All of "modern" man's gods have been imagined. Why would this contemporary god of christians, jews and muslims be created any differently?
It wouldn't be created any differently. It wouldn't have been created at all, if mankind didn't come upon it by accident.
First thing I have to say is that the Muslim god is not the same God of Christianity regardless of what anyone says.
The Bible says that the laws of God are written on the hearts of all men. Everyone knows it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, etc. . .
As far as imagining God, mans imagination cannot truly imagine anything close to who God really is. He cannot be understood.
As far as imagining God, mans imagination cannot truly imagine anything close to who God really is. He cannot be understood.
And that's why all the problems. Nobody understands God.
I agree with part of what you wrote. Nobody understands God that's for certain. The trouble started when people stopped following God. If I ask my son to do soemthing around the house, I shouldn't have to explain why he should do it.
Sorry for getting off topic qwark.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God, the God of Abraham. Each of these groups took radically different paths, but it seems the same God spoke to each of these groups in different ways.
That right there made anything else you have to say about it irrelevant. Islam traces it's origin's back to Abraham. Abraham is also a Biblical (as in Christian) character. They even use the same first five books of the bible (the Pentateuch) as Jews and Christians...just translated into Arabic. So in essence it not only is the same god it's the exact same god.
Attempting to claim that an "enemy" does not believe as you do is the same sort of trick Fascists used with the faithful masses. "They are not one of us so killing them is OK."
If that's the case how do you know "he" is not the same god the Muslim's worship?
Well if you read the Quran as well as the Bible, it's evident to anybody that the god mentioned in the Quran cannot be the same God who inspired and gave us the bible, there are too many contradictions between the Quran and the new covenant, plus the 'typesetting' instructions written as the last word in Revelations tell us specifically not to add nor take away from the words of the book.
The Quran was written 600 years after Christ, and 250 years after the bible was settled into a canon of consistent works.
Really? You read Arabic? Because, just like the Torah, any reading of the sacred texts requires you to read it in the original language.
I said the bible, not the New Testament. The New Testament is a recent, as these things go, addition to the bible. The Old Testament is the same book Muslims read. In fact Abraham, husband to Sarah, is the father of both Jews and Muslims.
I don't think Revelation belongs with the rest of those texts. It is apparently evident to researchers that the John of Revelation is not the same John as in the Gospel. Further it is evident that Revelation, unlike all the other books of the New Testament, was written roughly 60 to 120 years later.
I know that. The "canon" also left out at least as many books as it left in. Many that were quite popular at the time.
They continue to surface from time to time and are referred to as the Gnostic texts, though I think that's inaccurate. There is a Gospel of Mary, A Gospel of Peter, there's even a Gospel of Judas.
The short answer is this iteration is a little better thought out than past ones. Unfortunately, not that well thought out.
Look around, open your eyes, look at creation, do you think this is all imaginary or is it real. It is real and created by a real God who lives. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, He never changes or wavers. Modern man has created gods of there own,in the likeness of what they want to see. Man's gods are empty and never fulfilling and in the end will get you nowhere, just depressed, alone, and unfulfilled.
Just a suggestion.You should check out Solipsism or the subjective nature of reality(thats a book).Might change your mind.
There really is no indication in nature that demonstrates creation by gods. Nature keeps demonstrating that it can completely operate entirely on it's own, and has been doing so since it's own inception.
No, "Made in Heaven" stickers or tags on anything. Just nature doing it's own thing, sans gods.
The God is one, we take it as our religion purpose.
Because he is and we have proof and we're not going to tell you what it is.
Who says there's anything contemporary about an infinite God?
i m building my own god. when im done it will be the tallest god idea on earth .
I ask a serious question and I get silly answers..why is that?
There is no scripture in any monotheistic belief which factually defines this god thing. Man created the abstract concept so that "it" exists as a metaphysical superpower which can only be imagined and can only be defined in terms of conjecture and opinion. What is it about man that makes him so needy and easily led? ...anyone?
Please offer me fact not opinion.....ty :-)
the scriptures say, we've been created as God's image.
Maybe he was a loser.
That's interesting? You ask a SERIOUS question, and get silly answers. Now you know how we feel when we post "serious" questions, and members on your side of the divide do likewise.
As for man imagining god, you are absolutely right. Man does "conjure up" god(s), a dime a dozen.
But that's because they like religion. These are all false impostors.
The REAL God, the ONLY God, actually had to reveal Himself, because He could not be made up.
He's the One Who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. The One Who parted the Red Sea, the One Who sent Jesus to show us Who He is, and What He is like. He is the one Who created all our known universe, and the one Who, "WAS, IS and IS TO COME." The eternal One.
Oh, but I know that you don't believe a word of it, so this thread will go the same as all the others. Debate, with no end rsult. No-one will give ground. Oh well, it keeps us typig.
Typig, typo! See, I need all the practice I can get. Maybe a spellchecker will help, but that would be a bit irresponsible of me. Have to think for myself, you know!
I asked for "fact" not opinion...what do I get? opinion.
Anyone like to try who thinks he can offer a credible answer? So far, same trite monotheistic tripe. Still getting the "silly" responses. Is there anyone who can offer a serious and factual response in reference to this weakness for god things in man's life?
the scriptures say, we've been created as God's image.
Maybe he was a loser.
See what I mean? You make my point for me.
Moses was NOT a real person? He was just MY "opinion"?
Did someone mention the word "silly"?
Pls, to this point I have gotten nowhere. There seems to be a dirth of believers who own an oz of intellect, responding. I withdraw my question. All who respond seem to be followers. Sycophants who give credence to my view that man has also created this contemporary god thing with the inane and quite insane "hope" of gaining immortality. A portrayal of infantile sillyness. I wonder why I asked. Finis
The god concept is identical to the boogie-man. It must exist in a society because humans are rowdy and always out of control. If the government can give tax relief (free income) to the charlatans who brainwash the public, then hopefully most of the public will be in a pseudo-zombie state. Then the charlatans can step in and get their monthly dues, just like the mafia. Summarily, the government can step in, increase taxes here and there and get their part of the share.
Think of it as the food chain. Society as we know it cannot exist without this boogie-man.
Actually, it could. But, requires a NEW way to think, which is productive and adds to each person's unique value to society.
This would help fulfill the unanswered question most look for-Why does Mankind exist?
Some would harp about each person having an individual mind?
How ever, would not negate a NEW way of thinking. It would enhance it.
If people followed their own individual conscience, instead of using 'another' view- and actually depended on their conscience for guidance, then the world would be a much different place.
If people followed the absolute of morals of mankind, and didn't vary of course, then Mankind would be completely changed.
I'm sure the first disciples (apostles) would disagree with your fanciful (fairy tale) supposition that Christianity was started by some government(s) to control the masses. How ignorant a claim is that. Honestly!
Those men ALL died martyrs deaths OPPOSING the current poloitical/religiuous establishment of their day. OH, and let me add, all for NOTHING, because Jesus is still in the grave????
Now you see why RATIONAL doesn't even apply to you, because of the ignorance you display.
(I'm sure the first disciples (apostles) would disagree with you)
And this is the point I bring up dj, if there are no disciples, there is nobody to disagree. The issue or argument here is not about what I say; it's about what "YOU" say. You want people to AGREE with you.
(your fanciful (fairy tale) supposition that Christianity was started by some government(s) to control the masses.)
Your choice of words here is paramount to the discussion at hand. No matter how hard Christians try to pretend their Jesus lives in their minds, sooner or later their tongue will lash out the truth: FAIRY TALE! Jesus is a mythical character; a fairy tale; story-book reality. The only evidence for Jesus is in the new testament itself. A circular story book fairy tale is what qualifies it as a myth.
Christianity was Constantine's boogie-man and brainwasher to get his nation of zombies to fight wars. Just like Jesus came down and told G.W. Bush to tell the nation they need to go to war.
(Those men ALL died martyrs deaths OPPOSING the current poloitical/religiuous establishment of their day.)
Non-existent entities cannot possibly die.
(Now you see why RATIONAL doesn't even apply to you, because of the ignorance you display)
Ahhhh, now you are changing your tune. Before you were parroting that there is NO rational, only 'RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT' -- your exact words. All of a sudden you are trying to sound intelligent for the sake of getting people to agree with you. You and your herd of Christians had nothing intelligent to say earlier. What has changed in your life now that makes you think you can even qualify as an intellectual? Are you leaning towards atheism perhaps? I knew the articles in my hub would have an effect on you. The fact that you even 'peeked' in there speaks volumes. Unlike you and your sheep here on HP, I'm not here to get hub scores or fans. So don't think you are dissing me by removing your fan status. Ahhh, the passions of the heart.....priceless!!!
What is rational is that the Christianity you speak of is a MYTH. And I already defined what a myth is. Yes a myth HAS evidence - and plenty of it. But the evidence is ALL within the myth - that's where it ends. That is what rational is dj, not RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT as you've been parroting.
You say 'Ignorance?' - YES. It's Christianity's BIGGEST asset! This is what is eating you up inside, my exposure of the nonsense you parrot.
Well expressed Fatfist...ty! I'm quite sure that DJ's "ignorance" is so profound that he will ignore you "truths" and continue basking in the "isles-of-the-blessed"...for ignorance is truly bliss..
Yes they can all be read like a book. Their agenda is self-exposed. That is why they will NEVER directly respond to your questions. They will NEVER give you any rational explanation for what they parrot. The only thing they do is attack. After all, that is what their bible preaches. Has anybody actually read this thing in its entirety?
So what do they do when asked to defend their claims?
The only thing they do is cry, whine, complain, feel threatened, feel attacked with a 'sledge hammer' (as some psycho-lady so eloquently put it). Stupider than stupid and dumber than dumb.
And all this paranoia and drama for what? For the purpose of not accounting for their silly claims. You see, they can get away with their nonsense by calling people who question them, trolls. Christianity has been doing this for 1600 years. Except they were not called trolls back then. They were called witches, wizards, demons, devils, anti-Christs, intellectuals, seekers-of-truth, etc. Same game, same context, different times, different words.
But people are waking up. Their numbers are declining. This is why Christians are on the attack to get more idiots to come back and join their clubs.
Even president Obama said in an interview that the bible is not to be taken literally. Is he an atheist? You decide. Does this explain why he is hated by so many fundamentalist Christians? He is called the anti-Christ. Like I said, same game!
Heres irreutable proof you spaek out of ignorance.
I have not un-fanned you. If you check, you will see I'm still there.
Let me say, if you can't get a simple thing as a fan status right, (NB, you only have five--me being no5) how credible does that make you look when you refute the Bible as myth, deny the existance of Jesus etc. Obviously you did ALL the neccessary research, right?
Then you accuse me of running for cover, to hide from debating you with your superior intelect. Please! This is the very reason I chose not to debate you, you have little for me to take seriously.
Normally I would say "thanks for coming back", but not in this case. And that is not the point either. If I have little for you to take seriously, then why come back. And more importantly, why even bother pressing that little "reply" button to even communicate with me? Makes no sense. Oh well, that's ok, lotsa things make no sense. God bless.
BTW. I'll take it that you meant irrefutable when you typed "irreutable". You see, I'm not petty to complain about non-issues - I only show your contradicting behavior. What's the point of even subscribing to me or reading my non-serious articles. Oh well, God bless!
So why ask the question? Absolutely.You get answers you don't like, and run.
Never did get an answer about Moses. I guess you don't know.
Perhaps you are Googling it as we speak, to get some "history" on him. At least I hope so.
Do you have any issues with a God who at a moments tantrum can flood the entire world? How sinful were all the babies who drowned? But it was ok because God let them into heaven after water filled into their lungs and they died. How again is that different than Muslim matyrs? They get to go to heaven for their sacrafices as well. I can't believe in a God who has anger management issues such as a literal Christian god does.
God did all that and has anger management issues as well? God's such a stinker.
When I'm really busy I get grumpy sometimes as well... Maybe I should cut him some slack? I do have beliefs so not really trying to complain too much about differing beliefs. Not too much. But it is a few hours from football pregrames so...
So now you blame God for destoying evil? Men were evil continually during that time. Any children born would have been the same way as they were taught. You should also know that God gave everyone a way out. All they had to do was board the ark before the door was sealed or build one for their families. Noah warned them for 100 years and they didn't listen to him.
As far as the tsunami goes, God warned that it would happen. Earthquakes, famines and floods in various places will be increased. It is because of man's insistence that God leave us to our own devices.
So, you are claiming that we were warned? To whom? When? Why did it take the world by surprise and why did all those people remain in the position to be swept away by it if they had been warned?
You are making a seriously extraordinary claim that many people would be quite upset hearing about, those whose family members were washed away, for example.
Please clarify your position.
Luk 21:11 and there shall be great earthquakes, and in divers places famines and pestilences; and there shall be terrors and great signs from heaven.
While I appreciate the quote from scriptures, I am quite familiar with biblical references, especially those that are generalized doom and gloom quotes of Armageddon. Hence, we can in the past, present and future acknowledge that biblical quote to any and all natural disasters.
It really doesn't mean anything.
I was hoping you would answer in your own words.
IMO.you slyyy rascal you.You are clearly addressing the "Finite versus Infinite"paradox.Ya know."Which came first" etc.You are Stimulating though...
Therein lies the problem. Who decides what is fact?
In Genesis scripture states that God created Man in His image(IMAGEO DEI).I think the proof is always in the pudding-man being the pudding.The fact that man is incurably religious, always trying to find a way to transcend self proves without a doubt that there is some ONE responsible for his here-and-now.How every individual articulate that veries in people groups.The dangerous thing is for one not to know the ONE who is responsible for BEING or REALITY as we know it.Oh! the thing that make him so needy and easily led isn't a thing.If it is a THING that is responsible for his being here, then there is your problem-man is a thing trying to discover other things.Maybe that's why most of us have this proclivity towards MATERIALIS AND SECULAR HUMANISM.
There is a woundedness within every human that is not permanently filled by another human being. This feeling of emptiness and longing for something completely nurturing is an innate wanting. Unfortunately it has become common for people to look outward to a personal 'god' to fulfill something which can only be found inwardly.
The word hope leads people to see truth in another person's experiences of a godly encounter, but until they have one of their own, there feels to be a lost or missing piece of themselves. This feeling of lack makes for neediness. Never ever will this sense of wholeness in self be found in an external presence. A sense of wholeness can be mirrored but it's a temporary experience until you yourself become whole. It is an experience that is to be encompasses in the very core of every human being.
I can't be certain, but I do not believe the lord is my shepherd because there is a high probability I'm not a sheep.
God! Why are you people up so early and already at this? Give it a rest.
And don't get me started on their dangerous extremist view of truth they call: ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It is their god-given license to hate, rape, slavery, genocide, wars, and to do as they please in any society they dominate. As evidenced in their bibles and scriptures. Scary stuff...
Worldwide, over 20k+ differing protestant sects have appeared since Luther. All interpret the "bible" differently and all claim they are interpreting "it" right and are the "true" christians.. Yet catholicism, adamantly claims they are the only "true" christian sect.
Protestants "cults" are increasing in number every day
By definition they are all "cults."
Pls define "true christian" for me and tell me why there are so many differing interpretations of the bible.
Pls don't offer opinion. If you cannot explain using logic and reason, don't reply.
Here is a fact:
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all prohibit worshiping anything that has been created, especially anything that is the work of human hands or imaginations.
If God were invented by people, it would follow that it would be sinful to have any Faith in God.
Logic is a process. The end product of the logical process is an opinion regardless of how an opinion was formed. An opinion by any other name is still an opinion.
..absolutely not! Logic is a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proofs by reasoning. Proofs rule out "opinion."
woke up. came over to turn this thing off, Let rephrase my previous statement so it can be better understood.
Logic is a "scientific" process which deals with rules and reasoning analyzing the evidence presented....
forming an opinion as to what that evidence presented points to.
Evidence requires interpretation. Scientific process requires assumptions. Becausew God (or the "god thing" as some of you call it) does not fit the criteria of science. You have to start with the evidence of/for God.If you interpret that evidence in the negatve, then you use that assumption to proceed with your "logic", God does not exist. This then demands all subsequent information revealed HAS to reinforce the negative assumption.
All that is going on here is our two interpretations of the evidence and the subsequent assumptions differ. But it's the same logic/rationale.
Believers do the exact opposite, and interpret the evidence in the affirmative, and make the assumption that God DOES exist, and all subsequent evidence/information will fit that paradigm.
So, for me to be accused of being WRONG, automatically dictates that you are right. Technically, neither can be "proven".
One critical difference between believers and non, is we have a confirming (or many) experiences to reinforce our stance. Evolution has NEVER revealed itself to me, but Jesus has.
Yes, I am a simpleton, and I love it. Blessings.
PS. I have never promoted or preached hate. Just thought I'd throw that in for free!
We do have knowledge of why man is religious in the understanding of two things. The "lizard" brain response of fight or flight. and the religiosity of soul described by Jung who though the mind is hard wired to try wiggling out of our responsibilities in this way, rather than really examining the self.
That's my take on it.
This is an idea that I just can't get my head around. You say we are "hard wired" FOR religion, (supposedly an evolutionary flaw--not sure who decided it was a flaw?)and then you guys (nonbelievers) give us a hard time for being "natural, normal, everyday garden variety homo sapiens.
So, in effect, you are reverse evangelising us BACK to some unnatural state YOU call normal?
Sorry, but I truly don't get it.
Good day Earnist havent seen ya for a while. are ya feeling better?
I'm an American by birth. I speak and understand English. Logic is as I defined it. Logic, reason and truth are the antithesis of ALL religious beliefs. There can be no REASONABLE conversation to deny that. All that can be offered is conjecture.
Qwark, I dont have the time to argue against your assertion at the moment but I can send you this link by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga who has spearheaded the charge that belief in God is properly basic: http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=4607
This puts the discussion within the academic arena that I think you want an answer from. Of course whther you agree with it is another point but it will at least provide a suitable counter for discussion to continue.
I know that I, nor can anyone provide proofs regarding this abstract concept: "god." "Proofs" don't exist. You didn't get that message from my comment?
My goodness, I think you may not have read my response to the end. Let me re-iterate:
"Today he believes in a metaphysical entity which can't be known, can't be defined and can neither be proved or disproved. An abstract concept wouldn't you agree? All that can be offered up as a "proof" of "it" is opinion or conjecture.
Platinga is no brighter, no more knowledgeable than you or I when it comes to "knowing" this god thing. He is just another simple human creature "scratching" around trying to figure out that which only exists in human imagination. He is as intellectually immature as the rest of us.
Why did you not consider the above in your response to me?
Why?..because you are an easily led "follower." There is no other reasoned response you can offer for your belief in an unreasonable supernatural divinity.
No disrespect intended, just a "reasoned" response as I see it.
I am one of those "simple" human beings "scratching," just like you and Platinga.
Qwark I did indeed read your post and my response is not indicative that I didn't. I just do not think it was something that you wanted to read. First of all, your assessment that it is unreasonsable to believe in God in based on your personal opinion. We disagre on this matter, it is reasonable for me because of the evidence that leads to the conclusion there is a God.
Take Antony Flew, for decades he has been the foremost atheist in the field of philosophy, yet his conversion to deism (which stunned the philosophical community) was based on his Socratic search for truth, a process that is very interesting to read (you can google it). He thought it reasonable, you do not.
There is no evidence that God does not exist, there is though evidence that billions of people believe in Him, that evidence is left behind of the times, people that have made claims to have experienced Him both physically (Jesus) and afterward. There is no disputing this, whether you think it was valid or that it was a case of mass hysteria involving billions of people over millenia is up to you to decide. You must decide if all those people were suddenly irrational and delusional and that you are correct.
As far as continuing my defense that belif in God can be properly basic and rational I quote the philosopher William Craig who states that, "Man has an innate, natural capacity to apprehend God’s existence even as he has a natural capacity to accept truths of perception (like “I see a tree”). Given the appropriate circumstances—such as moments of guilt, gratitude, or a sense of God’s handiwork in nature—man naturally apprehends God’s existence…. Neither the tree’s existence nor God’s existence is inferred from one’s experience of the circumstances. But being in the appropriate circumstances is what renders one’s belief properly basic; the belief would be irrational were it to be held under inappropriate circumstances. Thus, the basic belief that God exists is not arbitrary, since it is properly held only by a person placed in appropriate circumstances."
Millions throughout history have believed in Christ without studying philosophy, and they have not made irrational decisions.
in your own posts though I see that you have a propensity to abandon the clear parameters you want your responses from other people to be. You claim that man has a "genetic propensity for a belief in the supernatural which is a result of the processes of natural selection." You have not answered not given me evidence to support this. You claim that the "majority of the population is intellectually unevolved." you did not answer that or provide evidential criteria for that either.
What evidence are you basing this on, or are you wanting to see the world that way?
Has some new evidence come to light recently? What evidence do your refer exactly?
Yes, apparently he changed his mind due largely in part to his introduction to Intelligent Design. Since he was a philosopher and not a scientist, perhaps he couldn't tell the difference between ID and Creationism.
There is no evidence in a great deal of things believed to exist and you must apply that logic to everything that has been purported to exist or nothing at all. One simply does not cherry pick this or that from all the invisible entities, they must accept or reject them all.
There is evidence that billions of people don't believe in the same god as you, too.
No, they weren't "suddenly" irrational and delusional, it took generations of people grooming gods to get to the current versions.
At one time, Zeus and Thor were believed to exist by a great many people.
The Greek gods were more direct representations of the human condition though.
God! yes, it is there somewhere in teh infinity. where no one can reach. When god made us he created everything beforehand. So, taht people will not find anything difficult to survive. When something has taken birth it has to end as well..
Too much waffle about (a god) that is "metaphysical,conjecture, unknowable" blah, blah...
Let's get to the one central figure,Jesus Christ.He IS GOD IN THE FLESH. Study His life, clims and teachings and you will come to no other conclusion.
Untill then, the "fantasy" and "myth" rhetoric only comes from the unbeliever(s).
The most highly intgellectual, educated and logical person on the planet can still br stupid, irrational and wrong. NONE of us are any better or above another.
As I said, I am content being a simpleton. And apparently illogical and irrational, as claimed by some you here. Welcome to the human race.
PS, @ fatfist. I stayed a fan 'cause I don't dislike you.Nor anyone else for that matter. I can leave if you want me to though.
Qwark: "All that can be offered up as a "proof" of "it" is opinion or conjecture."
But this also includes your opinion. Your argument that Plantinga has no evidence for such a view also is applicable to you. Where is your evidential criteria that shows proof that he is wrong?
For example let us look at just your one post to me; Plantinga's argument is that people always believe in a certain way in which beliefs are "properly basic." Look at your comments below:
"It just means, to me anyway, that the majority is intellectually unevolved."--Means to you, this is a sentiment, a feeling, not evidential criteria. Furthermore, the majority will disagree with you and the burden of proof is on you to support your view with factual evidence.
"I tend to believe that there has evolved over the past 30 - 50k years a genetic propensity for a belief in the supernatural which is a result of the processes of natural selection."--You argue this point a lot in your threads here on the forums, yet I am pressed to ask you what evidential criteria do you base this on?
"As man became a more sophisticated creature, his imagined gods followed suit. Scientific progress has enable man to explain away all that subjugated ancient men."--Once again show the factual evidence that science has done away with God.
Now I understand your assertion that we as Christians dont have 100% proof God exists. I grant you that. There is no question that what I exercise is faith, if the proof for the existence of God was verifiable then you and I would not be having this debate. On the flip side neither can you prove God does not exist, no experiemnts, not the slightest hint of factual evidence. The difference between believers and atheists in this regard is that believers argue they have been handed down a template throughout the ages involving many individuals and the intervention of God. We have something that explains it, atheists do not.
You know, I have studied the various proofs, the arguments, the debates between a plethora of individuals on both sides but when you imply that each one of must make sense out of what we have experienced, what we believe, etc then you are dead on Qwark.
My path is to believe what that God is real and that He sent hs Son to us for salvation. You have chosen a different path.
I am reminded of Pascal's quote that in the end "All our reasoning surrenders to feeling."
Lets be honest here.
You have absolutely 0.00% proof.
Just exactly how have you studied this non-existent proof?
Why can you just not be honest and say that you believe through faith alone? Is there something wrong with that?
I've tried to explain to most, in the simplest way possible but, what they refuse to admit is that they are WRONG!
It's not a shock, but to be expected.
No one of any religious belief can be 100% secure that what they think they know is true, but that they can 'hope' or have 'faith', in what they think is true.
However, I would like to point out that there is NO WAY to fool your own individual consciousness, conscience and subconscious, that there is a REAL god type entity looking out for us.
Like you said- 0.00 proof, can not result in 100% no doubt within the consciousness, conscience or subconscious. It's an impossibility!
First of all casgil, your posts are the among the most contradictory here. You have not only failed to live up to your self-described mantras judging rational behavior but clearly violate them, sometimes in the same post. Your postings are a miasma of self-defeating statements, contradictions and bizarre revelations.
No way that my "consciousness, conscience and subconscious" can be fooled? you apparently believe you have mastered the gift of visualizing the internal machinations of your fellow man's inner being. Obviously your assessment is simply delusional.
My innermost being tells me there is a God.
While you are certainly correct that no god or any other entity that may reside beyond nature cannot be shown to NOT exist, this reasoning applies to everything that cannot be shown to NOT exist. Unfortunately, in that regard, it really can't be used as an argument.
For example, one cannot demonstrate that aliens have NOT visited earth and have NOT abducted people. One cannot demonstrate that ghosts don't exist.
And while all you say about not having evidence to demonstrate these things don't exist is correct, one could possibly argue for example, that a tsunami that wiped out a quarter million believers who most likely all prayed to be saved from death were left with their prayers unanswered. One could argue this is indeed evidence to the non-existence of a god.
There is also the small issue of your statement, "handed down a template throughout the ages involving many individuals and the intervention of God." I'm not so sure you clarified your point to stand as an argument, because essentially that statement is pretty much the same as any other statement of faith and not of evidence.
Again, that would appear as a statement of faith, and that it could be misconstrued as a statement that faith in what one believes would outweigh any evidence to the contrary, if such evidence presented itself.
Aka, Christianity might not have been started to control the masses, but it has certainly been used for that specific purpose throughout history, especially in medieval Europe.
I believe in God, Christ, and spirituality, but I'm not a big supporter of organized religion. There is a difference.
Call me dj. Aka stands for "also known as"
Yes, I'm with you on every point. However, the arguments here make out that religion is the ONE and ONLY, almighty control mechanism used.
That's where I disagree. Man uses politics, wealth oppression propaganda etc to do all the controlling "he" wants. I admit, that in the dark ages it was the primary one, but still not the ONLY one.
Besides, the christian religion bears no resemblance to the "way" taught by Jesus. A point skirted by every one (bar none) of the unbelievers on these forums.
Au contraire, dj. I will happily point out that your judgmental behavior regarding "test driving your wife" and numerous other "moral standards" is one of the many things that persuades me your religion is false and you do not really believe.
Jesus would never have behaved like that. Pity you do not seem to understand that it is people like you who do the best job of pushing us away from the bible and the christian religion. I mean - if you cannot behave like jesus - why should anyone else?
Thank you for that. I really appreciate you for helping me to see how valueless your belief system is - no one follows it - they just claim to and point the finger at everyone else.
Doesn't really matter how he behaved does it? Let's put it this way - if he behaved the way you and many of the other believers do, I am convinced I want nothing to do with it.....
How can you make a comparison, and then say it doesn't matter???
How can you compare my "behavior" to His, if it "doesn't matter"?
Sorry,but that's illogical and irrational. The two pillars of you paradigm.
No sweetheart. It is academic. Jesus is dead. It doesn't matter how he would have behaved. You are here. I watch your behavior as a demonstration of what you think jesus would have done. You are the one claiming to be a follower. You are the ones I have watched over the years. I have made my decision based on what I observe from your behavior.
You guys seem to think jesus was condescending and judgmental.
Good point. Logically - he did not exist then. DOes this mean you are coming around to my way of thinking that he was a political construct well after "a" jesus died rather than"the" jesus?
Or is the lack of a body supposed to be some sort of proof that he ascended to heaven?
How many bodies from that era do we have actually?
Provide evidence that Jesus did not exist please.
Again, one is not in a position to prove a negative, it is not an argument.
I can claim unicorns exist and demand you prove they don't. You simply cannot do that.
However, there is no evidence to support he did exist. In fact, any writings on his behalf were written decades later by people who were never there to witness his existence.
Tacitus wrote about Him. Josephus wrote about Him. Pliny the Younger wrote about Him. The Bible is about Him.
Unfortunately, none of those sources has been confirmed as legitimate and are in fact under question of credibility.
Besides, if we turn to the bible as a source, we have to take into account that any writings on his behalf were made decades after Christs alleged existence by people who were never there.
I have to say that Jesus was the favorite part of my Lutheran upbringing and I listened to the words he was said to speak more than the rest of it. I had to stop being a Lutheran our of respect for Jesus. It just didn't seem to me that Jesus would need you to cry "Uncle" or else have Dad, all of our Father's, burn us.
Accept Jesus or burn - not blieved by all Christians perhaps - seems to be THE THEME of Christianity. I don't think Jesus would like that. If there was a Jesus. Like the Jesus Jesus not a compilation of people making a Jesus.
Why would Jesus create a philosophy to divide when all the time he was doing examples of the opposite? If he saw a whore and a noble - he always stood up for the whore.
There is no evidence at all of a god. The myth about god comes only from the myth itself, no other sources of evidence to be seen.
You have not thoughtfully read my comments. You keep mentioning this god thing that is but imagined. Until you can factually define this supernatural divinity as being something other than an abstract concept created by simple man to assist him in placating his fears and abject ignorance, I cannot consider your comments to be credible. All you write about is based 100% on opinion and conjecture....period!
I've asked you this before: "what is this god thing you write about and praise? No monotheistic scripture defines it in any form but opinion.
The libraries of the world are rife with evidences and proofs of all I mention. If you take time to study the subjects: geology, anthropology, cosmology, chemistry, physics. ontology, epistemology, the evolution of man's penchant for beliefs in the supernatural, etc., etc.,...instead of just studying the corrupted writing and preaching of religious zealots, you wouldn't find it necessary to ask for proofs of my assertions.
Again, you completely ignore the fact that none of us knows what we are talking about.
We are but an incipient form of conscious, earthly life involved in trying to adapt to life on a planet that will end our existence if we don't.
If we become "extinct," this imagined god thing will follow suit and the universe cannot know that we ever existed.
Hallelujah and amen brother..:-)
Qwark, telling me that your proof "is in the library" doesnt cut it. You are abiding my the rigorous parameters that you ask your opponents here to abide by. You life your life like the rest of us, with many decisions being intuitively true to you because you believe them to be. Also,in light of your statement that "none of us known what we are talking about" how can you then tellme the world is "rife with evidence."
You simply are not applying the same method for your own beliefs. If it is so easy why have you still not provided evidential criteria for the myriad of claims that you have made determining how you view belief, i.e. a "genetic propensity for a belief in the supernatural which is a result of the processes of natural selection" and that the "majority of the population is intellectually unevolved." (In fact you might want to clarify what you mean by intellectually unevolved).
You claim that the evidence supporting these claims is so rife that it is in the libraries of the world, represented in a plethora of disciplines.
This will be the fourth time I have asked you to provide the evidential criteria to back up this view.
You are merely wanting it to be true, you are not exacting the same rigorous analytical process you want Christians to apply; you dont live your life by what you demand from others. Your belief is based on what then?
i think asking for proof is a bit late. Hundreds of posts have given proof, nobody reads it they are too frightened. Go take a look at Maek Knowes new hub.
This is connected with my two questions in which way? Or is this also a generalized blanket statement? Please show the "hundreds of posts" that people do not read "because they are too frightened" and how they are connected with the two specific questions I asked proof for.
lol Fighting a losing battle, Alan, sorry. Yeah, I saw what you asked for. They are blinded by their binary system and need to proselytize "their side."
It isn't that there aren't rational people here. It's just a couple of the coolest kids are atheists, and some of the others just piggyback onto that, given the approval. I suppose Hubpages gives them a place to preach as they don't believe in congregations of any sort.
In most cases I have encountered it is proven to me time and again that very few (if any) atheists live by the criteria they demand theists do. Thus their inability to respond to my requests that they provide evidential criteria for their assertions. Other "atheists" here are fueled by emotional stimuli. Self -defeating statements, repeated mantras, imposed restrictions they cannot live by (nor expect others to do) and claims they cannot prove.
I am reminded of Malcolm Muggeridge's comment that the non-religious are a superstitious bunch, that it is not the case that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything.
My my what a low opinion you have of us atheists.
I would point out that you studiously avoided my question to you.
How about no body as proof that jesus did not exist? As one of the other religionists pointed out - using that as an attempt to prove jesus ascended to heaven.
Only really 2 options.
1. He never was
2. He rose to heaven
Hmm. Which seems more likely?
Oh please Mark. Thats your question? That because there is no body the person did not exist? In other words, using your approach the following individuals did not exist either: Alexander the Great, most (if not all) the Caesars, Amelia Earhart, for that matter, let us include Adolph Hitler because recent DNA testing showed that the Russians dont have part of his body like they claimed. How about Lavrentiy Beria, the Russian chief of the NKVD, his body does not exist either, the examples are endless, etc. By the way, please show evidence for the body of your great-great-great-great-great grandfather because if you cant, then by using your "logic" then you do not exist either.
As I pointed out just an hour ago, atheists always assert propositions that they themselves do not believe. So unless you believe that the vast majority of historical figures througout our history have never existed and this would include your ancestors as well (again, which by using your logic would imply that you do not exist either).
So what is it Mark? Are you asking me this because you actually believe that if a body is not found then that person did not exist (invalidationg almost all of our written history) or is it because you simply want to subject theists to ludicrous and absurd demands that you could never abide by?
Which is it?
I think you need to lighten up and take a joke when you see one.
I also think you need to stop dodging my question and accept that the burden of proof is on you. You know full well that this was my question:
Nicely diverted though. You are definitely a christian.
Mark if there are fifty people in a room and one of them has a dissenting opinion from the other 49 who does the burden of proof lie with? The vast majority (49) or the sole individual who argues differently?
This is a logical fallacy. Just ask Nicolaus Copernicus. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim that there is something. Science and logic doesn't deal with trying to prove what isn't. C'mon.
Prove the Spaghetti Monster isn't a diety. Some people claimed to have touched his holy noodleness. Prove the FSM doesn't exist. And if you can't then he's God? This is your argument then?
Maybe so, to all of the above. However, I think few noticed that Allan wasn't exactly challenging anyone's right to believe as they want here. Nor was he exactly claiming a belief of the kind quite a few expect (belief in God), although I suppose that it's inherent or suspect due to who he has chosen to debate.
As far as I know, sophisticated theists (or atheists for that matter) don't ask for 'logical' proof of God. As far as I know (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), they recognize--still--that faith picks up where "logic" stops.
And actually, this is the reason I'm posting here at all. lol It is kind of amusing watching the denizens here come up against what they would in 'real world' debate/theology/philosophy and still come up with all the old standbys.
Not that I don't respect anyone's right to believe in what they want to believe in...I do. And I'm not fond of proselytizing either...but that should go for both "sides." The point.
Your post does give me the opportunity to claim what I do believe. I am a Christian. And you are certainly correct Lita, it is faith I base my belief in and on.
You are also correct that in most of the debates held within a public arena, or even among friends that there is the recognized notion that we all arrive at our positions through faith (thus my current debate concerning atheists who are constantly claiming that they know evidentially that God does not exist). This also explains why I like Kierkegaard and Pascal. Kierkegaard really struggled with a lot of this; it was he coined the term "leap of faith."
Sadly social interaction on the scale perceived and practiced in the real world dissolves when many are on the internet. Walls go up and modifications are made to ascribe to one's behavior certain "attributes" that end up separating what they really are and what they present ourselves to be. Would any of them on both sides of this debate really talk with such abusive rhetoric, go through such impulsive rodomontade? So when I hear certain individuals claim that their lives are based on pure reason and that views should only be accepted that are evidentially factual, well we know this is simply a fabrication.
But it is Pascal's comment that I believe succinctly sums up all of us in that "All our reasoning ends in surrender to feeling."
Whether we agree to it or not, it is what we feel.
If others want to state that they do not believe in God's existence then that is of course their right. But to claim to know evidentially that He does not exist and then to mock theists for their claim that God exists, that is where I am going to point out obvious hypocrisy. The evangelical atheist has much more cause to supply the burden of proof for it is he who ignores the testimonies of billions, the srciptures, the historical written accounts, etc. Against all this he claims to be in possession of evidence that God does not exist.
Where is this evidence?
What you fail to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give solid, rational and plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence. Even if you argue and believe that there is an absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade or convince, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is certainly not neutral; pure agnosticism is and agnostics will claim that they do not know if God exists. Most of those debating me claim that God does not exist. Atheism could only be legitimately argued if there was clear evidence against God’s existence. For one to place belief in the Spaghetti Monster and belief in God on a equal level would be clearly an erroneous assumption. The issue at hand is not that we have no good evidence for the Spaghetti Monster; rather, we have strong evidence that it does not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which proponents of evangelical atheism fail to see.
So when atheists insist that theists justify their beliefs they are mistaken in thinking that they are given a pass. No one with claims of the “non-existence” of God has any thing but exclusionary claims that differ from the exclusionary claims made by other atheists who are otherwise similar in their beliefs. And remember that atheists are clearly in the minority, differing from the billions who claim that God exists, it is they that must establish the burden of proof. It is they that must show that the vast majority of people on the planet are wrong.
Remember, most of those in debate with me here claim not agnosticism but atheism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines an atheist as “one who denies the existence of God.” As an atheist, you must make an assertion that you KNOW beyond doubt that God does not exist. You are not entitled to the neutrality of agnosticism. You claim knowledge that He does not exist. What is it? Where is this knowledge that is objective, concise and so clear as to convince you that you absolutely know that He does not exist?
It's not like that all, the reasoning of "athiests" (I don't acknowledge that term, btw, but that's an entirely different story) is based on the "claims of theists" and not so much in what they believe. In other words, you have a number of claims of gods existence and various other supernatural entities that you or anyone else can't substantiate.
In fact, there are probably claims you yourself don't accept as no evidence to their existence has ever come to light. Are you under any obligation to demonstrate those claims are not true?
It's the same thing.
That is entirely incorrect. Theism could only be legitimately argued if there was clear evidence to a gods existence. If not, then you can only argue from a position of faith, which is not legitimate, valid or credible.
I raise these same points with the atheists, especially the strict ones I like to call fundy atheists. I have a belief that I'm a soul in a body the very least. That I'm more than this flesh and blood. I've stuck to that. I had to reject the Baby Killer God though... he just didn't add up. We celebrate all the holidays though! I love Christmas. I love the tree. I love the dinner. I love family and the football. Not so keen on the commercial aspects but some gifts are nice. People seem a tad nicer. Lights are pretty. I even take in a midnight mass for the ceremony now and then - more then now that my aunt isn't singing. But I have a real issue with the accept Jesus or burn thing... it's a deal breaker for me.
The atheists basic stance is they don't need to discuss what doesn't exist. It isn't up to them. Isn't up to them to prove that pink unicorns don't exist or gods or ghosts or a lot of things. It's up to the person saying those things are real. Scientists want proof. Honest ones will admit they can't say there isn't a God and that is about it.
Dude - stop dodging the question.
I cannot accept that I should believe what you people believe because you are in the majority. What sort of an argument is that? Sounds like yet another version of the McDonalds argument and yet another way to try and shift the burden of proof away from the people making the assertion.
"6 billion are scared enough to believe against all the facts, therefore you should."
Once again - this is the question:
You are the one claiming to have "studied the proofs"
Now it appears that the proof in question is that "a lot of people have been indoctrinated into believing in the christian god."
Come on - you were complaining about atheists avoiding the question - this is the fourth time I have asked it.
I can think of a number of different reasons beyond those two.
3. He didn't really die on the cross. Friends and family hauled him down. He recovered and went into hiding.
4. He did die on the cross, but someone stole the body. Perhaps the Sanhedrin in the mistaken attempt to forestall martyrdom.
5. His disciples hid the body in order to establish martyrdom and establish a messiah.
5. It was the FreeMasons......
I am noticing a distinct lack of sense of humor in these forums of late.
Of course hanging on a cross all day after being beaten to a pulp means he could not have died. Then of course the spear in His side that thrust into His heart didn't do the job either.
The tomb was sealed with a Roman seal. There were also guards place at the tomb to make sure noone came to take His body away.
The same disciples who were cowards? When Jesus was arrested they ran away. Then you have to lok at how all of His original disciples died. All but one was killed because of their belief in Jesus. I am sure they felt really good about dying for a lie that they knew was a lie.
You were there? You saw it happen?
Two thousand plus years have passed. No one can say with total empirical certainty that this happened. That you have faith that this is all true I will acknowledge. But that does not mean I believe it. I wasn't there and to me it's just a two thousand year old story that can be neither confirmed or denied.
Kind of preachy aren't you? I don't need a sermon thank you.
I'll agree it's a great story, but I prefer James A. Michener.
Quite frankly, I've not seen many atheists taking a position they cannot defend other than making the distinctive claim that gods do not exist. None of them can prove a negative.
That being said, the fact that centuries have flown by without the least hint of evidence of gods existence might serve as that position. It really boils down to demonstrating existence as opposed to attempting to demonstrate non-existence.
Perhaps, we need a few more million years to confirm their non-existence? How long do believers need to demonstrate their position?
What claims, exactly?
Do you find atheists believing in other things that are invisible and undetectable? What are those things, exactly?
Logic and reason. My "beliefs are not founded upon "religious faith."
Once again you refuse to answer. Because you know you cannot. For the fifth time, please show me the evidential criteria for the following comments that you made which you state are fact:
a "genetic propensity for a belief in the supernatural which is a result of the processes of natural selection" and that the "majority of the population is intellectually unevolved."
Now remember you stated that "The libraries of the world are rife with evidences and proofs of all I mention."
Please show me these "evidences."
Good luck with that.
I have proved my point here; you label believers as sheep for what they think is the truth. Yet you are exactly the same way. So lets not have any more posturing on your part that you use "evidences" for your beliefs when you cannot even supply a single shred of evidence for your beliefs no matter how many times I have asked you (this is the fifth time).
You need to face the fact that you do not live your life in accordance with what you claim. This is direct evidence that you will believe what you want to believe, evidence (or in this case) no evidence.
Oh, I'm truly sorry to read this: "Qwark, telling me that your proof "is in the library" doesnt cut it."
I thought maybe that FACT would inspire you to visit your public library and do some study on your own in the subjects I mentioned in the hope that it might broaden your very narrow intellectual horizons. No insult intended.
I have found tho, that there is little hope of finding the key that will open the closed minds of believers in MONOTHEISTIC "myth."
I was once one of "those." I found "education" to be the key that free'd me from the rigid and binding shackles of monotheistic thought and belief.
I am still a very ignorant person but I now allow logic and reason to rule my life. I am a much happier "soul." (whatever that is) :-)
The masses in ancient Greece 'believed' in (or at least entertained the idea of) a pantheon of anthropomorphic gods. Not so the philosophers. In fact, Socrates was condemned to death by the masses for trying to develop a conception of God. To Aristotle there was God, and to the Stoics there was also God.
Yep. Before Christianity.
If there is a God and what God is - will be described by people who are "flawed" I suppose next to God and could only provide "flawed" ideas on what God is. Which is why if you ask a million believers what God is you get a million different answers.
If there is a God He'd be responsible for all of us and if your religion just pitches the God duds and saves the God winners that isn't much of a religion or statement of what God is.
If there is a God he certainly is "hands off". That whatever is done on earth by us is our doing. And if there isn't a God that is true as well.
I don't think it matters if you believe or not. And that shouldn't be the line that divides us. There needs to be no more lines dividing us. Creating lines, in my opinion, is the biggest issue with beliefs and religions. It's an either you're with us or against us many times. That's no good.
We need to embrace the diversity of our thoughts and allow more grace to difference in opinions. And if you don't agree with that then go to hell!
I have a nice story about blaming physics instead of God in my Hubs. I do that now when I stub my toe. Damn physics!!!!
Jesus drew the lines, not us.
Thanks for you offer to go to hell, but I'll pass.
How did Jesus get to outrank God again with the Christians? If Jesus did anything he passed along His Father's messge. He was the messenger not The Creator. Putting your faith and belief and banking all that on one guy who possibly hung from some wood with hundreds of others... not the best idea.
if GOD is omnipotent and omnipresent, then He is everywhere and that powerful we ascribed HIM to be
I asked the question: "God? Why?" and expected the typical trite responses from brainwashed monotheists and they haven't disappointed me.
Lets take that question apart and analyze it. The afforementioned non thinkers haven't done that.
Before "god" can be considered to be worthy of discussion, it must be defined as something other than an abstract concept. If that is impossible, the THINKER must accept the FACT that "it" can only be considered in the form of OPINION.
Since there is no definition of this "god" thing in any monotheistic scripture that FACTUALLY defines "it," logic dictates that "it" must be left up to the reader to define.
If this "god" thing exists only in the minds of "believers" in "it," what is the REASONED RATIONAL involved in becoming a "believer?"
IF this "god" thing can only be IMAGINED, why would the THINKER consider "it" seriously as being extant?
If this "god" thing is but an imagined supernatural entity and the majority of humanity believes in "it," doesn't that speak volumes in defining humanity as being a massive group of immature, fearful and easily led followers?
IF this "god" thing cannot be known, defined, or experienced, is incorporeal and exists only in the mind of "believers," why should "it" be, to the "thinker," worthy of consideration?
IF this "god" thing only exists as an "abstract concept," what purpose does it serve in the lives of "believers?"
What is it in the "character" of man that considers a belief in a supernatural divinity to be necessary?
When one studies the deadly, disgusting, fragmenting effects of a belief in Monotheism, does is take a "rocket scientist" to understand that "it" has been and still is the bane of human progress and could, potentially, be the perpetrator of the end life on earth as we know it?
What is the value of this "god" thing to an incipient, infantile, abjectly ignorant, semi-conscious species of life?
I could go on but why?
"Logical" replies would be appreciated.
I will not respond to opinion or guess.
I think he's just asking for some sources on which you base your belief upon. , I've got some education, and as far as I can remember thinking back, when writing persuasive papers of any sort, they always asked for a person to back up their thesis statements with that kind of proof. You are saying there are written sources, yeah?
Anyway, I'm curious about this neurological hard-wiring brain thing you are talking about that generally creates a system for belief in God within humanity.
He knows I am asking for sources. Thats why he still hasnt provided a shred of evidence even though I have directly challenged him five times to show me this mysterious "evidences" that he claims are "rife in the world's libraries." Your questioning will be the sixth time he is asked to provide evidence. And of course he will not be able to do so, there is no factual evidence to back his assertion up. He wants it to be true, cites it as truth but when asked for verification must face the fact that it is a fabrication.
This coming from one who claims he is looking for the truth. Obviously he isnt.
This is a classic example of someone who cannot admit when he is wrong, whose only motive in debate is to not lose face. I mean look at his response here; yet another reference to "hey its in the library!" This coming from an individual who claims that others who ask for proof are guilty of "very narrow intellectual horizons." The irony must be sickening when he struggles to free himself from the charge that he simply made up those assertions without any evidence to back it up.
In the future whenever he chides a believer for not basing belief on verifiable evidence he will have to do with an asterisk which will state that he is every bit like the person he detests for believing without the evidence.
If you haven't studied the evolution of man's penchant for belief in the supernatural (religions), there is alot here in this site to make you aware of the "possiblity" that religion is an evolved genetic characteristic due to the anomaly "consciousness." http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/11/th … eligio.php
I would be willing to grant you that Religion with a big "R" may be (may)--and obviously is--part of our evolution...I say 'obviously is' as it is an aspect of culture (as denoted by the various versions of beliefs and religious groups world wide). However, there is evidence that there have always been others who sought God in other ways--who I might be inclined to place outside this arena.
Frankly, though, this neurological theory seems to be only part of the equation to me. Our sciences are in their infancy, ie, and show the demarcation (partially religiously indoctrinated, to be frank) of the old division between the physical and that of the 'mind' or thought. Just by the fact that they deal ONLY with the physical (brain structure for this, 'god holes,' etc., etc). It's a little like postmodernism--we are now organisms doing a meta analysis of our behavior. Useful for what it is, I guess, but not a useful analysis to go forward.
There is so much we do not know still about the nature of the universe--or of anything. None of this explains in a personal way to me, either, why I myself am not inclined to believe in life after death, don't believe much in organized religion, but still, I would say, am deeply religious in the sense in which Einstein said it--as in observation of the universe I glimpse God with the limited capacity of my finite mind.
So what I'm saying is that I buy everything in that article, but still must point to the above para.
Quite right! Einstein and Spinoza considered this "god" thing to be "nature." Everything that is! Man being just a "happening."
You are also right in intimating that we are "seeking."
What seems to right and truth today, will likely change tomorrow.
If you've followed my thoughts, you know that I understand that all life on this planet is the product of serendipitous physics and that we exist as but a facet of naturally progressing evolution.
We are "special" only to ourselves.
In a couple billion years, our opportunities will end..permanently!
In but a few more billion, our sun will engulf our solar system and die. The galaxy will re-balance itself and the "moment" man existed will have dissipated unnoticed. The "infinite" will not flinch.
Some would argue that the infinite can be found in one moment, . But my theoretical physics knowledge is not that strong.
And the thing is, I don't really have a problem rectifying any of that above with any of the true thoughts behind any world religion - including Christianity. I don't see any of it really at odds with thought or seeking anything. The bastardizations and literalisms for whatever reason and often subjugation, yeah.
Also, I come up with the opposite conclusion: We are special (lol Have you watched the movie "Contact?"), as is the entire dream, but especially sentient beings, who one could argue, are represented by God's image on earth, Christ, who Sister Wendy (the nun and art critic), I recall, has said (and the thought stuck with me) was "the first fully conscious human being."
And looking at this from a cultural context, OK, didn't we already go through a period of 'darkness' (the Dark Ages) like this, where man MUST realize he is subjugated to the will of God (what is the difference between, after all, the will of God and the ruthless, serendipitous nature of the universe that can snuff out humanity in a brief second?) I don't see any.
What is holding our development back is intolerance, literalisms and agendas, not ideas about God, per se.
ALL you speak of is the result of "immaturity."
MODERN man has existed for, maybe, 40 - 50 k years. We are an infant species, semi-conscious and are having problems adjusting our "uniquesness," i.e. "consciousness," to natures requirements for survival.
If humanity cannot cure itself of the fragmenting concept: "monotheism," the 1000 years of the "Dark Ages" will wither in importance as mankind experiences a necessary diminution in population and may be reduced to "Stone Age" life.
IF that happens, the next millenia will produce mutations in the human species that cannot be imagined.
If you view "god" as being the macro and micro universe, there is no difference in "it's" ability to destroy. If you view "god" as monotheists imagine it to be, the difference between that mythical concept and the reality of the "universe," is "truth."
At this moment in the evolution of "man." his survival is dubious. If he cannot function in concert with nature to ensure the viability of the species, "Mother Nature's" reaction will be absolute. The result of an inability to "adapt" is extinction.
We are not adapting well!
I might agree with the sentiment in that.
However, some might argue that the true spark within any religion is this spirit and hope and belief in a kind of sentienceness that we will 'survive'--that's what it is all supposed to represent.
Definitely we have endlessly bastardized religious thought to fit our material and other desires. Witness any of a series of wars and other events and it is obvious. I'm not sure I'd call the proponents of all this 'children' though, or megalomaniacs. But absolutely the children need to adapt, , and perhaps stop being sheep as Earnest and Mark might say.
I suppose I see God and truth as a poet should and does see it, through a few lenses and by a great deal of metaphors. And I still say our folly is not any idea of God; monotheistic, polytheistic, or pantheistic, but OUR IDEAS (often proselytized) of what God supposedly represents and leads us to do.
Anyway, I'd say on the world stage, religion with a big R is not being used so much as a myth for domination at this point - at least in the West (yes, I'm thinking perhaps in radical Muslim countries that IS still the case). Materialism is the new religion of the West.
By "sentiment," I must assume you mean opinion? There is no "thought" in what I write that is influenced by emotion.
You are correct. "monotheistic faith" has it's foundation based 100% on "hope."
We, semi- conscious creatures understand the result of our death: an infinity of "nothingness." That is frightening! That fear creates within the evolving mind of an "infant" animal species absurd reactions.
One must be blind, deaf and intellectually crippled not to be able to see that "absurdity" in human action and reaction everywhere on this glimmering blue globe.
Man considers himself to be of greater value than other extant life. He feels he can earn "immortality" by creating, praising and worshipping a supernatural divinity, ergo placing him in a "special," "advantageous" and "deserving" position above all other life. That comforts him. If that doesn't qualify as an act of monumental absurdity, I have misinterpreted the word.
You mentioned the "Dark Ages." Roman catholicism ruled with an iron fist, in Machiavellian style. For 1000 years people were controlled, tortured, maimed and murdered in the name of the "lord god almighty!" These were alledged "christians!"....1000 years!
Islam would like to follow suit in the name of "allah!" Allahu Akbar!!! The acme of absurdity!
We are "humans." Humans have evolved as earth's prime predator. It is our genetic nature to "kill!"
Hundreds of millenia will pass before the gene for predation can be sublimated into a more socially and culturally acceptable form.
Personally? I predict a great and calamitous diminution of humanity within the next 100 years.
Mother Nature will be given another opportunity to create a more adaptable "conscious" animal species. One more to her liking.
Absolutely agree 100%.
A lot of people claim to worry about the planet.
She will take care of business - and if that means wiping us off - then so be it.
The religionists think they are different.
Even the religionists "lite" such as Lita.
So silly to think we have a clue........
lol Can't say I spelled out precisely what I would believe in regards to the world being wiped out or humanity being wiped out, Mark.
This entire conversation does (for a psychologist lite...which I do admit to being, haha) shed some light on some things for me, though.
I see reflections, .
I have said many times that I am just a mirror.
You probably notice a distinct difference in tone - depending on to whom I am responding.
Yeah OK. Or talking "of." Branding me a 'religionist' is probably the furthest thing from the truth that I can think of.
You shouldn't piss off - 'lite' those who respect you for other reasons, Mr. Knowles!
Have a good day, though.
Don't take the word "sentiment" too much literally, Qwark. It's just a word. Could very well have also meant "contents"...which, actually in this case, it did mean.
And I have spent tooooo much time in the religion forums. Time to get back to reality...which for me, doesn't look that grim. Very hard some times, but not that harshly grim.
I once told an old poet friend of mine, when he was waxing on as such: A 1/2 remembered quote from The Last of The Mohicans, basically something like, "This world sucks, but it is also the light."
I'll have to remember it precisely and post it when I do.
It's one thing to have a belief in it, another to have the experience of it. And whilst I concur with the findings on a logical and rational level in such writings as the God Delusion, one has to go beyond the rational mind and be able to fathom beyond this level. Those experiences that are tactile and and obviously of a metaphysical nature are mappable. Dissecting religious dogma and rationalizing spiritual experiences is a fruitless exercise, even by Dawkins because he has no way of differentiating the two. Until he himself can experience states of consciousness beyond the ordinary rational mind, he's just making money satisfying the so called intellectuals.
my god ideas are fresh . no old gods here. why i need god ideas? cus im a dreamer
There is so much scientific proof that our God really does exist, and He has done amazing things in my life so there's no way I can ever doubt Him again. I will be praying for all of you!
You can leave me off the list for prayers thanks, no psychotic sky fairy for me!
Please clarify. What scientific proof do you refer?
Prayer saved my soul and it will save all of yours as well. Jesus wants us to repent and stop sinning and if you don't you will be in trouble!!
Yeeeah, I mean, realistically, when you look at "God", it is nothing more than a desire to have a parent-like figure watching over you, or to have something “greater than you” out there to psychologically aid someone in a time of great peril (like the saying “There’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole”). When god was created, the people who fabricated the idea of gods and celestial beings were of an ignorant and oppressive time period. They thought the world was flat, feared sea monsters, and thought that thunder and lightning were great heavenly battles being fought(not to mention they burned people ALIVE for not believing in their own customary ideological, self-fulfilling, restrictive, super natural rhetoric). Now that we are much more rational and the scientific community has advanced on such a prolific scale, I think it’s about time we put the unsupported fairy tales to rest and ACTUALLY start helping humanity, instead of sitting up at night praying that an invisible super being will do it for us.
If you're talking about the period where paganism was the norm, it appears that their experiences were very real and of a very spiritual nature. There is allot of knowledge dismissed by modern religion in the understanding of the Solar Logos which was more an experience and not something vague. The Solar Logos is akin to what is understood as Christ Consciousness in Christian teachings, and has naught to do with any being with arms and legs. The principles of the Solar Logos are an internal experience. Unfortunately modern Christianity dismisses the assimilation and in doing so completely misunderstand what a spiritual transformation is. I agree that there will never be an external savior. More likely an external damnation which is the common experience of mankind as we see today.
Don't labor yourself to death, God isn't real, you can stop there, unsupported facts just fuel the fire of ignorance.
I actually find the term God useless and irrelevant. I don't side with the believers nor do I side with Dawkins. The question asked is God? Why? It's not a hard one to answer - I did it a few pages ago as to Why people seek this external arms and legs thing. It doesn't exist, not in my experience.
Don't worry about me laboring myself to death, LOL. And I'm certainly not ignorant! Provable - depends on what you want as proof. If you want to feel it for yourself, I can help you with that, though I can't make you have it without allot of practice and and you actually being open to wanting to have it. I'm talking tangible experiences here void of dogma.
God has touched me physically and spoken to me as well, and He will speak to you as well if you get over your conceited worldly ways and let Him rescue you from Satan
I actually believe in God. Except God loves everyone and doesn't require Jesus. I'm not trying to crap on anyone's belief. This is a forum for thoughts I thought and then expressed some. No offence intended at this point!
I'm kinda done on the God topic but I just can't help myself sometimes. There is a guy out here who thinks he's Jesus for crying out loud. A few of them. What I found amusing is even the I am Jesus people have a few ADxxxx fans who think his hubs are good. Not that I'm knocking the two I got!!! I'm all for fans.
The BigSteve sort though - the ones that want to save my soul when they ring the doorbell and then wish me godspeed to hell upon leaving... that type I'm not so fond of. Sort of runs along the lines of the non-judgemental (laugh) Bishop deciding who gets to have communion or not. Puh-lease.
I'm basically a pantheist who really doesn't necessarily believe in God's love in any specific anthropomorphic way. I've just seen a lot of hysterics on this religion forum.
Agree about the doorbell wringers. Annoying. As are any who try to sell things badly.
The only "facts you will get are that "this is the true God..." and "the Bible says..."
There are no facts, but conjecture that People in each religion turn into "truth" by comparing notes with people who agree with them. If you and I decided that God is a Chicken that is really speaking "tongs" when it cloacks, we could build a Book that would explain the universe, all morality, and the meaning of life. And if we really wanted to push it, we could say that Chicken has touched us and performed miracles. After all, miracles happen every time the unexpected happens in our favor, in a way that can not be explained.
Chicken bless you!
I can't believe you get points for stirring up shit in the forum. I guess it beats the hell out of actually writing a hub though, huh?
Someone who has NO faith questioning the faith of others.
That's a "no-brainer".
Try writing a hub about something only YOU care about and see if you can get attention.
I do that every day. THAT is a TRUE challenge!
I am amazed daily by life and nature, but that does not confine me to the beliefs in one book written by a bunch of sexist controlling men, or the impossible invisible entity it worships.
I'm amazed by life and nature. I'm amazed at how long, how much time, was needed for the Earth to develop and evolve into the beautiful planet we live on today.
It is more profound to me that nature has evolved and grown, than is the idea that it was made by some magic being.
The othe amazing thing about belief in a god is how psychotic the biblical god is. Why would someone worship an entity worse than the worst of mankind. These projections of evil in the bible are nonsensical in the light of psychological knowledge and should be abandoned as science must with it's ideas that are outmoded.
The knowledge you speak of is prolific, and known to those who will open their minds to it.
For starters how do you get off passing of a rewritten book of lies as somehow beyond reproach. Not one single shred of evidence to support the psychotic nonsense lies therin.
The god you worship is a completely mad rendition of a controlling entity designed to fool the unsophisticated people of their time. The only way this rubbish still gets hawked is through indoctrination, otherwise who would even consider such a crazy invisible entity?
The Almighty, the orical of earth trough space and time, the man of myth of religion of heavenly images, the highlite of protecting earth, protecting the heaven of joice, for heaven of earth of religion V heaven of oricla simulation, of felling of touch. in the presence of original solar fashioning complexes, see the image of religion by Micheal Angelo, to mia Angelou, to the mezmeroriztion of mirrors of the Last Super, Pyramids of Giza, Aztec Indians, Stone Hendge, Wall Street the collective miracles of stream scaping of ideals, the mirror image of the fleet escaping the mirrors aws we wonder through the life of religion we are the forula of heaven information, essence of religion of anti-grandure, of anti strike paths, past the denial of rebolting controbutions, of religions mind is the myth, past the highlife of mirrors past the nuropothy of life is the path past the mirrors to a new relief past denial is the secretions past the dting eye to the dying focal serum of logic past the die V denial is epoluge past defense of lies, past the historical essence of heaven is just a prayer away of repentants, of your necessary means to an end is the forum past the denial you are the retrobution past lives being sacrid, past the mobility of religion to a new dawn of religion is the stability of life past death to a new theatrical mirror of life past the scopistetic ideal we are the necessary solar mind of logic of religion of life past the mind of God
We need something to believe in because we have been programmed with fear. Fear of everything. We are desperately searching for something safe or a savior because we seem uncap able to help each other and save each other which is well in our own capacity,not needing that of another source. Yet we choose to remain afraid and hope for a greater being that we can hang onto even after we die. Yet fear death the most. Confusing.
This harmless little blue green planet will simply shrug us off like flicking off a bug if we annoy it too much. "Mother" nature is one harsh critic, and if we keep polluting and raping the surface we will simply cease to be. The first poem I wrote as a kid described man as the only animal that messes in it's own space.
Unless you think a god is speaking to you. In which case you are vulnerable and will.... cause the end. Seems a lot of the religionists actually want it. Or is that just me?
"our beliefs are always going to be scoffed at and abused until that great and terrible day,"
If any of you have visited Down House in Kent - the home of Charles Darwin - embraced it's atmosphere, treaded his sandwalk (his thinking path) in the surrounding countryside, where day by day, year after year he dwelled and produced his theories; or read his book "The Voyage of the Beagle" an account of his travels of five years, and then understood that for another 50 years he meticulously produced his "Origin of Species" in the face of pressure beyond the reason of common man - (only 150 years ago - and is now a theory of accepted fact- evolution), then you will know that science, however volatile, is the only known answer to our existence.
Creationists come along and decry all this, and believe that Adam and Eve started the ball rolling with the assistance of an almighty God. Some would say so malevolent that he needed to create Lucifer just to make him look good.
But before you all start getting upset - even Darwin did not denounce God. His faith was sorely tested when one of his daughters died, but never did he denounce God. Atheists and Humanists jump on the bandwagon and cite him erroneously as proof of the God Delusion.
I may be one, or both, or neither. But in this year of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's Birth, and the 150th of his publications, it is a timely reminder that reason and knowledge above all will be the saviour of mankind. That if God exists, then he created us with brains that would question his existence, and empowered us with skills and the humanity to ensure fundamental concepts of survival.
It is the Darwinian theory of Survival of the Fittest which should tell us that we are unique and special. After all - we got this far. Everything else is history.
I think someone should take the energy expended here and just write a damn-ass hub! Use some quotes and respond with a hub.
I do it all the time and I am the hubpages whipping boy when it comes to being flagged.
Trust me. (I've had almost 2 dozen hubs flagged to date!) Quote the people you need to quote, include their pics and links to their profiles and hubs and go to town!
Ms. And I'm quite good at reading tone.
lol (You can take that as a joke, though, if ya want.)
Have a good day (seriously) to both of you.
Mornin Tantrum and you too Lita
who should we ignore today?? just teasin
Good morning Mark, wasn't ignoring awalaago
jumped to bottom of page to say hi didnt see ya.
Why God? Why not the sphagetti monster? He's as real as it gets=)
by tkindred 10 years ago
There are many religious types who profoundly believe in God. So I ask, what is the purpose of this God? Where did he come from? God himself must have been created in some way? Did he create himself? If so, how and why? Will his purpose ever be fulfilled and if so will he destroy himself once it is...
by Ack Tane 3 years ago
When you go to sleep at night your body is healed (to as best extent as possible) from all the things you have done to it during the day. Clearly you aren't doing that because you are asleep. So what is doing it?The human body is a very sophisticated system. Much more sophisticated than a computer...
by My Esoteric 7 years ago
If humans had never been created or evolved, would there still be a god?Assume all else remains as it is today. The only difference is it came to be this way without human beings or any other being capable of conceptualizing god having ever existed.
by thirdmillenium 8 years ago
It is carrying the argument for political correctness a bit too far to have this Islamic monument at ground zero. What is the point? What do you want to prove? Is it really needed at the exact spot? Logic and common sense should tell it is unnecessary provocation. A needless controversy has been...
by ahorseback 5 years ago
Is it possible for non- believers to think in duality , really !, especially when it comes to the pobable or possibility of obvious otherworlds in spirituality ? I mean even atheists have to consider in one way or another the possibilities of some kind of spirituality...
by Sunny Robinson 5 years ago
What do you think is the best definition of success?Is it a corporate success? Is it a personal success? Is there a quote you really like that really defines success the best to you? This question is subjective, so answer according to what you think is the best definition of...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|