posted by singh song
You're on ForumGarden; isn't this thread open to all of us? And, as I'm sure any else without their black-and-white Religion vs Atheism spectacles on will be able to tell straight away, the viewpoints I argue are very, very different from mickiel's. They already have been (put? slight typo) forward; any answers?
Now you look for insult when none was intended. I meant I was answering the specific appoints made by mickiel not that you couldn't partake. , perhaps I could have expressed it better. . By all means if you have different arguments put them.
Very flawed answer there; let me just reiterate my point for you. Because doubt is a defining characteristic of intelligence, acceptance of ANY theory requires an element of faith, INCLUDING those which already exist. And if a new theory, scientific, religious or otherwise, makes more sense and hence requires less faith than the existing theories, then it will eventually become more widely accepted. You say that 'If acceptance of the theory of evolution required faith then any such variation would not be accepted'; but how long did it take for the theory to be accepted even within the scientific community? How many people are there who still remain unconvinced by it? But it eventually took hold because it made more sense, and it was ultimately easier for future generations to believe in.
That acceptance was in the teeth of times violent opposition from religion even know we have religious organizations that want to ban it's teaching. You can believe the theory of evolution to be true you do not believe in it as an act of faith. There is a fundamental difference. The intelligentv design argiment has only come about as it has finally dawned on the religious that just saying you must believe what I tell you does not work in secular societies.
(the 'bollocks' insult again, how original. Moving on...) The population figures in regions of the world near tectonic boundaries, and those affected by hurricanes, typhoons and seasonal flooding, speak for themselves. If they had a negative net impact on us over the course of human history, then these areas would be more sparsely populated; I think it speaks volumes that these are instead the most densely populated regions on Earth and have been for the majority of human history, with their population still continuing to grow faster on average than regions outside of these disaster risk zones.
Bollocks is not an insult. It is a British colloquialism whose meaning is defined by the context.
Bollocks
A highly flexible term commonly used by the british
1. something rubbish
2. a falsehood or series of lies
3. something great
4. the best possible
5. testicles
6. exclamation on making a error.
In this context I was saying you are talking nonsense.
Yes, 'Questioning religion is blasphemy which in some (actually, very few) countries around the world can result in the death penalty'; but there are other countries where questioning science with religious theories is insanity, which can result in a lifetime term in the lunatic asylum. We can both agree that the nations which implement the prior policy deserve to be ousted from the international community and shunned as pariahs; but could we hope to agree that the latter policy is also repressive and unacceptable? Or would you support this policy, and encourage its extension worldwide through its adoption by the UN in lieu of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Do I even have to ask...?
Religions are not a theories, it's something that requires it's followers to follow blindly. Blowing yourself up so you go to paradise and send infidels to hell would be regarded by most people as insanity. In past times heretics were burned at the stake for question religious beliefs, There are countries where under religious rule people are executed for proselytizing, anyone questioning draconian religious law find themselves helpless against the full might of the state. The fact they are regarded as the main allies of the west and we are taking sides in sectarian warfare in the middle east says a great deal about the hypocrisy of our political leaders who also ignore human rights at the drop of a hat when it suits them but that's a different topic perhaps. Compared to what happened to those who challenge religion and still happens to a greater or lesser extent around the world makes putting someone in an asylum because they hear voices relatively benign.
article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.
The right to freedom of expression does not mean you can others are denied the right to challenge what you are saying or even not agree with it. Religious beliefs are not sacrosanct and should be questioned. Intelligent design is not some great new theory that should not be questioned = it just doesn't stack up the basic premise is that there is a god therefore everything proves it to be true. It's bollocks. (not an insult remember, anglo saxon words have an onomatopoeic quality that is so expressive).
On the contrary. In spite of the fact that I have my own personal experience to go on, I still possess the capacity to decide how to interpret it, and hence an inherent element of doubt. I choose to believe in God (aka Waheguru), and I believe in God's existence wholeheartedly; but belief is not the same thing as knowledge. Unless I can surrender the illusion of free will and embrace truly becoming one with God, I can never claim to be absolutely 100% certain that he exists.
So you are an agnostic. To me that's a more sensible position and one I can understand. I'm an atheist agnostic that's my choice, on balance I do not think god exists and especially not the version depicted in the christian bible or islam.
Now, it is true that you haven't suggested these things explicitly; but in other posts, and indeed even in this paragraph, you express your loathing and detestation of these very same entities, religion and the church. I agree that the best defence against religious fanaticism is knowledge, as with any other form of fanaticism, and I'm sure that most religious people in this world would also agree.
Loathing and detestation is too strong but I do consider their influence baleful, they lost the moral high ground a long time ago imo.
Well of course, if you look over the course of history, the majority of these instances of religious persecution were carried out by other religious communities; for most of the history of human civilisation, there were no atheist communities to carry them out. Even with your examples, the unspeakable horror of industrialised genocide which was the Holocaust was of course carried out by Nazi Germany; which just happened to be a secular state, not a religious one. Hitler himself believed that in the long run, Nazism and religion could not co-exist, and that religion would eventually have to be eliminated. Other secular states include the CSA (Slavery, US Civil War), the Soviet Union (Stalin's Purges), South Africa (Apartheid), the PRC (the Great Leap Forward), and North Korea (current state of affairs)- hardly glowing endorsements for atheism.
Secular and atheist are not synonymous although there does seem to be an attempt by some church leaders to make it so. The irony being if they were not in secular states they would not have the freedom they take or granted. America in the 1860, secular yes atheist no, I suspect most americans around at the time would find the assertion they were atheists rather surprising. Indeed even now in modern day secular america most are not atheists. South africa? secular yes atheist definitely not - the justifications for apartheid as with that for black slavery were mainly constructed using religious grounds - a god given belief that white men were born to rule. you can trace the reasoning that went in to it. Mandela was certainly not an atheist. If all men were created by god and therefore equal you have to work out a way to justify enslavement and oppression of a group, manifest destiny is the same kind of phenomenon, hitler used a variation of the same theme because it was one understood by the masses. I know not all Christians thought like that but it takes a lot of strength to turn round and disagree with society.
Nazi germany was a secular state but Catholicism was one of the main religions, Hitler was brought up a catholic and attended catholic school. The persecution of the jews can be firmly laid at the door of two thousand years of christian propaganda. In mein kampf and later he makes it clear he thought in the persecution of the jews was doing god's work. It was not until the 1960's that the pope acknowledged that the jews as a race were not to blame for the death of jesus just "some" jews" Did people really need to hear that from the pope to decide. Stalin was an atheist but that wasn't the main motivation for his purges. South africa is hardly an nation of atheists.
The only nazi excommunicated by the catholic church was Joseph Goebbels for, wait for it, marrying a protestant.
Neither do we, gmc. Give it a rest...
#
As an agnostic I don't suppose you do. On the other hand you have just rejected the teaching of the mainstream christian churches that preach the way to salvation is through jesus and the other one that preaches do what we tell you.
Welcome to conversation.
Welcome to conversation.
I have written much about cells because they are a foundational creation of God and ample proof of him; all living things he created are made up of cells. The cell is the unit of creation. The human brain alone contains billions of cells. And nature couldnot create one single cell in a billion years, nor could science ever prove that a cell created itself in a billion years of research. Science thinks it can take the concept of the cell for granted in its effort to be god and be the definer of all things.
The cell shows profound organization, which is profound proof of an organizer. An organizer requires a mind, which neither nature or evolution has. It demands planning and purpose and " Intent." All obvious evidence that points to a God.
Cells are stunning proof of how God had them created with a " Form-function relationship." They maintain a vast " Communication Network" throughout the body by the transmission of electrical impulses to muscles and glands, and this can only be accomplished by instantaneous fiat, or first creation, it cannot evolve by stages, a critical flaw in scientific reasoning that science has taken for granted and is getting away with it in many circles of the public.
The human body and its nervous system is simular to the many wires in a telephone or electrical system, the system was created by a professional;
no different with the human body; it was created by a professional.
The cell shows profound organization, which is profound proof of an organizer. An organizer requires a mind, which neither nature or evolution has. It demands planning and purpose and " Intent." All obvious evidence that points to a God.
Cells are stunning proof of how God had them created with a " Form-function relationship." They maintain a vast " Communication Network" throughout the body by the transmission of electrical impulses to muscles and glands, and this can only be accomplished by instantaneous fiat, or first creation, it cannot evolve by stages, a critical flaw in scientific reasoning that science has taken for granted and is getting away with it in many circles of the public.
The human body and its nervous system is simular to the many wires in a telephone or electrical system, the system was created by a professional;
no different with the human body; it was created by a professional.
Welcome to conversation.
The human body is a proof of God no doubt; " Metabolism" is a hallmark of that evidence, it describes all the chemical reactions that are happening in the body. Anabolic reactions create needed products and Catabolic reactions break down products; and your body was designed to do this all of its life. That's a " Preplanned cycle", firm proof of God. Even when we are sleeping, our cells are busy running. This process never stops until your dead; that is a " Life Cycle", which is more evidence of a creator supreme.
Welcome to conversation.
Even simple growing human nails are understandable proof of God. Your fingernails and toenails lie on a nail bed. At the back of the nail bed is the nail root. Just like skin and hair, which are proofs of God, nails start growing near the blood supply, ( again the supporting cast that we can track and see creations organizational intents and group meaning even in the physical that points to the spiritual), that lies under the nail bed and the cells move outward. As they move out over the nail bed, they become Keratinized. Can't you begin to see a definite pattern of conscious intent, instead of some wild theory that suggest this was a one time self invention that came from the brilliance of billions of years of nothing?
Welcome to conversation.
" The Developing Human" is a , what I call, "A Womb proof of God." It totally debunks this Ape-to Human Theory. How is a human body supposed to go through stages of development, without being in a womb? When its out of the womb, it merely is growing, but in the womb it is changing its every evolution of growth. There is no human evolution like the womb evolution, and nothing can replace it or " Type it." Its self contain within the female, and controlled and time varied; like 9 months of variation, not billions of years from Ape to human outside of any womb.
And no Ape womb could bear a human, nor a human womb an Ape.
And no Ape womb could bear a human, nor a human womb an Ape.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446898 wrote: " The Developing Human" is a , what I call, "A Womb proof of God." It totally debunks this Ape-to Human Theory. How is a human body supposed to go through stages of development, without being in a womb? When its out of the womb, it merely is growing, but in the womb it is changing its every evolution of growth. There is no human evolution like the womb evolution, and nothing can replace it or " Type it." Its self contain within the female, and controlled and time varied; like 9 months of variation, not billions of years from Ape to human outside of any womb.
And no Ape womb could bear a human, nor a human womb an Ape.
Well what about those who claim that humans did not evolve from Apes, that we just kind of " Developed from thin air".
Ask them if the air is still thin? Ask them if the creating event that produced us, is going to keep producing new human species? Then ask them why it has not?
And no Ape womb could bear a human, nor a human womb an Ape.
Well what about those who claim that humans did not evolve from Apes, that we just kind of " Developed from thin air".
Ask them if the air is still thin? Ask them if the creating event that produced us, is going to keep producing new human species? Then ask them why it has not?
Welcome to conversation.
When you assume that nature or nothing created reality, in my view, that is a large assumption that lacks civil understanding of reality and how things work in reality. Things work in a partnership because both have discussed and planned on those things. And oh how reality shows that two minds certainly discussed and planned on things; I think those two are God and Jesus, in fact the ONLY two that has the POWER needed to accomplish our reality.
So Power is a proof of God, as well as two fold planning in a partnership.
So Power is a proof of God, as well as two fold planning in a partnership.
Welcome to conversation.
The earth's obvious suitability for man is a factual proof of God. It was obviously designed for our complete benefit, and we have seen no other planet like it. Good grief, how much more obvious proof do people need? And then they look at this and cry " No proof?" Its amazing! Simply stunning, this blindness that covers the earth and our true origins. The earth was made for man; when a whole planet was made for a whole race of differing humans, then a whole God must be factored in as its source; and no other creative option is whole.
Welcome to conversation.
Anyhow, welcome to the conversation; right now we are accepting the challange of proving God; something which people have been wrongly taught that it cannot be proven.
Nonsense, it eaisly can; and we are doing it here in this conversation.
Welcome.
Oh, and why not put your imput in? Its like a living testimony.
Nonsense, it eaisly can; and we are doing it here in this conversation.
Welcome.
Oh, and why not put your imput in? Its like a living testimony.
-
Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1446874 wrote: Now you look for insult when none was intended.
Don't worry, none taken.
gmc;1446874 wrote: That acceptance was in the teeth of times violent opposition from religion even know we have religious organizations that want to ban it's teaching> as it has finally dawned on the religious that just saying you must believe what I tell you does not work in secular societies.
For anything to be considered 'true', as opposed to merely being possible or probable, then an act of faith is required. And if you feel that 'saying you must believe what I tell you does not work in secular societies', how do you explain away P.R firms, the media, or any form of politics? Or, indeed, the continued existence of religion in any secular society?
gmc;1446874 wrote: Bollocks is not an insult. It is a British colloquialism whose meaning is defined by the context. In this context I was saying you are talking nonsense.
I'm British too, remember? I was always brought up in the belief that Bollocks was an insult due to interpretation no.5, and I think most others would take it the same way. And of course, the context in which you were using the word was hardly as a compliment, was it?
gmc;1446874 wrote: Religions are not a theories, it's something that requires it's followers to follow blindly > Compared to what happened to those who challenge religion and still happens to a greater or lesser extent around the world makes putting someone in an asylum because they hear voices relatively benign.
Religious teachings are theories, there can be no denying that (unless you believe one or more of them to be proven to a satisfactory standard to be considered as law, and you don't strike me as being someone who does); and contrary to popular belief in discriminatory circles, religious does NOT equal suicide bomber. Jumping out of the trenches and charging through barbed wire into a hail of machine-gun fire, just because your commanding officer in his bunker miles behind the front lines has given the order to do so, would also be counted by many people as an act of insanity. From an individual perspective, active involvement in fighting any war is irrational. Also worth mentioning is the fact that there are still a fair few repressive dictatorial regimes in the world today, where anyone who questions the authorities in any way still faces execution- how many of them are religious nations, and how many of them are secular states? Which holds the majority?
gmc;1446874 wrote: article 19
I said Article 18, not Article 19. Look it up...
gmc;1446874 wrote: The right to freedom of expression does not mean you can others are denied the right to challenge what you are saying or even not agree with it> It's bollocks. (not an insult remember, anglo saxon words have an onomatopoeic quality that is so expressive).
Even though, it the wrong article, the article you chose clearly states that everyone has the freedom to hold opinions without interference- this can be used as an argument against evangelical religions, but it can also be used to argue that any other group who preaches their opinions, including any rights group or political party, also breaks this law. And the second part of this article states that people can seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media- slightly contradicting the first part of the article, but still, don't religious texts and religious services count as a form of media? Intelligent design isn't a new theory, and I welcome you to question it; unfortunately, repeating over and over again that "it's bollocks" doesn't really count as a question. (Personally, I think that to convey the point you were trying to get across, 'circular logic' might have been a more apt term to use. Not that it is- after all, the basic premise is that we have come to be against impossibly high odds, greater than the margin of error in the most stringently tested scientific theory, and that unless we discount every scientific theory ever proposed for the same reason, the theory of intelligent design cannot be discounted either.)
gmc;1446874 wrote: So you are an agnostic. To me that's a more sensible position and one I can understand. I'm an atheist agnostic that's my choice, on balance I do not think god exists and especially not the version depicted in the christian bible or islam.
I am a Sikh (as you should have been able to tell from my reference to Waheguru). The term roughly translates to 'religious disciple', and as such, I acknowledge in the same way as any Sikh, even the Ten Gurus who founded the religion roughly 500 years ago, that the only true authority on God can be God himself. No-one on this earth has the capacity to be anything other than a middleman, and with the ability to interpret anything as we see fit, an element of doubt will always exist, until we surrender the illusion of free will. If we do accept that if God is indeed infinite, then there can be nothing which is excluded from his Being. If he is omnipresent, then he must be present in all things; the bodies of the cosmos, ourselves, even the tiniest, most insignificant grains of sand. Therefore, from a scientific point of view, God is nothing less than the fabric of space-time which runs through the entirety of our infinite universe. Hence, God is self-existent, eternal, all powerful- and because God encompasses all of us, along with any other forms of sentience which may exist out there, God is all-knowing, with all of the knowledge that there is, ever has been or will be forming a part of him. Because we exist, intelligence within our universe, within space-time, and hence within God, Waheguru, is irrefutable. And as such, because any intelligent being is merely a neuron within a higher form of intelligence, free will is an illusion; we must be a part of him, thus our will cannot be presented as anything more than an infinitesimal extension of his own. So long as we cling to the illusion of free will, there will always be doubt; but if we can truly accept reason and surrender the notion of free will, then we can accept the nature of existence and become one with God.
gmc;1446874 wrote: Loathing and detestation is too strong but I do consider their influence baleful, they lost the moral high ground a long time ago imo.>South africa is hardly an nation of atheists.
True, a secular state is agnostic in its nature, not atheist; but look at the nations over the course of history which have actually pursued a policy of Atheism in the place of a state religion. Revolutionary France, Revolutionary Mexico, The Soviet Union, Albania, the PRC, North Korea, and Cuba. Do these strike you as gleaming beacons of freedom and humanitarianism? Or, rather, as a list of some of the most repressive and despicable regimes in history? And using the example of South Africa, the CSA and every other colonial nation which clung on to the notion of white supremacy and black inferiority; the theory of evolution was twisted to meet their agendas in exactly the same manner as religious theories were, and we can easily argue that it was utilised to greater effect. The African black savages were placed on the bottom rung on the human evolutionary ladder to justify their treatment as lesser beings, with the fair, civilised white men placing themselves at the top of the evolutionary ladder as the supposedly most highly evolved form of mankind to justify their genocidal colonial campaigns as 'survival of the fittest'. Go to any place where racism is still prevalent, especially among white supremacists, and if they do bother trying to justify their views, evolutionary theory is always the justification they try to provide. And no, Mandela was certainly not an atheist. He was the one who brought the system to an end, remember?
If all men were created by god, and are therefore equal, you have to work out a way to justify the enslavement and oppression of a group- but if you abandon the notion of God, and the belief that all were created equal by God, then there is no longer any need to pay lip-service to the notion of human rights, and no need to justify the enslavement and oppression of any group. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, the Kims- all atheists, and all perfect examples of this. Lose religion, and you don't need the notion of morality any more, just amoral self-interest- either the interests of the state and its place on the world stage, in the case of secular states such as the USA, or the interests of the privileged few in power, as proved to be the case in fascist and communist dictatorships.
gmc;1446874 wrote: As an agnostic I don't suppose you do. On the other hand you have just rejected the teaching of the mainstream christian churches that preach the way to salvation is through jesus and the other one that preaches do what we tell you.
I haven't only just rejected Christianity; I had the choice to pick between the two, or to choose a third option, since the day I was born. I chose Sikhi over Christianity a long time ago...
Don't worry, none taken.
gmc;1446874 wrote: That acceptance was in the teeth of times violent opposition from religion even know we have religious organizations that want to ban it's teaching> as it has finally dawned on the religious that just saying you must believe what I tell you does not work in secular societies.
For anything to be considered 'true', as opposed to merely being possible or probable, then an act of faith is required. And if you feel that 'saying you must believe what I tell you does not work in secular societies', how do you explain away P.R firms, the media, or any form of politics? Or, indeed, the continued existence of religion in any secular society?
gmc;1446874 wrote: Bollocks is not an insult. It is a British colloquialism whose meaning is defined by the context. In this context I was saying you are talking nonsense.
I'm British too, remember? I was always brought up in the belief that Bollocks was an insult due to interpretation no.5, and I think most others would take it the same way. And of course, the context in which you were using the word was hardly as a compliment, was it?
gmc;1446874 wrote: Religions are not a theories, it's something that requires it's followers to follow blindly > Compared to what happened to those who challenge religion and still happens to a greater or lesser extent around the world makes putting someone in an asylum because they hear voices relatively benign.
Religious teachings are theories, there can be no denying that (unless you believe one or more of them to be proven to a satisfactory standard to be considered as law, and you don't strike me as being someone who does); and contrary to popular belief in discriminatory circles, religious does NOT equal suicide bomber. Jumping out of the trenches and charging through barbed wire into a hail of machine-gun fire, just because your commanding officer in his bunker miles behind the front lines has given the order to do so, would also be counted by many people as an act of insanity. From an individual perspective, active involvement in fighting any war is irrational. Also worth mentioning is the fact that there are still a fair few repressive dictatorial regimes in the world today, where anyone who questions the authorities in any way still faces execution- how many of them are religious nations, and how many of them are secular states? Which holds the majority?
gmc;1446874 wrote: article 19
I said Article 18, not Article 19. Look it up...
gmc;1446874 wrote: The right to freedom of expression does not mean you can others are denied the right to challenge what you are saying or even not agree with it> It's bollocks. (not an insult remember, anglo saxon words have an onomatopoeic quality that is so expressive).
Even though, it the wrong article, the article you chose clearly states that everyone has the freedom to hold opinions without interference- this can be used as an argument against evangelical religions, but it can also be used to argue that any other group who preaches their opinions, including any rights group or political party, also breaks this law. And the second part of this article states that people can seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media- slightly contradicting the first part of the article, but still, don't religious texts and religious services count as a form of media? Intelligent design isn't a new theory, and I welcome you to question it; unfortunately, repeating over and over again that "it's bollocks" doesn't really count as a question. (Personally, I think that to convey the point you were trying to get across, 'circular logic' might have been a more apt term to use. Not that it is- after all, the basic premise is that we have come to be against impossibly high odds, greater than the margin of error in the most stringently tested scientific theory, and that unless we discount every scientific theory ever proposed for the same reason, the theory of intelligent design cannot be discounted either.)
gmc;1446874 wrote: So you are an agnostic. To me that's a more sensible position and one I can understand. I'm an atheist agnostic that's my choice, on balance I do not think god exists and especially not the version depicted in the christian bible or islam.
I am a Sikh (as you should have been able to tell from my reference to Waheguru). The term roughly translates to 'religious disciple', and as such, I acknowledge in the same way as any Sikh, even the Ten Gurus who founded the religion roughly 500 years ago, that the only true authority on God can be God himself. No-one on this earth has the capacity to be anything other than a middleman, and with the ability to interpret anything as we see fit, an element of doubt will always exist, until we surrender the illusion of free will. If we do accept that if God is indeed infinite, then there can be nothing which is excluded from his Being. If he is omnipresent, then he must be present in all things; the bodies of the cosmos, ourselves, even the tiniest, most insignificant grains of sand. Therefore, from a scientific point of view, God is nothing less than the fabric of space-time which runs through the entirety of our infinite universe. Hence, God is self-existent, eternal, all powerful- and because God encompasses all of us, along with any other forms of sentience which may exist out there, God is all-knowing, with all of the knowledge that there is, ever has been or will be forming a part of him. Because we exist, intelligence within our universe, within space-time, and hence within God, Waheguru, is irrefutable. And as such, because any intelligent being is merely a neuron within a higher form of intelligence, free will is an illusion; we must be a part of him, thus our will cannot be presented as anything more than an infinitesimal extension of his own. So long as we cling to the illusion of free will, there will always be doubt; but if we can truly accept reason and surrender the notion of free will, then we can accept the nature of existence and become one with God.
gmc;1446874 wrote: Loathing and detestation is too strong but I do consider their influence baleful, they lost the moral high ground a long time ago imo.>South africa is hardly an nation of atheists.
True, a secular state is agnostic in its nature, not atheist; but look at the nations over the course of history which have actually pursued a policy of Atheism in the place of a state religion. Revolutionary France, Revolutionary Mexico, The Soviet Union, Albania, the PRC, North Korea, and Cuba. Do these strike you as gleaming beacons of freedom and humanitarianism? Or, rather, as a list of some of the most repressive and despicable regimes in history? And using the example of South Africa, the CSA and every other colonial nation which clung on to the notion of white supremacy and black inferiority; the theory of evolution was twisted to meet their agendas in exactly the same manner as religious theories were, and we can easily argue that it was utilised to greater effect. The African black savages were placed on the bottom rung on the human evolutionary ladder to justify their treatment as lesser beings, with the fair, civilised white men placing themselves at the top of the evolutionary ladder as the supposedly most highly evolved form of mankind to justify their genocidal colonial campaigns as 'survival of the fittest'. Go to any place where racism is still prevalent, especially among white supremacists, and if they do bother trying to justify their views, evolutionary theory is always the justification they try to provide. And no, Mandela was certainly not an atheist. He was the one who brought the system to an end, remember?
If all men were created by god, and are therefore equal, you have to work out a way to justify the enslavement and oppression of a group- but if you abandon the notion of God, and the belief that all were created equal by God, then there is no longer any need to pay lip-service to the notion of human rights, and no need to justify the enslavement and oppression of any group. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, the Kims- all atheists, and all perfect examples of this. Lose religion, and you don't need the notion of morality any more, just amoral self-interest- either the interests of the state and its place on the world stage, in the case of secular states such as the USA, or the interests of the privileged few in power, as proved to be the case in fascist and communist dictatorships.
gmc;1446874 wrote: As an agnostic I don't suppose you do. On the other hand you have just rejected the teaching of the mainstream christian churches that preach the way to salvation is through jesus and the other one that preaches do what we tell you.
I haven't only just rejected Christianity; I had the choice to pick between the two, or to choose a third option, since the day I was born. I chose Sikhi over Christianity a long time ago...
Welcome to conversation.
Singh-Song;1446907 wrote:
I haven't only just rejected Christianity
Oddly enough so did Atheists.
We are all Atheists. I just believe in one less God than you.
With the hundreds if not thousands of Gods/religions throughout history, every adherent thinks that their God is the true God. Their religion is the right and true religion to follow. I doubt there is a place in an Islamic paradise, for example, for either you or I. At least Atheists are consistent in their non-belief.
I haven't only just rejected Christianity
Oddly enough so did Atheists.
We are all Atheists. I just believe in one less God than you.
With the hundreds if not thousands of Gods/religions throughout history, every adherent thinks that their God is the true God. Their religion is the right and true religion to follow. I doubt there is a place in an Islamic paradise, for example, for either you or I. At least Atheists are consistent in their non-belief.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Welcome to conversation; by the way, conversation is a sub proof of God, deriving from language, another proof of God. God communicates, although he is not now doing so with humans. He sent his " Spokesperson" here in the person of Jesus, and we killed him. But not before he communicated his announcements; his Fathers message to humanity; the complette salvation of all of humanity.
God is conversational, just not yet with humans. But that is where we get the knack to conversate from; from him and Jesus, who talk to each other all the time.
Man, Jesus is SOOO fortunate; just think, to be able to actually talk to God any time you wish.
God is conversational, just not yet with humans. But that is where we get the knack to conversate from; from him and Jesus, who talk to each other all the time.
Man, Jesus is SOOO fortunate; just think, to be able to actually talk to God any time you wish.
-
Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Welcome to conversation.
Snowfire;1446914 wrote: Oddly enough so did Atheists.
We are all Atheists. I just believe in one less God than you.
With the hundreds if not thousands of Gods/religions throughout history, every adherent thinks that their God is the true God. Their religion is the right and true religion to follow. I doubt there is a place in an Islamic paradise, for example, for either you or I. At least Atheists are consistent in their non-belief.
Just because a person has been written about by different authors on a multitude of occasions, and been depicted by them in several different ways, doesn't mean that each depiction is that of a different person, or that the person suffers from multiple personality disorder. There have been thousands of religions which have been practised, and hundreds of thousands of deities which have worshipped over the course of human history. But this is only natural, because there have been billions of people to make up their own minds on what to believe in, choosing bits from here and there and filling in the gaps with their own contributions to present their own version of religion. No one faith can claim to be the exclusive true religion to follow, and you'll find that there have been many religions which have never made that claim. No-one can claim that their religion's interpretation of God is the true, all-powerful God, because the only being which can possibly be capable of comprehending an infinite God is that God. And for this reason, no-one can claim that God cannot exist, because by his very nature as an infinite being, proving his existence or inexistence through finite processes, either through scientific calculation or in our own limited minds, would be an impossible feat to accomplish. As such, Atheism is just a much an act of faith as Theism. And BTW, many Atheists are far from consistent in their non-belief. How many atheists do you know who still call out to their supposedly non-existent 'God' for help, and curse his name in times of hardship? Because let me tell you, I know plenty...
We are all Atheists. I just believe in one less God than you.
With the hundreds if not thousands of Gods/religions throughout history, every adherent thinks that their God is the true God. Their religion is the right and true religion to follow. I doubt there is a place in an Islamic paradise, for example, for either you or I. At least Atheists are consistent in their non-belief.
Just because a person has been written about by different authors on a multitude of occasions, and been depicted by them in several different ways, doesn't mean that each depiction is that of a different person, or that the person suffers from multiple personality disorder. There have been thousands of religions which have been practised, and hundreds of thousands of deities which have worshipped over the course of human history. But this is only natural, because there have been billions of people to make up their own minds on what to believe in, choosing bits from here and there and filling in the gaps with their own contributions to present their own version of religion. No one faith can claim to be the exclusive true religion to follow, and you'll find that there have been many religions which have never made that claim. No-one can claim that their religion's interpretation of God is the true, all-powerful God, because the only being which can possibly be capable of comprehending an infinite God is that God. And for this reason, no-one can claim that God cannot exist, because by his very nature as an infinite being, proving his existence or inexistence through finite processes, either through scientific calculation or in our own limited minds, would be an impossible feat to accomplish. As such, Atheism is just a much an act of faith as Theism. And BTW, many Atheists are far from consistent in their non-belief. How many atheists do you know who still call out to their supposedly non-existent 'God' for help, and curse his name in times of hardship? Because let me tell you, I know plenty...
Welcome to conversation.
Singh-Song;1446931 wrote: Just because a person has been written about by different authors on a multitude of occasions, and been depicted by them in several different ways, doesn't mean that each depiction is that of a different person, or that the person suffers from multiple personality disorder. There have been thousands of religions which have been practised, and hundreds of thousands of deities which have worshipped over the course of human history. But this is only natural, because there have been billions of people to make up their own minds on what to believe in, choosing bits from here and there and filling in the gaps with their own contributions to present their own version of religion. No one faith can claim to be the exclusive true religion to follow, and you'll find that there have been many religions which have never made that claim. No-one can claim that their religion's interpretation of God is the true, all-powerful God, because the only being which can possibly be capable of comprehending an infinite God is that God. And for this reason, no-one can claim that God cannot exist, because by his very nature as an infinite being, proving his existence or inexistence through finite processes, either through scientific calculation or in our own limited minds, would be an impossible feat to accomplish. As such, Atheism is just a much an act of faith as Theism. And BTW, many Atheists are far from consistent in their non-belief. How many atheists do you know who still call out to their supposedly non-existent 'God' for help, and curse his name in times of hardship? Because let me tell you, I know plenty...
You assume that for an Atheist to use the word "God" in a conversation, it would be for religious purposes. It's not. It's purely a figure of speech. We don't choose to occasionally believe in God "in times of hardship". One either believes or one doesn't.
I do agree with one aspect of your post though...
Originally posted by Singh-Song
There have been thousands of religions which have been practised, and hundreds of thousands of deities which have worshipped over the course of human history. But this is only natural, because there have been billions of people to make up their own minds on what to believe in.
It is entirely natural for people to make up their own minds on what to believe. I am one of those billions who did exactly that. Made my own mind up, as you have.
My Atheism is my personal journey. My path. My quest for answers in my own way. It may differ from yours and indeed, Mikiel's but no less valid. Our mind's are constructed - and I don't mean that in a "creator" manner, should you be wondering. Again it is just a figure of speech - in such a way that it is personal to us and not to be manipulated by outside forces. I'm happy to read your thoughts and interpretations of God and religion but that is all they are, with respect, your thoughts and imaginations, manifested within your own personal mind.
I have found too many religious people who make some very strange assumptions about Atheism ( and I'm sure those same poor assumptions are returned) Because we reject the notion of a God, we must automatically embrace evil. The Devil. Its an odd assumption. If I don't believe in God, by definition I wouldn't believe in Satan either.
Which begs me to ask the question. If God is so omnipotent and omniscient, why is he not able to defeat evil. He has created something he has no order or control over.
Epicurus put it so much better...
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
You assume that for an Atheist to use the word "God" in a conversation, it would be for religious purposes. It's not. It's purely a figure of speech. We don't choose to occasionally believe in God "in times of hardship". One either believes or one doesn't.
I do agree with one aspect of your post though...
Originally posted by Singh-Song
There have been thousands of religions which have been practised, and hundreds of thousands of deities which have worshipped over the course of human history. But this is only natural, because there have been billions of people to make up their own minds on what to believe in.
It is entirely natural for people to make up their own minds on what to believe. I am one of those billions who did exactly that. Made my own mind up, as you have.
My Atheism is my personal journey. My path. My quest for answers in my own way. It may differ from yours and indeed, Mikiel's but no less valid. Our mind's are constructed - and I don't mean that in a "creator" manner, should you be wondering. Again it is just a figure of speech - in such a way that it is personal to us and not to be manipulated by outside forces. I'm happy to read your thoughts and interpretations of God and religion but that is all they are, with respect, your thoughts and imaginations, manifested within your own personal mind.
I have found too many religious people who make some very strange assumptions about Atheism ( and I'm sure those same poor assumptions are returned) Because we reject the notion of a God, we must automatically embrace evil. The Devil. Its an odd assumption. If I don't believe in God, by definition I wouldn't believe in Satan either.
Which begs me to ask the question. If God is so omnipotent and omniscient, why is he not able to defeat evil. He has created something he has no order or control over.
Epicurus put it so much better...
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Welcome to conversation.
Hydrogen is another proof of God. Its no longer being produced in the universe, and its being used up. It would take extreme pressure to produce it, such as not is occuring today. Well we know from this that things have an origin in power, and they have an ending coming. Hydrogen is not the only thing dying, all matter is deteriating. It was not designed to last forever. Which leads still to a temporary creation, as supported by the bible; which is just another book that proves God.
Welcome to conversation.
Interesting that 51% of people in the world believe in God, 9 in 10 Americans do as well. Only 16% in the world do not believe; stunning stats at last time I checked. Is that proof of God?
Well its proof of something; something that most people sense.
Well its proof of something; something that most people sense.
-
Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Welcome to conversation.
Snowfire;1446937 wrote: You assume that for an Atheist to use the word "God" in a conversation, it would be for religious purposes. It's not. It's purely a figure of speech. We don't choose to occasionally believe in God "in times of hardship". One either believes or one doesn't.
It does strike one as somewhat quaint though, doesn’t it? Almost like choosing to use the exclamation, “Oh Santa Claus!â€, “Oh Unicorn!â€, or “Oh Superman!†If you are truly atheist, and you supposedly know that the character isn’t real, shouldn’t the exclamation “Oh God!†be deemed to be just as ridiculous as the others?
Snowfire;1446937 wrote: My Atheism is my personal journey. My path. My quest for answers in my own way. It may differ from yours and indeed, Mikiel's but no less valid. Our mind's are constructed - and I don't mean that in a "creator" manner, should you be wondering. Again it is just a figure of speech - in such a way that it is personal to us and not to be manipulated by outside forces. I'm happy to read your thoughts and interpretations of God and religion but that is all they are, with respect, your thoughts and imaginations, manifested within your own personal mind.
Cannot your notion and perception of yourself as an independent entity be summarised in the same manner? Because really, how is our perception of who we are defined by anything other than external forces? According to science, along with our physical limitations, our mental limitations are defined from birth according to our genetic code, and our early development in vitro. Our mental development is facilitated by the accumulation of our knowledge, and as such our own definition of who we are is defined entirely by external forces, and our place in the greater scheme. If you were anyone else, if your mental development had taken place in a different environment (PRC, N. Korea, your own locale 100 years ago, etc) or if any of the experiences in your life had panned out differently and set a butterfly effect in motion, it only stands to reason that you would be an entirely different person as a result. And at any time, the balance of our biochemistry influences our mental processes, with the amount of water within our bodies and the struggle to sustain our core body temperature in a varying external environment having an impact in the same manner as any mind-bending narcotics.
While our minds are undoubtedly constructed and operated in such a way which is completely personal to us, outside forces manipulate our minds to the extent that they can be said to define every aspect of them. Hence, the only possible basis for belief in one's 'self' as a truly independent, sentient entity is through belief in the concept of a soul- something which cannot be substantiated through scientific analysis, and which requires religious belief in the same way as belief in the existence of God. From a scientific point of view, Biology is nothing more than the most complex form of chemistry, and although we are one of the most complex forms that we know of (the amoeboid Polychaos dubium currently holds that title, with its genome more than twenty times the length of our own, hence making these organisms more than twenty times more complex than ourselves from a scientific perspective), we are still nothing more. Think it through, and if you reject religious belief, you must accept that you are no more sentient than the robotic machines we create.
Snowfire;1446937 wrote: I have found too many religious people who make some very strange assumptions about Atheism ( and I'm sure those same poor assumptions are returned) Because we reject the notion of a God, we must automatically embrace evil.
Why should an athiest person cling to the antiquated religious notions of 'good' and 'evil'? In what context are they good or evil? Does mankind have an innate moral code, or is our notion of morality built entirely on the foundations of religious beliefs? Surely it would be more fitting from an atheist POV, or even an agnostic POV, to view things as being either 'advantageous' or 'disadvantageous'? And seeing as how from a scientific viewpoint all men are clearly not created equal, and economic inequality runs rampant, why bother treating them equally? Supporting religious extremist states who persecute disbelievers and commit crimes against humanity might not be deemed good, but if they're piping the oil needed to keep petrol prices down and keep the electorate happy, it is advantageous, making it the right thing to do for an atheist or agnostic state. And if a few dozen extra African villagers starve to death for lack of food just so that one privileged person in the developed world can throw a stag party, why care? They don't have the dosh, why should they have the right to be supplied with sustenance? He does, so it goes to him, whether he's going to eat a mouthful of it or not. If you reject the notion of God along with any other form of religious belief, and choose to invest your belief solely in yourself, then your perspective of the world in which you live will become a selfish one.
Snowfire;1446937 wrote: The Devil. Its an odd assumption. If I don't believe in God, by definition I wouldn't believe in Satan either. Which begs me to ask the question. If God is so omnipotent and omniscient, why is he not able to defeat evil. He has created something he has no order or control over. Epicurus put it so much better... "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Would you rather have the elimination of all evil, or the perpetuation of sentience? Because you can't have it both ways. So long as we continue to believe in ourselves and make our own choices, then some of our actions will be more selfish (i.e, evil), while other actions will be more selfless (i.e, 'good'). Either we possess free will, meaning that the only thing which he has no order or control over is ourselves; or free will is an illusion, making ourselves extensions of God's own self. And given that we do have the capacity to defeat evil within ourselves, and to prevent ourselves from committing evil acts, then the omnipresent God within us is clearly capable of defeating evil. By abandoning limited, selfish motivations- Lust, Greed, Pride, Attachment and Ego- then we become closer to acknowledging that there is more to existence than one's self, and closer to becoming one with God. All of what we deem to be 'evil' emanates from these five things, and by purging one's self of them entirely, then evil is defeated- not by ourselves, but by completely immersing one's self within God.
It does strike one as somewhat quaint though, doesn’t it? Almost like choosing to use the exclamation, “Oh Santa Claus!â€, “Oh Unicorn!â€, or “Oh Superman!†If you are truly atheist, and you supposedly know that the character isn’t real, shouldn’t the exclamation “Oh God!†be deemed to be just as ridiculous as the others?
Snowfire;1446937 wrote: My Atheism is my personal journey. My path. My quest for answers in my own way. It may differ from yours and indeed, Mikiel's but no less valid. Our mind's are constructed - and I don't mean that in a "creator" manner, should you be wondering. Again it is just a figure of speech - in such a way that it is personal to us and not to be manipulated by outside forces. I'm happy to read your thoughts and interpretations of God and religion but that is all they are, with respect, your thoughts and imaginations, manifested within your own personal mind.
Cannot your notion and perception of yourself as an independent entity be summarised in the same manner? Because really, how is our perception of who we are defined by anything other than external forces? According to science, along with our physical limitations, our mental limitations are defined from birth according to our genetic code, and our early development in vitro. Our mental development is facilitated by the accumulation of our knowledge, and as such our own definition of who we are is defined entirely by external forces, and our place in the greater scheme. If you were anyone else, if your mental development had taken place in a different environment (PRC, N. Korea, your own locale 100 years ago, etc) or if any of the experiences in your life had panned out differently and set a butterfly effect in motion, it only stands to reason that you would be an entirely different person as a result. And at any time, the balance of our biochemistry influences our mental processes, with the amount of water within our bodies and the struggle to sustain our core body temperature in a varying external environment having an impact in the same manner as any mind-bending narcotics.
While our minds are undoubtedly constructed and operated in such a way which is completely personal to us, outside forces manipulate our minds to the extent that they can be said to define every aspect of them. Hence, the only possible basis for belief in one's 'self' as a truly independent, sentient entity is through belief in the concept of a soul- something which cannot be substantiated through scientific analysis, and which requires religious belief in the same way as belief in the existence of God. From a scientific point of view, Biology is nothing more than the most complex form of chemistry, and although we are one of the most complex forms that we know of (the amoeboid Polychaos dubium currently holds that title, with its genome more than twenty times the length of our own, hence making these organisms more than twenty times more complex than ourselves from a scientific perspective), we are still nothing more. Think it through, and if you reject religious belief, you must accept that you are no more sentient than the robotic machines we create.
Snowfire;1446937 wrote: I have found too many religious people who make some very strange assumptions about Atheism ( and I'm sure those same poor assumptions are returned) Because we reject the notion of a God, we must automatically embrace evil.
Why should an athiest person cling to the antiquated religious notions of 'good' and 'evil'? In what context are they good or evil? Does mankind have an innate moral code, or is our notion of morality built entirely on the foundations of religious beliefs? Surely it would be more fitting from an atheist POV, or even an agnostic POV, to view things as being either 'advantageous' or 'disadvantageous'? And seeing as how from a scientific viewpoint all men are clearly not created equal, and economic inequality runs rampant, why bother treating them equally? Supporting religious extremist states who persecute disbelievers and commit crimes against humanity might not be deemed good, but if they're piping the oil needed to keep petrol prices down and keep the electorate happy, it is advantageous, making it the right thing to do for an atheist or agnostic state. And if a few dozen extra African villagers starve to death for lack of food just so that one privileged person in the developed world can throw a stag party, why care? They don't have the dosh, why should they have the right to be supplied with sustenance? He does, so it goes to him, whether he's going to eat a mouthful of it or not. If you reject the notion of God along with any other form of religious belief, and choose to invest your belief solely in yourself, then your perspective of the world in which you live will become a selfish one.
Snowfire;1446937 wrote: The Devil. Its an odd assumption. If I don't believe in God, by definition I wouldn't believe in Satan either. Which begs me to ask the question. If God is so omnipotent and omniscient, why is he not able to defeat evil. He has created something he has no order or control over. Epicurus put it so much better... "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Would you rather have the elimination of all evil, or the perpetuation of sentience? Because you can't have it both ways. So long as we continue to believe in ourselves and make our own choices, then some of our actions will be more selfish (i.e, evil), while other actions will be more selfless (i.e, 'good'). Either we possess free will, meaning that the only thing which he has no order or control over is ourselves; or free will is an illusion, making ourselves extensions of God's own self. And given that we do have the capacity to defeat evil within ourselves, and to prevent ourselves from committing evil acts, then the omnipresent God within us is clearly capable of defeating evil. By abandoning limited, selfish motivations- Lust, Greed, Pride, Attachment and Ego- then we become closer to acknowledging that there is more to existence than one's self, and closer to becoming one with God. All of what we deem to be 'evil' emanates from these five things, and by purging one's self of them entirely, then evil is defeated- not by ourselves, but by completely immersing one's self within God.
Welcome to conversation.
Definite energy is a proof of God; an interesting one too. Which shows the incredible creative reach of God's mind. We can look at " Light", which can be described as a frequency, and a wavelength also. His creations have incredible reach and diversity. Light is an interesting energy, it always has the same speed in empty space and it has many properties. It has a physical nature to it, it has geometrical and wave optics; and because God's creations have these multiple dimensions to them, we humans can develop several concepts about them and from them; which is why many scientist cannot see that their discoveries are actual proofs of God.
The waves in Light are really streams of " Individual Photons", each with a " Definite Energy", which is just another " Fingerprint of God", or a way to trace his creative tendency. These Photons can be polarized like transverse waves; and we humans are actually able to see because light comes to our eyes from various objects in the field of view. Our eyes are exciting proofs of God, which I may go into next week. God actually gave us " Spectral Composition"; we can see differences in things because of this created visible spectrum. Now it is just not possible for these kinds of organized purposeful factual things to have " Thought this out on their own", we can trace the intellectual intent behind these great accomplishments in creative thought.
The waves in Light are really streams of " Individual Photons", each with a " Definite Energy", which is just another " Fingerprint of God", or a way to trace his creative tendency. These Photons can be polarized like transverse waves; and we humans are actually able to see because light comes to our eyes from various objects in the field of view. Our eyes are exciting proofs of God, which I may go into next week. God actually gave us " Spectral Composition"; we can see differences in things because of this created visible spectrum. Now it is just not possible for these kinds of organized purposeful factual things to have " Thought this out on their own", we can trace the intellectual intent behind these great accomplishments in creative thought.
Welcome to conversation.
You want to see some staggering creative proofs of God, just look at some Gems and Mineral Rocks formed by the geological forces beneath the earth. Science is forfeiting and giving Gods creations over to the earth itself creating them. These wonders and Crystals are prisoners of science and are placed in museums under the banner of " Earths creations", instead of Gods creations. Crystals are solids with regular three dimensional repetitive arrangements of atoms, called " Crystal Structures." They are a wonder to look at.
While God has created the earth to suit man, his creations are multifaceted, the earth is steadily creating Mineral Species in a great variety of chemical compositions and crystal structures that are stunning. God can even use his Magma to create. Oh and how he has put on a show with Igneous rock, Sedimentary rock and Metamorphic rock; Gemstones , Gold, Diamonds, Silver, Sulfur, Arsenic, Tellurium, Lead, Graphite, Platinum, Halides, Carbonates, Phosphates, Borates, Tungstates, Tectosilicates, the list is endless and visually stunning. The most beautiful rocks in this world!
All visually stunning proofs of God.
While God has created the earth to suit man, his creations are multifaceted, the earth is steadily creating Mineral Species in a great variety of chemical compositions and crystal structures that are stunning. God can even use his Magma to create. Oh and how he has put on a show with Igneous rock, Sedimentary rock and Metamorphic rock; Gemstones , Gold, Diamonds, Silver, Sulfur, Arsenic, Tellurium, Lead, Graphite, Platinum, Halides, Carbonates, Phosphates, Borates, Tungstates, Tectosilicates, the list is endless and visually stunning. The most beautiful rocks in this world!
All visually stunning proofs of God.
Welcome to conversation.
Mark Twain once said, " The Weather is always doing something", well its always proving God. The beauty of an unusual cloud, the symmetry of a rainbow, the awesome power of a thunderstorm and devastation of a hurricane, all suggest a mighty power with influence over humanity, which is one of the known definitions of God. God can change the climate on earth with the weather, give the earth diversity with it; influence how animals and humans adapt with it; The weather is a chapter that is written in our history over and over again; as God keeps up the pressure to show who is really in charge.
God is a " Solar Powerhouse", with weather he can influence seasons, energy, the atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, earths system, global winds, jet streams, winds at sea, frontal systems, highs and lows, heating and cooling, the monsoon, local winds, extreme winds and ocean currents; how are we going to fight something like that?
We can't win in no shape or fashion with ANY of our weapons. Its just not possible.
God is a " Solar Powerhouse", with weather he can influence seasons, energy, the atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, earths system, global winds, jet streams, winds at sea, frontal systems, highs and lows, heating and cooling, the monsoon, local winds, extreme winds and ocean currents; how are we going to fight something like that?
We can't win in no shape or fashion with ANY of our weapons. Its just not possible.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1446986 wrote: Mark Twain once said, " The Weather is always doing something", well its always proving God. The beauty of an unusual cloud, the symmetry of a rainbow, the awesome power of a thunderstorm and devastation of a hurricane, all suggest a mighty power with influence over humanity, which is one of the known definitions of God. God can change the climate on earth with the weather, give the earth diversity with it; influence how animals and humans adapt with it; The weather is a chapter that is written in our history over and over again; as God keeps up the pressure to show who is really in charge.
God is a " Solar Powerhouse", with weather he can influence seasons, energy, the atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, earths system, global winds, jet streams, winds at sea, frontal systems, highs and lows, heating and cooling, the monsoon, local winds, extreme winds and ocean currents; how are we going to fight something like that?
We can't win in no shape or fashion with ANY of our weapons. Its just not possible.
And we see what he can do with the Snow when he wants to.
God is a " Solar Powerhouse", with weather he can influence seasons, energy, the atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, earths system, global winds, jet streams, winds at sea, frontal systems, highs and lows, heating and cooling, the monsoon, local winds, extreme winds and ocean currents; how are we going to fight something like that?
We can't win in no shape or fashion with ANY of our weapons. Its just not possible.
And we see what he can do with the Snow when he wants to.
Welcome to conversation.
posted by singh-song
For anything to be considered 'true', as opposed to merely being possible or probable, then an act of faith is required. And if you feel that 'saying you must believe what I tell you does not work in secular societies', how do you explain away P.R firms, the media, or any form of politics? Or, indeed, the continued existence of religion in any secular society?
That's a completely different order of things from religious doctrine. PR firms and politicians are selling something, most people realise that and know they have a choice. Religion it's believe what you are told or your soul is eternally damned - at least for some sects it is.n Finding your own way to salvation with your own personal jesus used to be heresy according to the catholic church, still is actually but they don't burn people any more. nor do pr people and politicians advocate usually exhort their followers to violence or peach that anyone not agreeing with them is going to hell (OK I can think of exceptions as well but hopefully you get my drift )
I'm British too, remember? I was always brought up in the belief that Bollocks was an insult due to interpretation no.5, and I think most others would take it the same way. And of course, the context in which you were using the word was hardly as a compliment, was it?
Actually I hadn't looked, I just assumed from your reaction you were american. It's a fairly forceful rejection of an argument but not of the person - at least that's the way it's used up here and the way it was intended.
Religious teachings are theories, there can be no denying that (unless you believe one or more of them to be proven to a satisfactory standard to be considered as law, and you don't strike me as being someone who does); and contrary to popular belief in discriminatory circles, religious does NOT equal suicide bomber. Jumping out of the trenches and charging through barbed wire into a hail of machine-gun fire, just because your commanding officer in his bunker miles behind the front lines has given the order to do so, would also be counted by many people as an act of insanity. From an individual perspective, active involvement in fighting any war is irrational. Also worth mentioning is the fact that there are still a fair few repressive dictatorial regimes in the world today, where anyone who questions the authorities in any way still faces execution- how many of them are religious nations, and how many of them are secular states? Which holds the majority?
I wouldn't even class them as theories, fairy stories told to children at best, mind you calling them theories would get you in to trouble with quite a few religious sects, they are truths not to be questioned.
Jumping out of the trenches and charging through barbed wire into a hail of machine-gun fire,
Why people do that is a whole subject on it's own. Believing god was on your side has been a major factor in many a conflict in the past and it's certainly one in modern times. States have always used religion for theory own ends most of the ones that still execute for questioning authorities tend to be in the main religious ones - if you think of south america where the opposition are usually left wing for instance or the middle east.
I said Article 18, not Article 19. Look it up...
:o
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
There are a lot of religious groups that believe they have a god given right to infringe the rights of others - look at the fuss over gay marriage for instance and attempts in this country to ban sex eduction and access to contraceptives.
Even though, it the wrong article, the article you chose clearly states that everyone has the freedom to hold opinions without interference- tand that unless we discount every scientific theory ever proposed for the same reason, the theory of intelligent design cannot be discounted either.)
Nobody is telling those who believe in intelligent design that they can't do so. The article protects someone's right to believe what they wish everyone else has the right to question it if they wish to do so. More to the point advocates of intelligent design have no business insisting it gets taught as part of the science curriculum when it so clearly is a religious belief. It's an attempt to get in by the back door religious doctrine.
I am a Sikh (as you should have been able to tell from my reference to Waheguru).
Actually I hadn't twigged, although your name should perhaps have been a big hint. It's actually a religion I'm ashamed to say know very little about. Have actually read the bible and koran - y read some of the hindu sanskrit texts, in translation needless to say and many years ago now and read up up on most of the worlds religions and their variations but Sikhism I only know a little bit about having frantically done some quick research.
Does explain why you are not coming out with the usual judeo/christian based arguments I'm used to answering. That particular god is malevolent and very much hands on whether you follow doctrine or find your own way through his son, or trinity if you prefer that version. Your arguments make more sense now I know where you are coming from.
Seems you are arguing that god is not a super being but rather all encompassing force for want of a better world.
God is nothing less than the fabric of space-time which runs through the entirety of our infinite un------------
nitesimal extension of his own. So long as we cling to the illusion of free will, there will always be doubt; but if we can truly accept reason and surrender the notion of free will, then we can accept the nature of existence and become one with God.
That is an argument no christian could come out with and is also a lot harder to argue against. It has a great deal more appeal than most no going to hell if you get it wrong. I can see (I think) why an intelligent designer appeals.
Because we exist, intelligence within our universe, within space-time, and hence within God,
That's a variation on the cogito argument. Because you exist you must come from somewhere and get your thoughts from somewhere that somewhere being god. However it is still not proof that god exists it still makes the assumption that god exists and I am still an agnostic atheist.
but if we can truly accept reason and surrender the notion of free will, then we can accept the nature of existence and become one with God
Interesting, according to martin luther faith - belief in god - requires a suspension of reason.
Martin Luther
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.â€
Sorry, you maybe can suspend reason I can't nor can I accept reason or the reasons as you put it because your reasons are flawed imo and depend on wishful thinking, for want for a better way to put it.
True, a secular state is agnostic in its nature, not atheist; but look at the nations over the course of history which have actually pursued a policy of Atheism in the place of a state religion. -------------------
as the one who brought the system to an end, remember?
Atheism is a view on the existence of the supernatural, not a political system that some of those you mention were atheists is true but that is not why they behaved as they did, they destroyed the power of the churches in response to the part played in the oppression of the people but atheism was not the reason for their actions. You need to see these revolutions in context as tio what they were against.
That some atheists believed the end justified the means is no surprise and not something I would try and defend, the atheism of stalin etc is irrelevant to the way they behaved, on the other hand the religious beliefs of hitler were very relevant
Hitler was not an atheist, he believed he was doing god's work he was supported by the catholic church in particular and many of the concentration camp guards were church goers.
If all men were created by god, ----------
ase of secular states such as the USA, or the interests of the privileged few in power, as proved to be the case in fascist and communist dictatorships.
You don't need religion to be a moral person any more than being religious makes you one.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.â€
― Steven Weinberg
The western concepts of manifest destiny and to some extent the jihadist mentality in large part come from religious belief. That sense of superiority because you are the chosen people always seems to me to be judeo/christian/ in origin. If god gave order to the world then he made some men naturally superior. In europe we got away from the notion of divine right and the natural order eventually but it still lingers.
The declaration of human rights after ww2 came about while the world was still in a state of shock as to what had happened. It is secular not religious for very good reason the main one being that it is impossible for some religions to tolerate others.
I haven't only just rejected Christianity; I had the choice to pick between the two, or to choose a third option, since the day I was born. I chose Sikhi over Christianity a long time ago...
I chose atheism over belief a long time ago as well. It's a Pleasure talking to you.
For anything to be considered 'true', as opposed to merely being possible or probable, then an act of faith is required. And if you feel that 'saying you must believe what I tell you does not work in secular societies', how do you explain away P.R firms, the media, or any form of politics? Or, indeed, the continued existence of religion in any secular society?
That's a completely different order of things from religious doctrine. PR firms and politicians are selling something, most people realise that and know they have a choice. Religion it's believe what you are told or your soul is eternally damned - at least for some sects it is.n Finding your own way to salvation with your own personal jesus used to be heresy according to the catholic church, still is actually but they don't burn people any more. nor do pr people and politicians advocate usually exhort their followers to violence or peach that anyone not agreeing with them is going to hell (OK I can think of exceptions as well but hopefully you get my drift )
I'm British too, remember? I was always brought up in the belief that Bollocks was an insult due to interpretation no.5, and I think most others would take it the same way. And of course, the context in which you were using the word was hardly as a compliment, was it?
Actually I hadn't looked, I just assumed from your reaction you were american. It's a fairly forceful rejection of an argument but not of the person - at least that's the way it's used up here and the way it was intended.
Religious teachings are theories, there can be no denying that (unless you believe one or more of them to be proven to a satisfactory standard to be considered as law, and you don't strike me as being someone who does); and contrary to popular belief in discriminatory circles, religious does NOT equal suicide bomber. Jumping out of the trenches and charging through barbed wire into a hail of machine-gun fire, just because your commanding officer in his bunker miles behind the front lines has given the order to do so, would also be counted by many people as an act of insanity. From an individual perspective, active involvement in fighting any war is irrational. Also worth mentioning is the fact that there are still a fair few repressive dictatorial regimes in the world today, where anyone who questions the authorities in any way still faces execution- how many of them are religious nations, and how many of them are secular states? Which holds the majority?
I wouldn't even class them as theories, fairy stories told to children at best, mind you calling them theories would get you in to trouble with quite a few religious sects, they are truths not to be questioned.
Jumping out of the trenches and charging through barbed wire into a hail of machine-gun fire,
Why people do that is a whole subject on it's own. Believing god was on your side has been a major factor in many a conflict in the past and it's certainly one in modern times. States have always used religion for theory own ends most of the ones that still execute for questioning authorities tend to be in the main religious ones - if you think of south america where the opposition are usually left wing for instance or the middle east.
I said Article 18, not Article 19. Look it up...
:o
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
There are a lot of religious groups that believe they have a god given right to infringe the rights of others - look at the fuss over gay marriage for instance and attempts in this country to ban sex eduction and access to contraceptives.
Even though, it the wrong article, the article you chose clearly states that everyone has the freedom to hold opinions without interference- tand that unless we discount every scientific theory ever proposed for the same reason, the theory of intelligent design cannot be discounted either.)
Nobody is telling those who believe in intelligent design that they can't do so. The article protects someone's right to believe what they wish everyone else has the right to question it if they wish to do so. More to the point advocates of intelligent design have no business insisting it gets taught as part of the science curriculum when it so clearly is a religious belief. It's an attempt to get in by the back door religious doctrine.
I am a Sikh (as you should have been able to tell from my reference to Waheguru).
Actually I hadn't twigged, although your name should perhaps have been a big hint. It's actually a religion I'm ashamed to say know very little about. Have actually read the bible and koran - y read some of the hindu sanskrit texts, in translation needless to say and many years ago now and read up up on most of the worlds religions and their variations but Sikhism I only know a little bit about having frantically done some quick research.
Does explain why you are not coming out with the usual judeo/christian based arguments I'm used to answering. That particular god is malevolent and very much hands on whether you follow doctrine or find your own way through his son, or trinity if you prefer that version. Your arguments make more sense now I know where you are coming from.
Seems you are arguing that god is not a super being but rather all encompassing force for want of a better world.
God is nothing less than the fabric of space-time which runs through the entirety of our infinite un------------
nitesimal extension of his own. So long as we cling to the illusion of free will, there will always be doubt; but if we can truly accept reason and surrender the notion of free will, then we can accept the nature of existence and become one with God.
That is an argument no christian could come out with and is also a lot harder to argue against. It has a great deal more appeal than most no going to hell if you get it wrong. I can see (I think) why an intelligent designer appeals.
Because we exist, intelligence within our universe, within space-time, and hence within God,
That's a variation on the cogito argument. Because you exist you must come from somewhere and get your thoughts from somewhere that somewhere being god. However it is still not proof that god exists it still makes the assumption that god exists and I am still an agnostic atheist.
but if we can truly accept reason and surrender the notion of free will, then we can accept the nature of existence and become one with God
Interesting, according to martin luther faith - belief in god - requires a suspension of reason.
Martin Luther
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.â€
Sorry, you maybe can suspend reason I can't nor can I accept reason or the reasons as you put it because your reasons are flawed imo and depend on wishful thinking, for want for a better way to put it.
True, a secular state is agnostic in its nature, not atheist; but look at the nations over the course of history which have actually pursued a policy of Atheism in the place of a state religion. -------------------
as the one who brought the system to an end, remember?
Atheism is a view on the existence of the supernatural, not a political system that some of those you mention were atheists is true but that is not why they behaved as they did, they destroyed the power of the churches in response to the part played in the oppression of the people but atheism was not the reason for their actions. You need to see these revolutions in context as tio what they were against.
That some atheists believed the end justified the means is no surprise and not something I would try and defend, the atheism of stalin etc is irrelevant to the way they behaved, on the other hand the religious beliefs of hitler were very relevant
Hitler was not an atheist, he believed he was doing god's work he was supported by the catholic church in particular and many of the concentration camp guards were church goers.
If all men were created by god, ----------
ase of secular states such as the USA, or the interests of the privileged few in power, as proved to be the case in fascist and communist dictatorships.
You don't need religion to be a moral person any more than being religious makes you one.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.â€
― Steven Weinberg
The western concepts of manifest destiny and to some extent the jihadist mentality in large part come from religious belief. That sense of superiority because you are the chosen people always seems to me to be judeo/christian/ in origin. If god gave order to the world then he made some men naturally superior. In europe we got away from the notion of divine right and the natural order eventually but it still lingers.
The declaration of human rights after ww2 came about while the world was still in a state of shock as to what had happened. It is secular not religious for very good reason the main one being that it is impossible for some religions to tolerate others.
I haven't only just rejected Christianity; I had the choice to pick between the two, or to choose a third option, since the day I was born. I chose Sikhi over Christianity a long time ago...
I chose atheism over belief a long time ago as well. It's a Pleasure talking to you.
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1447034 wrote: posted by singh-song
I chose atheism over belief a long time ago as well. It's a Pleasure talking to you.
People are warming to each other in the conversation;
come join us! Welcome!
I chose atheism over belief a long time ago as well. It's a Pleasure talking to you.
People are warming to each other in the conversation;
come join us! Welcome!
-
Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Welcome to conversation.
gmc;1447034 wrote: That's a completely different order of things from religious doctrine. PR firms and politicians are selling something, most people realise that and know they have a choice...(OK I can think of exceptions as well but hopefully you get my drift)
So you don't think that religious groups are trying to sell something as well? And there are plenty of dictatorships, not just religious ones, where it's believe what you are told or be executed for asking too many questions. Isn't PR and lobbying all about extorting people? And I can think of plenty of exceptions as well. There's a long list of warmongering politicians and revolutionaries who have also been guilty of extorting their followers, inciting violence and preaching that everyone who doesn't agree with them should be wiped off the face of the earth, and that list is still growing.
gmc;1447034 wrote: I wouldn't even class them as theories, fairy stories told to children at best, mind you calling them theories would get you in to trouble with quite a few religious sects, they are truths not to be questioned.
Most modern faiths have central human figures, Messiahs, prophets and spiritual leaders, whose existence can be proven through analysis of historical records. As such, these faiths possess at least one element of fact, and even from a vehemently atheist POV, you should able to acknowledge religions as 'theories' in the same vein as conspiracy theories such as those which surround the Roswell incident, the assassination of JFK and the events of 9/11. It doesn't have to make sense to be classed as a theory...
gmc;1447034 wrote: Why people do that is a whole subject on it's own. Believing god was on your side has been a major factor in many a conflict in the past and it's certainly one in modern times. States have always used religion for theory own ends most of the ones that still execute for questioning authorities tend to be in the main religious ones - if you think of south america where the opposition are usually left wing for instance or the middle east.
Actually, there are no longer any Latin American countries which still enforce capital punishment, and there haven't been for a couple of decades now. And while most of the nations which still do execute people are religious states, the worst offender in that department is the PRC- an undeniably atheist state which we all know executes more people for questioning the authorities than every other nation on earth combined, by a huge margin.
gmc;1447034 wrote: Nobody is telling those who believe in intelligent design that they can't do so. The article protects someone's right to believe what they wish everyone else has the right to question it if they wish to do so. More to the point advocates of intelligent design have no business insisting it gets taught as part of the science curriculum when it so clearly is a religious belief. It's an attempt to get in by the back door religious doctrine.
And they have the right to question others' beliefs by presenting their own, whether their own beliefs are agnostic, atheist or religious. Other theories which have already been effectively disproven are still taught on the science curriculum, such as Newton's laws; why can't intelligent design at least be presented as a side-note alternate theory when teaching of the mainstream theory of self-existence held by the mainstream scientific community?
gmc;1447034 wrote: Actually I hadn't twigged, although your name should perhaps have been a big hint...Seems you are arguing that god is not a super being but rather all encompassing force for want of a better world... That's a variation on the cogito argument. Because you exist you must come from somewhere and get your thoughts from somewhere that somewhere being god. However it is still not proof that god exists it still makes the assumption that god exists and I am still an agnostic atheist.
I suppose it is a variation on the cogito argument, but it's a bit different to the way you set it out. I wasn't making an argument per say, but stating my own beliefs. Hence, it does make the assumption that god exists, because I do believe in the existence of God. As a theological argument, I feel I can set it out in a clearer fashion.
We exist. We think, therefore we are. Through our sensory input, we know we occupy a space within a larger entity- humanity, life on Earth, the Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy, the Andromeda Cluster, the universe, and ultimately, the entity of existence, including all that ever has been and all that ever will be. Already, by this definition, this entity ticks all of the boxes needed to be characterised as 'God', except one- namely, sentience. Now, if everything were a part of this entity, and it were sentient, wouldn't sentience be present in everything? Celestial bodies, other forms of life, inanimate objects, even in a momentary perfect vacuum where matter is entirely absent? You might think so, and take this as proof to refute the theory, but pause for a moment, and consider the structure of the only organism whose sentience is indisputable; namely, ourself.
Is sentience present in our bones? In our limbs, our skins, our sperm, our blood cells, in the individual molecules which make up our genetic code? Of course not. Our sentience resides in our brain, and is only facilitated through specialised cells, with the sum total of these only forming a component of our body as a whole. Given that everything that is, has been or ever will be has its place within the ultimate entity of existence, then we cannot exclude ourselves. And because we are sentient, then there is no way to deny that sentience is present within the ultimate entity of existence. The entirety of humanity (along with any other intelligent beings which might be out there somewhere in the infinite cosmos), past, present and future, forms a part of this entity of existence, in the same way as our own nervous systems form a part of ourselves. As such, the ultimate entity of existence does encompass all intelligence and all knowledge, and does meet the last of the criteria necessary to qualify as 'God'.
gmc;1447034 wrote: Interesting, according to martin luther faith - belief in god - requires a suspension of reason. Sorry, you maybe can suspend reason I can't nor can I accept reason or the reasons as you put it because your reasons are flawed imo and depend on wishful thinking, for want for a better way to put it.
I'm sure we can both agree that there have been plenty of delusional people spouting their own recipes of tripe over the course of history. I don't suspend reason, and I don't base my arguments on wishful thinking any more than any other human does.
gmc;1447034 wrote: Atheism is a view on the existence of the supernatural, not a political system...You don't need religion to be a moral person any more than being religious makes you one.
Religion isn't a political system either, but as with Atheism in the case of these nations, it has been used to justify political policies for as long as it has been in existence. That wasn't just a list of the worst offenders to have pursued an atheist policy as opposed to a secular or a religious one; it was a list of all of those nations over the course of history which have ever done so. Aside from Revolutionary France, there aren't any others which can really be said to have had a net positive impact on the world. Hitler wasn't an atheist, and believed that he was doing God's work, but the only reason for this, as most psychoanalysts agree, is that he became deluded and narcissistic enough to develop a God complex, essentially deifying himself. (And I suppose if you want to be pedantic, the Kim family in North Korea don't count as atheists for the same reason). I agree that you don't need religion to be a moral person, and that being religious isn't the same as being moralistic- but it is a lot easier for an atheist or agnostic person to find logical justification for being amoral or immoral, so long as the ends are deemed to justify the means.
gmc;1447034 wrote: I chose atheism over belief a long time ago as well. It's a Pleasure talking to you.
Why thank you; I also enjoy discussing things with you, and look forward to continuing our discussion. BTW, just to understand where you're coming from a bit better; you said that you had personal experience of a separate religious institution, just as I myself did. What specific sort of institution was it, and how did your period of enrolment there affect your own views on the subject of religion?
So you don't think that religious groups are trying to sell something as well? And there are plenty of dictatorships, not just religious ones, where it's believe what you are told or be executed for asking too many questions. Isn't PR and lobbying all about extorting people? And I can think of plenty of exceptions as well. There's a long list of warmongering politicians and revolutionaries who have also been guilty of extorting their followers, inciting violence and preaching that everyone who doesn't agree with them should be wiped off the face of the earth, and that list is still growing.
gmc;1447034 wrote: I wouldn't even class them as theories, fairy stories told to children at best, mind you calling them theories would get you in to trouble with quite a few religious sects, they are truths not to be questioned.
Most modern faiths have central human figures, Messiahs, prophets and spiritual leaders, whose existence can be proven through analysis of historical records. As such, these faiths possess at least one element of fact, and even from a vehemently atheist POV, you should able to acknowledge religions as 'theories' in the same vein as conspiracy theories such as those which surround the Roswell incident, the assassination of JFK and the events of 9/11. It doesn't have to make sense to be classed as a theory...
gmc;1447034 wrote: Why people do that is a whole subject on it's own. Believing god was on your side has been a major factor in many a conflict in the past and it's certainly one in modern times. States have always used religion for theory own ends most of the ones that still execute for questioning authorities tend to be in the main religious ones - if you think of south america where the opposition are usually left wing for instance or the middle east.
Actually, there are no longer any Latin American countries which still enforce capital punishment, and there haven't been for a couple of decades now. And while most of the nations which still do execute people are religious states, the worst offender in that department is the PRC- an undeniably atheist state which we all know executes more people for questioning the authorities than every other nation on earth combined, by a huge margin.
gmc;1447034 wrote: Nobody is telling those who believe in intelligent design that they can't do so. The article protects someone's right to believe what they wish everyone else has the right to question it if they wish to do so. More to the point advocates of intelligent design have no business insisting it gets taught as part of the science curriculum when it so clearly is a religious belief. It's an attempt to get in by the back door religious doctrine.
And they have the right to question others' beliefs by presenting their own, whether their own beliefs are agnostic, atheist or religious. Other theories which have already been effectively disproven are still taught on the science curriculum, such as Newton's laws; why can't intelligent design at least be presented as a side-note alternate theory when teaching of the mainstream theory of self-existence held by the mainstream scientific community?
gmc;1447034 wrote: Actually I hadn't twigged, although your name should perhaps have been a big hint...Seems you are arguing that god is not a super being but rather all encompassing force for want of a better world... That's a variation on the cogito argument. Because you exist you must come from somewhere and get your thoughts from somewhere that somewhere being god. However it is still not proof that god exists it still makes the assumption that god exists and I am still an agnostic atheist.
I suppose it is a variation on the cogito argument, but it's a bit different to the way you set it out. I wasn't making an argument per say, but stating my own beliefs. Hence, it does make the assumption that god exists, because I do believe in the existence of God. As a theological argument, I feel I can set it out in a clearer fashion.
We exist. We think, therefore we are. Through our sensory input, we know we occupy a space within a larger entity- humanity, life on Earth, the Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy, the Andromeda Cluster, the universe, and ultimately, the entity of existence, including all that ever has been and all that ever will be. Already, by this definition, this entity ticks all of the boxes needed to be characterised as 'God', except one- namely, sentience. Now, if everything were a part of this entity, and it were sentient, wouldn't sentience be present in everything? Celestial bodies, other forms of life, inanimate objects, even in a momentary perfect vacuum where matter is entirely absent? You might think so, and take this as proof to refute the theory, but pause for a moment, and consider the structure of the only organism whose sentience is indisputable; namely, ourself.
Is sentience present in our bones? In our limbs, our skins, our sperm, our blood cells, in the individual molecules which make up our genetic code? Of course not. Our sentience resides in our brain, and is only facilitated through specialised cells, with the sum total of these only forming a component of our body as a whole. Given that everything that is, has been or ever will be has its place within the ultimate entity of existence, then we cannot exclude ourselves. And because we are sentient, then there is no way to deny that sentience is present within the ultimate entity of existence. The entirety of humanity (along with any other intelligent beings which might be out there somewhere in the infinite cosmos), past, present and future, forms a part of this entity of existence, in the same way as our own nervous systems form a part of ourselves. As such, the ultimate entity of existence does encompass all intelligence and all knowledge, and does meet the last of the criteria necessary to qualify as 'God'.
gmc;1447034 wrote: Interesting, according to martin luther faith - belief in god - requires a suspension of reason. Sorry, you maybe can suspend reason I can't nor can I accept reason or the reasons as you put it because your reasons are flawed imo and depend on wishful thinking, for want for a better way to put it.
I'm sure we can both agree that there have been plenty of delusional people spouting their own recipes of tripe over the course of history. I don't suspend reason, and I don't base my arguments on wishful thinking any more than any other human does.
gmc;1447034 wrote: Atheism is a view on the existence of the supernatural, not a political system...You don't need religion to be a moral person any more than being religious makes you one.
Religion isn't a political system either, but as with Atheism in the case of these nations, it has been used to justify political policies for as long as it has been in existence. That wasn't just a list of the worst offenders to have pursued an atheist policy as opposed to a secular or a religious one; it was a list of all of those nations over the course of history which have ever done so. Aside from Revolutionary France, there aren't any others which can really be said to have had a net positive impact on the world. Hitler wasn't an atheist, and believed that he was doing God's work, but the only reason for this, as most psychoanalysts agree, is that he became deluded and narcissistic enough to develop a God complex, essentially deifying himself. (And I suppose if you want to be pedantic, the Kim family in North Korea don't count as atheists for the same reason). I agree that you don't need religion to be a moral person, and that being religious isn't the same as being moralistic- but it is a lot easier for an atheist or agnostic person to find logical justification for being amoral or immoral, so long as the ends are deemed to justify the means.
gmc;1447034 wrote: I chose atheism over belief a long time ago as well. It's a Pleasure talking to you.
Why thank you; I also enjoy discussing things with you, and look forward to continuing our discussion. BTW, just to understand where you're coming from a bit better; you said that you had personal experience of a separate religious institution, just as I myself did. What specific sort of institution was it, and how did your period of enrolment there affect your own views on the subject of religion?
Welcome to conversation.
Why some people choose not to believe in God, is simply stunning, observing all the evidence that they must either alter in their minds or change. Just look at our organs in this stunning body we have, how in the world of streamlined imagination could such a thing be suggested that it all came from nothing, and just started putting itself together over billions of years. The extreme we go through to exclude God is simply stunning. The organs of the body are simply a profound streamlined series of working engines that were designed. And our hearts, which is linked to all the other organs, is like a two staged pump. OBVIOUS design, I mean my goodness, its just SOOO obviously constructed by a supreme conscious mind.
The Liver and the intestines refine the fuels used by the body's engines. The Kidneys, Lungs, Intestines, and Liver are sanitation units, ( OBVIOUS design), disposing of potential pollutants, wastes, or the refuse left after fuel is consumed. From the air, the lungs mine oxygen, a vital componant required by any internal designed combustion engine. The central nervous system serves as a computer, programing the work demanded by the body's engines and monitoring the level of performances. And unlike a man made machine, these are alive! It is impossible for these to enter into life without a life giver.
The Liver and the intestines refine the fuels used by the body's engines. The Kidneys, Lungs, Intestines, and Liver are sanitation units, ( OBVIOUS design), disposing of potential pollutants, wastes, or the refuse left after fuel is consumed. From the air, the lungs mine oxygen, a vital componant required by any internal designed combustion engine. The central nervous system serves as a computer, programing the work demanded by the body's engines and monitoring the level of performances. And unlike a man made machine, these are alive! It is impossible for these to enter into life without a life giver.
Welcome to conversation.
Now ask yourself, how could random nature create itself? How??? And then IF you go past that, ignore the obvious, how could nature create muscle? Then how could it create bone? Then please tell me WHY it DECIDED to combine them together and create a body and then give bone and muscle meaning, if nature had no meaning within itself? How could unmeaning unpurposeful happenstance nothing, develop " Power of Reasoning", then develop power of creating, and assembling, then start manufactoring living things with bone and muscle?
The heart is a muscle with MEANING! How could nature create muscle with meaning?? The heart has a DEFINED PURPOSE!!! Explain to me how purpose could be born from no purpose! Make a fist and that is the average size of a human heart. Its the CENTER of the cardiovascular system. Did you read that, SYSTEM> you think whole systems created themselves and gave themselves MEANING? Good grief.
Most of the heart is muscle, but its muscle with MEANING; that meaning is HOW we can know there is a God, because of the MEANING! The reasoning behind creation cannot be replaced by unmeaningful nature.
Don't forget that.
The heart is a muscle with MEANING! How could nature create muscle with meaning?? The heart has a DEFINED PURPOSE!!! Explain to me how purpose could be born from no purpose! Make a fist and that is the average size of a human heart. Its the CENTER of the cardiovascular system. Did you read that, SYSTEM> you think whole systems created themselves and gave themselves MEANING? Good grief.
Most of the heart is muscle, but its muscle with MEANING; that meaning is HOW we can know there is a God, because of the MEANING! The reasoning behind creation cannot be replaced by unmeaningful nature.
Don't forget that.
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1447147 wrote: Now ask yourself, how could random nature create itself? How??? And then IF you go past that, ignore the obvious, how could nature create muscle? Then how could it create bone? Then please tell me WHY it DECIDED to combine them together and create a body and then give bone and muscle meaning, if nature had no meaning within itself? How could unmeaning unpurposeful happenstance nothing, develop " Power of Reasoning", then develop power of creating, and assembling, then start manufactoring living things with bone and muscle?
The heart is a muscle with MEANING! How could nature create muscle with meaning?? The heart has a DEFINED PURPOSE!!! Explain to me how purpose could be born from no purpose! Make a fist and that is the average size of a human heart. Its the CENTER of the cardiovascular system. Did you read that, SYSTEM> you think whole systems created themselves and gave themselves MEANING? Good grief.
Most of the heart is muscle, but its muscle with MEANING; that meaning is HOW we can know there is a God, because of the MEANING! The reasoning behind creation cannot be replaced by unmeaningful nature.
Don't forget that.
I don't mean to be rude, but that was my last comment on this thread.
I quess I have too many threads on board, and will just concentrate on two; and hope that does not cause a problem.
The heart is a muscle with MEANING! How could nature create muscle with meaning?? The heart has a DEFINED PURPOSE!!! Explain to me how purpose could be born from no purpose! Make a fist and that is the average size of a human heart. Its the CENTER of the cardiovascular system. Did you read that, SYSTEM> you think whole systems created themselves and gave themselves MEANING? Good grief.
Most of the heart is muscle, but its muscle with MEANING; that meaning is HOW we can know there is a God, because of the MEANING! The reasoning behind creation cannot be replaced by unmeaningful nature.
Don't forget that.
I don't mean to be rude, but that was my last comment on this thread.
I quess I have too many threads on board, and will just concentrate on two; and hope that does not cause a problem.
-
Singh-Song
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1447149 wrote: I don't mean to be rude, but that was my last comment on this thread.
I quess I have too many threads on board, and will just concentrate on two; and hope that does not cause a problem.
Of course not; don't worry about it. If anyone else wants to continue this conversation thread though, please feel free to pop in and post your replies. Don't leave me hanging...
I quess I have too many threads on board, and will just concentrate on two; and hope that does not cause a problem.
Of course not; don't worry about it. If anyone else wants to continue this conversation thread though, please feel free to pop in and post your replies. Don't leave me hanging...
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Welcome to conversation.
Mickiel;1447149 wrote: I don't mean to be rude, but that was my last comment on this thread.
I quess I have too many threads on board, and will just concentrate on two; and hope that does not cause a problem.
So of course you give up the one where you actually speak to people on a human level & are sometimes called to explain yourself. Now you can go back to talking to yourself, replying to yourself, quoting yourself. As for me, if I see no one other than you has replied I can go back to ignoring you. It's better that way. Happy Trails.
I quess I have too many threads on board, and will just concentrate on two; and hope that does not cause a problem.
So of course you give up the one where you actually speak to people on a human level & are sometimes called to explain yourself. Now you can go back to talking to yourself, replying to yourself, quoting yourself. As for me, if I see no one other than you has replied I can go back to ignoring you. It's better that way. Happy Trails.
Welcome to conversation.
Singh-Song;1447369 wrote: Of course not; don't worry about it. If anyone else wants to continue this conversation thread though, please feel free to pop in and post your replies. Don't leave me hanging...
Well I was asked by Administration to not do but two threads, so I choose the two that people seem most interested in. I am not leaving you hanging, I am just trying to comply to the site; they have been respectful in their treatment of me over the years.
You handle the thread for me.
Peace.
Well I was asked by Administration to not do but two threads, so I choose the two that people seem most interested in. I am not leaving you hanging, I am just trying to comply to the site; they have been respectful in their treatment of me over the years.
You handle the thread for me.
Peace.
Welcome to conversation.
AnneBoleyn;1447396 wrote: So of course you give up the one where you actually speak to people on a human level & are sometimes called to explain yourself. Now you can go back to talking to yourself, replying to yourself, quoting yourself. As for me, if I see no one other than you has replied I can go back to ignoring you. It's better that way. Happy Trails.
I can speak to people on the other two I have active; the threads are open to anyone. This is so strange, I am giving up at least 13 threads, and you find something to complain about that?
Seems you would be pleased at such a sacrifice??? I quess I really don't know you.
Happy things to you as well Anne,
Peace.
I can speak to people on the other two I have active; the threads are open to anyone. This is so strange, I am giving up at least 13 threads, and you find something to complain about that?
Seems you would be pleased at such a sacrifice??? I quess I really don't know you.
Happy things to you as well Anne,
Peace.
Welcome to conversation.
Posted by singh-song
So you don't think that religious groups are trying to sell something as well? And there are plenty of dictatorships, not just religious ones, where it's believe what you are told or be executed for asking too many questions. Isn't PR and lobbying all about extorting people? And I can think of plenty of exceptions as well. There's a long list of warmongering politicians and revolutionaries who have also been guilty of extorting their followers, inciting violence and preaching that everyone who doesn't agree with them should be wiped off the face of the earth, and that list is still growing.
Well yes, but I'm the wrong one to ask. Most religions think they are not selling anything but spreading the word about their own particular truth. Even Scientologists think like that and they know their religion was made up.
Not so long ago church and state worked as one to preserve the status quo, regicide was a sin against god and so was aspiring to rise above your station - religion cynically used to keep the masses in check. Nowadays we have political dictatorships in the case of stalin the "political faith" imposed with all the same demented fervor of the spanish inquisitors. I can think of plenty of exceptions as well, political and religious oppression are vile it's a toss up which is worst but really does sayingb they do it as well that make religious persecution any less vile? We are going to kill you in this life and by the way you are going to hell in the next. Insanity has it's own demented logic, once you are sucked in to believing in god the next argument is about which insane belief system is the right one.
posted bt singh-song
Actually, there are no longer any Latin American countries which still enforce capital punishment, and there haven't been for a couple of decades now. And while most of the nations which still do execute people are religious states, the worst offender in that department is the PRC- an undeniably atheist state which we all know executes more people for questioning the authorities than every other nation on earth combined, by a huge margin.
I tend to think of the past as well as the present in some of the references I make. State execution takes many forms I was thinking of the murder squads in places like nicaragua, argentina, columbia. Come to that there is northern ireland, most people tend not to think of that as a religious conflict but it started out that way and leaving the past behind is hard to do.
While what you say about china is true, atheism is incidental and not a state religion ( you could argue that communism was imposed as the state religion - except china would have been about the last country marx would have expected a communist revolution, as was russia marx got it rather wrong). - atheism is not a religion no matter how much religious groups like to delude themselves non belief is merely a variety of belief system like theirs.
Also china had two thirds of the worlds population that they execute more people than anyone else is hardly surprising. On the other hand America is in the top five of countries that execute prisoners behind deeply religious countries like iran, saudi arabia and iraq. What do you say about their religious credentials?
And they have the right to question others' beliefs by presenting their own, whether their own beliefs are agnostic, atheist or religious. Other theories which have already been effectively disproven are still taught on the science curriculum, such as Newton's laws; why can't intelligent design at least be presented as a side-note alternate theory when teaching of the mainstream theory of self-existence held by the mainstream scientific community?
A scientific theory is an accepted explanation based on the available evidence. As such it is open to question and as new techniques, research or whatever comes along the theory will be amended. Intelligent design is not a theory - it's more a we can't counter all the scientific explanations so let's all pretend that god did it. Then they start arguing about which version of the designer is the correct one. They are not presenting an alternative theory they are presenting a fairy story they want to con everybody in to taking seriously and because it is a also religious belief their "theory" should not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other scientific theories. Evolution neither proves nor disproves god it offers an explanation as to how we came about, you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
The intelligent design theory requires that we assume a creator. It should be kept in religious studies classes where it belongs.
I'm sure we can both agree that there have been plenty of delusional people spouting their own recipes of tripe over the course of history. I don't suspend reason, and I don't base my arguments on wishful thinking any more than any other human does.
Very true but how many preached they were the chosen people without being inspired by god? Reason would tell you that you really don't know if there is a god, faith is when you decide to ignore reason and just believe. That's your choice it's not mine.
Your vision of god is very different from the judeo christian one he demands worship and obedience so you go to heaven. Now they have his son floating around as well, find your own way to god or follow the one true church millions died in europe arguing the toss about that one. Karma, reincarnation is a very different way of looking at things I will leave it to one of the Christians to tell you why it's wrong (to them that is). Actually i could put the theological arguments as well as they could, if not better,
but I don't believe them
I agree that you don't need religion to be a moral person, and that being religious isn't the same as being moralistic- but it is a lot easier for an atheist or agnostic person to find logical justification for being amoral or immoral, so long as the ends are deemed to justify the means.
The difference is though a religious person will look for guidance within his faith or from his religious leaders and then make a decision. An agnostic atheist will discuss whether the end justify the means and make a value judgement for himself and accept responsibility for their action. Are suicide bombers responsible for their actions or victims of con men?
Why thank you; I also enjoy discussing things with you, and look forward to continuing our discussion. BTW, just to understand where you're coming from a bit better; you said that you had personal experience of a separate religious institution, just as I myself did. What specific sort of institution was it, and how did your period of enrolment there affect your own views on the subject of religion?
I wasn't enrolled in a specific religious school as such. Scottish state schools tend to be in the main supposedly non-denominational (although in practice protestant) or catholic.
Age seven just before the summer holidays It came about some of my classmates would not be there after the holidays because they were going to a different school. They were catholic and a new primary school had been build for them. when asked what the difference was it was because they were a different religion - I remember asking did that mean they weren't christian nut no it was simply a religious thing and they couldn't go to the same school any more. Bit confusing for a seven year old - you see if there is only one god how could they be worshiping a different one. Long story short within six months the papes and proddies were beating each other up when they met on the way home. You really do need to take children and teach them who they should hate and not mix with. Primary school kids barely know they are alive bigotry and hatred is taught. I would ban all religious schools and mix everybody up in the same classes. Religious parents keep their kids separate in case they are contaminated Bigotry and Sectarianism is kept alive in the name of respect for religious beliefs. Is there a case for a secular state intervening and banning seperate schools. IMO oh yes there is. I actually lived in an area where sectarianism was not an issue till it was made one. As teenagers we all thought it was a piece of nonsense as adults most still do
As to how it affected my views on religion? It's why I wanted to find out what it was all about, the more I studied the more I decided it was all a load of crap. Also means I can have fun winding up both Catholic and protestant by asking their respective standpoints on transubstantiation and consubstantiation - Surprising number haven't a clue what I'm talking about.
What it all boils down to is do you believe in god yes or no and agree to disagree.
So you don't think that religious groups are trying to sell something as well? And there are plenty of dictatorships, not just religious ones, where it's believe what you are told or be executed for asking too many questions. Isn't PR and lobbying all about extorting people? And I can think of plenty of exceptions as well. There's a long list of warmongering politicians and revolutionaries who have also been guilty of extorting their followers, inciting violence and preaching that everyone who doesn't agree with them should be wiped off the face of the earth, and that list is still growing.
Well yes, but I'm the wrong one to ask. Most religions think they are not selling anything but spreading the word about their own particular truth. Even Scientologists think like that and they know their religion was made up.
Not so long ago church and state worked as one to preserve the status quo, regicide was a sin against god and so was aspiring to rise above your station - religion cynically used to keep the masses in check. Nowadays we have political dictatorships in the case of stalin the "political faith" imposed with all the same demented fervor of the spanish inquisitors. I can think of plenty of exceptions as well, political and religious oppression are vile it's a toss up which is worst but really does sayingb they do it as well that make religious persecution any less vile? We are going to kill you in this life and by the way you are going to hell in the next. Insanity has it's own demented logic, once you are sucked in to believing in god the next argument is about which insane belief system is the right one.
posted bt singh-song
Actually, there are no longer any Latin American countries which still enforce capital punishment, and there haven't been for a couple of decades now. And while most of the nations which still do execute people are religious states, the worst offender in that department is the PRC- an undeniably atheist state which we all know executes more people for questioning the authorities than every other nation on earth combined, by a huge margin.
I tend to think of the past as well as the present in some of the references I make. State execution takes many forms I was thinking of the murder squads in places like nicaragua, argentina, columbia. Come to that there is northern ireland, most people tend not to think of that as a religious conflict but it started out that way and leaving the past behind is hard to do.
While what you say about china is true, atheism is incidental and not a state religion ( you could argue that communism was imposed as the state religion - except china would have been about the last country marx would have expected a communist revolution, as was russia marx got it rather wrong). - atheism is not a religion no matter how much religious groups like to delude themselves non belief is merely a variety of belief system like theirs.
Also china had two thirds of the worlds population that they execute more people than anyone else is hardly surprising. On the other hand America is in the top five of countries that execute prisoners behind deeply religious countries like iran, saudi arabia and iraq. What do you say about their religious credentials?
And they have the right to question others' beliefs by presenting their own, whether their own beliefs are agnostic, atheist or religious. Other theories which have already been effectively disproven are still taught on the science curriculum, such as Newton's laws; why can't intelligent design at least be presented as a side-note alternate theory when teaching of the mainstream theory of self-existence held by the mainstream scientific community?
A scientific theory is an accepted explanation based on the available evidence. As such it is open to question and as new techniques, research or whatever comes along the theory will be amended. Intelligent design is not a theory - it's more a we can't counter all the scientific explanations so let's all pretend that god did it. Then they start arguing about which version of the designer is the correct one. They are not presenting an alternative theory they are presenting a fairy story they want to con everybody in to taking seriously and because it is a also religious belief their "theory" should not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other scientific theories. Evolution neither proves nor disproves god it offers an explanation as to how we came about, you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
The intelligent design theory requires that we assume a creator. It should be kept in religious studies classes where it belongs.
I'm sure we can both agree that there have been plenty of delusional people spouting their own recipes of tripe over the course of history. I don't suspend reason, and I don't base my arguments on wishful thinking any more than any other human does.
Very true but how many preached they were the chosen people without being inspired by god? Reason would tell you that you really don't know if there is a god, faith is when you decide to ignore reason and just believe. That's your choice it's not mine.
Your vision of god is very different from the judeo christian one he demands worship and obedience so you go to heaven. Now they have his son floating around as well, find your own way to god or follow the one true church millions died in europe arguing the toss about that one. Karma, reincarnation is a very different way of looking at things I will leave it to one of the Christians to tell you why it's wrong (to them that is). Actually i could put the theological arguments as well as they could, if not better,
but I don't believe them
I agree that you don't need religion to be a moral person, and that being religious isn't the same as being moralistic- but it is a lot easier for an atheist or agnostic person to find logical justification for being amoral or immoral, so long as the ends are deemed to justify the means.
The difference is though a religious person will look for guidance within his faith or from his religious leaders and then make a decision. An agnostic atheist will discuss whether the end justify the means and make a value judgement for himself and accept responsibility for their action. Are suicide bombers responsible for their actions or victims of con men?
Why thank you; I also enjoy discussing things with you, and look forward to continuing our discussion. BTW, just to understand where you're coming from a bit better; you said that you had personal experience of a separate religious institution, just as I myself did. What specific sort of institution was it, and how did your period of enrolment there affect your own views on the subject of religion?
I wasn't enrolled in a specific religious school as such. Scottish state schools tend to be in the main supposedly non-denominational (although in practice protestant) or catholic.
Age seven just before the summer holidays It came about some of my classmates would not be there after the holidays because they were going to a different school. They were catholic and a new primary school had been build for them. when asked what the difference was it was because they were a different religion - I remember asking did that mean they weren't christian nut no it was simply a religious thing and they couldn't go to the same school any more. Bit confusing for a seven year old - you see if there is only one god how could they be worshiping a different one. Long story short within six months the papes and proddies were beating each other up when they met on the way home. You really do need to take children and teach them who they should hate and not mix with. Primary school kids barely know they are alive bigotry and hatred is taught. I would ban all religious schools and mix everybody up in the same classes. Religious parents keep their kids separate in case they are contaminated Bigotry and Sectarianism is kept alive in the name of respect for religious beliefs. Is there a case for a secular state intervening and banning seperate schools. IMO oh yes there is. I actually lived in an area where sectarianism was not an issue till it was made one. As teenagers we all thought it was a piece of nonsense as adults most still do
As to how it affected my views on religion? It's why I wanted to find out what it was all about, the more I studied the more I decided it was all a load of crap. Also means I can have fun winding up both Catholic and protestant by asking their respective standpoints on transubstantiation and consubstantiation - Surprising number haven't a clue what I'm talking about.
What it all boils down to is do you believe in god yes or no and agree to disagree.
Welcome to conversation.
Posted by singh-song
So you don't think that religious groups are trying to sell something as well? And there are plenty of dictatorships, not just religious ones, where it's believe what you are told or be executed for asking too many questions. Isn't PR and lobbying all about extorting people? And I can think of plenty of exceptions as well. There's a long list of warmongering politicians and revolutionaries who have also been guilty of extorting their followers, inciting violence and preaching that everyone who doesn't agree with them should be wiped off the face of the earth, and that list is still growing.
Well yes, but I'm the wrong one to ask. Most religions think they are not selling anything but spreading the word about their own particular truth. Even Scientologists think like that and they know their religion was made up.
Not so long ago church and state worked as one to preserve the status quo, regicide was a sin against god and so was aspiring to rise above your station - religion cynically used to keep the masses in check. Nowadays we have political dictatorships in the case of stalin the "political faith" imposed with all the same demented fervor of the spanish inquisitors. I can think of plenty of exceptions as well, political and religious oppression are vile it's a toss up which is worst but really does sayingb they do it as well that make religious persecution any less vile? We are going to kill you in this life and by the way you are going to hell in the next. Insanity has it's own demented logic, once you are sucked in to believing in god the next argument is about which insane belief system is the right one.
posted bt singh-song
Actually, there are no longer any Latin American countries which still enforce capital punishment, and there haven't been for a couple of decades now. And while most of the nations which still do execute people are religious states, the worst offender in that department is the PRC- an undeniably atheist state which we all know executes more people for questioning the authorities than every other nation on earth combined, by a huge margin.
I tend to think of the past as well as the present in some of the references I make. State execution takes many forms I was thinking of the murder squads in places like nicaragua, argentina, columbia. Come to that there is northern ireland, most people tend not to think of that as a religious conflict but it started out that way and leaving the past behind is hard to do.
While what you say about china is true, atheism is incidental and not a state religion ( you could argue that communism was imposed as the state religion - except china would have been about the last country marx would have expected a communist revolution, as was russia marx got it rather wrong). - atheism is not a religion no matter how much religious groups like to delude themselves non belief is merely a variety of belief system like theirs.
Also china had two thirds of the worlds population that they execute more people than anyone else is hardly surprising. On the other hand America is in the top five of countries that execute prisoners behind deeply religious countries like iran, saudi arabia and iraq. What do you say about their religious credentials?
And they have the right to question others' beliefs by presenting their own, whether their own beliefs are agnostic, atheist or religious. Other theories which have already been effectively disproven are still taught on the science curriculum, such as Newton's laws; why can't intelligent design at least be presented as a side-note alternate theory when teaching of the mainstream theory of self-existence held by the mainstream scientific community?
A scientific theory is an accepted explanation based on the available evidence. As such it is open to question and as new techniques, research or whatever comes along the theory will be amended. Intelligent design is not a theory - it's more a we can't counter all the scientific explanations so let's all pretend that god did it. Then they start arguing about which version of the designer is the correct one. They are not presenting an alternative theory they are presenting a fairy story they want to con everybody in to taking seriously and because it is a also religious belief their "theory" should not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other scientific theories. Evolution neither proves nor disproves god it offers an explanation as to how we came about, you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
The intelligent design theory requires that we assume a creator. It should be kept in religious studies classes where it belongs.
I'm sure we can both agree that there have been plenty of delusional people spouting their own recipes of tripe over the course of history. I don't suspend reason, and I don't base my arguments on wishful thinking any more than any other human does.
Very true but how many preached they were the chosen people without being inspired by god? Reason would tell you that you really don't know if there is a god, faith is when you decide to ignore reason and just believe. That's your choice it's not mine.
Your vision of god is very different from the judeo christian one he demands worship and obedience so you go to heaven. Now they have his son floating around as well, find your own way to god or follow the one true church millions died in europe arguing the toss about that one. Karma, reincarnation is a very different way of looking at things I will leave it to one of the Christians to tell you why it's wrong (to them that is). Actually i could put the theological arguments as well as they could, if not better,
but I don't believe them
I agree that you don't need religion to be a moral person, and that being religious isn't the same as being moralistic- but it is a lot easier for an atheist or agnostic person to find logical justification for being amoral or immoral, so long as the ends are deemed to justify the means.
The difference is though a religious person will look for guidance within his faith or from his religious leaders and then make a decision. An agnostic atheist will discuss whether the end justify the means and make a value judgement for himself and accept responsibility for their action. Are suicide bombers responsible for their actions or victims of con men?
Why thank you; I also enjoy discussing things with you, and look forward to continuing our discussion. BTW, just to understand where you're coming from a bit better; you said that you had personal experience of a separate religious institution, just as I myself did. What specific sort of institution was it, and how did your period of enrolment there affect your own views on the subject of religion?
I wasn't enrolled in a specific religious school as such. Scottish state schools tend to be in the main supposedly non-denominational (although in practice protestant) or catholic.
Age seven just before the summer holidays It came about some of my classmates would not be there after the holidays because they were going to a different school. They were catholic and a new primary school had been build for them. when asked what the difference was it was because they were a different religion - I remember asking did that mean they weren't christian nut no it was simply a religious thing and they couldn't go to the same school any more. Bit confusing for a seven year old - you see if there is only one god how could they be worshiping a different one. Long story short within six months the papes and proddies were beating each other up when they met on the way home. You really do need to take children and teach them who they should hate and not mix with. Primary school kids barely know they are alive bigotry and hatred is taught. I would ban all religious schools and mix everybody up in the same classes. Religious parents keep their kids separate in case they are contaminated Bigotry and Sectarianism is kept alive in the name of respect for religious beliefs. Is there a case for a secular state intervening and banning seperate schools. IMO oh yes there is. I actually lived in an area where sectarianism was not an issue till it was made one. As teenagers we all thought it was a piece of nonsense as adults most still do
As to how it affected my views on religion? It's why I wanted to find out what it was all about, the more I studied the more I decided it was all a load of crap. Also means I can have fun winding up both Catholic and protestant by asking their respective standpoints on transubstantiation and consubstantiation - Surprising number haven't a clue what I'm talking about.
What it all boils down to is do you believe in god yes or no and agree to disagree. Sa
So you don't think that religious groups are trying to sell something as well? And there are plenty of dictatorships, not just religious ones, where it's believe what you are told or be executed for asking too many questions. Isn't PR and lobbying all about extorting people? And I can think of plenty of exceptions as well. There's a long list of warmongering politicians and revolutionaries who have also been guilty of extorting their followers, inciting violence and preaching that everyone who doesn't agree with them should be wiped off the face of the earth, and that list is still growing.
Well yes, but I'm the wrong one to ask. Most religions think they are not selling anything but spreading the word about their own particular truth. Even Scientologists think like that and they know their religion was made up.
Not so long ago church and state worked as one to preserve the status quo, regicide was a sin against god and so was aspiring to rise above your station - religion cynically used to keep the masses in check. Nowadays we have political dictatorships in the case of stalin the "political faith" imposed with all the same demented fervor of the spanish inquisitors. I can think of plenty of exceptions as well, political and religious oppression are vile it's a toss up which is worst but really does sayingb they do it as well that make religious persecution any less vile? We are going to kill you in this life and by the way you are going to hell in the next. Insanity has it's own demented logic, once you are sucked in to believing in god the next argument is about which insane belief system is the right one.
posted bt singh-song
Actually, there are no longer any Latin American countries which still enforce capital punishment, and there haven't been for a couple of decades now. And while most of the nations which still do execute people are religious states, the worst offender in that department is the PRC- an undeniably atheist state which we all know executes more people for questioning the authorities than every other nation on earth combined, by a huge margin.
I tend to think of the past as well as the present in some of the references I make. State execution takes many forms I was thinking of the murder squads in places like nicaragua, argentina, columbia. Come to that there is northern ireland, most people tend not to think of that as a religious conflict but it started out that way and leaving the past behind is hard to do.
While what you say about china is true, atheism is incidental and not a state religion ( you could argue that communism was imposed as the state religion - except china would have been about the last country marx would have expected a communist revolution, as was russia marx got it rather wrong). - atheism is not a religion no matter how much religious groups like to delude themselves non belief is merely a variety of belief system like theirs.
Also china had two thirds of the worlds population that they execute more people than anyone else is hardly surprising. On the other hand America is in the top five of countries that execute prisoners behind deeply religious countries like iran, saudi arabia and iraq. What do you say about their religious credentials?
And they have the right to question others' beliefs by presenting their own, whether their own beliefs are agnostic, atheist or religious. Other theories which have already been effectively disproven are still taught on the science curriculum, such as Newton's laws; why can't intelligent design at least be presented as a side-note alternate theory when teaching of the mainstream theory of self-existence held by the mainstream scientific community?
A scientific theory is an accepted explanation based on the available evidence. As such it is open to question and as new techniques, research or whatever comes along the theory will be amended. Intelligent design is not a theory - it's more a we can't counter all the scientific explanations so let's all pretend that god did it. Then they start arguing about which version of the designer is the correct one. They are not presenting an alternative theory they are presenting a fairy story they want to con everybody in to taking seriously and because it is a also religious belief their "theory" should not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other scientific theories. Evolution neither proves nor disproves god it offers an explanation as to how we came about, you can look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
The intelligent design theory requires that we assume a creator. It should be kept in religious studies classes where it belongs.
I'm sure we can both agree that there have been plenty of delusional people spouting their own recipes of tripe over the course of history. I don't suspend reason, and I don't base my arguments on wishful thinking any more than any other human does.
Very true but how many preached they were the chosen people without being inspired by god? Reason would tell you that you really don't know if there is a god, faith is when you decide to ignore reason and just believe. That's your choice it's not mine.
Your vision of god is very different from the judeo christian one he demands worship and obedience so you go to heaven. Now they have his son floating around as well, find your own way to god or follow the one true church millions died in europe arguing the toss about that one. Karma, reincarnation is a very different way of looking at things I will leave it to one of the Christians to tell you why it's wrong (to them that is). Actually i could put the theological arguments as well as they could, if not better,
but I don't believe them
I agree that you don't need religion to be a moral person, and that being religious isn't the same as being moralistic- but it is a lot easier for an atheist or agnostic person to find logical justification for being amoral or immoral, so long as the ends are deemed to justify the means.
The difference is though a religious person will look for guidance within his faith or from his religious leaders and then make a decision. An agnostic atheist will discuss whether the end justify the means and make a value judgement for himself and accept responsibility for their action. Are suicide bombers responsible for their actions or victims of con men?
Why thank you; I also enjoy discussing things with you, and look forward to continuing our discussion. BTW, just to understand where you're coming from a bit better; you said that you had personal experience of a separate religious institution, just as I myself did. What specific sort of institution was it, and how did your period of enrolment there affect your own views on the subject of religion?
I wasn't enrolled in a specific religious school as such. Scottish state schools tend to be in the main supposedly non-denominational (although in practice protestant) or catholic.
Age seven just before the summer holidays It came about some of my classmates would not be there after the holidays because they were going to a different school. They were catholic and a new primary school had been build for them. when asked what the difference was it was because they were a different religion - I remember asking did that mean they weren't christian nut no it was simply a religious thing and they couldn't go to the same school any more. Bit confusing for a seven year old - you see if there is only one god how could they be worshiping a different one. Long story short within six months the papes and proddies were beating each other up when they met on the way home. You really do need to take children and teach them who they should hate and not mix with. Primary school kids barely know they are alive bigotry and hatred is taught. I would ban all religious schools and mix everybody up in the same classes. Religious parents keep their kids separate in case they are contaminated Bigotry and Sectarianism is kept alive in the name of respect for religious beliefs. Is there a case for a secular state intervening and banning seperate schools. IMO oh yes there is. I actually lived in an area where sectarianism was not an issue till it was made one. As teenagers we all thought it was a piece of nonsense as adults most still do
As to how it affected my views on religion? It's why I wanted to find out what it was all about, the more I studied the more I decided it was all a load of crap. Also means I can have fun winding up both Catholic and protestant by asking their respective standpoints on transubstantiation and consubstantiation - Surprising number haven't a clue what I'm talking about.
What it all boils down to is do you believe in god yes or no and agree to disagree. Sa