God, the progeny of human fear, is anti-science

1. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

   Fatfist,
   
   Another definition of troll would be the "god of strawmen", as trolls create arguments from dust and reinvent other peoples' statements to make them appear refutable.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Irrespective of your definitions, I have NEVER used it agains any one who disagreed with me. But I have certainly been kalled one.
      It seems when one has no further constructive points to make, one resorts to name calling and ridicule.

      replyreport
2. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

   aka-dj,
   
   Have you a clue as to what you are arguing about or with whom?  Everyone is capable of imagination.  To understand imagined perfection is not to embrace it as valid.  I understand the concept of Santa Claus, too, but I do not accept that imagined concept as real.
   
   The idea that it is somehow shameful to be a human being comes from Christianity and original sin doctrine.  Eliminate that one dumbass concept and it becomes perfectly all right to be nothing more than a human, like everyone else.
   
   The conflict only comes with the imagined idea of godly perfection.  Eliminate that distorted concept, and we are all completely and truly equal.  I'm OK; You're OK.
   
   Eliminate the false comparison to a perfect god and, poof!, the tension of being "displeasing to god" disappears.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I see you have no clue, of who I am either.
      
      Contrary to your accusation, I never said it was shameful to be a human being. Though you are suggesting it must be the case, since you point to me when you say it.
      You seem to understand the doctrine of sin etc. but fail abysmally at Grace.
      But, of course, there is no case to answer as Jesus never existed (in you'all's minds), so the whole issue is technically irrelevant.
      Nice try, mate!

      replyreport
3. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

   aka-dj,
   
   I asked you point blank if you had a clue as to your argument.  That is neither ridicule nor name calling.  You continue to misrepresent my statements and then attempt to create a strawman to defeat what you think I said.
   
   I ask you again - do you have a clue as to your argument that perfection (a human concept) is not the sole basis for human conflict with our nature?
   
   I asked you also if you knew with whom you were arguing as you continually misrepresent my postions.
   
   I cannot help it if you take offense to being called out for not producing a reasonable rebuttle.

   replyreport
4. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

   (Contrary to your accusation, I never said it was shameful to be a human being)
   
   aka-dj,
   
   Whether you take a discussion about belief systems as a personal attack is up to you.   I do understand that deeply held belief is often intertwined with ego so that self feels as if it is being attacked.  So let me try another tact.
   
   Would you agree that a human being who rejects your god is in a precarious position?  If so, what is there about that position that is dangerous? 
   
   Now, as a thought experiment, imagine neither you nor anyone else believes there is any danger to non-belief.  Would you feel guilty about wanting to have sex with the hot 18-year-old next door? 
   
   My point being that sexual urges are completely and totally natural to the human species, so that any feeling of guilt about having natural feelings can only occur in response to a belief in an unnatural view of the ideal.  The guilt (or shame) for being unable to meet this unnatural ideal is the cause of the tension that requires forgiveness.
   
   Eliminate this self-created tension, and the need for forgiveness disappears as well.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't believe in the idea of original sin, but seriously?
      
      If that is the reason why people feel guilty about wanting to have sex with an 18yr old, then I (as the mother of a child that turns 18 next month) am all for the idea!
      
      Religion may or may not have anything to do with that particular issue per person, but (and I am far from a prude) SHOULDN'T you feel guilty about it?  Isn't guilt just a nice, wonderful little fail safe that says "What you are thinking about is bad, don't do it"?
      
      Those "natural urges" to do things that we really shouldn't do need all the failsafes that they can get.  Guilt isn't a bad thing.  Thinking about doing bad things is supposed to feel bad.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I presume this in response to my post, re definition of troll. No, I was merely answering the troll issue. I took nothing as apersonal attack (from you).
      Simply this. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Since He is the only way to the Father, those who reject Him, will die in their sins. Rather precarious, don't you think?
      Note, I didn't ask you to agree with the theology, just that it exists in scripture!!
      I have no such a neighbour!
      Guilt over wrong(doing) is a matter of conscience. If you have one, you will feel guilty. If you wrong often enough, your conscience will be desensitised, and it will no longer convict you.
      It's not a self defeating concept, somehow introduced by (the) church, or religion. They have merely capitalized on it to control people with it.

      replyreport
5. 75

   cathylynn99posted 12 years ago

   i don't think people should ever feel guilty about thinking about having sex or for thinking about killing someone or thinking anything. it's only if we actually hurt someone or plan to hurt them that we need to feel guilty. die gedanken sind frei.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      cathylynn99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      and even then, the purpose of guilt is to get us to change course. once we've made amends or changed, it's bye-bye to guilt.

      replyreport
6. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

   The only societal structures that adhere to a doctrine that it is not OK to be born human are religious ones - in these structures one must commit some act of contrition in order to be OK.  This silly notion should be enough to reject these ideas out of hand instead of being reasons for voluminous justifications for why it is necessary within the belief system to so such and such.
   
   The tail is wagging the dog - the belief system is the cause of the consternation.

   replyreport
7. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

   (I will take this as a yes. God "could have done it" then)
   
   aka-dj,
   
   Regardless of what you take, you should try to read and comprehend.  I specifically stated that it depends of the definition of god.  Creation ex nihilo by the Abrahamic god is a non-sensical assertion.
   
   (Oh, and may I say, all of these above concepts come straight from the Bible. They are not merely "my opinion".)
   
   Geez, dj, it gets really frustrating trying to communicate with you as you don't seem to grasp the significance of the points made - opinion (no yours but anyone's) simply divides subjective from objective.   The bible offers no objective validation of its claims, therefore anything it says is simply opinion, i.e., a subjective claim.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why is it a nonsensical notion? Just because you either don't understand it, or refuse to accept it?
      
      
      You say the Bible offers no objective validation? You cannot have objective validation of a past event(s). All you have is evidence of the event. In this case, everything we are a part of in this world, IS the evidence. It (all) came about from "something, at some time".
      The Bible merely gives you an explanation of HOW, just like many scientists, in various fields (try) to explain the same thing. Also subjective!
      No-one can pick up (the) creation event, observe and explain it objectively.

      replyreport
8. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

   (Moses did apart the river through the help of the stick. Mohammed did  the moon into two parts and he visited God)
   
   And the neighbor's dog really did talk.
   
   Thank you, Son of Sam, for your imput.  We always welcome the rants of the mentally ill in our midst.

   replyreport
9. 0

   AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

   (Guilt over wrong(doing) is a matter of conscience)
   
   aka-dj,
   
   What about the guilt of the act of simply being born human?   Where does a child learn the guilt associated with normal human emotions and cravings?
   
   If a child sees a piece of candy, he will reach out an take it because he wants it.  That it is not his is not in his cognitive processes.   He learns about stealing when someone slaps his hand and says, no.
   
   Thus, the conflict between the action of stealing and not stealing stems from learned behavior, not any inner portal of morality.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      cathylynn99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      i think an older child who has developed a bond with its parents begins to realize that others are humans whom we don't want to hurt, because they are like us, and we don't like being hurt. thus, a child doesn't need to be specifically told that stealing is wrong. he can intuit it from the fact that he knows he is human like others and wouldn't like to be stolen from.

      replyreport
10. 83

    Philanthropy2012posted 12 years ago

    (HOWEVER, suppose for a moment (if you can) that there IS an ALL POWERFUL, WISE, LOVING GOD, Who can do ALL of this, and more. then it becomes perfectly "logical & feasible" for these miracles to occur)
    
    Aka-Dj, how could you suppose that this is true? You are asking us to believe in something that can't possibly happen to make your argument feasible?
    
    I wrote a hub on this:
    http://philanthropy2012.hubpages.com/hu … s-A-Sadist

    replyreport
11. 0

    AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

    aka-dj,
    
    What you overlook is that knowledge has gained but religious belief has not kept pace with that knowledge. 
    
    Would you concede that it is an absurd notion that to keep a volcano from erupting that a virgin need be sacrificed yearly into the mouth of the volcano?   What is the difference between you ( who I imagine agrees that it is an absurd belief) and the chieftan to orders the virgin sacrificed?  The only difference is in a gain in knowledge about the geological sciences so that now educated chieftans understand that the forces that cause the eruption are not interrupted by virgin deaths.
    
    In the first century stories about miraculous events were not uncommon and widely accepted as true, and many heroes were declared to have been taken whole into heaven, but science has now learned that humans cannot reanimate, cannot fly unaided into the clouds, cannot walk on water, cannot turn water into wine, and cannot become pregnant due to the whims of some occult spirit.
    
    The only difference between the beliefs of the chieftan and his virgin and the beliefs of the modern religionist is that the absurd religious belief is tolerated due to societal decisions to give religions a pass on the need for verification.
    
    If we did not do so, perhaps we could then find genuine human conditions to help alleviate the problems that religions try to solve - solutions that apply to everyone, not simply a group of believers.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You have me confused with organised religion!!
       
       The Bible, to date, has not only supported scientific discoveries
       (with the exception of biased interpretation of the data/evidence)
       but, in many instances pre dated the discoveries made. (IE, flat earth).
       
       Archaeology, is another example of document integrity, of ancient writings.
       
       I see  no conflict myself.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          (You have me confused with organised religion!!)
          
          aka-dj,
          
          I always thought you were LDS.   Not accurate?
          
          (I see  no conflict myself)
          
          I understand that - it is quite dark in there.

          replyreport
          1. 65

             aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Took u a while to reply.
             
             I actually forgot about this thread.
             
             Correct. I am definitely not LDS.
             
             As for dark, well, not really. We are in the Light.
             I stepped out of darkness some 35yrs ago.

             replyreport
12. 0

    AKA Winstonposted 12 years ago

    The bible is not a historical document and cannot be offered as realiable proof of the miraculous.  To argue your case you have to do more than simply claim that god has magical powers because you say so.

    replyreport
13. 0

    Onusonusposted 12 years ago

    Ah another atheist abstraction of reality. Just another attempt to invalidate the tenants of virtue and morality in the name of nothingness...... Brought to you by your friends at the freedom from religion foundation.
    

    replyreport
    1. 0

       AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Damn fine argument.  What was that premise again....I don't like it and I'm holding my breath until I turn blue or you agree with me?

       replyreport
14. 60

    rbe0posted 12 years ago

    Fear is based only on perspective. God brings only light, truth and power.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       (God brings only light, truth and power.)
       
       Wow.  God is Con Ed.  Who knew?

       replyreport
15. 0

    Muldaniaposted 12 years ago

    I think it is easy to get ideas of religion and of God confused, because we are used to the god of the religion we are most familiar with.  I have great difficulty in accepting the gods of religion, because they are so obviously based upon manmade truths.  And the fact that different religions have different ideas of god, would seem to suggest that they cannot all be right.  However, I think science is moving nearer to some concept of the supernatural.  Quantum mechanics seems especially to talk in the language of the supernatural, and the old mechanistic view of the universe is giving way to ideas which were once considered to be science-fiction. 
    
    As a result, I am finding myself considering the possibility of an intelligence in the universe.  I don't know if God would be the best word to describe such an intelligence, because of the religious ideas this brings with it.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       This thread happened during the heyday of HP.   Since it left off, several good and worthy people have dropped out of the forums, and I find it very sad.  It seems to me that the fun, entertaining and lively discussions have ceased.
       
       Great man, Ernestshub has gone to the Forum In The Sky.  I don't see Melissa, Brenda, AKA around these days.  Hope life is good for all those in the Land of the Living.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, in was more entertaining and informed.

          replyreport