw one. Isn't there something about the meek (atheists) inheriting the Earth?
We'd have to look closer into what Jesus meant by "meek" given that he, himself, was anything but meek in the sense we normally think of it. Perhaps inheriting the earth is the best thing. And seriously, you may want to think about it. It's only Christian societies that tolerate atheism. The Muslims sure won't.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 10:34:58 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 10:15:02 AM
Christians and Muslims killing each other by the billion. I win-win scenario if I ever saw one. Isn't there something about the meek (atheists) inheriting the Earth?
We'd have to look closer into what Jesus meant by "meek" given that he, himself, was anything but meek in the sense we normally think of it. Perhaps inheriting the earth is the best thing. And seriously, you may want to think about it. It's only Christian societies that tolerate atheism. The Muslims sure won't.
No problem with all the christians and muslins dead. Maybe there is a good opportunity as undertakers.
And you do realise that religions are run by atheists don't you? Nobody bright enough to run a religion would ever believe in it.
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 10:44:49 AM
And you do realise that religions are run by atheists don't you? Nobody bright enough to run a religion would ever believe in it.
That's an excellent point.
What was it Seneca said, again..?
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 10:11:51 AM
As bad as that may sound, it's better than atheism ruling the world. For if atheists keep gaining influence in the Western World, Islamic Fundamentalism will take over. It's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.
Yeah...those Radical Muslims sure are afraid of Christians as compared to Atheists. I mean, that's why Al Qaeda attacked Moscow and Bejing instead of New York, huh?
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on December 17, 2011, 11:43:09 AM
Yeah...those Radical Muslims sure are afraid of Christians as compared to Atheists. I mean, that's why Al Qaeda attacked Moscow and Bejing instead of New York, huh?
Russia has a relatively high percentage of believers. Stockholm, however... ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on December 17, 2011, 11:50:55 AM
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on December 17, 2011, 11:43:09 AM
Yeah...those Radical Muslims sure are afraid of Christians as compared to Atheists. I mean, that's why Al Qaeda attacked Moscow and Bejing instead of New York, huh?
Russia has a relatively high percentage of believers. Stockholm, however... ;D
Hey...I like the new Avatar - I think it's a pretty good sentiment to display considering Hitch's recent demise.
Anyways...the Chinese and Russians have shown little patience with Radical Islam and I believe they combat it in a manner far more effective than the west. I mean, the Russians and Chinese do not waster their time trying to "Win Hearts and Minds" nor do they refer to Islam as a "Religion of Peace": the just bash the hell out of them.
Unfortunately, the west is still mostly Christianized and so they are left vulnerable to Radical Islam. I'm not saying that the West doesn't have the firepower to match the Islamists, I'm just saying that costs too much. I mean, the so-called "War on Terror" is an expensive farce that has financially crippled us, and the Xian leadership is so afraid of calling out Radical Islam that they won't even identify the enemy (i.e., Radical Muslims).
If the so-called "War on Terror" would have been fought right, then the vast majority of it would have been psychological and not just bombing and shooting. I mean, can you imagine how a real hard-core Atheist country could have handled it? A real hard-core Atheist country could have launched flying television and radio stations above Afghanistan that would have broadcast what the Islamists call "Religious Blasphemey" 24/7/365 (they would have broadcast the truth about Islam). A hard-core Atheist country would have bombed every Radical Mosque and Madrassa in Afghanistan - which would have been all of them. At the end of two years, the Radical Islamists would have despaired for they had sought to spread the Glory of Islam, but only succeeded in crippling belief. THIS is something that Christians are afraid to do for they would have been forced to defend their own beliefs before the world and they are very afraid to do that!
Well, yes... Carpet bombing. Apparently, it works! :D
As for the avatar, yes, it is intended as in memoriam
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
But no supernatural things tell you about are going to impress you, like answered prayers, visions, healings. And actually, I'm not sure how that would convince you there's a God. I don't think it would convince me. Speaking in tongues for me was pretty supernatural, but it never convinced me God exists.
There is no evidence of answered prayers, visions or healings that fall outside of natural or man-made phenomena. Christians still have medical insurance, right, despite their professed faith in god?
"Pretty supernatural" is an odd phrase - I owuld have thought that either something is supernatural or it is not.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
I don't know what the soul cake duck is, but as for other versions of God, I do believe in them. I just don't think they are an adequate revelation of God. You could talk about Vishnu, but that's not the same as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a greater revelation. That's why Christianity has been so successful in terms of spreading throughout the world.
Are you sure that these other gods are incarnations of YOUR god? As far as I am aware the three semitic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, it doesn't really surprise me that you are prepared to accept their existence without evidence too.
Christianity is an accident of history. Were it not for Paul's writings, Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity, Roman Emperor Theodocius making Christianity the state religion, and the Roman penchant for invading and settling then Christianity would, for all intents and purposes, be one more defunct messiah cult.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
Why so paranoid?
Paranoid? Says the man who needs an omnipotent imaginary friend. Ok, go on then, make me laugh.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
The Bible is 66 books all written at different times. By the time of the New Testament, Civilization was pretty advanced
It was the Bronze Age, chief. Moses didn't come down with the 10 commandments on an iPad.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
Long before that someone built the Great Pyramids and Stonehenge. Besides, there's nothing about our currrent knowledge of technology that does anything to diminish the existence of God,
So how come God got all butthurt about a bunch of guys building an adobe ziggurat to reach him? I imagine he'd be a lot more pissed off about evolution, the internet and the large hadron collider.
He doesn't seem to have much to say on the small matter of millions of starving Christians in Africa either, come to think of it.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
...not even evolution. Which is really an argument for God.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! How come the fundies are fighting tooth and nail to stop the teaching of evolution in favour of creation then?..
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
And it was only relatively recently that we pretty much proved the Big Bang, and discovered some of the strange properties of sub-atomic particles. All of which point to super-natural foundation to the universe
I think Hawking, Deutsch et al would take issue with that. Your acceptance of the big bang has all but erased deism as an option for you too. Well... I guess that is progress of a kind...
Back in the day, God used to be invoked as an explanation for pretty much everything. With the increase in knowledge, technology and the scientific method, the God-of-the-gaps has become pretty much redundant.
That certainly looks like diminishment to me.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 10:11:51 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 17, 2011, 09:21:33 AM
Or option B would be to respect other people's beliefs, under an inclusive secular law and cohabitate peacefully.
Do you think that would be better than war?
No. There's no honor or dignity in that. And life without honor is a waste of life. I'm not suggesting we should exterminate Muslims, but neither should they mess with us. But even that's not realistic. Christians and Muslims will always fight. The attacked us. We attacked them. Maybe it will quiet for a while, but there will be more wars. I thank God for our advanced nuclear weapons and missle technology. The nuclear submarine is a blessing to our nation.
As bad as that may sound, it's better than atheism ruling the world. For if atheists keep gaining influence in the Western World, Islamic Fundamentalism will take over. It's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.
......
You seriously believe this, don't you? I feel very sorry for you. It is hard for me to see a person who thinks this way. No one should be killing anyone. Murder is wrong.
And if you are okay witg it, as long as its in your god's name, then.you are no better than the crusaders centuries ago.
The world would be better off without religion and the extremists who worship it, creating violence against innocents.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 17, 2011, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 10:11:51 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 17, 2011, 09:21:33 AM
Or option B would be to respect other people's beliefs, under an inclusive secular law and cohabitate peacefully.
Do you think that would be better than war?
No. There's no honor or dignity in that. And life without honor is a waste of life. I'm not suggesting we should exterminate Muslims, but neither should they mess with us. But even that's not realistic. Christians and Muslims will always fight. The attacked us. We attacked them. Maybe it will quiet for a while, but there will be more wars. I thank God for our advanced nuclear weapons and missle technology. The nuclear submarine is a blessing to our nation.
As bad as that may sound, it's better than atheism ruling the world. For if atheists keep gaining influence in the Western World, Islamic Fundamentalism will take over. It's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.
......
You seriously believe this, don't you? I feel very sorry for you. It is hard for me to see a person who thinks this way. No one should be killing anyone. Murder is wrong.
And if you are okay witg it, as long as its in your god's name, then.you are no better than the crusaders centuries ago.
The world would be better off without religion and the extremists who worship it, creating violence against innocents.
It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 10:11:51 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 17, 2011, 09:21:33 AM
Or option B would be to respect other people's beliefs, under an inclusive secular law and cohabitate peacefully.
Do you think that would be better than war?
No. There's no honor or dignity in that. And life without honor is a waste of life. I'm not suggesting we should exterminate Muslims, but neither should they mess with us. But even that's not realistic. Christians and Muslims will always fight. The attacked us. We attacked them. Maybe it will quiet for a while, but there will be more wars. I thank God for our advanced nuclear weapons and missle technology. The nuclear submarine is a blessing to our nation.
As bad as that may sound, it's better than atheism ruling the world. For if atheists keep gaining influence in the Western World, Islamic Fundamentalism will take over. It's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.
Wow, that sounds...yeerg. Honor and dignity gained through antagonism and war? I've not heard of any wars that are honorable and dignified in this day and age; and this seems strongly reinforced by the fact that we are able to more fully document wars with all kinds of media. I'm not opposed to having the biggest, scariest stick, but for the purpose of not using them (so that nobody ends up using their war-sticks) and living a peaceful life, knowing that the defenses are enough to discourage potential antagonists. Isn't there honor and dignity is being clever enough to not needing to resort to violence, while also not needing to compromising?
As for atheists ruling the world, I don't get the impression that atheists are preoccupied with ruling the world. It sounds like something that religious people who are interesting in gaining political influence are paranoid about because they're projecting their own mentality onto others.
Do you mind if I ask, Egor, have you seen the comments about de-humanizing in one of your other threads? I was personally so troubled by it, that I started a topic in another area of the forum to explore the terminology. Would you mind commenting on your own perspective; are you familiar with this concept of dehumanization and what it leads to? Can you comment on this with regard to your statements above? I'm wanting to get an understanding as to why you talk about violence, killing, and highly destructive weaponry in a seemingly casual way.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 10:34:58 AM
The Muslims sure won't.
Radical Islam is concentrated in a very few portions of the world just as radical christianity has been concentrated in a few areas in the past. The Muslim you meet on a daily basis in the US just wants to be left alone and quit being compared with the crazies that do bad stuff in the name of their god. People need to be careful with this partial-truth propaganda against Islam or we're going to find ourselves suffering through another embarrassing holocaust. Most of the current Republican candidates probably wouldn't think twice about it if they believed for a moment they had the backing of their fundamentalist base....that's how all this mess got blown way out of proportion after 9/11 in the first place.
Oh...and if you think going to war over who's god is better is "dignified" then you can keep your dignity and I'll be whatever is opposite of that. Frankly, that's just creepy.
There are 1.5 billion Muslims. If they were all radical crazies, we'd all be dead already. I currently live in an area where there are quite a few Muslims around and I've never, ever felt threatened by any of them. I'm glad Canada is a relatively laid-back place when it comes to this kind of thing, and I know "mult-culturalism" efforts can backfire and create more social and racial tensions, but, for the most part, it works pretty well here. When it comes to my real life experience of who is "getting in my face" about converting to their religion, it's Christians, not Muslims. I've never had a Muslim knock on my door to ask me if I've met Allah. I've never seen hateful "pro-life, pro-family" posters spread across the city by Muslims.
The reason why most Muslims hate the West and hate Christianity so much, I think, is because they feel like the second crusades are happening. They don't feel like a "live and let live" policy is possible because there has been so much neo-colonialism by Western powers. Honestly, I don't blame them, to a partial degree, for feeling defensive. Antagonism will only give them more fuel.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 08:53:41 AM
To a Muslim perhaps. I guess we'll just have to go to war in the end and let God sort it out.
Like Christianity did? Or did it simply spread through peaceful acceptance because Jesus is the better revelation? ;)
I never understood why a powerful god who has all his creation in his best interests would hide and depend on people who are by nature flawed and can very easily fool themselves. ::)
Edited to add: though wars do rely to an extent on chance and good luck, in many situations there are the predictable outcomes of strategic games. But I won't go into that...just thought I had to throw it in there.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 17, 2011, 04:39:46 PM
The reason why most Muslims hate the West and hate Christianity so much, I think, is because they feel like the second crusades are happening. They don't feel like a "live and let live" policy is possible because there has been so much neo-colonialism by Western powers. Honestly, I don't blame them, to a partial degree, for feeling defensive. Antagonism will only give them more fuel.
This^ Quoted for truth :)
Add the fundie muslims with their propaganda machines showing how the West is targeting them don't help either...they have a very strong religious identity which the fundies know how to use.
Christianity
does add more antagonism than most other religions or atheism. It's another religion that's intolerable of unbelievers, though they've slowly crept out of the Dark Age, while Islam is still there. They're more simliar than different, in fact ::)
Multiculturalism can backfire, or least put up a resistance at first because usually the
local cultures in which they're immersed (West) will usually win out over theirs, adding fuel to the hysteria. Causes them to segregate themselves into their own communities which doesn't help. It'll take a few generations before the picture becomes a bit clearer.
And seriously Egor, your discription of what 'dignity' means to use is looking more and more like simply being the big dog on the block. Even if it takes violence to make others submit.
And the kind of violence that only the weak feel they need to resort to. ::)
Quote from: Asmodean on December 17, 2011, 11:20:13 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 10:44:49 AM
And you do realise that religions are run by atheists don't you? Nobody bright enough to run a religion would ever believe in it.
That's an excellent point.
What was it Seneca said, again..?
Sig passing through...
;D
Sorry to jump into this a bit late (darn last day of school before Xmas holidays and slow hunk of scrap of a computer!), but I suppose I'll have to start from the beginning of this thread (I actaully read the first page, after which I had to calm down for a moment before returning to answer.....)
But anyway, let's get started. Now, I call my self a Gnostic Agnostic Atheist (though, I suppose I shold add Ingnostic in there as well...). To break that down, I'm a gnostic, because I know that all the religions and their "gods" are man-made fairytales that have little to do with actual reality, other then as alternative early historical/fantasy fiction. However, I'm also an agnostic becauce I won't compleatly write off the possibility that there might be beings that we might consiger "gods", but to determine that we really need a defention for what a "god" is suposed to be, hence ignostic. And lastly, I do not believe in the "gods" of man-made religions the same way I do not believe that the Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf are real, or that they ever were. And even if there were beings that would fit a propper defenition of "god", i still see no reason why I should be on my hands and knees kissing their boots (or the other thing that would get me a notice for foul language), and worship them just for being "gods". They have to earn the respect and possible, yet un-likely, worship from me the same way everyone else can earn it.
Now, when I speak about "proper defenition of "god"", I mean that we need a defention that is both consitent and one most if not everyone can agree on. However, defenitions like these are just a tip of the iceberg:
Definition of GOD
1 capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b: Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
(On another note, the defenition of athesim found on this page is "doctrine that there is no god(s)" or "a disbelief in the existence of deity", while athesit is "one who believes that there is no deity" ??? There were a number of comments that refuted these defenitions, but apparently they are yet to be properly adressed)
And then there are the "well MY 'god'"-arguments and defenitions that are differ from person to person. Even if there was a non-contradictory defention made, would it mean they would exist, or that I would believe in them? No. And even if I was given propper evidence or even better and audience with such creatures, would I worship them? Most likely not, unless they were the kinds of a-holes that like to make everything with a pulse to their slaves with mind-control....and no Asmo. No.
Also, "Seneca the Younger For The Win 8) " vote from me as well ;)
Quote from: history_geek on December 17, 2011, 06:06:14 PM. . .(or the other thing that would get me a notice for foul language). . .
There is no rule at HAF about "foul language." The closest the rules come to dealing with this is the "Work Friendly" rule, which is specifically targeted toward images and videos (when the functionality to post videos is restored, which I think it probably will be at some point) that are "Not Safe For Work."
Most members here don't use foul language that often, but I think that's because they are articulate enough not to have to depend on it, and only use it sparingly when it seems appropriate, rather than debasing its effectiveness by overuse. So, I think that it would be well within the rules as they are currently written to say something like, ". . . kissing the fucking imaginary hairy ass of YHVH," if you felt that it was an effective description of your sentiment. ;)
What is definitely not acceptable here (as I understand the Civility Rule) is cursing fellow members, demeaning them or using abusive (or racist) language towards them.
Hello Egor,
I am not sure of your intentions in asking this question on this forum. Perhaps you have some kind of smug enjoyment knowing that you know something that is true while everyone else is wrong. Maybe you feel it is your duty to challenge the godless and wake them to your knowledge. It seems that you feel you have arrived at some strong logic able to defeat unarmed atheist.
Your question comes in two parts and so I will respond in two parts.
Is god impossible?
Nothing is impossible. your god is not impossible, there I said it. But neither is thor, or zeus.
The quality of being possible is not proof of god. it is only proof of the possible. These are not just words.
While anything is possible, far fewer things are probable, your god among them
Do you believe that god never/never will exist?
A being that intervenes in matters of the world, and created the world, has relationships with physical matter and is subject to physical reality. god is Material and subject to material reality. material reality is not subject to belief. I don't believe in trees or clould, they just are. removing god from material reality is fine with me, but you must admit that such things are just ideas. So while there has never been material proof in the physical existence of god, I am happy to grant that god is immaterial, and therefore not real.
A question for you:
Is there a possibility that you are wrong? even the smallest chance?
If you close the door on ANY chance of this you show that your belief is not rational. You probably admit and are even proud of this fact. I have no problem with your choice to close your mind to all possibilities, just leave me out of it.
Jose AR
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 16, 2011, 09:24:53 AM
What exactly is speaking in tongues and how is it useful in today's world? o_o I am actually curious.
I speak in tongues on occasion. It's sort of like a short-cut to the sense of the presence of God, bypassing thought. It can have some value for the individual, but publicly it's a distraction, so I keep it to myself. It is somewhat like chanting or saying "ohm" for eastern traditions.
Quote from: Egor on December 17, 2011, 10:11:51 AM
No. There's no honor or dignity in that. And life without honor is a waste of life.
As opposed to wasting life by killing people?
QuoteIt's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.
Taliban East vs. Taliban West? If those are the only two options, no world sounds best. However, I believe you're seriously mistaken about the world's fate as you're mistaken in all your religiously-based beliefs.
QuoteIt's only Christian societies that tolerate atheism.
Actually, it's secular governments that tolerate religious and non-religious diversity and yes, I do bear that in mind every time a Xtian tries to violate the separation of church and state.
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.
For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders. If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message. Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 17, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.
For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders. If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message. Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.
So, you'd be a Christian who is not in the "nuke all of the Muslims" camp?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 17, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.
For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders. If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message. Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.
But what would you do IF you were 100% sure that your God did want you to kill. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Would you do what you felt your God wanted you to do? Would you, in the final analysis, with all other options and avenues explored kill because your God wanted you to?
Quote from: Recusant on December 17, 2011, 08:56:59 PM
Quote from: history_geek on December 17, 2011, 06:06:14 PM. . .(or the other thing that would get me a notice for foul language). . .
There is no rule at HAF about "foul language." The closest the rules come to dealing with this is the "Work Friendly" rule, which is specifically targeted toward images and videos (when the functionality to post videos is restored, which I think it probably will be at some point) that are "Not Safe For Work."
Most members here don't use foul language that often, but I think that's because they are articulate enough not to have to depend on it, and only use it sparingly when it seems appropriate, rather than debasing its effectiveness by overuse. So, I think that it would be well within the rules as they are currently written to say something like, ". . . kissing the fucking imaginary hairy ass of YHVH," if you felt that it was an effective description of your sentiment. ;)
What is definitely not acceptable here (as I understand the Civility Rule) is cursing fellow members, demeaning them or using abusive (or racist) language towards them.
Thanks for the clear up and heads up ;D
I usually try to stay away from foul language when I try to have a conversation or even a debate, just because there's the strong possibility that it will eventually boil over or my counter part will pay more attention to that then the argument (and let's not forget, Egor's blog describes atheists as people who are "extremely rude and vulgar", so I think it's better not to give him any excuses to see me as filling that stereotype ;)). So far it has worked, and I think I'll stick to it, though now I know that if I did "slip up" it wouldn't be that big of a deal ;D
And yes, it was along those lines that I was thinking, though not nesseccarily kissing YHWH's hairy non-existant rear-end, but who ever shown to me as a being fulfilling the "proper defenition of 'god'" ;)
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 17, 2011, 03:31:05 PM
Do you mind if I ask, Egor, have you seen the comments about de-humanizing in one of your other threads? I was personally so troubled by it, that I started a topic in another area of the forum to explore the terminology. Would you mind commenting on your own perspective; are you familiar with this concept of dehumanization and what it leads to? Can you comment on this with regard to your statements above? I'm wanting to get an understanding as to why you talk about violence, killing, and highly destructive weaponry in a seemingly casual way.
Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.
Quote from: Jose AR on December 17, 2011, 09:36:22 PM
Hello Egor,
I am not sure of your intentions in asking this question on this forum. Perhaps you have some kind of smug enjoyment knowing that you know something that is true while everyone else is wrong. Maybe you feel it is your duty to challenge the godless and wake them to your knowledge. It seems that you feel you have arrived at some strong logic able to defeat unarmed atheist.
Your question comes in two parts and so I will respond in two parts.
Is god impossible?
Nothing is impossible. your god is not impossible, there I said it. But neither is thor, or zeus.
Thor and Zeus are revelations of God. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Creator of the universe.
QuoteThe quality of being possible is not proof of god. it is only proof of the possible. These are not just words.
While anything is possible, far fewer things are probable, your god among them
How in the world can you say God is improbable? Seriously? Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe or you can believe in God. So where do you get your information that God is improbable?
QuoteDo you believe that god never/never will exist?
A being that intervenes in matters of the world, and created the world, has relationships with physical matter and is subject to physical reality. god is Material and subject to material reality. material reality is not subject to belief. I don't believe in trees or clould, they just are. removing god from material reality is fine with me, but you must admit that such things are just ideas. So while there has never been material proof in the physical existence of god, I am happy to grant that god is immaterial, and therefore not real.
Your thoughts aren't material. Are you saying they're not real?
QuoteA question for you:
Is there a possibility that you are wrong? even the smallest chance?
No. It is impossible for God to not exist.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 17, 2011, 09:45:01 PM
I speak in tongues on occasion.
Don't take this the wrong way; in fact the reason I ask is because you seem to be a very rational Christian...but I am surprised that's an activity that you do. Do you think you could explain it in a way (probably best in a new thread) that those of us who don't understand tongues could understand? Even though I have a lot of past experience in the church it's something that was always very foreign to me; even in the framework of connecting to god from a believer's point of view. Just curious.
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 05:42:16 AM
Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe
Is there something wrong with just admitting that we don't fully understand the universe yet?
Humanity has made remarkable strides in understanding how the universe works in the lifetimes of some people still living...going from next to no knowledge; aside from a basic map of the immediate solar system; to having at least a good grasp on how it all unfolded at t=0...to me it makes sense to realize that there is a lot that is new to us about the way things really are and a lot more to learn. Now that we are advanced enough to fully grasp just how much we don't know isn't that even more reason to acknowledge our true ignorance and stop making assumptions about higher beings that were created from man's mind?
Quote from: EgorBecause I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.
So you answers TristanJay's question about your perspective on dehumanization by saying that because you are ex-military and assume to know how the world and nature work......and then what?
Quote from: EgorThor and Zeus are revelations of God. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Creator of the universe.
So your defenition of "god" is that he/she/it is a creator of the known universe? And you also assume that other "gods" are "revelations" of this "god"?
Alright, would you like to tell us what you base these interpitations, defenitions and assumptions on? The account of the bible, or your own belief, or something else?
Quote from: EgorHow in the world can you say God is improbable? Seriously? Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe or you can believe in God. So where do you get your information that God is improbable?
To me, this answer told me a great deal. You are apparently affraid of not knowing something. Now, I'm not trying to put you on a couch and play Freud with you, but this really doesn't suprise me since this is something that I have noticed a long time ago. We humans seem to have great problems when we have to accept that we don't know something, because that implyes that we do not understand something, and that we are thus not in control of this unknown. as i see it, there are two common responses to this: one is to deny the existane of this unknown, and/or get rid of it. The second is to practically make up knowledge, so that we have something to assume that we know about this unknowable, and thus do away with our fear of not being in control of things.
It's an odd thing to do, but human nature seems to work that way, or so I am inclined to believe based upon my own experience and observations.
But the fact is, we do not know how the universe was "kick started", other then knowing that existing matter rapidly expanded from a tiny space into it's current form and size. where did that matter come from in the first place, we don't know. How life began is also a mystery, although there are a number of hypothesis', such as abiogenesis that is life from non-life, through the forming of proteins, then simple RNA and finally strands of DNA that connected into the first single celled lifeforms, if I have understood it correctly. Other member might be able to correct me, if I made a mistake. Another hypothesis that I think is proposed that it is possible that already existing life forms, extremophiles, arrived to Earth on commets and ansteroids that bombardet it through it's youth.
However, there is no basis to say that one either has to believe in "god" or stand with a gaping mouth. Why do you think we have special labratories and scientists who spend their whole carreers to find answers to such questions and so many more? Best one can do is that if you are truly intrested is to becomes a reasercher to find answers. Best of luck to those who take that road! Just don't expect to get all the answers right away, such things need time, proper research for every possible scrap of information our technology and more traditional means are able to give to us, and even more careful studying to find the facts....
I would recommend you to read my original post to this thread (just one page back) if you want to know why I think any "god" of manmade religion is impossible, though not compleatly discounting the possibility for beings that we might consider "gods", should we be given a proper defenition of such a being or beings.
Quote from: EgorYour thoughts aren't material. Are you saying they're not real?
Our thoughts are produced by our brains, that work with eletromagnetic pulses as well as chemical interractions. I'd say they are rather matterial. However, there are still many things that we do not know about our brains inner workings. another great and fascinating field of study, just waiting for people to look for answers!
Quote from: EgorNo. It is impossible for God to not exist.
Currently there is no evidence that any "gods" would exist, no matter what defenition is used. Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings fitting some defenition, but if you are waiting for "gods" of human religions, I'm afraid you will be dissapointed.
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 05:42:16 AM
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 17, 2011, 03:31:05 PM
Do you mind if I ask, Egor, have you seen the comments about de-humanizing in one of your other threads? I was personally so troubled by it, that I started a topic in another area of the forum to explore the terminology. Would you mind commenting on your own perspective; are you familiar with this concept of dehumanization and what it leads to? Can you comment on this with regard to your statements above? I'm wanting to get an understanding as to why you talk about violence, killing, and highly destructive weaponry in a seemingly casual way.
Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.
Having made the decision to put your life on the line for your country is regarded as honorable, and I would even go so far as to say I consider it so, to an extent. When it comes to the actual mechanics and necessities of real combat and it's consequences, that's a bit more tricky.
Regarding your comment that you "
know the how the world and nature works" do you feel strongly that you know absolute truth in this regard, or is this more a matter that you have a
perspective that you strongly believe to be true? I have observed that quite a lot of humans feel that when they've reach a certain point in their experiences, they tend to consider that they
know how things are. You've had different experiences from other people, and your view of the world is informed by your experiences.
I would like to focus in specifically on the de-humanization issue. As a pragmatic thing, this is a practice that is used to make it easier to engage in lethal combat with opponents, and I'm not going to complain about from the standpoint that we have a reasonable example with, say, World War II, to justify a well-meaning war (I'm not going to over-analyze this beyond that we fought Japan because the initiated military hostilities, and opposing Nazi Germany speaks for itself).
There are a couple of points that were raised in the de-humanization thread and elsewhere that I was hoping you would comment on. The main thing of interest to me is de-humanization as a practice to target a group of human (outside of combat situations) for the purpose of lessening their humanity in your eyes, consider them less than human. In the context of this and similar Christian to non-Christian discussions, regarding non-Christians as something less than human.
Further, I would be interested in having you comment on the concept that the practice of de-humanization diminishes the person who is practicing de-humanization on others, on the grounds that it breaks down that person's barriers to reasonable human to human interaction. I'm not meaning to sound accusatory to you personally, but I'm wondering about your thoughts on these dynamics in human interaction.
Quote from: EgorYour only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe or you can believe in God.
That is in fact what a large number of atheists I know, including me, say, altho we generally leave out the supernatural as being in the same improbable category as god. And I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say most of us do stare in awe at the universe. It's hard to believe you've never noticed this since a quick review of this one board would have shown you that.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 18, 2011, 07:39:28 AM
There are a couple of points that were raised in the de-humanization thread and elsewhere that I was hoping you would comment on. The main thing of interest to me is de-humanization as a practice to target a group of human (outside of combat situations) for the purpose of lessening their humanity in your eyes, consider them less than human. In the context of this and similar Christian to non-Christian discussions, regarding non-Christians as something less than human.
Further, I would be interested in having you comment on the concept that the practice of de-humanization diminishes the person who is practicing de-humanization on others, on the grounds that it breaks down that person's barriers to reasonable human to human interaction. I'm not meaning to sound accusatory to you personally, but I'm wondering about your thoughts on these dynamics in human interaction.
You know, you're sophistry is really annoying. Do you have a question for me? Are you asking if I think it's right to dehumanize someone? No, it's not right to dehumanize someone. Are you accusing me of dehumanizing someone? Who? Not atheists--I feel sorry for atheists. I want to stop atheism specifically because of what it does to atheists.
But I'm done guessing.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 18, 2011, 08:40:21 AM
That is in fact what a large number of atheists I know, including me, say, altho we generally leave out the supernatural as being in the same improbable category as god. And I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say most of us do stare in awe at the universe. It's hard to believe you've never noticed this since a quick review of this one board would have shown you that.
My point is that for someone to say it's unreasonable to believe in God, is itself unreasonable.
Quote from: history_geek on December 18, 2011, 06:31:48 AM
Currently there is no evidence that any "gods" would exist, no matter what defenition is used. Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings fitting some defenition, but if you are waiting for "gods" of human religions, I'm afraid you will be dissapointed.
You say "no evidence" because that's the standard atheist line. The fact is evidence is all around us, you just won't look at it. You think God should be detectable in a proton accelerator, but He isn't. It doesn't work that way.
And how do you know that the God of a human religion like Christianity doesn't exist? What do you think the typical Christian idea of God is?
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:21:05 AM
Quote from: history_geek on December 18, 2011, 06:31:48 AM
Currently there is no evidence that any "gods" would exist, no matter what defenition is used. Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings fitting some defenition, but if you are waiting for "gods" of human religions, I'm afraid you will be dissapointed.
You say "no evidence" because that's the standard atheist line. The fact is evidence is all around us, you just won't look at it. You think God should be detectable in a proton accelerator, but He isn't. It doesn't work that way.
And how do you know that the God of a human religion like Christianity doesn't exist? What do you think the typical Christian idea of God is?
The highlighted above is the standard theist assertion, in fact ISoK our Muslim member used exactly the same flawed assertion. Please define evidence and then explain why what you think you see conforms to that definition. Shouldn't be that difficult should it?
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:14:57 AM
You know, you're sophistry is really annoying.
I'm sorry that my sophistry is annoying you. Do you feel that I've been trying to use arguments that sound plausible yet are actually misleading? I haven't been attempting to mislead anyone. Please, can clarify how you feel I've been misleading or disingenuous; hopefully that will help me learn to engage in discussion with you more effectively, and be less annoying.
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:14:57 AMDo you have a question for me? Are you asking if I think it's right to dehumanize someone? No, it's not right to dehumanize someone. Are you accusing me of dehumanizing someone? Who? Not atheists--I feel sorry for atheists.
I was wanting to know about your understanding of what de-humanization is. From that standpoint, I wanted to know if you felt that de-humanizing other people was acceptable or unacceptable. Finally, I was trying to indicate that some of your conversation appeared (to me and another poster) to be characteristic of a diminished view of another group of humans. In the What About Dignity thread, you challenge our capability to have dignity as human beings, without God and Jesus. The core basis of that topic seems at the heart of it's reasoning to be dehumanizing, and I got the impression that Magic Pudding felt the same way. We both had the same data, and came to the same (similar?) conclusion entirely independent of one another, which I thought gave this concern a degree of verisimilitude.
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:14:57 AMI want to stop atheism specifically because of what it does to atheists.
Beyond keeping atheists from salvation as you understand it, are there other things that you feel it
does to atheists? Do you feel it effects the emotions, reasoning, dignity, and capacity for generosity in atheists?
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:14:57 AMAnd frankly, I like to fight.
What's more important to you, fighting atheists, or learning what will persuade them and having good answers for their questions? If you think you have the answers worth debating, does it benefit God to present them in an antagonistic way? Is that a dignified approach to discourse, especially if you think that the immortal souls of people are at stake for all eternity?
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 05:42:16 AM
How in the world can you say God is improbable? Seriously? Your only other option is to say you have no clue how the universe began or how the first cell organized, or how supernatural things occur. You can stare with your mouth open at the entire universe or you can believe in God. So where do you get your information that God is improbable?
In a sense, you are right. There is a lot we don't know about the origins of the universe, sub-atomic particle theory, and the origin of life. Why is that wrong? ???
The history of science and human understanding is the history of taking something we did not know and turning it into something we do know. That is how we got the theory of gravity, germ theory, the theory of relativity, etc.etc.etc.
The words "We don't know" are not a mark agaist scientists, they are a challenge.
But to assert that the thing we don't
yet know, must have a supernatural explenation is just a case of intellectual laziness.
I am glad that there are things we don't know yet, because the greatest joy I have yet to experience is the joy of understanding something today that I didn't yesterday. How boring would the world be if there was nothing more to learn....
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:17:54 AM
My point is that for someone to say it's unreasonable to believe in God, is itself unreasonable.
Two different things.
It's unreasonable to believe in god of Abrahamic momotheism because that being's existence has not been demonstrated and verified, and because the existence of that being is unnecessary. That's not even going into the impossible bits of his alleged nature.
Now, the Abrahamic god is unreasonable because of pretty much the entire Old Testament (And that's just for starters, really... The list goes on to, right to the sorry state the world is in)
Ex military, eh..? You know, enjoying violence is not actually a good thing there. Are you sure you are not ex military because you were kicked out after "accidentally" grenading some Muslim family's home some place abroad..?
Quote from: Asmodean on December 18, 2011, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:17:54 AM
My point is that for someone to say it's unreasonable to believe in God, is itself unreasonable.
Two different things.
It's unreasonable to believe in god of Abrahamic momotheism because that being's existence has not been demonstrated and verified, and because the existence of that being is unnecessary. That's not even going into the impossible bits of his alleged nature.
Now, the Abrahamic god is unreasonable because of pretty much the entire Old Testament (And that's just for starters, really... The list goes on to, right to the sorry state the world is in)
Ex military, eh..? You know, enjoying violence is not actually a good thing there. Are you sure you are not ex military because you were kicked out after "accidentally" grenading some Muslim family's home some place abroad..?
Asmo. For all we know Edward was a filing clerk who never even picked up a gun in anger! That sort of comment doesn't help reasoned discussion.
Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 05:42:16 AM
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 17, 2011, 03:31:05 PM
Do you mind if I ask, Egor, have you seen the comments about de-humanizing in one of your other threads? I was personally so troubled by it, that I started a topic in another area of the forum to explore the terminology. Would you mind commenting on your own perspective; are you familiar with this concept of dehumanization and what it leads to? Can you comment on this with regard to your statements above? I'm wanting to get an understanding as to why you talk about violence, killing, and highly destructive weaponry in a seemingly casual way.
Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.
I'm guessing you weren't a higher official?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 18, 2011, 03:42:51 PM
Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<
Well that thing is that nobody kills without a reason. That reason might be insanity but it would still be a reason. Theists of course can cite the 'voice in their head' as a reason. It may well be the reason but it's never an excuse.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 18, 2011, 03:42:51 PM
Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<
I've seen enough of Egor's posts to convince me that he's an angry, violent person who has no interest in expanding his views. It's unfortunate, but I don't think we're going to convince him otherwise. I'm choosing to ignore most of what he says unless I feel like there's a point to be made that could be useful or helpful to other people here.
Just my take.
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 03:02:12 PM
Asmo. For all we know Edward was a filing clerk who never even picked up a gun in anger! That sort of comment doesn't help reasoned discussion.
I contest this one, Tank.
QuoteBecause I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.
My comment to the above was not meant to be taken literally, but I stand by its intent.
Hello Edward,
Nice to see you respond, not so nice to see you just repeat your position with no new evidence or arguments.
You define god as the creator of the universe and move thor and zeus down the hierarchy of gods, calling them revelations of god. That is not logical, calling something a revelation is not saying anything. It is a circular argument that can never be wrong. And yet you say it with the feeling that you are right. Of course you are right, becuase you defined it so. Now go back in a time machine to 500bc in say, sweden, and tell them that Zeus is not god! They will say that Zeus is master of the universe, all other gods bow before him! You claim a creator of the universe but offer no evidence other than than revelation.
How can you say god is probable? seriously? you confuse two issues. We do not know how the universe began or exactly how the first cells were organized. But that doesn't mean they are unknowable or will never be know. Science is proud to say it doesn't know stuff! Over time new things are discovered and the tree of knowledge grows. I do stand with my mouth wide open staring at the universe. Its called 'awe', and I am filled with it when I think of the wonder of the sun, or of the size of space, or the beauty of an orchid or beetle. But there is no creator, or logical need of one, or material evidence of one.
god is extremely improbable! My only option is to say that and say, nothing is supernatural, all is natural, just the way it should be, without a creator or god. My information for the improbable comes from the twin pillars of math and logic. A man in the sky who is both all powerful and all knowing. If he is all knowing there must be something he knows he can't do, and if he is all powerful then he lacks the power of not existing. A man in the sky! just thinking about it makes me laugh. Of course there could be a god, or leperchaun, or tooth fairy, or jesus, or santa. I don't say impossible. But probably (by definition) is measured in numbers, and the probability of a god is a tiny number indeed.
I have some sad news for you: my (and your) thoughts are material. Thoughts are not possible without a working brain, well supplied by blood. There is a simple experiment you can do to prove this: think about something, then temporarily stop the flow of blood to your brain, and see if you continue to have thoughts. Soon after passing out you will slowly start to have thoughts again, as the flow of blood slowly returns to your physical thought making brain.
Finally, when you say it is impossible for god to not exist, what you are really saying is "na nana na nana!" I don't go to your creationist forum and that it is impossible for god to exist, so why do you? are you cementing your place in heaven? Don't pray for me, take the log out of your eye before worrying about the needle in mine.
yours in there is no god
Jose AR
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:21:05 AM
Quote from: history_geek on December 18, 2011, 06:31:48 AM
Currently there is no evidence that any "gods" would exist, no matter what defenition is used. Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings fitting some defenition, but if you are waiting for "gods" of human religions, I'm afraid you will be dissapointed.
You say "no evidence" because that's the standard atheist line. The fact is evidence is all around us, you just won't look at it. You think God should be detectable in a proton accelerator, but He isn't. It doesn't work that way.
And how do you know that the God of a human religion like Christianity doesn't exist? What do you think the typical Christian idea of God is?
I do not say that ther is no evidence because it is "a standard atheist line" but because there is no evidecne to indicate the existance of anything that would fit any of the current defentions of "god(s)", whether one is using a religious one or not. And I do not care if "god(s)" isn't detectable in a proton accelerator, even if I understood how one works to make such a claim, unless that is the new given defenition for "god(s)". And I agree, trying to prove something that cannot even be properly defined is simply not working.
Also, as for ingnored evidence, I am yet to see a single piece of our natural world that requires a "designer" or "god(s)". Even the creation and expansion of the universe might not require a "creator", and as far no, we have no evidence for such possible being(s), and I see no reason to believe that even should such a presence be discovered it would be a "god" from man made fairytales.
I know that they do not exist because I know that they are creations of human imagination, and we can see the progress of human religions and the concepts of "god(s)" throught the ages. For example, the first monotheistic "god" was Ra, who was to be worshiped as the only deity by the order of the Pharaoh Akhenaten. Further more, we can trace back many of the myths adobted by the Abrahamic religions to earlier Summerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Cananite and Egyptian mythologies.
But you know, you're last question gives me a pause. Simply because I am honestly yet to find a "typical christian idea of "god"". It varries from sect to sect, pastor to pastor, and even individual person to person. For some "god" is an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnisentient, Immaterial and eternal or non-caused being that is also timeless. To others it is the Jesus of the New Testament, others the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. To some "god" is a personal (as I think Escrub demonstrated when he said "For the record, my God....", post #86 in this thread). So really, what is a "typical Christian idea of "god"? I really have no clue.
But then there's the bible that gives the most twisted look of this paticular version of the Abrahamic "god"; based on the OT I would call this "god" a nihilistic, bloodlusting, megalomanic teenager with severe ego and emotional problems, who does have moments of almost compasion but they are overshadowed by hissifists about the slightest of infragment of his rules that he never ones even pretends to follow (now that I think about it, wasn't Mary married to Josef before the "virgin birth" news was revealed? Adultery was mentoned in the Commandment's, wasn't it....?, that all result in a death penalty. And this is before his "better-half" spread the word of eternal damnation for those who do not believe that the YHWH of the OT is his dad....other then that, Jesus did a pretty good job using philosphical ideologies such as the golden rule that had exised for centuries before his times, and living a mostly non-violent-hippie life, discounting the olive tree and the hissifit in the Temple of course (which i suppose would work as evidence to prove that he really had some connetion to the YHWH....). Now, these of course aren't "typical christian idea of "god", but my own interpitaions accoardind to the bible accounts as I have understood them....And of course YHWH is the urivaled boss who can do what ever he wants and let's everyone do almsot whatever they want in his name, as long as they remember to avoid those things in the commandments.....
Lastly, @xSilverPhinx: i think they are called "officers" ;)
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 05:42:16 AM
Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.
So, you are a Christian and Ex-military, and a Fighter. You say you know how the world works.
I don't think so - I don't think you really see how the world works.
I think you are nothing but an angry Chicken - a Fighting Rooster.
As one fits spurs to a fighting rooster, you have been armed with Intellectual Spurs and made to relish fighting so that your Intellectual Owners can profit from your struggle. And you think you are free because you fight - for this is what you Owners want you believe. But you can't see it for your fury has blinded you.
There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.
Goethe
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 18, 2011, 04:27:10 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 18, 2011, 03:42:51 PM
Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<
I've seen enough of Egor's posts to convince me that he's an angry, violent person who has no interest in expanding his views. It's unfortunate, but I don't think we're going to convince him otherwise. I'm choosing to ignore most of what he says unless I feel like there's a point to be made that could be useful or helpful to other people here.
Just my take.
You convinced me ^___^
Ciao, Egor.
Quote from: history_geek on December 18, 2011, 05:53:45 PM
Lastly, @xSilverPhinx: i think they are called "officers" ;)
Whoops, I think I may be experiencing what they say about what happens to your IQ when you stay around dumb people for too long (IRL)...I find the antidote here.
;D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 17, 2011, 10:18:18 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 17, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.
For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders. If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message. Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.
So, you'd be a Christian who is not in the "nuke all of the Muslims" camp?
As angry as Islam makes me at times, there is simply no way to reconcile Jesus' message of loving others, including enemies, and nuking any particular group.
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 10:29:59 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 17, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.
For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders. If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message. Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.
But what would you do IF you were 100% sure that your God did want you to kill. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Would you do what you felt your God wanted you to do? Would you, in the final analysis, with all other options and avenues explored kill because your God wanted you to?
Your hypothetical makes no sense to me - it's like saying "assume that 2+2 really did equal 5". But, to play along, no, I'm just not the killin kind - there would have to be a very good reason - like somebody messin with my grandkids. God would have to ask someone else if he wanted a hit job. But since that is 100% contrary to my concept of God, I can't imagine that ever happening. If I thought I heard that message, I would assume that I was wrong.
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 03:56:51 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 18, 2011, 03:42:51 PM
Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<
Well that thing is that nobody kills without a reason. That reason might be insanity but it would still be a reason. Theists of course can cite the 'voice in their head' as a reason. It may well be the reason but it's never an excuse.
Religious extremists do carry out violent acts, bombing abortion clinics, murdering social progressives. Before they do this it wouldn't surprise me if they haunt atheist forums in a manner we are familiar with. I may be acting a bit extreme myself but I think it wouldn't hurt for the mods who can be physically reached to avoid these people. If it's an American nutter let Tank deal with them, I don't like the idea of them fixating on some one they can reach.
Quote from: Egor on December 18, 2011, 10:17:54 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 18, 2011, 08:40:21 AM
That is in fact what a large number of atheists I know, including me, say, altho we generally leave out the supernatural as being in the same improbable category as god. And I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say most of us do stare in awe at the universe. It's hard to believe you've never noticed this since a quick review of this one board would have shown you that.
My point is that for someone to say it's unreasonable to believe in God, is itself unreasonable.
A few points:
1. you'll have to explain why it's unreasonable to believe in something without concrete, verifiable evidence, and it would need to be a better reason than "because I believe without evidence".
2. since you've admitted that concrete, verifiable evidence isn't the sort that proves god's existence, you'll need to explain why any other type of "evidence", aka faith, is reasonable and it will also need to be a better reason than "because that's the "evidence" I accept".
3. I, and some others, said your version of god is improbable. I may be picking nits here but that's a different thing from a belief in that god being unreasonable. I can think of good reasons for believing in a personal god, the comfort factor being the top one, followed closely by easing the fear of death -- those don't work for me but that doesn't rule them out for others or make them unreasonable things.
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on December 18, 2011, 06:00:30 PMI think you are nothing but an angry Chicken - a Fighting Rooster.
Or one might say a Contentious Cock.
Hey, it's in the bible too.
From a christian perspective I am 100% atheist.
Quote from: unholy1971 on December 19, 2011, 03:29:08 AM
From a christian perspective I am 100% atheist.
Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god? I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me. On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:36:15 AM
Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god? I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me. On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.
Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 19, 2011, 01:04:32 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 10:29:59 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 17, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.
For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders. If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message. Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.
But what would you do IF you were 100% sure that your God did want you to kill. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Would you do what you felt your God wanted you to do? Would you, in the final analysis, with all other options and avenues explored kill because your God wanted you to?
Your hypothetical makes no sense to me - it's like saying "assume that 2+2 really did equal 5". But, to play along, no, I'm just not the killin kind - there would have to be a very good reason - like somebody messin with my grandkids. God would have to ask someone else if he wanted a hit job. But since that is 100% contrary to my concept of God, I can't imagine that ever happening. If I thought I heard that message, I would assume that I was wrong.
That's what I hoped you'd say.
Quote from: Tank on December 19, 2011, 08:09:13 AM
That's what I hoped you'd say.
It's funny. What is most intollerable about religion is that people might talk to God and God might talk to them. Because when that starts to happen you can't have any centralized control of people. And yet that's exactly the relationship Jesus taught we should have with God. So much so that Jesus preached the utter dissolution of the family heirarchy, suggested we give our money back to the government and follow God, and suggested we forget the central authority of the church and follow God in spirit and in truth.
People don't read the Gospels very closely. Churches only preach the safe stuff Jesus said. Paintings are always with Jesus smiling with a child on his knee and a lamb somewhere nearby. But Jesus said plainly that he did not come to bring peace on the earth but a sword that would break up all these institutions of civilization. Jesus was an anarchist in the extreme. But you won't hear that preached from the pulpit. Why?
Because individual spirits listening to God are too dangerous. The world wants to control its people so that it can use them.
If people would take a minute to really look at the implications of Jesus' teachings they would come to see, pretty quickly, that if Jesus were alive today, the Church and government would rise up and nail him to a cross all over again. They'd have no choice, not if they wanted to survive anyway. You can't have government and church and familiy all competing to control the individual and then have someone like Jesus coming along telling people to think of God as their only father.
By the way, when all you atheists talk about the "Christian" God, you should realize that the only version of God that matters is how God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Until you read the Gospels for yourself, absent any interpretations from anyone other than yourself, you will never see God for what he really is. When you have seen Christ--you have seen God.
Finally! a Christian that actually interprets the bible as I see it. However I think its absolutely vile and disgusting and that is why I dislike Christianity so much.
I am glad most interpenetrate the bible like Ecurb Noselrub otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages.
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:24:33 AM
[Jesus] suggested we give our money back to the government and follow God
And yet here you are, typing on a computer (which costs money), using the internet (which costs money), indulging in talking to us rather than following god.
Unless of course you are using your employer's computer, your employer's time which would be considered theft which presumably is one of the ten commandment on what thou shalt not do.
Oh well.
Egor are you a poe?
Quote from: Stevil on December 19, 2011, 08:40:32 AM
And yet here you are, typing on a computer (which costs money), using the internet (which costs money), indulging in talking to us rather than following god.
Unless of course you are using your employer's computer, your employer's time which would be considered theft which presumably is one of the ten commandment on what thou shalt not do.
Oh well.
A. It's mine and my internet card, but my employer doesn't mind even if I use the company computer, so it's not theft any way you look at it.
B. Money is money. Who cares? We need what we need. But I seek first the Kingdom of God, and he has added all these other things unto me. And talking to you is following God.
Quote from: Crow on December 19, 2011, 09:26:37 AM
Egor are you a poe?
I've recently learned what that means. And no, I'm not.
Ok, your viewpoints seemed slightly too stereotypical of a fundamentalist combined with the aggressive style of writing made me think that you may have been one.
Egor, can you please go further back and review the comments between now and the last time you were in to comment. There are things that myself and others would like you to respond to, if you please. Thanks.
Quote from: Crow on December 19, 2011, 08:32:10 AM
Finally! a Christian that actually interprets the bible as I see it. However I think its absolutely vile and disgusting and that is why I dislike Christianity so much.
I am glad most interpenetrate the bible like Ecurb Noselrub otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages.
Seconded. ::)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 11:44:22 AM
Quote from: Crow on December 19, 2011, 08:32:10 AM
Finally! a Christian that actually interprets the bible as I see it. However I think its absolutely vile and disgusting and that is why I dislike Christianity so much.
I am glad most interpenetrate the bible like Ecurb Noselrub otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages.
Seconded. ::)
Noselrub has shown himself to be a fime addition to the forum, gotta give him that. :D AND Noselrub sounds cool.
Why should anyone believe the first 4 books of the new testament? Who wrote them and when? The most conservative place the earliest one at at AD 60. I whole generation after Jesus died.
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:24:33 AM
By the way, when all you atheists talk about the "Christian" God, you should realize that the only version of God that matters is how God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Until you read the Gospels for yourself, absent any interpretations from anyone other than yourself, you will never see God for what he really is. When you have seen Christ--you have seen God.
You are wrong in assuming that if someone doesn't accept Jesus that they simply haven't read the gospels. Most of the members here have read it; a majority of ex-christians will tell you that reading the bible is what made them have to quit accepting it as real.
Now, are you going to provide us with your obvious evidence for God existing or do you now agree that it is justifiable to not have a belief in god when there is absence of both objective and individual evidence?
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:24:33 AMBy the way, when all you atheists talk about the "Christian" God, you should realize that the only version of God that matters is how God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Until you read the Gospels for yourself, absent any interpretations from anyone other than yourself, you will never see God for what he really is. When you have seen Christ--you have seen God.
why is that? that then brings ANOTHER problem, are all of the revelations of god in the OT invalid? that doesn't make sense.
(Edited to fix quote. -- Recusant)
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:04:36 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:36:15 AM
Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god? I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me. On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.
Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.
I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god. But Christ
as god? No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:32:56 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:04:36 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:36:15 AM
Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god? I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me. On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.
Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.
I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god. But Christ as god? No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely.
I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:32:56 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:04:36 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:36:15 AM
Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god? I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me. On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.
Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.
I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god. But Christ as god? No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely.
I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.
A radical philosopher who re-used a number of much older philosophical ideas ;) For exampe the Golden Rule.
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 19, 2011, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:24:33 AMBy the way, when all you atheists talk about the "Christian" God, you should realize that the only version of God that matters is how God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Until you read the Gospels for yourself, absent any interpretations from anyone other than yourself, you will never see God for what he really is. When you have seen Christ--you have seen God.
why is that? that then brings ANOTHER problem, are all of the revelations of god in the OT invalid? that doesn't make sense.
Egor, if that were true, Christ would've NEVER mentioned the God of the OT...BTW the OT is the only "Bible" Christ knew and referred to.
God is both Judge and Savior. While I don't hold that the God of the OT is the Judge and the God of the NT is the Savior (I believe both aspects of God's character are revealed in both the OT and NT) that's to say that the Judge side may be the prevelant trait seen by a glance at the OT. The OT is full of the same grace taught in the NT. The ONLY difference MAY be that the OT's grace from God was mostly a promise of later salvation. However to those that followed God, experienced His grace daily as that of the NT believer.
Quote from: history_geek on December 19, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:32:56 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:04:36 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:36:15 AM
Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god? I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me. On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.
Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.
I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god. But Christ as god? No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely.
I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.
A radical philosopher who re-used a number of much older philosophical ideas ;) For exampe the Golden Rule.
Yes, but the golden rule is one of those things that are hardwired into human brains, it's just reality isn't as simple as that and so moral dilemmas and discussions happen.
It's possible that if there was a historical Jesus, that he even thought up the golden rule based on basic moral common sense independently, without ever having read up on more ancient philosophers who wrote of it first, such as Confucius.
I think that in the historical context of the time, Jesus' message (whether or not he actually existed, the teaching attributed to him) still could've been a step up compared to what people were thinking. Though that doesn't make him a god (I'm not arguing for that) I think it's way more likely that he was still a radical philosopher that got deified over time. The one that survived at least.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 05:17:00 PM
Quote from: history_geek on December 19, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:32:56 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 19, 2011, 08:04:36 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 19, 2011, 03:36:15 AM
Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god? I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me. On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.
Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.
I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god. But Christ as god? No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely.
I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.
A radical philosopher who re-used a number of much older philosophical ideas ;) For exampe the Golden Rule.
Yes, but the golden rule is one of those things that are hardwired into human brains, it's just reality isn't as simple as that and so moral dilemmas and discussions happen.
It's possible that if there was a historical Jesus, that he even thought up the golden rule based on basic moral common sense independently, without ever having read up on more ancient philosophers who wrote of it first, such as Confucius.
I think that in the historical context of the time, Jesus' message (whether or not he actually existed, the teaching attributed to him) still could've been a step up compared to what people were thinking. Though that doesn't make him a god (I'm not arguing for that) I think it's way more likely that he was still a radical philosopher that got deified over time. The one that survived at least.
Apologies for the gigantic nested quotes. I agree with this idea.
Back on topic, I consider myself an Agnostic. (weak atheist, pick your poison...) I know that I do not know whether God does or does not exist. It has not been proven to me either way. There is a significant lack of evidence on both sides of the equation, and believe me - it is completely understandable lack of evidence given that we live for Maybe 70 years on average if we're lucky and the course of human history is many, many times that number in years.
Now think of the game you may have played in school as a child, where you are given a sentence and pass it on through your classmates one by one and by the end the sentence is nothing like you were given originally. So went the course of human history, given to new generations first only by oral tradition, then finally by written tradition. Somewhere along the lines though - man, as in humanity, or a man, or group of men, whoever realized that history could be whatever it is they wanted it to be. By making small adjustments in text they could influence the masses. I see this as a more plausible theory than that Jesus was the son of God AND God through some supernatural twist of logic.
Today, we see this religious approval given for things that would have been heresy in years past, now given out like candy.
*edit* added last sentence instead of double posting.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 05:17:00 PM
I think that in the historical context of the time, Jesus' message (whether or not he actually existed, the teaching attributed to him) still could've been a step up compared to what people were thinking. Though that doesn't make him a god (I'm not arguing for that) I think it's way more likely that he was still a radical philosopher that got deified over time. The one that survived at least.
That's my take on him as well. And in all honesty, I could be a variety of Xtian if all it meant were a follower of Christ (still have to do some cherry-picking tho), it's the supernatural elements, including the claims of godhood, that are a speed bump I just can't get over.
Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 07:54:49 PM
Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.
You know, some xians even claim some names as their own, what with them being "biblical" and all... *sigh* Do you really think something as small and insignificant as reality is going to stop them from claiming that "stuff" in the name of their prophet... messiah... YHWH's alter ego..?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 07:54:49 PM
Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.
Yes, ma'am.
In fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person. This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on December 19, 2011, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 07:54:49 PM
Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.
Yes, ma'am.
In fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person. This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.
This. *thumbs up*
Quote from: MadBomr101 on December 19, 2011, 08:30:05 PMIn fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person. This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.
Wouldn't you know it, somebody already did that. No less a personage than Thomas Jefferson, in fact. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)
The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Life__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html)
Quote from: Recusant on December 19, 2011, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on December 19, 2011, 08:30:05 PMIn fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person. This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.
Wouldn't you know it, somebody already did that. No less a personage than Thomas Jefferson, in fact. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)
The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Life__Morals_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth_1.html)
How cool is this? Imagine, a bible that isn't completely overflowing with bullsh*t.
TJ and me, we think alike. 8)
Quote from: MadBomr101 on December 19, 2011, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2011, 07:54:49 PM
Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.
Yes, ma'am.
In fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person. This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.
That is not entirely true.
Quote from: Gawen on December 19, 2011, 10:49:16 PMThat is not entirely true.
I know that's why I qualified it with "basically." It's all open to interpretation.
Quote from: Crocoduck on December 19, 2011, 12:16:55 PM
Why should anyone believe the first 4 books of the new testament? Who wrote them and when? The most conservative place the earliest one at at AD 60. I whole generation after Jesus died.
Actually some have argued for mid-50's for Mark. And the Q document which is a major source in the Synoptics may go back much earlier (though Q itself has never been found). That being said, I'm 59, and can quite accurately recount events that happened to me 40 years ago. Why couldn't the gospel writers or their sources do the same?
I have problems remembering the details of a meeting that happened just this past august; I can remember generally what happened and what was discussed but details that didn't seem key at the time (like how I'd find my notes from the meeting a few months later) are gone. Maybe those of us with less detailed memories are less likely to trust eye witness testimony the longer the time frame since the actual event.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on December 19, 2011, 09:41:41 AM
Egor, can you please go further back and review the comments between now and the last time you were in to comment. There are things that myself and others would like you to respond to, if you please. Thanks.
No. If you have a question ask it. Either I didn't feel like responding to you or I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Either way, I'm all about going forward not back.
Quote from: Whitney on December 19, 2011, 03:12:11 PM
You are wrong in assuming that if someone doesn't accept Jesus that they simply haven't read the gospels. Most of the members here have read it; a majority of ex-christians will tell you that reading the bible is what made them have to quit accepting it as real.
I'm talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Not the Bible in its entirety. Be that as it may, I never said if someone doesn't accept Jesus it's because they haven't read the Gospels. I suggested they may want to try reading them again without worrying what others have told them they are supposed to mean.
QuoteNow, are you going to provide us with your obvious evidence for God existing or do you now agree that it is justifiable to not have a belief in god when there is absence of both objective and individual evidence?
Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.
Do you disagree?
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 19, 2011, 03:15:22 PM
why is that? that then brings ANOTHER problem, are all of the revelations of god in the OT invalid? that doesn't make sense.
I have nothing to say about the Old Testament. It's not part of my Canon, and I won't defend it. I use it as an historical reference, that's it. Why not ask me about the Book of Mormon, for that matter, or the Koran? I have no comment about them, either.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt link=topic=8881.msg141118#msg141118
Egor, if that were true, Christ would've NEVER mentioned the God of the OT...BTW the OT is the only "Bible" Christ knew and referred to.
God is both Judge and Savior. While I don't hold that the God of the OT is the Judge and the God of the NT is the Savior (I believe both aspects of God's character are revealed in both the OT and NT) that's to say that the Judge side may be the prevelant trait seen by a glance at the OT. The OT is full of the same grace taught in the NT. The ONLY difference MAY be that the OT's grace from God was mostly a promise of later salvation. However to those that followed God, experienced His grace daily as that of the NT believer.
Whatever. It's not my book; it's your book. My books are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I appreciate that Jesus read from what we call the Old Testament, but his life and teachings have fulfilled that. There's no reason for the books of the Old Testament to be part of the Christian Canon other than that the early Catholic Church made them to be. But I'm not a Catholic and I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. To me, their sole purpose has been to preserve the four Gospels.
And frankly, I think all this talk is useless and distracting. Atheists don't believe in God. Period. Who cares what the Bible says, if we're talking about people who believe God is the same as a flying spaghetti monster? Hmmm?
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 19, 2011, 07:32:41 PM
I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god. But Christ as god? No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely.
Then what can I say? Jesus Christ is the only revelation of God that matters. If you can blow off Christ when the entire Western World bowed down to him for 2000 years, I suppose that's where you're going to be until you die.
QuoteI know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.
He's a revelation of God. He's the Son of God. He's the third person of the Trinity. God, the Father, is way too abstract and fundamental for the human mind to accept or understand. We must have a revelation of God that works in our minds in order to draw anywhere near to God.
QuoteYes, but the golden rule is one of those things that are hardwired into human brains, it's just reality isn't as simple as that and so moral dilemmas and discussions happen.
Actually, all moral dilemmas are solved by the Golden Rule (That's why it is called the Golden Rule.)
Love God with all your heart and mind by loving your neighbor as yourself by doing unto others what you would have them do unto you.I have no idea if he picked that up from somewhere else, but he sure popularized it, didn't he?
QuoteIt's possible that if there was a historical Jesus, that he even thought up the golden rule based on basic moral common sense independently, without ever having read up on more ancient philosophers who wrote of it first, such as Confucius.
Well, if it's the golden rule of morality for the entire universe, yeah, I suppose he was quoting it from another source. What was he going to do? Change it?
QuoteI think that in the historical context of the time, Jesus' message (whether or not he actually existed, the teaching attributed to him) still could've been a step up compared to what people were thinking. Though that doesn't make him a god (I'm not arguing for that) I think it's way more likely that he was still a radical philosopher that got deified over time. The one that survived at least.
According to everything I've read, no serious historian suggests that Jesus didn't exist. Actually, there's proof in the first chapter of John, but that's another topic.
QuoteBack on topic, I consider myself an Agnostic. (weak atheist, pick your poison...) I know that I do not know whether God does or does not exist. It has not been proven to me either way. There is a significant lack of evidence on both sides of the equation, and believe me - it is completely understandable lack of evidence given that we live for Maybe 70 years on average if we're lucky and the course of human history is many, many times that number in years.
Now think of the game you may have played in school as a child, where you are given a sentence and pass it on through your classmates one by one and by the end the sentence is nothing like you were given originally. So went the course of human history, given to new generations first only by oral tradition, then finally by written tradition. Somewhere along the lines though - man, as in humanity, or a man, or group of men, whoever realized that history could be whatever it is they wanted it to be. By making small adjustments in text they could influence the masses. I see this as a more plausible theory than that Jesus was the son of God AND God through some supernatural twist of logic.
It's worse than that, you know? First the Gospels were written in Ancient Greek, then translated to Coptic, then translated into Latin, and then translated into Old English, and today we have the New International Version and Paraphrased Editions. There are no original manuscripts in existence. We don't even know who wrote them. The names are simply ascribed to them (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). And as someone mentioned above, the earliest the originals may have been written is some 20 years after the event.
QuoteToday, we see this religious approval given for things that would have been heresy in years past, now given out like candy.
So, don't go to church.
QuoteHe's [Jesus] a revelation of God. He's the Son of God. He's the third person of the Trinity. God, the Father, is way too abstract and fundamental for the human mind to accept or understand. We must have a revelation of God that works in our minds in order to draw anywhere near to God.
Funny how millions of Jews have no problem understanding the mystical magical invisible God-the-Father. Funnier still that millions of Jews cannot understand the mystical magical God-the-human-son sent to them.
Perhaps it was because vicarious human sacrifice is illegal in Judaism and that God's covenants (in the mistakenly called Old Testament) remain in force for all time.
Perhaps still, the mystical magical parts of Jesus, including the son of a god, the son of a virgin, and being the third part of a polytheistic belief trope never really existed outside of mere humanness...if indeed, he existed at all.
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.
Do you disagree?
I think plenty of people on this forum are going to disagree with the assumption that the universe needs a creator, myself included. But even if you want to believe in a kosmokrator, there's no logical reason why it should be the Christian god ahead of anything else that humanity has ascribed that power to.
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
I have nothing to say about the Old Testament. It's not part of my Canon, and I won't defend it. I use it as an historical reference, that's it. Why not ask me about the Book of Mormon, for that matter, or the Koran? I have no comment about them, either.
Whatever. It's not my book; it's your book. My books are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I appreciate that Jesus read from what we call the Old Testament, but his life and teachings have fulfilled that. There's no reason for the books of the Old Testament to be part of the Christian Canon other than that the early Catholic Church made them to be. But I'm not a Catholic and I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. To me, their sole purpose has been to preserve the four Gospels.
Egor, do you see your god as being Yahweh, the god of the Jews / Israelites? Or, like some early Christians, do you believe your god is different from Yahweh. If you believe your god is Yahweh, I don't see how you can dismiss the OT.
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
Then what can I say? Jesus Christ is the only revelation of God that matters. If you can blow off Christ when the entire Western World bowed down to him for 2000 years, I suppose that's where you're going to be until you die.
technically it was something nearer 1400 years, and it was also highly dangerous to be anything other than a fairly orthodox Christian during that period (unless you liked the idea of being jailed, tortured or burned alive!) If you think Muslims are intolerant of non-Muslims, they're wet liberal pussies compared with Christians throughout most of their history. Christianity ruled supreme during the Dark and Middle Ages, it was hardly the western world's finest moments.
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
According to everything I've read, no serious historian suggests that Jesus didn't exist. Actually, there's proof in the first chapter of John, but that's another topic.
Plenty of people have questioned the historicity of Jesus, including some scholars. Obviously it would have been a very dangerous pursuit for a lot of the past 2000 years. Scholars also generally assumed Moses was also a historical figure 100 years ago, Jesus may end up also having his historicity reassessed in the future. Given that we have no archaeological or non-Christian evidence to corroborate the gospels stories, I don't see how any of the gospels can be seen as 'proof' of Jesus' historical existence.
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
It's worse than that, you know? First the Gospels were written in Ancient Greek, then translated to Coptic, then translated into Latin, and then translated into Old English, and today we have the New International Version and Paraphrased Editions. There are no original manuscripts in existence. We don't even know who wrote them. The names are simply ascribed to them (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). And as someone mentioned above, the earliest the originals may have been written is some 20 years after the event.
They may even have been written up to 50+ years later than that. Given all of the above problems that you yourself have mentioned, along with others such as the variations in the story between the four gospels accounts and also the variations between different versions of the same gospel, I don't see how they can be viewed as the inerrant word of any deity.
QuoteNo. If you have a question ask it. Either I didn't feel like responding to you or I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Either way, I'm all about going forward not back.
I think you are now confusing "not backing down" not "your opinnions do not matter and do not need adressing" or something similar. Either way, you are no longer arguing, and only make your position worse if you do not take earlier posts and opinnjion into account in your responses.
QuoteSure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.
Do you disagree?
Actaully, I disagree with all of it. Firsto of all, because something simply exists, does not logically mean there is an intelligent creator behind it. Of course, manmade objects, such as the computer I'm using now and the table underneath it exist, but they were not "created", but constructed through several phases from a numnber of different components that themselves needed to be made from other materials and parts. The word "created" implyes something complealty different, that something came from possibly nothing and became fullyformed without the other steps. However, we are yet witness such an event, other then perhaps in the world of quantum mechanics where there is no pre-existing "creator". Of course, I might have misunderstood that, but hopefully someone can correct me in that case...
Second of, the rest is quite contradictory to me, because if we follow the logic that because something exists, there must be an intelligent creator who created it and without one there would be no sufficent cause it to exist, doesn't this mean that the intelligent creator also needed an intelligent creator, becase the first exists? In a more simple form: who created "god"? After all, your logic demands a craetor of all things that exist, so in order for a "god" to cause anything, one must exist, no?
Also, have you ever heard about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument
Your claims seemed a lot like the same thing...
QuoteI have nothing to say about the Old Testament. It's not part of my Canon, and I won't defend it. I use it as an historical reference, that's it. Why not ask me about the Book of Mormon, for that matter, or the Koran? I have no comment about them, either.
Well, for starter, all the claims of Jesus' supposed divinity are based on OT prophesies...
And I'm sorry, but I have to facepalm if you just tried to hint that any part of the bible is historical documentation that can be relied upon. As I said before, at best it is historical fiction.
QuoteActually, all moral dilemmas are solved by the Golden Rule (That's why it is called the Golden Rule.)
Love God with all your heart and mind by loving your neighbor as yourself by doing unto others what you would have them do unto you.
I have no idea if he picked that up from somewhere else, but he sure popularized it, didn't he?
QuoteWell, if it's the golden rule of morality for the entire universe, yeah, I suppose he was quoting it from another source. What was he going to do? Change it?
I would say that no, Jesus did not "popularize" it, but make it perhaps a bit better know. If he had succefully popularized it as anything else then a quotation, we would have a very different looking world and christian religion.
And it was not implied as being "rule of morality of the universe" but as a philosophical idea that can be universaly, in other words largly and almost everywhere, found amongst many religions and cultures in one form or another.
QuoteAccording to everything I've read, no serious historian suggests that Jesus didn't exist. Actually, there's proof in the first chapter of John, but that's another topic.
Well, as again I might point out, bible is not a very convincing as a source of evidence to prove something that it itself claims. Further more, there are historians, both athesit and theists that seem to think that a person existed who could be called "Jesus", but there is nothing to suggest that this person was the one of the many conflicting gospel accounts. As stated before, Jesus is and remains a historically possible charater, who maybe based upon a real single person or a group of them.
NOTE: It took me several hours to post this response thanks to medeling siblings, so I have no idea what I've missed and will react to those in the comming posts, instead of this one
Edit: Well, not much was added it seems...
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.
Oh boy, this is revolutionary stuff. Have you alerted the vatican of your 'proof'?
I couldn't make a clean split so I moved the proof of god stuff to a new thread by just copying the responses into a new post:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?board=2.0
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
He's a revelation of God. He's the Son of God. He's the third person of the Trinity. God, the Father, is way too abstract and fundamental for the human mind to accept or understand. We must have a revelation of God that works in our minds in order to draw anywhere near to God.
I think he's more of a deified legend, I used the germ theory example to show that he didn't demonstrate having any knowledge that was beyond his time. If he did, he would've known that leprosy and other diseases were not caused by demons. For the sake of this argument I'm assuming that there was a historical Jesus. On the other hand, we know that people are easily fooled, and turn others into legends that can get a bit out of hand. So...why didn't Jesus have access to extraordinary knowledge if he was divine in any part (the trinity or whatever)? If something were registered in the bible non ambiguously such as Jesus explaining how diseases are caused by germs, or Einstein's theory of General Relativity, then I would certainly be much more convinced, and certainly very intrigued. That would be extraordinary.
QuoteActually, all moral dilemmas are solved by the Golden Rule (That's why it is called the Golden Rule.)
Love God with all your heart and mind by loving your neighbor as yourself by doing unto others what you would have them do unto you.
Um, no, actually they're not because of subjective preferences it doesn't solve every moral dilemma. Also, sometimes there are conflicts such as a person starving to death stealing to feed his family. Stealing is wrong, that person surely wouldn't want to be robbed themselves and yet they do it.
Sometimes some people don't mind being harmed, and use that justification to harm others. The dark side of the golden rule, is it not?
QuoteI have no idea if he picked that up from somewhere else, but he sure popularized it, didn't he?
Well, if it's the golden rule of morality for the entire universe, yeah, I suppose he was quoting it from another source. What was he going to do? Change it?
The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule) lists people who spoke of the same rule centuries before Jesus.
It's one of those more universal hardwired moral instincts, not something that needed Jesus to bring to the world.
Quote from: Whitney on December 20, 2011, 03:22:28 PM
I couldn't make a clean split so I moved the proof of god stuff to a new thread by just copying the responses into a new post:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?board=2.0
I appreciate that. I'm going to respond to some of the replies since my last reply, but I'm going to address anything to do with that argument in the new post you made. Again, thanks.
Quote from: Gawen on December 20, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
Funny how millions of Jews have no problem understanding the mystical magical invisible God-the-Father. Funnier still that millions of Jews cannot understand the mystical magical God-the-human-son sent to them.
Perhaps it was because vicarious human sacrifice is illegal in Judaism and that God's covenants (in the mistakenly called Old Testament) remain in force for all time.
Perhaps still, the mystical magical parts of Jesus, including the son of a god, the son of a virgin, and being the third part of a polytheistic belief trope never really existed outside of mere humanness...if indeed, he existed at all.
Honestly. When it comes to Jesus Christ, I think the last thing we need to worry about is the opinion of the Jews. They had their time with him and we all know how that turned out.
QuoteEgor, do you see your god as being Yahweh, the god of the Jews / Israelites? Or, like some early Christians, do you believe your god is different from Yahweh. If you believe your god is Yahweh, I don't see how you can dismiss the OT.
First, I dont dismiss the OT. It is the historical background info needed for the Gospel. I just dont believe its inerrant or Gods Word, the way the Gospels are. As for giving God a name, I dont do that. God is God. Its the same God for everyone. As the human race has progressed, so to has our revelation of God, culminating with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Quote
I don't see how any of the gospels can be seen as 'proof' of Jesus' historical existence.
Well, Ill have to show you some time.
QuoteThey may even have been written up to 50+ years later than that. Given all of the above problems that you yourself have mentioned, along with others such as the variations in the story between the four gospels accounts and also the variations between different versions of the same gospel, I don't see how they can be viewed as the inerrant word of any deity.
Simple. Nothing in them is an error. Point one out if you think there is an error and lets talk about it.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2011, 04:02:17 PM
Sometimes some people don't mind being harmed, and use that justification to harm others. The dark side of the golden rule, is it not?
Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the standard of love.
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:13:53 PM
Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the standard of love.
It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2011, 07:57:40 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:13:53 PM
Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the standard of love.
It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.
I don't agree that it's universal. One problem is that my family enjoys treating eachother in ways that most people would take as us being ass holes to eachother. I prefer this kind of dickish treatment and humor and think it's all good fun. However I know from experience that most other people do not like to be treated in this way. So is it a good idea for me to treat other people the way I want to be treated if most people would prefer not to be treated that way? I don't think it is, so with me, the "do unto others as you would them do unto you" fails.
Quote from: Davin on December 20, 2011, 08:07:07 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2011, 07:57:40 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:13:53 PM
Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the standard of love.
It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.
I don't agree that it's universal. One problem is that my family enjoys treating eachother in ways that most people would take as us being ass holes to eachother. I prefer this kind of dickish treatment and humor and think it's all good fun. However I know from experience that most other people do not like to be treated in this way. So is it a good idea for me to treat other people the way I want to be treated if most people would prefer not to be treated that way? I don't think it is, so with me, the "do unto others as you would them do unto you" fails.
Sorry, I meant to say that the capacity for this kind of behaviour is hardwired in humans and therefore universal, save in the cases of neurologically different people, such as autistics who lack mirror neurons, which cause a neurological response in the person's brain as if they themselves were experiencing what another person is doing, and psychopaths who lack empathy. Then basically don't hurt others because it can hurt you comes from this, but again, it doesn't solve moral dilemmas because of subjective preferences and complex social interactions such as a person who does hurt others but thinks they will get away with it.
*Edited for grammatical corrections.
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:13:53 PM
Quote from: Gawen on December 20, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
Funny how millions of Jews have no problem understanding the mystical magical invisible God-the-Father. Funnier still that millions of Jews cannot understand the mystical magical God-the-human-son sent to them.
Perhaps it was because vicarious human sacrifice is illegal in Judaism and that God's covenants (in the mistakenly called Old Testament) remain in force for all time.
Perhaps still, the mystical magical parts of Jesus, including the son of a god, the son of a virgin, and being the third part of a polytheistic belief trope never really existed outside of mere humanness...if indeed, he existed at all.
Honestly. When it comes to Jesus Christ, I think the last thing we need to worry about is the opinion of the Jews. They had their time with him and we all know how that turned out.
If Jesus even existed, he was a Jew. His chosen religion was Judaism, he was not a Christian, neither was his mother or father.
If you think Jews got it wrong, then you think Jesus got it wrong.
If you don't like Jews then you don't like Jesus.
Quote from: Stevil on December 20, 2011, 09:21:41 PM
If Jesus even existed, he was a Jew. His chosen religion was Judaism, he was not a Christian, neither was his mother or father.
If you think Jews got it wrong, then you think Jesus got it wrong.
If you don't like Jews then you don't like Jesus.
...or those pesky OT books that "only serve as historical background". Basically (heh) anti semetic thinking.
So now you know one reason "they" changed the Sabbath.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2011, 08:25:05 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 20, 2011, 08:07:07 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2011, 07:57:40 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:13:53 PM
Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the standard of love.
It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.
I don't agree that it's universal. One problem is that my family enjoys treating eachother in ways that most people would take as us being ass holes to eachother. I prefer this kind of dickish treatment and humor and think it's all good fun. However I know from experience that most other people do not like to be treated in this way. So is it a good idea for me to treat other people the way I want to be treated if most people would prefer not to be treated that way? I don't think it is, so with me, the "do unto others as you would them do unto you" fails.
Sorry, I meant to say that the capacity for this kind of behaviour is hardwired in humans and therefore universal, save in the cases of neurologically different people, such as autistics who lack mirror neurons, which cause a neurological response in the person's brain as if they themselves were experiencing what another person is doing, and psychopaths who lack empathy. The basic don't hurt others because it can hurt you comes from this, but again, it doesn't solve moral dilemmas because of subjective preferences and complex social interactions such as a person who does hurt others but thinks they will get away with it.
This, in a thinly veiled way, implies that every member in my family is either autistic and/or psychopathic. While this may be true, it still doesn't make this kind of rule universal. Even NT's like some things done to them that other people would not. Some people like hugging a lot, most people do not, and I'm pretty sure no neurological deviance is necessary.
Quote from: Davin on December 20, 2011, 09:38:48 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2011, 08:25:05 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 20, 2011, 08:07:07 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2011, 07:57:40 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:13:53 PM
Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the standard of love.
It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.
I don't agree that it's universal. One problem is that my family enjoys treating eachother in ways that most people would take as us being ass holes to eachother. I prefer this kind of dickish treatment and humor and think it's all good fun. However I know from experience that most other people do not like to be treated in this way. So is it a good idea for me to treat other people the way I want to be treated if most people would prefer not to be treated that way? I don't think it is, so with me, the "do unto others as you would them do unto you" fails.
Sorry, I meant to say that the capacity for this kind of behaviour is hardwired in humans and therefore universal, save in the cases of neurologically different people, such as autistics who lack mirror neurons, which cause a neurological response in the person's brain as if they themselves were experiencing what another person is doing, and psychopaths who lack empathy. The basic don't hurt others because it can hurt you comes from this, but again, it doesn't solve moral dilemmas because of subjective preferences and complex social interactions such as a person who does hurt others but thinks they will get away with it.
This, in a thinly veiled way, implies that every member in my family is either autistic and/or psychopathic.
While this may be true, it still doesn't make this kind of rule universal. Even NT's like some things done to them that other people would not. Some people like hugging a lot, most people do not, and I'm pretty sure no neurological deviance is necessary.
No, those are just my two favourite examples and in the case of autistics, easy to demonstrate that morality is also partly learned. Just because they don't have theory of mind or the same kind of empathy that NTs have, doesn't mean they're going to be anti-social, want to hurt anybody or don't care if they hurt anybody. Psychopaths lack the hardwired capacity for empathy. They can still learn how to act morally, though if it gives them the social charm they need to get what they want.
I didn't mean to use it to imply that your family fit in either category. Besides, there are still social interactions to consider, if people treat others they know better in a certain way, for whatever reasons, doesn't mean they would treat a complete stranger the same way.
One example that intrigues me are sarcastic jokes between friends. The kind of scenarios where, if they weren't friends, then it would be considered bullying. Pranks too. The golden rule doesn't apply here too, yet it's accepted behaviour within that same group. Doesn't mean that they're all psychopathic either.