NationStates Jolt Archive

You're right of course - but what about the atheists who denounce all Christians as homophobic psychotic witch burners? That's also arrogant, and saying that because we belong to the same religion as, oh, Jerry Falwell, we are automatically evil (not accusing you personally)?

Another thing. Religion offers a reason for doing good. This could help society. I honestly believe that Henry VIII or Jerry Falwell would be just as bad if they were atheists.

There is the problem, though.

Atheists, in general, do not object to Christianity - they object to what Christians DO.

As I've posted before, the average Atheist and the average Moderate Christian have no reason not to get along... they have a difference of belief, but it is nothing that cannot be reconciled or ignored.

The fundamentalists of Christianity, however, weild power disproportionate to their numbers. And, this power, they use to attempt to shape how others can live... binding those who are NOT religious, or follow different faiths, to THEIR vision.

Example: The state of Utah was only admitted to the union of states AFTER they agreed to follow the (christian) monogamous principles.

Example: An atheist cannot buy alcohol on a Sunday (in some places), or WORK on a Sunday (in some places), or open a store on a Sunday (in some places) ALL because of the religious views of others.

There are many more examples.

Well, you took the first part way out of context... my point is that it is ridiculous to say that god 'had to send jesus to be crucified' because he cannot interfere in freedom of choice, when there are certainly instances of direct interference with that very concept. To just pick up on the first part is missing the whole point.
Sorry for butting in, then. My apologies.

I admit I missed how this began, but what I said holds true for that as well. That Jesus "was sent" is a literary interpretation; it's saying Jesus aligned himself with God's Will because he chose to follow in the path of God. He freely chose to die for our sins. A more accurate phrasing might have been "God had to allow Jesus to be crucified" because God had no choice.
The thing about the flood is just one example I had in mind... the fact that freedom of choice seems to be optional in the mind of the christian diety... we have freedom of choice, when he sees fit... which doesn't fit my description of a benevolent (or even consistent) diety.

Besides which, the people of the world were ALWAYS going to be destroyed... regardless of what they freely chose to do, as the bible clearly states that Noah was the only family line still pure of the taint of the Grigori, and thus, the only one to be saved. All others may have 'sinned' in the eyes of god, but their main sin was being not of the pure line.... so they are punished for their genetics, and free will is ignored.

How about god 'hardening the heart' of pharaoh?
Grave, no offense but the problem here, if I may, is that you are trying to argue the literalist's side with a literalist in order to, I presume, make him see the fallacy of the literalist's side? But the way you're asking these questions, you sound like you are a literalist too. If this is the case, where you really are wondering how the literally-interpreted god can do these things, is that then the god you are seeking to understand? And why, if you're not a literalist? :-)

All for the sake of debate? Cool. Carry on, then, with my admiration. Personally, it's beyond my ability to argue a side I couldn't adopt. (Besides, it looks like you have fun butting heads with Terminalia.)

I'm no student of the Bible, and you probably know more about the stories and myths therein than I do, but this is how I had it explained to me by a Catholic friend. God gives us free will; he doesn't have the same. The things he is related as having done in the Bible are not of his choosing, they are "spiritual consequences" (like "natural consequences" that nature inflicts without will or intent). God set the world in motion, laid down the rules, stepped back, and watches. This is in accord with my understanding of "godhood" and in accord with reading the Bible as myth.

We (humans) have the choices; we chose poorly. God's "actions" are the consequences. If you accept that he doesn't have any choice in the matter, they cannot be seen as interference. God's actions can also be seen as being related by men who do have free will; story-wise the authors apply that to interpretation in the personification of God so that it can be more readily understood by the audience.

Darn literalists make it so complicated! ;-)

Finally, if god is all powerful, it IS ridiculous to assume that he can't 'save' all humans without violating free-will. The sacrifice on the cross, is the sacrifice on Moriah, is the sacrifice on the stone in the field. The metaphor runs through the book with more and more symbolism attached every time... it's a holdover from the more blood-thirsty days of the religion... and certainly NOT necessary for an omnipotent god to allow salvation.
I cringe every time I see on television shows stories of a family at the hospital, their loved one just having passed away in a horrible incident, and the scriptwriter puts into their mouths: "Why? What sort of a God would allow this?" ...that so must have been written by atheists, or literalists who don't understand.

It is ridiculous to believe he can save all humans without violating free will. Salvation lies in choosing to be with him.

GETTING BACK to the subject, I am now a Christian, but I was once an atheist (can't explain how I got converted: it just "happened" in a church one day). Well, about death I felt Oblivion. Which is actually impossible for any human to imagine; you cannot, however hard you can try, as you cannot have any kind of experience to go on.
I can dig it. I once felt an emotion I could only term "Normal". People who feel normal everyday don't even know what it is; I mean, you can't until you live without it for a few months. It's a very nice feeling.

but i am certainly afraid of many possible ways that i could die; drowning, for example, scares the crap out of me.

Actually its not that bad, from reports of people who have 'nearly' drowned,

they say its a brief intense moment of pain, then its like going off into a sleep.

Burning to death would be much, much worse.

Actually its not that bad, from reports of people who have 'nearly' drowned,
they say its a brief intense moment of pain, then its like going off into a sleep.
Burning to death would be much, much worse.

The reports you read were either from some very lucky people, or you have been mislead. Take it from someone who has almost drowned.

(My swimming still sucks now, and I did entirely without swimming for more than 20 years...)

It feels like choking, and it feels like not being able to breathe, like someone is holding plastic over the inside of your throat... because your body automatically resists breathing the water. Eventually, as your lungs are burning and straining, and it feels like they are bleeding, and as your eyes feel like they are about to burst from your head, as your ears are ringing, and your vision is black with red edges, and as your arms and legs start to feel like someone has tied lead weights around them at every joint... eventually, your lungs open up and the water goes in... which feels like gagging and hurts like you wouldn't believe.

Of course, if you're really really lucky, you're already passing out when that happens... but if you aren't already passed-out, consciousness doesn't last long... but it feels like it does.

If there IS a hell, it feels like lungs full of water.

Sorry for butting in, then. My apologies.

I admit I missed how this began, but what I said holds true for that as well. That Jesus "was sent" is a literary interpretation; it's saying Jesus aligned himself with God's Will because he chose to follow in the path of God. He freely chose to die for our sins. A more accurate phrasing might have been "God had to allow Jesus to be crucified" because God had no choice.

Grave, no offense but the problem here, if I may, is that you are trying to argue the literalist's side with a literalist in order to, I presume, make him see the fallacy of the literalist's side? But the way you're asking these questions, you sound like you are a literalist too. If this is the case, where you really are wondering how the literally-interpreted god can do these things, is that then the god you are seeking to understand? And why, if you're not a literalist? :-)

All for the sake of debate? Cool. Carry on, then, with my admiration. Personally, it's beyond my ability to argue a side I couldn't adopt. (Besides, it looks like you have fun butting heads with Terminalia.)

I'm no student of the Bible, and you probably know more about the stories and myths therein than I do, but this is how I had it explained to me by a Catholic friend. God gives us free will; he doesn't have the same. The things he is related as having done in the Bible are not of his choosing, they are "spiritual consequences" (like "natural consequences" that nature inflicts without will or intent). God set the world in motion, laid down the rules, stepped back, and watches. This is in accord with my understanding of "godhood" and in accord with reading the Bible as myth.

We (humans) have the choices; we chose poorly. God's "actions" are the consequences. If you accept that he doesn't have any choice in the matter, they cannot be seen as interference. God's actions can also be seen as being related by men who do have free will; story-wise the authors apply that to interpretation in the personification of God so that it can be more readily understood by the audience.

Darn literalists make it so complicated! ;-)


I cringe every time I see on television shows stories of a family at the hospital, their loved one just having passed away in a horrible incident, and the scriptwriter puts into their mouths: "Why? What sort of a God would allow this?" ...that so must have been written by atheists, or literalists who don't understand.

It is ridiculous to believe he can save all humans without violating free will. Salvation lies in choosing to be with him.

What it comes down to is being a christian, then being an Atheist.

I have aspecially compartmentalised brain now, that can handle several different layers of concepts at the same time, and filter back and forth between them... so I can think in a literal plane, whilst looking 'above' the text for the essence', looking between the lines for the 'meaning', considering the same point as metaphor, and below that as symbol, and through the whole mass as a history and/or treatise on reality.

I don't know - maybe everybody can do that...?

The thing about the point Terminalia and I were debating, is that it is a literal interpretation (I also have to remain aware that Terminalia believes the WHOLE TEXT to be literal, and seems unable to comprehend that there might be metaphor), and I think that THAT literal interpretation is flawed, and unsupported WITHIN context... although, obviously, I connect little REAL meaning to the WHOLE TEXT OUTSIDE of the context... does that make sense?

I'm trying to say... if you don't believe it, you think the premise is untrue... and if you DO believe it, you SHOULD think the premise is untrue, because the text ITSELF contradicts it...

The reports you read were either from some very lucky people, or you have been mislead. Take it from someone who has almost drowned.

(My swimming still sucks now, and I did entirely without swimming for more than 20 years...)

It feels like choking, and it feels like not being able to breathe, like someone is holding plastic over the inside of your throat... because your body automatically resists breathing the water. Eventually, as your lungs are burning and straining, and it feels like they are bleeding, and as your eyes feel like they are about to burst from your head, as your ears are ringing, and your vision is black with red edges, and as your arms and legs start to feel like someone has tied lead weights around them at every joint... eventually, your lungs open up and the water goes in... which feels like gagging and hurts like you wouldn't believe.

Of course, if you're really really lucky, you're already passing out when that happens... but if you aren't already passed-out, consciousness doesn't last long... but it feels like it does.

If there IS a hell, it feels like lungs full of water.

Sounds bloody horrible, its amazing you even survived, how did you get

saved?

Drowning would be pretty bad, but I still think burning would be a lot worse.

Sounds bloody horrible, its amazing you even survived, how did you get

saved?

Drowning would be pretty bad, but I still think burning would be a lot worse.

I got saved because my father was a much better swimmer than I was, and managed to get me to dry land in time... otherwise, I have no doubt at all, there would have been no me.

I got saved because my father was a much better swimmer than I was, and managed to get me to dry land in time... otherwise, I have no doubt at all, there would have been no me.

Well done to your Dad.

Sounds like you got carried out by a rip, there scary as, that happenned to

me too once, a strong rip got me at Manly beach,

and took me nearly right out the back, but God sent me a wave just in time

that took me back into shore.

Well done to your Dad.
Sounds like you got carried out by a rip, there scary as, that happenned to
me too once, a strong rip got me at Manly beach,
and took me nearly right out the back, but God sent me a wave just in time
that took me back into shore.

It turned me right upside-down... and i'm not a great swimmer anyway... and was even less great, then.

So, I go swimming towards the surface... only it wasn't there...

Yeah, I was lucky.

It turned me right upside-down... and i'm not a great swimmer anyway... and was even less great, then.

So, I go swimming towards the surface... only it wasn't there...

Yeah, I was lucky.


Sounds like your number wasnt up yet.

As a fatalist, I believe everyone has a certain number of days, when your

time is truly up, nothing will save you.

It's not ridiculous, it's exactly correct. If there was no sin, we would all be puppets in following God's laws. He wants us to choose to follow them, not be forced to. It's the very argument I've been using in the abortion threads to support pro-choice: people must be allowed to make mistakes, because if you limit their choices, when any choice they make is only between options you have supplied, then it's not their choice they are making, it's yours.

We, humans, grow spiritually by making mistakes, learning from them and atoning for them. The Christian God (and perhaps Judaic and Islam) wants us to choose to be with him, which simply means following in a righteous path, something I (personally) see a lot of atheists doing, even without the benefit of religion. (I suspect it is an awareness of their godhood on a subconscious level, but that's just my opinion.)

Free will is not about Him, it's about us. He did it for us, gave us free will --it is not a thing he implanted in us, not a part of creation; it's a right, a freedom to choose. Being informed of the righteous path, we can choose to follow the righteous path or choose to turn away from it. Some hear the message, some don't even though they've attempted to listen. Some hear it and turn away; those are the sinners. "Hell" is not a punishment for turning away, it is a consequence of turning away (I define "Hell" as a frame of mind that is not in accord with our individual godhood).


Free will is what we choose to do. They chose to turn away from God, and the consequence was a flood. That they don't want the flood isn't really a part of the whole free will convention. :-) I don't want abortions, but because I respect free will and the right to choose, I condone them.
so you are saying that an ALL-POWERFUL GOD is not capable of giving us free will without allowing us to do evil to each other? that's really weird, because i am pretty damn sure that i could do just that, if i were given His powers for ten seconds.

all God would have had to do is ensure that no human being would ever have the desire to rape, murder, or steal. we would still be perfectly free to choose to do so, but God would have designed us in such a way that we would never exercise that choice.

think about it this way: i've never met a human being who felt compelled to cut off both their arms and smear iodine on the bleeding stumps...does that mean that none of us have free will, since nobody wants to do that? if God could make people have no desire at all to cut of their arms and smear the stumps with iodine, then why couldn't he give us that same natural aversion to doing harm to one another? why couldn't he give us the same natural aversion to any sin, for that matter? indeed, why would he have given us natural aversions to cutting off our limbs, but designed us in such a way that many sins are very very attractive (even if those sins are MORE dangerous than cutting off limbs)? isn't that pretty much like making somebody sick and then commanding them to BE WELL, GODDAMMIT!!!

as for humans learning from mistakes, i fail to see what a child learns from being shaken to death at the age of 3. what exactly does a woman learn from being raped and murdered? how does a young person learn from the experience of being shot in a drive-by? the idea that evil exists as some kind of spiritual learning experience is ridiculous, since our entire goal as parents is to teach our children to grow and learn without ever letting evil befall them.

of course, i don't believe most Christian sins are sins in the first place; i also don't believe that ANY feelings are sins, so feelings of greed, selfishness, lust, etc aren't sins any more than joy, compassion, or generosity. pretty much all sins in the Christian faith are not worthy of anybody's time, in my opinion, because they all are just mindcontrol games trying to force you not to think or feel the most natural of things. why God would specifically design our brains to work a certain way, and then focus so much of His energy on ordering us to stop behaving exactly as we were designed, is beyond me...i guess that's the whole "he's beyond rational thought" part, right? kind of like abusive parents?

[QUOTE=Bottle]so you are saying that an ALL-POWERFUL GOD is not capable of giving us free will without allowing us to do evil to each other? that's really weird, because i am pretty damn sure that i could do just that, if i were given His powers for ten seconds.

That wouldnt be free will, are you saying God gives us these desires in the

first place?


all God would have had to do is ensure that no human being would ever have the desire to rape, murder, or steal. we would still be perfectly free to choose to do so, but God would have designed us in such a way that we would never exercise that choice.

So why would we be free to choose these things, if God had designed us to

not exercise the choice?


think about it this way: i've never met a human being who felt compelled to cut off both their arms and smear iodine on the bleeding stumps...does that mean that none of us have free will, since nobody wants to do that? if God could make people have no desire at all to cut of their arms and smear the stumps with iodine, then why couldn't he give us that same natural aversion to doing harm to one another? why couldn't he give us the same natural aversion to any sin, for that matter?

Funnily enough, most people dont have a big problem with other peoples pain

in general, but its a different story when it comes to dealing with their own,

face it, unless its somone they love, people are intrigued by other peoples

pain.

as for humans learning from mistakes, i fail to see what a child learns from being shaken to death at the age of 3. what exactly does a woman learn from being raped and murdered?

Nothing, your being too extreme here.

the idea that evil exists as some kind of spiritual learning experience is ridiculous, since our entire goal as parents is to teach our children to grow and learn without ever letting evil befall them.

Well why do you think evil exists then?


of course, i don't believe most Christian sins are sins in the first place; i also don't believe that ANY feelings are sins, so feelings of greed, selfishness, lust, etc aren't sins any more than joy, compassion, or generosity.

Sad.


pretty much all sins in the Christian faith are not worthy of anybody's time,

Commandment 6 Do not murder

" " " 7 Do not commit Adultery

" " " 8 Do not steal

" " " 9 Do not commit Perjury

" " " 10 Do not envy

So these are allright by you?


in my opinion, because they all are just mindcontrol games trying to force you not to think or feel the most natural of things. why God would specifically design our brains to work a certain way, and then focus so much of His energy on ordering us to stop behaving exactly as we were designed, is beyond me...i guess that's the whole "he's beyond rational thought" part, right? kind of like abusive parents?

I guess the challenge is recognising our limitations and overcoming them.

That wouldnt be free will, are you saying God gives us these desires in the
first place?

are you saying that humans are capable of acting against God's will? that humans are more powerful than an all-powerful God? no? then all our desires, and, indeed, all our actions are a part of God's plan. he could stop them at any time, and does not, therefore he intends for them to exist.


So why would we be free to choose these things, if God had designed us to
not exercise the choice?

same way that we are all free to chop our arms off and smear the stumps with iodine. we are all free to choose that, aren't we? yet we all choose not to do it. isn't that a lot better than designing all humans with the irresistable drive to chop of their own arms, and then commanding them not to do it? they still have the freedom of choice, but now they aren't driven to exercise it in harmful ways.


Funnily enough, most people dont have a big problem with other peoples pain
in general, but its a different story when it comes to dealing with their own,
face it, unless its somone they love, people are intrigued by other peoples
pain.

okay. i don't know why you brought that up. if anything, it is further support for my point: why would God give us our fascination with others' pain, rather than an aversion to that pain that is equal to our own? why not make it as objectionable to hurt each other as it is for us to hurt ourselves?


Nothing, your being too extreme here.

how so? i am using an example of the freedom God gives humans, and showing how unacceptable that is. how is that too extreme? is God not capable of solving ALL problems, including those i have used as examples?


Well why do you think evil exists then?

i don't believe in evil. [EDIT: to be more precise, i don't believe in objective evil. there are things i personally consider "evil," but i don't believe evilness is an objective characteristic.]


Commandment 6 Do not murder

" " " 7 Do not commit Adultery

" " " 8 Do not steal

" " " 9 Do not commit Perjury

" " " 10 Do not envy

So these are allright by you?

if you read my original post you will already have the answer to that. but i wouldn't want you to strain yourself, so i will repeat: i believe that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, perjury is wrong, and envy is (like all emotions) totally neutral. adultery as defined by Christianity is too broad a term; much of what Christianity says is "adultery" is not wrong to me, but some of it is.


I guess the challenge is recognising our limitations and overcoming them.

that's all well and good, but it doesn't help people who are KILLED by the actions of others. as i asked before, how is a murder victim supposed to learn about their limitations and overcome them? is God unable to find a better way to teach a murderer to overcome their limitations, or must he sacrifice the lives of innocent people? does God really need to let a baby be shaken to death in order for it's mommy to recognize her limitations and over come them?

HAS THIS THREAD GONE ON LONG ENOUGH?! IS THERE NO END TO IT?!?!

Just kidding :p

But seriously, don't you people think that 118 pages is enough of a debate? Atheists believe what they want, and Christians believe what they want. The original question that started this thread has been answered, so why bother to continue it? I think its time people stopped arguing about religion and continue on with their lives.

HAS THIS THREAD GONE ON LONG ENOUGH?! IS THERE NO END TO IT?!?!

Just kidding :p

But seriously, don't you people think that 118 pages is enough of a debate? Atheists believe what they want, and Christians believe what they want. The original question that started this thread has been answered, so why bother to continue it? I think its time people stopped arguing about religion and continue on with their lives.
if you don't like the discussion then why did you enter this thread? people are enjoying this discussion, and nobody forced you to enter it, so if you don't like it then feel free to leave.

I'm not going to read all the posts either, but I read several pages from the beginning and several from the end. I would like to know why this seems to be more of an argument or a religion/athiest bashing war than a healthy debate, or the topic it started as. I myself am Catholic, but I have friends from all different religions and friends who are Atheists. We never argue like this. We respect each others' opinions. My father even is Protestant, while the rest of my family is Catholic. Why can't everyone be respectful of the differences, instead of argueing? It obviously isn't necessary. Or is this just the classic "A little girl who knows nothing about the world" case? I don't see why we need the argueing about it, or the obvious hate going on. And I've seen it a lot, being in highschool. I don't need to see in a place where I go to enjoy myself.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

The reason it ends up being a bit more flaming on here then when you and your friends debate is simple … online you don’t know the other person … you don’t see them you don’t do things with them you don’t have to go to school .
It is EASY to make a thoughtless and sometimes bashing statement on here and never think anything more of it.

Most people can open up more on here then in real life … hence the argument … I am sure there is the drive by most sides to disprove a statement or a feeling of the other … even in your gentle debates but you hold off because of either respect (sometimes equating to just being scared) or because of lack of info (even biased info) sitting in a coffee shop somewhere you don’t have a ready source of (usually biased) information.

Lol anyways simple answer … people can argue online about the silliest stuff but it doesn’t mean the urge isn’t there in personal face to face debates … just that other concerns overwhelm the urge.

if you don't like the discussion then why did you enter this thread? people are enjoying this discussion, and nobody forced you to enter it, so if you don't like it then feel free to leave.

Hear hear!

Stumps? Iodine? Shaken Baby Syndrome? This isn't a discussion on Atheism, it's a medical class with Dr. Giggles!

Seriously, though, Bottle, you just don't get it. The Christians concept of free will is as follows:

God creates Adam. God steals one of his ribs and makes Eve. Natch, he's proud of his creation, but at the same time, they're not exactly toys. They have their own lives. To simply preprogram them to do exactly what he says, when he says it, would be defeating his point.

Therefore, he created them with free will, the ability to choose for Themselves what they want to do. Of course, the Bible is loaded with threat after threat to "encourage" those with free will to do what it says, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, free will is free will, it doesn't matter how you attempt to word it otherwise.

Now, personally, on the subject of Atheism, I find that in my seeking, I have become a believer in all faiths and of none, which is to say that I deny no one their beliefs, and hold no faith higher than the other. Personally, I think spirituality is fine. It's religion that &ucks it up.

To the person who said I should stay out of it if it bothers me: Had it bothered me I'd have not posted. I was simply confused as to why the topic didn't stay on topic, or simply remain less of a flame war. I don't feel it's necessary.

To the person who explained the reason: I understand that. But I also think that online some people are more polite than in real life, because they don't know anyone. I open up and give my opinions, but I do so politely so that I do not cause conflicts. That's the way I was raised. I understand, though, that others may not have been taught the same way I was. Thank you for trying to explain why it turned into a flame war, though.

I will however leave this topic to those who wish to argue it, as I don't want to start any further fighting.

When you die, that's it. Gone. You survive only in the memories of people still alive.
I'll leave it till later, if that's OK by you.

so you are saying that an ALL-POWERFUL GOD is not capable of giving us free will without allowing us to do evil to each other? that's really weird, because i am pretty damn sure that i could do just that, if i were given His powers for ten seconds.

all God would have had to do is ensure that no human being would ever have the desire to rape, murder, or steal. we would still be perfectly free to choose to do so, but God would have designed us in such a way that we would never exercise that choice.

think about it this way: i've never met a human being who felt compelled to cut off both their arms and smear iodine on the bleeding stumps...does that mean that none of us have free will, since nobody wants to do that? if God could make people have no desire at all to cut of their arms and smear the stumps with iodine, then why couldn't he give us that same natural aversion to doing harm to one another? why couldn't he give us the same natural aversion to any sin, for that matter? indeed, why would he have given us natural aversions to cutting off our limbs, but designed us in such a way that many sins are very very attractive (even if those sins are MORE dangerous than cutting off limbs)? isn't that pretty much like making somebody sick and then commanding them to BE WELL, GODDAMMIT!!!
So God could "design" us with this lack of desire to murder, rape or steal? Look at it this way: if we are not aware of the options, then there are no options, hence nothing to choose, hence no freedom of choice. If we are aware of rape, murder and theft that immediately creates a choice that allows us to exercise free will and choose. Hopefully you choose well.

I don't know about you, but I do have a natural aversion to rape, murder and theft.

as for humans learning from mistakes, i fail to see what a child learns from being shaken to death at the age of 3. what exactly does a woman learn from being raped and murdered? how does a young person learn from the experience of being shot in a drive-by? the idea that evil exists as some kind of spiritual learning experience is ridiculous, since our entire goal as parents is to teach our children to grow and learn without ever letting evil befall them.
How is being shaken to death at the age of 3 the child's mistake??!! Or being raped the woman's?? *sheesh*

The mistake is the perpetrator's, and it's theirs to learn from.

of course, i don't believe most Christian sins are sins in the first place; i also don't believe that ANY feelings are sins, so feelings of greed, selfishness, lust, etc aren't sins any more than joy, compassion, or generosity. pretty much all sins in the Christian faith are not worthy of anybody's time, in my opinion, because they all are just mindcontrol games trying to force you not to think or feel the most natural of things. why God would specifically design our brains to work a certain way, and then focus so much of His energy on ordering us to stop behaving exactly as we were designed, is beyond me...i guess that's the whole "he's beyond rational thought" part, right? kind of like abusive parents?
Feelings are not sins; they are part of the design. Intents can be sins; they are not part of the design, but things we choose to do. "Sin" is being on a path other than that God dictates --hence it is a religious concept. Hence, too, not something that one who does not subscribe to the religion can be held accountable for. So fear not. ;-)

are you saying that humans are capable of acting against God's will?
Of course. That is free will.

How is being shaken to death at the age of 3 the child's mistake??!! Or being raped the woman's?? *sheesh*

The mistake is the perpetrator's, and it's theirs to learn from.

That's the point. In each case, an innocent person is forced to suffer because someone apparently had to 'learn something'.
Thanks a bunch God, real loving of you.

why God would specifically design our brains to work a certain way, and then focus so much of His energy on ordering us to stop behaving exactly as we were designed, is beyond me...i guess that's the whole "he's beyond rational thought" part, right? kind of like abusive parents?
I think your confusion here is a result of not understanding that religion deals with compartmentalised people (to coin a phrase). Religion looks at people in separate, individual pieces: the body, the soul, the mind; it doesn't look at people as one integrated unit. What God "designed" is the body, and he gave it a soul. The mind is all ours. It is ours, it is "us" from the moment of consciousness (creation), and we control it. It is "a part of the design" in that it is a by-product of the body (and soul, if you believe in such) but what we do with it is not part of the design, never was. That is free will.

That's the point. In each case, an innocent person is forced to suffer because someone apparently had to 'learn something'.
Thanks a bunch God, real loving of you.
That's not his doing, though; it's ours.

That's not his doing, though; it's ours.

But why does He not save the innocent person? Doesn't He care?
Saving them won't take away free will, since the murderer/rapist still got to choose to murder/rape, they just didn't manage to.

But why does He not save the innocent person? Doesn't He care?
Saving them won't take away free will, since the murderer/rapist still got to choose to murder/rape, they just didn't manage to.
*psst* Because he's not real. ;-)

Mythologically speaking, because if he did, the murderer/rapist will not have done anything to atone for.

[Willamena #1741]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
Because he cant ban sin, that would remove our freedom of choice.

That's ridiculous, Terminalia...

It's not ridiculous, it's exactly correct. If there was no sin, we would all be puppets in following God's laws. He wants us to choose to follow them, not be forced to. It's the very argument I've been using in the abortion threads to support pro-choice: people must be allowed to make mistakes, because if you limit their choices, when any choice they make is only between options you have supplied, then it's not their choice they are making, it's yours.

We, humans, grow spiritually by making mistakes, learning from them and atoning for them. The Christian God (and perhaps Judaic and Islam) wants us to choose to be with him, which simply means following in a righteous path, something I (personally) see a lot of atheists doing, even without the benefit of religion. (I suspect it is an awareness of their godhood on a subconscious level, but that's just my opinion.)

Free will is not about Him, it's about us. He did it for us, gave us free will --it is not a thing he implanted in us, not a part of creation; it's a right, a freedom to choose. Being informed of the righteous path, we can choose to follow the righteous path or choose to turn away from it. Some hear the message, some don't even though they've attempted to listen. Some hear it and turn away; those are the sinners. "Hell" is not a punishment for turning away, it is a consequence of turning away (I define "Hell" as a frame of mind that is not in accord with our individual godhood).

Quote:
he can't 'ban sin', but he can kill everyone in the world with one big flood? You don't think getting drowned and dashed against rocks might be against the free-will of SOME people?

Free will is what we choose to do. They chose to turn away from God, and the consequence was a flood. That they don't want the flood isn't really a part of the whole free will convention. :-) I don't want abortions, but because I respect free will and the right to choose, I condone them.


God COULD ban sin from the world, but that would be akin to a clockmaker making a clock with no moving parts.

Freewill is THE singular gift OF god. Everything else IS god.

*psst* Because he's not real. ;-)

Mythologically speaking, because if he did, the murderer/rapist will not have done anything to atone for.
But atonement is not a necessary component of decision making

Lol

Either way very good points … seems kind of sadistic at sometimes lol

*psst* Because he's not real. ;-)

Mythologically speaking, because if he did, the murderer/rapist will not have done anything to atone for.

So in other words, God is some kind of atonement-fetishist who created an entire species and gave them free will so that they could do nasty things and atone to Him and satisfy his desires?

But atonement is not a necessary component of decision making

Lol

Either way very good points … seems kind of sadistic at sometimes lol
But is a necessary component of spiritual growth.

Thanks ;-)

[Grave_n_idle #1751]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liskeinland
You're right of course - but what about the atheists who denounce all Christians as homophobic psychotic witch burners? That's also arrogant, and saying that because we belong to the same religion as, oh, Jerry Falwell, we are automatically evil (not accusing you personally)?

Another thing. Religion offers a reason for doing good. This could help society. I honestly believe that Henry VIII or Jerry Falwell would be just as bad if they were atheists.

There is the problem, though.

Atheists, in general, do not object to Christianity - they object to what Christians DO.

As I've posted before, the average Atheist and the average Moderate Christian have no reason not to get along... they have a difference of belief, but it is nothing that cannot be reconciled or ignored.

The fundamentalists of Christianity, however, weild power disproportionate to their numbers. And, this power, they use to attempt to shape how others can live... binding those who are NOT religious, or follow different faiths, to THEIR vision.

Example: The state of Utah was only admitted to the union of states AFTER they agreed to follow the (christian) monogamous principles.

Example: An atheist cannot buy alcohol on a Sunday (in some places), or WORK on a Sunday (in some places), or open a store on a Sunday (in some places) ALL because of the religious views of others.

There are many more examples.


.."The fundamentalists of Christianity, however, weild power disproportionate to their numbers. And, this power, they use to attempt to shape how others can live... binding those who are NOT religious, or follow different faiths, to THEIR vision.

Example: The state of Utah was only admitted to the union of states AFTER they agreed to follow the (christian) monogamous principles."..

Noisy people will always wield disproportionate power within their containing society, regardless of what they are noisy about.

Those with very certain views will always have an advantage affecting how society is formed because effectiveness is largely dependent on the focus and "will" of the affector.

Thus, it shouldn't be at all surprising that "fundamentalists" wield power and are more affective in society.

Now,.. this applies to ANY "people of strong belief and faith" (those who love their positions and expect to see them materialize).

But,... is it better to eliminate fundamentalism, or simply put governors on the influence of fundamentalism..?

So in other words, God is some kind of atonement-fetishist who created an entire species and gave them free will so that they could do nasty things and atone to Him and satisfy his desires?
God had no choice in the matter. He doesn't have free will. It all played out exactly as it had to. All this "BOW BEFORE ME, I AM GOD, YOUR GOD" stuff is man's attempts to explain God to other men who won't listen any other way (remember, this was 3-4 millennia ago).

EDIT: Okay, I feel bad about that last remark. I don't believe the common man was incapable of understanding, just that those who explained it didn't give their audience much credit.

[Hakartopia #1781]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
*psst* Because he's not real. ;-)

Mythologically speaking, because if he did, the murderer/rapist will not have done anything to atone for.

So in other words, God is some kind of atonement-fetishist who created an entire species and gave them free will so that they could do nasty things and atone to Him and satisfy his desires?

This says some interesting things about you, Haka..! :)

Why would you think that a "supreme being" would create an entire universe simply to get occassional praise from the miniscule population of humanity..?!

I would imagine that you have a hard time dealing with your "superiors", as most so-called atheists do.

(( And yes,.. I'm being purposefully "assholish" to make a point. :) ))

Your overly-literal "fudamentalism of anti-authoritarianism" could be put aside to actually try to understand the concepts presented here. :D

God COULD ban sin from the world, but that would be akin to a clockmaker making a clock with no moving parts.

Freewill is THE singular gift OF god. Everything else IS god.

Sin is what makes the world go round? We're all damned if we do and damned if we don't, then...

But seriously, it is hard to argue when you base your arguments on the 'fact' that Free Will is something given by a God (an entity for which there is no proof of existence enacting processes for which there is no understanding) and I remain convinced that Free Will is caused by apparently random quantum fluctuations[1] affecting the macro-scale universe through neural systems and biomechanical actuators resulting from many millenia of selection for organisms that are adaptable to their environment.

[1]I tend to lean towards there being an ineffable underyling rule underlying everything, even quantum mechanics, but the trouble is that it's buried at a level that cannot be perceived by the mechanisms that are working within the confines of the space. It's just beyond the eyeline of the Grand Unified Theory (Which may be obtainable) and can never be discovered until the Universe is examined from the outside. :)

[Willamena #1784]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakartopia
So in other words, God is some kind of atonement-fetishist who created an entire species and gave them free will so that they could do nasty things and atone to Him and satisfy his desires?

God had no choice in the matter. He doesn't have free will. It all played out exactly as it had to. All this "BOW BEFORE ME, I AM GOD, YOUR GOD" stuff is man's attempts to explain God to other men who won't listen any other way (remember, this was 3-4 millennia ago).

EDIT: Okay, I feel bad about that last remark. I don't believe the common man was incapable of understanding, just that those who explained it didn't give their audience much credit.

Quit feeling bad about your words..! :) You always speak your truth, and have no reason to be sorry for it.

Isn't it interesting that the ONE thing that almost ALL "heavenly beings" thoughout history are limited by is the fact that THEY DON'T have freewill..!?

They are forced by their nature to do things, and our anthropomorphizing of them almost always creates a deep sense of their "pained frustration with their lot" in the universal plan of things.

Show me a god, and I'll show you a frustrated, unfulfilled, agonized "person" who wishes they could be freed from their narrow little "purpose in life".

Yes,.. god is a janitor.

Or Queeg... :)

I think your confusion here is a result of not understanding that religion deals with compartmentalised people (to coin a phrase). Religion looks at people in separate, individual pieces: the body, the soul, the mind; it doesn't look at people as one integrated unit. What God "designed" is the body, and he gave it a soul. The mind is all ours. It is ours, it is "us" from the moment of consciousness (creation), and we control it. It is "a part of the design" in that it is a by-product of the body (and soul, if you believe in such) but what we do with it is not part of the design, never was. That is free will.
my confusion has nothing to do with compartmentalization problems, i'm afraid. my problem is that religious people claim God is all-powerful, but then claim that human beings have the power to act against God's will. if God is all-powerful and all-knowing then He will know exactly what sort of mind will be the result of the physical form He gives each human; our consciousness arises directly and exclusively from the physical structures that God creates, and therefore our minds cannot be other than how He designs them.

even if, for some reason, our minds were to develop differently, God would have the power to instantly change them whenever He pleases, and the fact that He permits them to exist as they are means that they are in accordance with His will, for whatever reason. thus there is no logical way for a person to claim that the human mind is anything other than exactly how God wants it to be, provided that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. if our minds are in any way not consistent with God's will, then God is not all-powerful. if God is all-powerful then our minds MUST be in line with his will.

thus, if God designed our minds, then He designed our instincts because those instincts are directly coded in our brains. He coded us with the instinct for self-preservation. He coded us with the instinct that chopping off our own limbs is not a good thing. yet for some reason, He neglected to code us for natural aversions to things like greed, lust, and envy, but then He insists that we must escape those things. why give us the natural aversion to some things, but not others, and then ONLY yell at us about the things that he didn't give us natural aversions to?

So God could "design" us with this lack of desire to murder, rape or steal?

if he couldn't, he's not all-powerful or all-knowing, by definition.


Look at it this way: if we are not aware of the options, then there are no options, hence nothing to choose, hence no freedom of choice. If we are aware of rape, murder and theft that immediately creates a choice that allows us to exercise free will and choose. Hopefully you choose well.

i never said anything about God removing our knowledge of the possible sins. we all know that it is possible to chop our arms off, and that doesn't usually change our likelihood of doing so. having no interest in doing something would change our likelihood of doing it, but we would still have exactly the same amount of freedom to choose that thing, and exactly the same knowledge of the possibility.


I don't know about you, but I do have a natural aversion to rape, murder and theft.

you may; not all humans do. if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then he could make all humans have that natural aversion, and no human would ever choose to kill or rape or steal.

How is being shaken to death at the age of 3 the child's mistake??!! Or being raped the woman's?? *sheesh*

The mistake is the perpetrator's, and it's theirs to learn from.

that was my point; what all-powerful God would use such an abominable teaching method? how is it fair to "educate" a rapist about the error of his ways by allowing him to rape 10 women? how is it just to allow a baby to be shaken to death in order for the mom to learn from her mistakes? if the killer is making a mistake, then why is the VICTIM the one who is paying the ultimate price?

are you actually claiming that an ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-KNOWING GOD cannot come up with a better system?! i can, and i'm not even powerful enough to fix the dripping showerhead in my bathroom!


Feelings are not sins; they are part of the design. Intents can be sins; they are not part of the design, but things we choose to do. "Sin" is being on a path other than that God dictates --hence it is a religious concept. Hence, too, not something that one who does not subscribe to the religion can be held accountable for. So fear not. ;-)
i'm not afraid of God's justice, any more than i am afraid of Santa's or the Easter Bunny's. what i am afraid of is the actions of the sort of people who believe that their own feelings can be wrong; such people are far more dangerous than most people realize...until it is too late.

Sin is what makes the world go round? We're all damned if we do and damned if we don't, then...

But seriously, it is hard to argue when you base your arguments on the 'fact' that Free Will is something given by a God (an entity for which there is no proof of existence enacting processes for which there is no understanding) and I remain convinced that Free Will is caused by apparently random quantum fluctuations[1] affecting the macro-scale universe through neural systems and biomechanical actuators resulting from many millenia of selection for organisms that are adaptable to their environment.

[1]I tend to lean towards there being an ineffable underyling rule underlying everything, even quantum mechanics, but the trouble is that it's buried at a level that cannot be perceived by the mechanisms that are working within the confines of the space. It's just beyond the eyeline of the Grand Unified Theory (Which may be obtainable) and can never be discovered until the Universe is examined from the outside. :)
All that technical jargon leaves me cold, sorry. I don't even know what those words mean, nevermind be able to think in terms of them on any consistent basis.

The right to freedom of speech is something "given" by the Government. The right to life is something "given" by every person who chooses to shake a hand instead of pull a knife. Free will is a right "given" by the Creator.

Look at it back-assed: we "have" the right to choose, we "have" free will. So if God is the Creator (as some religious folk believe) then it must have been "given" by him who designed us.

Of course, if you don't believe in God, then the "right" to choose is "given" by society or some other authority. Or you could think in terms of that you "take" it. But if that's so, then who'd you take it from? ;-) Or that you "own" it. Religion simply says that, if I "own" it it must have come from somewhere, as I did. Come to think of it, physics says the same thing.

[E B Guvegrra #1786]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
God COULD ban sin from the world, but that would be akin to a clockmaker making a clock with no moving parts.

Freewill is THE singular gift OF god. Everything else IS god.

Sin is what makes the world go round? We're all damned if we do and damned if we don't, then...

But seriously, it is hard to argue when you base your arguments on the 'fact' that Free Will is something given by a God (an entity for which there is no proof of existence enacting processes for which there is no understanding) and I remain convinced that Free Will is caused by apparently random quantum fluctuations[1] affecting the macro-scale universe through neural systems and biomechanical actuators resulting from many millenia of selection for organisms that are adaptable to their environment.

[1]I tend to lean towards there being an ineffable underyling rule underlying everything, even quantum mechanics, but the trouble is that it's buried at a level that cannot be perceived by the mechanisms that are working within the confines of the space. It's just beyond the eyeline of the Grand Unified Theory (Which may be obtainable) and can never be discovered until the Universe is examined from the outside.

That was a very good description of the mechanical universe.

What I was describing was the "perceptual" universe.

God is "that which is but can't be described".

"Ineffable" by the way is derived from roots meaning "in-utterable". The "name" of god is often described as "in-utterable".

Freewill is the ONLY thing that we have that can not be taken away if we simply don't allow it. And it is thus a profound pointer back toward the one singular thing in the universe that can not be "controlled".

God.

Thus, martyrs are seen as embodiments of the concept of freewill.

..where belief and faith (love and expectation) triumph over existence itself.

[Bottle #1788]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
I think your confusion here is a result of not understanding that religion deals with compartmentalised people (to coin a phrase). Religion looks at people in separate, individual pieces: the body, the soul, the mind; it doesn't look at people as one integrated unit. What God "designed" is the body, and he gave it a soul. The mind is all ours. It is ours, it is "us" from the moment of consciousness (creation), and we control it. It is "a part of the design" in that it is a by-product of the body (and soul, if you believe in such) but what we do with it is not part of the design, never was. That is free will.

my confusion has nothing to do with compartmentalization problems, i'm afraid. my problem is that religious people claim God is all-powerful, but then claim that human beings have the power to act against God's will. if God is all-powerful and all-knowing then He will know exactly what sort of mind will be the result of the physical form He gives each human; our consciousness arises directly and exclusively from the physical structures that God creates, and therefore our minds cannot be other than how He designs them.

even if, for some reason, our minds were to develop differently, God would have the power to instantly change them whenever He pleases, and the fact that He permits them to exist as they are means that they are in accordance with His will, for whatever reason. thus there is no logical way for a person to claim that the human mind is anything other than exactly how God wants it to be, provided that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. if our minds are in any way not consistent with God's will, then God is not all-powerful. if God is all-powerful then our minds MUST be in line with his will.

thus, if God designed our minds, then He designed our instincts because those instincts are directly coded in our brains. He coded us with the instinct for self-preservation. He coded us with the instinct that chopping off our own limbs is not a good thing. yet for some reason, He neglected to code us for natural aversions to things like greed, lust, and envy, but then He insists that we must escape those things. why give us the natural aversion to some things, but not others, and then ONLY yell at us about the things that he didn't give us natural aversions to?

Poor Bottle..!

Bottle wants to god to conform to Bottle's little desires for consistency and "logic".

Bottle simply doesn't understand that Bottle's railing against god, because god doesnt' conform to Bottle's wishes, is merely amusing.

Then again,.. perhaps Bottle does..! :)

I think actually that Bottle does realize this. It is Bottle's game to try to Bottle god.

And we can only hope that it's as amusing to Bottle, as Bottle is to us..!

:D

[Bottle #1789]
if he couldn't, he's not all-powerful or all-knowing, by definition.

i never said anything about God removing our knowledge of the possible sins. we all know that it is possible to chop our arms off, and that doesn't usually change our likelihood of doing so. having no interest in doing something would change our likelihood of doing it, but we would still have exactly the same amount of freedom to choose that thing, and exactly the same knowledge of the possibility.

you may; not all humans do. if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then he could make all humans have that natural aversion, and no human would ever choose to kill or rape or steal.

that was my point; what all-powerful God would use such an abominable teaching method? how is it fair to "educate" a rapist about the error of his ways by allowing him to rape 10 women? how is it just to allow a baby to be shaken to death in order for the mom to learn from her mistakes? if the killer is making a mistake, then why is the VICTIM the one who is paying the ultimate price?

are you actually claiming that an ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-KNOWING GOD cannot come up with a better system?! i can, and i'm not even powerful enough to fix the dripping showerhead in my bathroom!

i'm not afraid of God's justice, any more than i am afraid of Santa's or the Easter Bunny's. what i am afraid of is the actions of the sort of people who believe that their own feelings can be wrong; such people are far more dangerous than most people realize...until it is too late.

Bottle wants to be god. Who would like Bottle to be god..? :)

Bottle is stuck on god as "a big man in the sky". Bottle is a fool.

Bottle doesn't even understand Bottle. Not that any of us do, of course. But Bottle would rather complain about a thing that should be understood and worked with than understand and work with it.

Bottle doesn't want to go to bed at beddy-bye-time. Poor Bottle.

:D

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

4 points:

1) You just said atheism is a religion

2) You should be more tolerant of other peoples beliefs. If I choose not to believe in a "god/s" then that is my choice.

3)Also anyone can trust the bible or whatever other holy book you have just doesn't make sense. There are massive wide gaping holes in it. Do you believe in Harry Potter because someone wrote a book about him?

4) Any "miracles" are just conincedence that you have noticed because the time whenn you most need a "miracle" is when you look hardest for them and notice conincedences.

Also I'm an atheist and find that dieing is just dieing nothing special happens to you, do animals go to "heaven and hell" why should we do anything different. After all, humans are only organic matter like every other organism.

:p :D

Just one thing I wanted to interject here...

If I'm not mistaken, somebody said God literally IS everything. You have to think, though... Everything?

I tend to agree with this point, personally. But I take the word "everything" very literally.

Thus meaning God is all things. Such as:

Fallible and Infallible
Good and Evil
Right and Wrong
Strong and Weak
Love and Hate
Life and Death

Makes sense to me. Theoretically, if there was a being, such as God, that was as all-encompassing as God, then that being would ENCOMPASS ALL. Every thing and every idea. That is MY version of God.

my confusion has nothing to do with compartmentalization problems, i'm afraid. my problem is that religious people claim God is all-powerful, but then claim that human beings have the power to act against God's will. if God is all-powerful and all-knowing then He will know exactly what sort of mind will be the result of the physical form He gives each human; our consciousness arises directly and exclusively from the physical structures that God creates, and therefore our minds cannot be other than how He designs them.
This is why I brought up the compartmentalisation thing. Our minds are not determined by our physical structure --this is not "religious thinking". Whether or not it is true doesn't matter --religious thinking sees the mind as being separate from, but contained within, the body, and souls too. You are creating confusion for yourself by not looking at it in the right way, if you wish to understand it.

even if, for some reason, our minds were to develop differently, God would have the power to instantly change them whenever He pleases, and the fact that He permits them to exist as they are means that they are in accordance with His will, for whatever reason. thus there is no logical way for a person to claim that the human mind is anything other than exactly how God wants it to be, provided that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. if our minds are in any way not consistent with God's will, then God is not all-powerful. if God is all-powerful then our minds MUST be in line with his will.
God cannot change our minds; that would rob us of free will, and the basic premise is that he gave (gives) us free will and does not interfere in that. That he permits our minds to exist as they are is in accordance with his "plan", but then his stated plan includes free will. (I'm still a bit fuzzy on what God's Will is; it is obviously not free will; I might do better explaining this if I was a student of religion.)

God is a symbol of creation; that is his power. To create. If you ask for proof of the "all-powerful God", most religious folk would point at the world and say, "he made that, didn't he?" Having power is not the same as exercising power; God cannot interfere in his creation.

*We* are the ones who align our minds with God's, not the other way around. This is what is it to "get religion". Of course, if you don't "get" it, then God's Will becomes a non-issue.

thus, if God designed our minds, then He designed our instincts because those instincts are directly coded in our brains. He coded us with the instinct for self-preservation. He coded us with the instinct that chopping off our own limbs is not a good thing. yet for some reason, He neglected to code us for natural aversions to things like greed, lust, and envy, but then He insists that we must escape those things. why give us the natural aversion to some things, but not others, and then ONLY yell at us about the things that he didn't give us natural aversions to?
Good point about "greed, lust, and envy", but rising above those things (like the person who atones for a more violent sin against another) is another sort of spiritual adventure, one where a person has sinned against himself or herself.

It's all a spiritual journey.

[Byrill #1795]
Just one thing I wanted to interject here...

If I'm not mistaken, somebody said God literally IS everything. You have to think, though... Everything?

I tend to agree with this point, personally. But I take the word "everything" very literally.

Thus meaning God is all things. Such as:

Fallible and Infallible
Good and Evil
Right and Wrong
Strong and Weak
Love and Hate
Life and Death

Makes sense to me. Theoretically, if there was a being, such as God, that was as all-encompassing as God, then that being would ENCOMPASS ALL. Every thing and every idea. That is MY version of God.

That would probably have been me you're refering to. My "it is" thingy is the "everything" that you mention.

God is the absolute singular singular thing. There are no other absolute or singular things. But even if there were, then the singularity and absoluteness would "break" and a new "absolute singular thing" would magically appear..!

In other words, it defines itself,.. it is itself,.. there can be no other possible thing like it other than itself.

It doesn't need anything, such as our "obedience". It doesn't interfere in bad things happening to good people. It doesn't do anything other than being there as the singular thing to observe. And it doesn't care if you observe it or not.

But observing it, listening to it for direction, taking consolation in it, has value if you choose to do so.

And no one can really NOT do that. It's just a question of whether listening to your "superior" and taking direction from it annoys you or not.

And in that annoyance, god speaks to us all about the annoyed.

:D

i never said anything about God removing our knowledge of the possible sins. we all know that it is possible to chop our arms off, and that doesn't usually change our likelihood of doing so. having no interest in doing something would change our likelihood of doing it, but we would still have exactly the same amount of freedom to choose that thing, and exactly the same knowledge of the possibility.
If people have no desire for something, and therefore no interest in acting on it, then it is effectively removed as an option. For instance, most murders are committed in the heat of emotional passion by someone who knows the victim intimately. Remove the desire and you remove the crime.

you may; not all humans do. if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then he could make all humans have that natural aversion, and no human would ever choose to kill or rape or steal.
If he made all humans have that natural aversion (which I believe they do) then they would still choose to rape and steal, because some people have very good reasons for doing what they do and over-riding their aversion. Wait... is that the point you were making above?

that was my point; what all-powerful God would use such an abominable teaching method? how is it fair to "educate" a rapist about the error of his ways by allowing him to rape 10 women? how is it just to allow a baby to be shaken to death in order for the mom to learn from her mistakes? if the killer is making a mistake, then why is the VICTIM the one who is paying the ultimate price?
Life is supposed to be fair and just?? I must have missed that memo. What page was it in the handbook? God can only "allow" --by his own rules, he cannot interfere.

[Willamena #1796]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottle
my confusion has nothing to do with compartmentalization problems, i'm afraid. my problem is that religious people claim God is all-powerful, but then claim that human beings have the power to act against God's will. if God is all-powerful and all-knowing then He will know exactly what sort of mind will be the result of the physical form He gives each human; our consciousness arises directly and exclusively from the physical structures that God creates, and therefore our minds cannot be other than how He designs them.

This is why I brought up the compartmentalisation thing. Our minds are not determined by our physical structure --this is not "religious thinking". Whether or not it is true doesn't matter --religious thinking sees the mind as being separate from, but contained within, the body, and souls too. You are creating confusion for yourself by not looking at it in the right way, if you wish to understand it.

Quote:
even if, for some reason, our minds were to develop differently, God would have the power to instantly change them whenever He pleases, and the fact that He permits them to exist as they are means that they are in accordance with His will, for whatever reason. thus there is no logical way for a person to claim that the human mind is anything other than exactly how God wants it to be, provided that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. if our minds are in any way not consistent with God's will, then God is not all-powerful. if God is all-powerful then our minds MUST be in line with his will.

God cannot change our minds; that would rob us of free will, and the basic premise is that he gave (gives) us free will and does not interfere in that. That he permits our minds to exist as they are is in accordance with his "plan", but then his stated plan includes free will. (I'm still a bit fuzzy on what God's Will is; it is obviously not free will; I might do better explaining this if I was a student of religion.)

God is a symbol of creation; that is his power. To create. If you ask for proof of the "all-powerful God", most religious folk would point at the world and say, "he made that, didn't he?" Having power is not the same as exercising power; God cannot interfere in his creation.

*We* are the ones who align our minds with God's, not the other way around. This is what is it to "get religion". Of course, if you don't "get" it, then God's Will becomes a non-issue.

Quote:
thus, if God designed our minds, then He designed our instincts because those instincts are directly coded in our brains. He coded us with the instinct for self-preservation. He coded us with the instinct that chopping off our own limbs is not a good thing. yet for some reason, He neglected to code us for natural aversions to things like greed, lust, and envy, but then He insists that we must escape those things. why give us the natural aversion to some things, but not others, and then ONLY yell at us about the things that he didn't give us natural aversions to?

Good point about "greed, lust, and envy", but rising above those things (like the person who atones for a more violent sin against another) is another sort of spiritual adventure, one where a person has sinned against himself or herself.

It's all a spiritual journey.



.."God cannot change our minds; that would rob us of free will, and the basic premise is that he gave (gives) us free will and does not interfere in that. That he permits our minds to exist as they are is in accordance with his "plan", but then his stated plan includes free will. (I'm still a bit fuzzy on what God's Will is; it is obviously not free will; I might do better explaining this if I was a student of religion.)"..

God's will AND god's plan is free will for us (and all "creatures" ie. fragments of god).

Period. That which is is, and that which is, does as it wills.

But to "will" is not to violate that which is.

I can't will myself to fly like Superman. That would be a violation of that which is. But the WISH to fly like Superman can influence my will to develop flying machines.

Much frustration is created by confusing "will" with "wish".

.."Good point about "greed, lust, and envy", but rising above those things (like the person who atones for a more violent sin against another) is another sort of spiritual adventure, one where a person has sinned against himself or herself."..

"Greed" is wishing. But striving for betterment is "will".

"Lust" is wishing. But creating love is "will".

"Envy" is wishing. But the gaining of understanding that attaining more is possible is "will".

Etcetera...

But observing it, listening to it for direction, taking consolation in it, has value if you choose to do so.

And no one can really NOT do that. It's just a question of whether listening to your "superior" and taking direction from it annoys you or not.

And in that annoyance, god speaks to us all about the annoyed.

:D
So.... if God annoys you, and then you're annoying, that's you trying to be god? :-)

God's will AND god's plan is free will for us (and all "creatures" ie. fragments of god).

Period. That which is is, and that which is, does as it wills.

But to "will" is not to violate that which is.

I can't will myself to fly like Superman. That would be a violation of that which is. But the WISH to fly like Superman can influence my will to develop flying machines.

Much frustration is created by confusing "will" with "wish".

"Greed" is wishing. But striving for betterment is "will".

"Lust" is wishing. But creating love is "will".

"Envy" is wishing. But the gaining of understanding that attaining more is possible is "will".

Etcetera...
That is so cool!!! :-)

I'm going to be pondering this one for days...

HAS THIS THREAD GONE ON LONG ENOUGH?! IS THERE NO END TO IT?!?!

Just kidding :p

But seriously, don't you people think that 118 pages is enough of a debate? Atheists believe what they want, and Christians believe what they want. The original question that started this thread has been answered, so why bother to continue it? I think its time people stopped arguing about religion and continue on with their lives.

The crazy thing is that there are christians involved in this thread at all, what with it being about Atheists views of what happens after death....

When you die, that's it. Gone. You survive only in the memories of people still alive.
I'll leave it till later, if that's OK by you.

Sad.

[QUOTE=Bottle]are you saying that humans are capable of acting against God's will? that humans are more powerful than an all-powerful God? no? then all our desires, and, indeed, all our actions are a part of God's plan. he could stop them at any time, and does not, therefore he intends for them to exist.

Of course, we wouldnt have free will if he did.

Dont you understand yet how important that is?

same way that we are all free to chop our arms off and smear the stumps with iodine. we are all free to choose that, aren't we?

Yes, but that would hurt Bottle, which is probably the reason people dont do

that.

yet we all choose not to do it.

lol



okay. i don't know why you brought that up. if anything, it is further support for my point: why would God give us our fascination with others' pain, rather than an aversion to that pain that is equal to our own? why not make it as objectionable to hurt each other as it is for us to hurt ourselves?

For me, I would say alot of people who are fascinated by other peoples pain,

have experienced little themselves, and therefore lack any empathy.

Empathy is something we have to learn for ourselves.



how so? i am using an example of the freedom God gives humans, and showing how unacceptable that is.
how is that too extreme?

Because someone getting raped or murdered is a pretty extreme thing, and

you mentioned no circumstances in that, that could have been applied to

learning.


is God not capable of solving ALL problems, including those i have used as examples?


Well if God solved all our problems, where would our challenges be?

Or parents would say to their kids, go out and do whatever you like, go

anywhere you want, at any time, because God will save you.

i don't believe in evil. [EDIT: to be more precise, i don't believe in objective evil. there are things i personally consider "evil," but i don't believe evilness is an objective characteristic.]

Because that removes the possibility of God as an influence on

what we think is good or evil right?

if you read my original post you will already have the answer to that. but i wouldn't want you to strain yourself, so i will repeat: i believe that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, perjury is wrong, and envy is (like all emotions) totally neutral.

But envy goes together with greed.

Are you saying Greeds not wrong?


adultery as defined by Christianity is too broad a term; much of what Christianity says is "adultery" is not wrong to me, but some of it is.

Like what?

that's all well and good, but it doesn't help people who are KILLED by the actions of others. as i asked before, how is a murder victim supposed to learn about their limitations and overcome them?

Maybe they should have learned a few things before they got murdered, for

all you know a sinfilled life might have led them to that point, or just sheer

idiocy, or maybe you could blame the stupid lawyer who got a murderer off

on a technicality, and the murderer went out and killed someone else.

When your numbers up your numbers up, and nothing will change that,

instead of looking at a ridiculous point of how someone is supposed to learn

anything from being murdered, concentrate on what they might have learned

before the day they died.

You cant blame God for our sins, he lets us have the free will to do what

we like to each other, blame humanity.

Also if you want to hold God wholly responsible for all the rotten things that

befall us because of our actions, then you will have to give him full credit for

all the great things, we do for each other as well.

does God really need to let a baby be shaken to death in order for it's mommy to recognize her limitations and over come them?

Free will again Bottle.

Maybe they should have learned a few things before they got murdered, for all you know a sinfilled life might have led them to that point, or just sheer idiocy, or maybe you could blame the stupid lawyer who got a murderer off on a technicality, and the murderer went out and killed someone else.

Yup. 3 month old babies are known for their sinful nature.

I think Augustine had it right when he said that in Christianity, there MUST be pre-determination. Otherwise, God isn't all knowing.

It's simple. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then everything that will happened has already been set up. Free will cannot co-exist with an all knowing and all-powerful deity. To have "free will" means you can make a decision for yourself. To make a decision for yourself means you can go through door A when Go wants you to go through door B. This is impossible of God is all powerful and all knowing.


Therefore, God decides everything before it happens.
Therefore, all actions exist because of God.
Therefore, if hell exists, and people are sent to hell, they are sent from and because of God.
Therefore God sends people to hell on purpose.

.
Therefore, God decides everything before it happens.
Therefore, all actions exist because of God.
Therefore, if hell exists, and people are sent to hell, they are sent from and because of God.
Therefore God sends people to hell on purpose.

Wrong, they send themselves.

God has no influence directly on our actions,

he only does in our thoughts, through his teachings.

He knows our actions and thoughts but does not endeavour to control them.

Yup. 3 month old babies are known for their sinful nature.

You really know how to take an arguement, right out of context dont you?

Why are you blaming God for their deaths, why dont you blame the murderer

instead?

Please dont harp on about why would a loving God, allow this to happen, read

some of my exchanges with Bottle, the answer is there.

The whole god thing never made any sense to me, but then i dont live in a religious family - nor do i really know anyone who is deeply religious. Way I see it people who dont believe in god have it the best. When you die and there is no afterlife or heaven or hell then you dont lose anything, but if god exists then just repent... aparantly people who repent are more welcome than those who believed in god from the start anyway!

Probably someone has made that point already but i cant really read 120 pages of thread on 56k!

This thread reminds me of an old joke..

"That's the trouble with atheists, they're all dressed up with no where to go."

Haha.

Ah.. how grim.

This thread reminds me of an old joke..

"That's the trouble with atheists, they're all dressed up with no where to go."

Haha.

Ah.. how grim.

Thats the third time that joke has appeared on this thread now lol

I think Augustine had it right when he said that in Christianity, there MUST be pre-determination. Otherwise, God isn't all knowing.

It's simple. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then everything that will happened has already been set up. Free will cannot co-exist with an all knowing and all-powerful deity. To have "free will" means you can make a decision for yourself. To make a decision for yourself means you can go through door A when Go wants you to go through door B. This is impossible of God is all powerful and all knowing.


Therefore, God decides everything before it happens.
Therefore, all actions exist because of God.
Therefore, if hell exists, and people are sent to hell, they are sent from and because of God.
Therefore God sends people to hell on purpose.
As I said earlier, having power and being powerful is not the same as exercising power. God doesn't decide how things will go. His only active role was in Creation. Everything else is us humans developing our relationship to him.

You could think of him as cold and heartlessly cruel for not interfering when he could have, but that's not very useful spiritually. If you accept that God is imaginged as love, then you see that every mistake we make is "allowed" so that we can learn to grow from it.

God doesn't "send" people to Hell. Being in Hell is a natural consequence of not following your heart. It is being racked by guilt, shame and remose. It is a feeling tearing you up from the inside out.

The whole god thing never made any sense to me, but then i dont live in a religious family - nor do i really know anyone who is deeply religious. Way I see it people who dont believe in god have it the best. When you die and there is no afterlife or heaven or hell then you dont lose anything, but if god exists then just repent... aparantly people who repent are more welcome than those who believed in god from the start anyway!
I was in the same boat; the god thing never made much sense to me, but then I learned about pre-Judaic Indo-European and Old Europe mythology (religious concepts). It's relatively easy to see through the window dressing of modern religions when you familiarize yourself with just a few of the core ideas they are founded upon.

Of course, we wouldnt have free will if he did.

Dont you understand yet how important that is?

so humans are more powerful than God. so why do we want to worship him again?


Yes, but that would hurt Bottle, which is probably the reason people dont do
that.
lol

that was my point. if God could give us an aversive reaction to chopping off our limbs, then why couldn't he give us an equally aversive reaction to harming one another?

this responds to Wil's post as well, in a way, because he said something about how if God did that then we wouldn't have free will because we wouldn't want to choose evil. that makes no sense at all to me; are either of you claiming that humans don't have free will because we don't have the desire to chop our limbs off? that's a choice that we are all free to make, but we pretty much never, ever will...exactly what i am proposing God should have instilled in us about things like murder or rape. if giving us an aversion to hurting others would have taken away free will, then that means that our aversion to cutting off our limbs also takes away free will, and therefore we don't have free will to begin with and there's no point to be arguing this. conversely, if we can still have free will even there are some limitations to what we will be "able" to choose (based on our natural aversions), then there is no reason why God could not have given us a very strong desire to never harm each other.


For me, I would say alot of people who are fascinated by other peoples pain,
have experienced little themselves, and therefore lack any empathy.
Empathy is something we have to learn for ourselves.

and why is an all-powerful God unable to teach people empathy without murdering innocents? why should we worship a God that would choose to teach that way?


Because someone getting raped or murdered is a pretty extreme thing, and
you mentioned no circumstances in that, that could have been applied to
learning.

so God doesn't apply in extreme circumstances? i don't see what point you are trying to make; it sounds like you are trying to claim that God can't deal with extreme circumstances, or that his power is somehow dulled in those cases, and if that is so then what the hell do we need him for? i can take care of the mundane circumstances in my life, but it's the extreme ones where an all-powerful and all-good diety might come in handy.


Well if God solved all our problems, where would our challenges be?
Or parents would say to their kids, go out and do whatever you like, go
anywhere you want, at any time, because God will save you.

where have i proposed God would have solved all our problems? anybody who has spent 10 minutes in the real world will tell you that life is full of plenty of problems on its own. taking away the threat that another human will rape or murder you doesn't make life a cakewalk by any means, and there are still millions of dangers and problems that humans would need to overcome. like i said, God limited our desire to harm OURSELVES and that didn't destroy free will, so why would it destroy free will to limit our desire to directly and seriously harm one another?

also, please note that at NO TIME have i suggested that God directly intervene in human interactions by "saving" people who are in trouble. i have been proposing an overhaul of human nature from the start, rather than manipulation of individual events by God.


Because that removes the possibility of God as an influence on
what we think is good or evil right?

i don't believe in objective evil because i don't have the faintest idea how any human could find that logical. whether or not God would be involved in that doesn't change my thoughts on it; i have met moral objectivists who are non-religious, and i disagree with them just as much as with religious moral objectivists.

morality most certainly doesn't have to be objective for God to have an influence on it (theoretically), and i personally don't see how having an objective morality could do anything other than disprove the Christian God. if there is an objective Good and objective Evil, then those are moral rules that are beyond the power of God to alter, and therefore God is not all-powerful or all-knowing.


But envy goes together with greed.
Are you saying Greeds not wrong?

no emotion is wrong. feeling greed or feeling hate or feeling lust or feeling pride are never, ever wrong, any more than they are "right." they are natural, and neutral. only the way you act upon a feeling can be right or wrong.


Like what?

i don't believe sex between two unmarried people is adultery, as the Bible says. i don't believe that looking at another man or woman is adultery, and i most certainly don't think that feeling lust about another person is adultery. Jesus said, "...whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" and "...Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery," and i don't think either of those is adultery. there's more, i'm sure, but that's just a few of the ways in which the Christian concept of adultery doesn't jibe with me.


Maybe they should have learned a few things before they got murdered, for
all you know a sinfilled life might have led them to that point, or just sheer
idiocy,

ahh, blaming the victim. brings to mind a recent case in my area, and now that i think about it you must be right: that young college student who was murdered while coming home from doing charity work in a bad part of town should really have learned more and stopped being so sinful, because he clearly deserved to be murdered for the $5 that he had in his wallet.

all those rape victims and bystanders in drive-by shootins and shaken babies, they all clearly were just sinful bastards who didn't learn enough, so God killed them in order to prevent their bumbling from irritating him any more. what a loving God.


or maybe you could blame the stupid lawyer who got a murderer off
on a technicality, and the murderer went out and killed someone else.

wait, so i am supposed to blame murder on the lawyers who defend the legal rights of the accused? are you saying that lawyers are to take responsibility for acts they had no part in, but an all-powerful and all-knowing diety gets to be absolved of any responsibility, even though he personally created all people involved and was able to change events at any time? our good samaritan laws would have God in prision in a heartbeat, you realize.


When your numbers up your numbers up, and nothing will change that,
instead of looking at a ridiculous point of how someone is supposed to learn
anything from being murdered, concentrate on what they might have learned
before the day they died.

well hey, if that's just how it is then why the hell is our justice system wasting time punishing the murderer? God wanted the murderer to learn something, and he wanted the victim to die and not have the chance to live and learn any more, so if that's what God wanted then why are we punishing the murderer? God decided that murderer needed to learn through killing, and if we punish him for doing what God wanted him to do then that's not very fair, is it? and we should concentrate more on criticizing any potential limitations or failings of the victim anyway, rather than prosecuting the person who killed them.


You cant blame God for our sins, he lets us have the free will to do what
we like to each other, blame humanity.

if a parent just let their kids have free will and didn't supervise, or in any way take responsibility for when their kids acted out, most people would say that's a shitty parent. if God is the Father then he bears the responsibility of all father and mothers: what you children does on your watch is your responsibility. if my kid gets hold of a gun and shoots your kid while they were playing in my house, i don't get to say it was all the kids' fault just because i was in the other room at the time. i'm supposed to be watching, and protecting those kids from harming one another. the fact that my kid learned from the experience of shooting your kid doesn't make it good at all; if i were any kind of parent, i could have taught both of them that lesson without anybody having to die.


Also if you want to hold God wholly responsible for all the rotten things that
befall us because of our actions, then you will have to give him full credit for
all the great things, we do for each other as well.

and if you don't give God credit for the awfulness then you people had better stop thanking God for any of the good things you do. stop thanking Jesus when you get a promotion, or when your kid graduates, or when another human helps you out. if God's not responsible for the bad then quit thanking him for the good.


Free will again Bottle.

as i have shown, it would be perfectly possible for us to retain the freedom to choose if we were also given the desire to avoid bad choices. we already have that inside us in the form of self-preservation instincts, and i haven't heard you arguing that we lack free will due to those limitations. an all-powerful God would have no problem giving us equally strong desires to avoid causing harm to others, and we would not in any way lose our freedom to choose if he did so.

even if God used a less subtle trick it would still not necessarily negate free will; he could give us a physical barrier to harming one another, if he didn't want to muck about with our nature for some reason. we can't all do everything we choose right now...if i choose to fly off my roof it's not going to work. there is a limit on what i can choose to do, so does that mean i have no free will? i am not able to choose to run at 100mph, so does that mean that lacking that choice negates my free will? if there were an equally physical barrier to my harming another person, how would that negate my free will, if these other things do not?

think about it this way: i've never met a human being who felt compelled to cut off both their arms and smear iodine on the bleeding stumps...does that mean that none of us have free will, since nobody wants to do that? if God could make people have no desire at all to cut of their arms and smear the stumps with iodine, then why couldn't he give us that same natural aversion to doing harm to one another? why couldn't he give us the same natural aversion to any sin, for that matter? indeed, why would he have given us natural aversions to cutting off our limbs, but designed us in such a way that many sins are very very attractive (even if those sins are MORE dangerous than cutting off limbs)? isn't that pretty much like making somebody sick and then commanding them to BE WELL, GODDAMMIT!!!
Trying to tackle this again...

Regardless of whether one has a desire to or not, one exercises free will if one chooses to do those things, and doesn't if one doesn't. Choosing to act is an exercise of free will. Choosing not to act is an exercise of free will. 'Not choosing' is 'not exercising free will', but not any loss of free will.

Acting on a desire is not always a conscious choice; I'm with you, there. But acting without choice is foregoing exercising free will. Does that answer your question?

Lastly, just to re-iterate, free will is ours, not something God implanted or imposed in our "design".

this responds to Wil's post as well, in a way, because he said something about how if God did that then we wouldn't have free will because we wouldn't want to choose evil. that makes no sense at all to me; are either of you claiming that humans don't have free will because we don't have the desire to chop our limbs off? that's a choice that we are all free to make, but we pretty much never, ever will...exactly what i am proposing God should have instilled in us about things like murder or rape. if giving us an aversion to hurting others would have taken away free will, then that means that our aversion to cutting off our limbs also takes away free will, and therefore we don't have free will to begin with and there's no point to be arguing this. conversely, if we can still have free will even there are some limitations to what we will be "able" to choose (based on our natural aversions), then there is no reason why God could not have given us a very strong desire to never harm each other.
It's not about wants. Free will is about choice. Choice is created by having two (or more) things to choose from. In order to have the ability to choose "good over evil" one must have the option to choose "evil". Choosing good is what the Christian religion is all about (crusades and inquisitions aside).

Humans have free will. Period. Only God's interference in our lives, in our/his "design", could take that away, so he will never do that.

if a parent just let their kids have free will and didn't supervise, or in any way take responsibility for when their kids acted out, most people would say that's a shitty parent. if God is the Father then he bears the responsibility of all father and mothers: what you children does on your watch is your responsibility. if my kid gets hold of a gun and shoots your kid while they were playing in my house, i don't get to say it was all the kids' fault just because i was in the other room at the time. i'm supposed to be watching, and protecting those kids from harming one another. the fact that my kid learned from the experience of shooting your kid doesn't make it good at all; if i were any kind of parent, i could have taught both of them that lesson without anybody having to die.
I'm trying to minimalize my interference in this debate you're having with Terminalia, but since I was the one who brought up this whole "lesson" thing, I'd like to address this part.

No offense, but how would you teach this lesson? By telling? "If you kill him, that's bad"? Then they go back to playing and ignore you because you haven't touched on anything in the range of their young experience, and, besides, playing is more fun; and in ten minutes it's forgotten. Experience, the "school of hard knocks", is one of the most profound of teaachers, and in many cases the only way to move the spirit to see the error of its ways. If you want examples I recommend you hit a book store; our literature is full of them.

[Bottle #1789]
if he couldn't, he's not all-powerful or all-knowing, by definition.

i never said anything about God removing our knowledge of the possible sins. we all know that it is possible to chop our arms off, and that doesn't usually change our likelihood of doing so. having no interest in doing something would change our likelihood of doing it, but we would still have exactly the same amount of freedom to choose that thing, and exactly the same knowledge of the possibility.

you may; not all humans do. if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then he could make all humans have that natural aversion, and no human would ever choose to kill or rape or steal.

that was my point; what all-powerful God would use such an abominable teaching method? how is it fair to "educate" a rapist about the error of his ways by allowing him to rape 10 women? how is it just to allow a baby to be shaken to death in order for the mom to learn from her mistakes? if the killer is making a mistake, then why is the VICTIM the one who is paying the ultimate price?

are you actually claiming that an ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-KNOWING GOD cannot come up with a better system?! i can, and i'm not even powerful enough to fix the dripping showerhead in my bathroom!

i'm not afraid of God's justice, any more than i am afraid of Santa's or the Easter Bunny's. what i am afraid of is the actions of the sort of people who believe that their own feelings can be wrong; such people are far more dangerous than most people realize...until it is too late.

Bottle wants to be god. Who would like Bottle to be god..? :)

Bottle is stuck on god as "a big man in the sky". Bottle is a fool.

Bottle doesn't even understand Bottle. Not that any of us do, of course. But Bottle would rather complain about a thing that should be understood and worked with than understand and work with it.

Bottle doesn't want to go to bed at beddy-bye-time. Poor Bottle.

:D

FLAME.

See, this makes me sad.

I usually expect Iakeokeo to do something worthwhile... usually in his own unique style, with some interesting insight, or curious different perspective.

I like it when that happens. I like thinking, and I like the little enigmas that make me think.

This is just flaming, Iakeokeo. This is just being insulting, and I expected better.

You have disappointed me.

I'm trying to minimalize my interference in this debate you're having with Terminalia, but since I was the one who brought up this whole "lesson" thing, I'd like to address this part.

No offense, but how would you teach this lesson? By telling? "If you kill him, that's bad"? Then they go back to playing and ignore you because you haven't touched on anything in the range of their young experience, and, besides, playing is more fun; and in ten minutes it's forgotten. Experience, the "school of hard knocks", is one of the most profound of teaachers, and in many cases the only way to move the spirit to see the error of its ways. If you want examples I recommend you hit a book store; our literature is full of them.
you're kidding me, right? you honestly can't figure out a way to teach children about the realities of life and death without allowing them to murder one of their playmates?

please tell me you are joking.

FLAME.

See, this makes me sad.

I usually expect Iakeokeo to do something worthwhile... usually in his own unique style, with some interesting insight, or curious different perspective.

I like it when that happens. I like thinking, and I like the little enigmas that make me think.

This is just flaming, Iakeokeo. This is just being insulting, and I expected better.

You have disappointed me.
meh, he's never impressed me. i would speak to the mods about his behavior, but i reckon he deserves a break...i mean, he has to live with being the kind of person who posts tripe like the pointless flame you quoted; that's punishment enough.

you're kidding me, right? you honestly can't figure out a way to teach children about the realities of life and death without allowing them to murder one of their playmates?

please tell me you are joking.
Whether I can or not beside the point. The point is that the experience of remorse, repentance, and atonement is a powerful spiritual teaching lesson.

As I said earlier, having power and being powerful is not the same as exercising power. God doesn't decide how things will go. His only active role was in Creation. Everything else is us humans developing our relationship to him.

You could think of him as cold and heartlessly cruel for not interfering when he could have, but that's not very useful spiritually. If you accept that God is imaginged as love, then you see that every mistake we make is "allowed" so that we can learn to grow from it.

God doesn't "send" people to Hell. Being in Hell is a natural consequence of not following your heart. It is being racked by guilt, shame and remose. It is a feeling tearing you up from the inside out.

Okay, time for me to be me again...

God is detailed as making an earth, a sky, a sun, a moon, light... etc. And yet nowhere does it say he made a 'hell'... which is only right, since the earliest Hebrews didn't believe in Hell. They had Sheol, which was originally described as, basically, a big dark eternal nothing... so it wouldn't need to be made.

But, let's ignore that for a moment... it isn't the only time someone played fast and loose with the Hebrew scripture.

My question is, why would god make a hell?

It makes no sense to have to SAVE sinners from damnation - unless he would set it up that way... and why would he?

Especially since, when the world was supposed to have been made, there were no people... and, when Adam and Eve were created, they were created immortal. Since god expresses disappointment (in Genesis) he must have assumed that Adam and Eve were NOT going to fall from grace, so what purpose would a Hell serve... since it could never be experienced?

Also, of course, there is the logical inconsistency of Hell. A god who wants us to learn, but makes 'hell' eternal... so it is a lesson that can never be learned.

And, yes, you could say you should have learned the lesson while you were alive, but then why make an ordeal that is served out in the next life? Why make a next life at all? Wouldn't the best punishment just be to refuse the 'sinner' eternity? The only way it really makes sense is in terms of free-will... but you don't have free-will in Hell... or not will that you can act on.

Of course, all that demons and pitchforks and Satan stuff is totally unsupported in scripture anyway...

Whether I can or not beside the point. The point is that the experience of remorse, repentance, and atonement is a powerful spiritual teaching lesson.
erm, whether you can or not is EXACTLY the point. if you, a mere human, can do that, then how can an all-powerful God possibly be unable to do so? are you saying that God is UNABLE to teach these lessons any way other than killing or torturing the innocent? why on earth would you worship a diety of that sort, rather than fighting tooth and nail against any influence from him?

It's not about wants. Free will is about choice. Choice is created by having two (or more) things to choose from. In order to have the ability to choose "good over evil" one must have the option to choose "evil". Choosing good is what the Christian religion is all about (crusades and inquisitions aside).

Humans have free will. Period. Only God's interference in our lives, in our/his "design", could take that away, so he will never do that.
dude, THAT'S MY POINT. because free will is about having the choice, we would have exactly as much free will in the system i described as we have right now. there would be NO LOSS OF FREE WILL. but there wouldn't be murder, rape, theft or other such harmful acts. my entire point is that it is totally possible to eliminate the acts without eliminating the freedom to CHOOSE the acts...at least, it is totally possible if one assumes the existence of an all-powerful being.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

The last sentance is true. Other than that, there are so many inaccuracies in your post, I do not know where to begin, but I'll start here: One cannot generalize about Athiests, just as one cannot say, "All Christians are intolerant Jew-haters" or "All Muslims = Al Qaeda." I personally am an Athiest because I have yet to see any evidence supporting His, Her, Its or Their existance.

erm, whether you can or not is EXACTLY the point. if you, a mere human, can do that, then how can an all-powerful God possibly be unable to do so? are you saying that God is UNABLE to teach these lessons any way other than killing or torturing the innocent? why on earth would you worship a diety of that sort, rather than fighting tooth and nail against any influence from him?
It's not a matter of whether he is able to or not, since he cannot and will not interfere. And that includes influence. To do so would change who and what we are, and therefore interfere with the "design". So whether he can or not, he will not.

The lessons *are* learned in other ways; I didn't suggest they weren't. My point was just that the process of atonement is a powerful spiritual lesson --in my opinion, the most powerful at a fundamental level of the psyche.

I assume your question about worship is addressed to a generalised "you". The answer is simply that God does not cause the killings and tortures, we do. We choose to do these things. We choose poorly. We cause ourselves grief, and hopefully, individuals who do these things can learn from and grow beyond such actions.

Okay, time for me to be me again...
You were someone else for a while? ;-)

God is detailed as making an earth, a sky, a sun, a moon, light... etc. And yet nowhere does it say he made a 'hell'... which is only right, since the earliest Hebrews didn't believe in Hell. They had Sheol, which was originally described as, basically, a big dark eternal nothing... so it wouldn't need to be made.
Right. God is the Creator. Hell is borrowed, I believe, from the Sumerian concept of the underworld, combined over the years with pagan ideas.
The Christian name for the underworld is 'hell', a name of a Germanic goddess of the underworld, called Hel. She is the sister of the uroboric Midgard, serpent of the ocean that encloses the earth, and sister, too, to the devouring 'Fenris-wolf'. ...[They are] the underwater abyss that swallows up lives, and the serpent who regenerates them.

But, let's ignore that for a moment... it isn't the only time someone played fast and loose with the Hebrew scripture.

My question is, why would god make a hell?

It makes no sense to have to SAVE sinners from damnation - unless he would set it up that way... and why would he?

Especially since, when the world was supposed to have been made, there were no people... and, when Adam and Eve were created, they were created immortal. Since god expresses disappointment (in Genesis) he must have assumed that Adam and Eve were NOT going to fall from grace, so what purpose would a Hell serve... since it could never be experienced?
Carrying on from the same chapter...
...[Tracing the mythology] there is an imaginative gap, since the change from mother to father creator brings with it a corresponding change in the imagery of death, and into this gap, soon to become a yawning cavern, was projected all the torments that fear creates, concretized, as in Babylonian times, into demons with tails and pitchforks, boiling pitch, sulphur and everlasting fire. Creation by the Word means death by the Word, and death was generally envisaged as a punishment for sin, and sin was inevitable. 1
The underworld began long before the Indo-European religions, as one of the oldest of mythologies, the lunar cycle myth, dramatized and enacted by priest and priestess types for thousands of years, that took the goddess on a journey into the dark and unknown (the 3 days when the moon is new) to rescue her recently dead consort and return him to life, to begin a new cycle of 'life'. "Hell" is an unfortunate development, a result of concretizing (making "as if real") and evolving the myth during the Middle-East Bronze Age.

[snip] A dimension of existence that cannot be seen or perceived through the senses, which is invisible and therefore incomprehensible, is filled with the fear of death which is projected into this 'space' as demonic forms or beings. Death begins to be treated as something final and absolute, rather than a rite of passage between two dimensions in the sense that the Egyptians imagined it. The more the known and unknown, light and dark phases of life are split apart and associated with good and evil, the more terrifying the dimension beyond death becomes, and the more demonic is the activity of its (mythological) rulers and emissaries. The ultimate legacy of this fear is reached in the Hebrew Lilith and the Christian image of hell and the devil.

All the more significant, then, is the Sumerian myth of Inanna's Descent, for she, Queen of Heaven and Earth, a young and radiant goddess adorned with all the 'powers' of her office, wishes to experience that unknown dimension of the underworld. 'Opening her ear' to the Great Below, she makes the shamanic journey to the hidden face of life in order to achieve a deeper understanding of its mysteries. Inanna's journey seems to mirror the need of a culture for a ritual that would reconnect it with its psychic roots --the underworld. Her descent is not only a dramatization of the ancient rituals associated with the moon cycle that had influenced human consciousness for so many thousands of years; it also dramatizes an initiation into a feared dimension that was conceived as geographically remote from the 'upper' light world of everyday life and practical concerns.

There is no reason to suppose that the priestesses and priests who ritualized this myth as drama were unaware of its significance and as a rite d'entrée into a dimension already becoming remote and terrifying to human consciousness. It was an initiation into the realization that death is not inimical to life but an essential aspect of its totality and, indeed, the passageway to a 'new' cycle of life. Inanna's descent into the underworld and her return from it after her submission to her sister offered Sumerian culture the paradigm of the 'Great Below' as the essential counterpart of the 'Great Above'.2

Also, of course, there is the logical inconsistency of Hell. A god who wants us to learn, but makes 'hell' eternal... so it is a lesson that can never be learned.

And, yes, you could say you should have learned the lesson while you were alive, but then why make an ordeal that is served out in the next life? Why make a next life at all? Wouldn't the best punishment just be to refuse the 'sinner' eternity? The only way it really makes sense is in terms of free-will... but you don't have free-will in Hell... or not will that you can act on.

Of course, all that demons and pitchforks and Satan stuff is totally unsupported in scripture anyway...
The lesson can only be learned when you are alive and conscious, and the whole idea of the lesson is more conducive to religions that believe in reincarnation.

Quotes from 'The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image'. 1) page 582; 2) page 224.

dude, THAT'S MY POINT. because free will is about having the choice, we would have exactly as much free will in the system i described as we have right now. there would be NO LOSS OF FREE WILL. but there wouldn't be murder, rape, theft or other such harmful acts. my entire point is that it is totally possible to eliminate the acts without eliminating the freedom to CHOOSE the acts...at least, it is totally possible if one assumes the existence of an all-powerful being.
If God changed us so that we were aware of the possibility to kill but no one had any desire to kill so no one ever chose to kill (which in itself is a dubious line of reasoning), then he would also have to take away curiosity, no? Wouldn't you be dying to know what it is that you know you can do but know you have no desire to do? He would also have to take away our sense of adventure and daring do, not to mention our thirst for knowledge. All of which would change the very nature of humans and human relationships.

Really, this line of speculation is silly, in my opinion.

dude, THAT'S MY POINT. because free will is about having the choice, we would have exactly as much free will in the system i described as we have right now. there would be NO LOSS OF FREE WILL. but there wouldn't be murder, rape, theft or other such harmful acts. my entire point is that it is totally possible to eliminate the acts without eliminating the freedom to CHOOSE the acts...at least, it is totally possible if one assumes the existence of an all-powerful being.
Trying this again...

There would be loss of an option to chose from in the system you described, since if there exists a option you are never going to choose, then it is not really an option at all, is it? If our choices are limited by God, especially in the agonizing instance of having an option we know we can never choose, then we no longer have free will to make our own decisions. We are only choosing between options he has decided we can have.

I hate answering speculative questions... ;-)

ok i didnt read all of the replys, only like the first page.
but, heres my opinion on religion (im atheist by the way), there r about 5 gods that i know of (not including mythological gods, african gods, native american gods)
and each god says "believe in me and no other god. or some crap like that. who the helll u supposed to believe? if u just randomly pick u could end up picken the wrong one an go to hell.

on of my other opinions on religion has to do with the bible, the bible in my view must have been written by the government. think of it, there are ten cammandments (did i spell that right?) and each one of them has to do with at last one law, or rules that are just good virtues (dont cheat on wife, mind ur parents, etc.) and if the majority of the american population believes in this there will ultimatly be less crime, which would a pretty good reason to create a religion.

anothr thing, how do u know this bible is the truth, if u believed everything a book told u, u would be hoping that u would grow wings and use magical powers or become the best football player or some crap like that. ppl that read ooo the lord of the rings dont hope one day thay will see a "hobbit" or learn magical power. ppl that play like.... pokemon dont actually think that one day a pokemon will pop outa the ground and say hi. but this one book has its exceptions for some reason that is not shown. how do u know this isnt just a big mythogical story secretly created by homer or something, u dont.


i know by saying all this all im doin is proving my atheism, but i dont care, im just getting my opinions out there for all to here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

as an old friend of mine said

"thank god for buda"

ok i didnt read all of the replys, only like the first page.
but, heres my opinion on religion (im atheist by the way), there r about 5 gods that i know of (not including mythological gods, african gods, native american gods)
and each god says "believe in me and no other god. or some crap like that. who the helll u supposed to believe? if u just randomly pick u could end up picken the wrong one an go to hell.

on of my other opinions on religion has to do with the bible, the bible in my view must have been written by the government. think of it, there are ten cammandments (did i spell that right?) and each one of them has to do with at last one law, or rules that are just good virtues (dont cheat on wife, mind ur parents, etc.) and if the majority of the american population believes in this there will ultimatly be less crime, which would a pretty good reason to create a religion.

anothr thing, how do u know this bible is the truth, if u believed everything a book told u, u would be hoping that u would grow wings and use magical powers or become the best football player or some crap like that. ppl that read ooo the lord of the rings dont hope one day thay will see a "hobbit" or learn magical power. ppl that play like.... pokemon dont actually think that one day a pokemon will pop outa the ground and say hi. but this one book has its exceptions for some reason that is not shown. how do u know this isnt just a big mythogical story secretly created by homer or something, u dont.


i know by saying all this all im doin is proving my atheism, but i dont care, im just getting my opinions out there for all to here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

as an old friend of mine said

"thank god for buda"
"Worlds above, worlds below; there's no one in the world like me." ~buda.

You might enjoy reading the thread, it touches on most of these points, I think.

As I said earlier, having power and being powerful is not the same as exercising power. God doesn't decide how things will go. His only active role was in Creation. Everything else is us humans developing our relationship to him.

You could think of him as cold and heartlessly cruel for not interfering when he could have, but that's not very useful spiritually. If you accept that God is imaginged as love, then you see that every mistake we make is "allowed" so that we can learn to grow from it.

God doesn't "send" people to Hell. Being in Hell is a natural consequence of not following your heart. It is being racked by guilt, shame and remose. It is a feeling tearing you up from the inside out.

Ah, but you're ignoreing the "all knowing" part.

This is what Augustine was trying to say:

If God knows everything, then God knows the future.
If God knows the future, then the future has already been determined.
There is only one being who can determine the future: God

Now, granted, Augustine didn't use "hell," he used permanent and non-permanent existance, as well as the "City of God." Still, what Augustine said applies.

If God is all knowing, then he knows the future. If the future is KNOWN, then it is already determined. The only thing that could ever determine the future in this scenario is the being so powerful that it can see it-God. All if this linking together that God has pre-determined the universe.

I want to make this clear-this does NOT mean that God mantains things day to day. That's more along the lines of Epictetus' god, but his is a VERY different system. Oddly enough, his system is more similer to the way most christians believe now then Augustine's, but I degress.


In the end, it comes to this: If God is ALL knowing-not like Epictetus' wimpy god-then he knows the future, and the only way this can happen is if the future is already set in stone.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.


how is believing in a religion more 'stupid and pointless' then not?

You were someone else for a while? ;-)


Well, I don't want to be predictable, do I....? :)

I just meant that, when one of these threads is waddling along on it's merry way, I sometimes seem to feel the need to throw a box of spanners into the gears... you know, let my 'unique' insight loose...


Right. God is the Creator. Hell is borrowed, I believe, from the Sumerian concept of the underworld, combined over the years with pagan ideas.
The Christian name for the underworld is 'hell', a name of a Germanic goddess of the underworld, called Hel. She is the sister of the uroboric Midgard, serpent of the ocean that encloses the earth, and sister, too, to the devouring 'Fenris-wolf'. ...[They are] the underwater abyss that swallows up lives, and the serpent who regenerates them.


I get this part... I understand the theft of the 'underworld'... and the earliest interpretations of the Hebrew underworld follow closely to most of their contemporaries... with somewhere between nothing and darkness as the ultimate fate of ALL people... nothing to do with sin. (Look at Greek myth, Elysian Fields didn't turn up till very late, and even then, only those closest to the gods got entry... nothing to do with being 'good', just divine nepotism).

It seems that at some point (and I know it is WAY out of character :) ) the Hebrews, or the earliest Hebrews/Christians stole from the Egyptians the idea of a judgement... a weighing of the sins, and a 'destruction' for those falling short.

But this is all context... I guess I am being literalistic again... why does the Christian faith have a hell? It doesn't fit with the advent of Creation, it makes no sense with Adam or Eve, the Serpent isn't going there, Cain isn't going there... it's bolted on way after, and people kind of twist the story in their heads to make it fit in... in the same way Revelations tries to unite all those disparate elements of 'evil' to form one cohesive 'devil'.

Carrying on from the same chapter...
...[Tracing the mythology] there is an imaginative gap, since the change from mother to father creator brings with it a corresponding change in the imagery of death, and into this gap, soon to become a yawning cavern, was projected all the torments that fear creates, concretized, as in Babylonian times, into demons with tails and pitchforks, boiling pitch, sulphur and everlasting fire. Creation by the Word means death by the Word, and death was generally envisaged as a punishment for sin, and sin was inevitable. 1
The underworld began long before the Indo-European religions, as one of the oldest of mythologies, the lunar cycle myth, dramatized and enacted by priest and priestess types for thousands of years, that took the goddess on a journey into the dark and unknown (the 3 days when the moon is new) to rescue her recently dead consort and return him to life, to begin a new cycle of 'life'. "Hell" is an unfortunate development, a result of concretizing (making "as if real") and evolving the myth during the Middle-East Bronze Age.

[INDENT][COLOR=DarkGreen][snip] A dimension of existence that cannot be seen or perceived through the senses, which is invisible and therefore incomprehensible, is filled with the fear of death which is projected into this 'space' as demonic forms or beings. Death begins to be treated as something final and absolute, rather than a rite of passage between two dimensions in the sense that the Egyptians imagined it. The more the known and unknown, light and dark phases of life are split apart and associated with good and evil, the more terrifying the dimension beyond death becomes, and the more demonic is the activity of its (mythological) rulers and emissaries. The ultimate legacy of this fear is reached in the Hebrew Lilith and the Christian image of hell and the devil.


The underworld makes logical sense when you worship the solar disk (since it disappears 'below the ground' every night), and there are certainly visible TRACES of solar worship in the Biblical texts... it makes sense in terms of the fading and reappearing moon... it also makes sense when you have a divine explanation of the cycle of seasons... where the dormant seasons are rescued from the underworld, etc. From here, it is not hard to see how religions develope underworlds that are 'sleep-like', a form of hibernation, almost... like the Greek underworld... since, by association with the birth-and-death of seasons, there is a logical NEED for a birth-and-death parrallel for humans... and one that allows the dead to return, like the seasons, is obviously going to be popular.

I appreciate the mechanism for how an underworld is realised. I appreciate that Duality will always force 'heaven' into the hands of the 'good' god, and the 'underworld' into the hands of the evil god. I also understand why this eventually ended in the corruption of the Angel HaSatan to form a duality with Jehovah - even though Christianity denies this.

What I don't get is how INTERNAL CONSISTENCY allows there to be a hell. It's not even scripturally supported, except in abstracts... and there are so many arguments against...


The lesson can only be learned when you are alive and conscious, and the whole idea of the lesson is more conducive to religions that believe in reincarnation.


I see this. I see how a 'hell' works in reincarnation... you screw up, you get 'taught a lesson' by a spell in whatever hell, then get stuck back out there for another throw of the dice, just a little wiser, this time.

But this doesn't hold true in the case of christianity... and yet, the 'afterlife' in 'hell' is a conscious one. The whole point is that you can suffer, and that makes no logical sense, if you never learn anything from the lesson...

It then becomes a vessel of pure punishment... since their is no 'recovery'.. and it makes no sense for a god to make a hell that only carries out acts of vengeance if he actually doesn't WANT to send people there.

He could have saved time and energy by putting a 'sin scanner' on the gates of heaven, and just reject anyone that fails... no hell, nothing, they just don't get in.

Ah, but you're ignoreing the "all knowing" part.

This is what Augustine was trying to say:

If God knows everything, then God knows the future.
If God knows the future, then the future has already been determined.
There is only one being who can determine the future: God

Now, granted, Augustine didn't use "hell," he used permanent and non-permanent existance, as well as the "City of God." Still, what Augustine said applies.

If God is all knowing, then he knows the future. If the future is KNOWN, then it is already determined. The only thing that could ever determine the future in this scenario is the being so powerful that it can see it-God. All if this linking together that God has pre-determined the universe.
Right, and as far as I know most Christians today don't believe in predestination. At least, every one I've ever asked has said so. It is a contradiction, but not an important one if you just look at religion as the spiritually journey one person makes in their life-time.

I want to make this clear-this does NOT mean that God mantains things day to day. That's more along the lines of Epictetus' god, but his is a VERY different system. Oddly enough, his system is more similer to the way most christians believe now then Augustine's, but I degress.


In the end, it comes to this: If God is ALL knowing-not like Epictetus' wimpy god-then he knows the future, and the only way this can happen is if the future is already set in stone.
Interesting. Thanks.

=Bottle]so humans are more powerful than God. so why do we want to worship him again?

Sorry, but how did you get to that conclusion?

that was my point. if God could give us an aversive reaction to chopping off our limbs, then why couldn't he give us an equally aversive reaction to harming one another?

Well that would be nice, but you have to address specifically who is harming

people first, and why.

Because most people dont want to harm anyone.



and why is an all-powerful God unable to teach people empathy without murdering innocents? why should we worship a God that would choose to teach that way?

How is God murdering anyone, we are the murderers, figuratively speaking,

not him.

On empathy, I would say thats a quality you develope yourself, not one

taught by God, but certainly inspired.



so God doesn't apply in extreme circumstances? i don't see what point you are trying to make; it sounds like you are trying to claim that God can't deal with extreme circumstances, or that his power is somehow dulled in those cases,

If a murderer is stopped suddenly from committing his act, by God, and say

slapped on the wrist and told, dont do it again, if everytime a flood or

earthquake was stopped by God from killing people, humanity as a result of

this happening all the time, for your scenario, would probably end up

resenting God, for always interfering, like a child that is over protected by

anxious parents, it would never grow up.

and if that is so then what the hell do we need him for? i can take care of the mundane circumstances in my life, but it's the extreme ones where an all-powerful and all-good diety might come in handy.

Instead of hoping an all powerful being will bail you out of dangerous

circumstances, why not rely on yourself, I'm a strong believer of God only

helping those who are able to help themselves.

And of course I believe the helpless will receive his mercy.

where have i proposed God would have solved all our problems? anybody who has spent 10 minutes in the real world will tell you that life is full of plenty of problems on its own. taking away the threat that another human will rape or murder you doesn't make life a cakewalk by any means,

Diddums


and there are still millions of dangers and problems that humans would need to overcome. like i said, God limited our desire to harm OURSELVES and that didn't destroy free will, so why would it destroy free will to limit our desire to directly and seriously harm one another?


So by giving us nerve ends so we can feel pain, he limited our desire to harm

ourselves, but we cant feel other peoples nerve ends Bottle, your arguement

is silly.


also, please note that at NO TIME have i suggested that God directly intervene in human interactions by "saving" people who are in trouble. i have been proposing an overhaul of human nature from the start, rather than manipulation of individual events by God.

lol

i don't believe in objective evil because i don't have the faintest idea how any human could find that logical. whether or not God would be involved in that doesn't change my thoughts on it; i have met moral objectivists who are non-religious, and i disagree with them just as much as with religious moral objectivists.

As I said before, the absense of objective evil, would mean evil is only a

changing phenonemen, depending on the views of the time, which it is not,

evil is not subjective to what people view it as, the only way it changes, is

to decieve people to what it actually is.


morality most certainly doesn't have to be objective for God to have an influence on it (theoretically), and i personally don't see how having an objective morality could do anything other than disprove the Christian God. if there is an objective Good and objective Evil, then those are moral rules that are beyond the power of God to alter, and therefore God is not all-powerful or all-knowing.

I believe God is the heart of what is objective good, he is the Truth of all

things, which is natural order, of which chaos is also a part of.

How did evil begin, envy.

For God to alter a moral rule would be going against his own nature.

no emotion is wrong. feeling greed or feeling hate or feeling lust or feeling pride are never, ever wrong, any more than they are "right." they are natural, and neutral. only the way you act upon a feeling can be right or wrong.

I dont agree on the neutral bit, if their neutral for never being acted apon,

then you are saying then, that they have no qualitys that influence our

thoughts.



i don't believe sex between two unmarried people is adultery, as the Bible says. i don't believe that looking at another man or woman is adultery, and i most certainly don't think that feeling lust about another person is adultery. Jesus said, "...whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" and "...Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery," and i don't think either of those is adultery. there's more, i'm sure, but that's just a few of the ways in which the Christian concept of adultery doesn't jibe with me.

But you would have to agree, whether you find it dull or not, that if these

laws were followed, society would be alot better off for it for it.

ahh, blaming the victim. brings to mind a recent case in my area, and now that i think about it you must be right: that young college student who was murdered while coming home from doing charity work in a bad part of town should really have learned more and stopped being so sinful, because he clearly deserved to be murdered for the $5 that he had in his wallet.

Well lets look at what you just said, young college student, probably not a

violent type (please dont scream stereotype at me, I'm just going off what

you have presented) coming home, walking I presume?

From a bad part of town...... hmm... says it all doesnt it?

A lot of people get done over, because their simply unaware of danger, or

what some people are capable of doing to others, should this college student

even though totally guiltless of everything except being foolish perhaps, have

been walking alone through a bad part of town?

I don't think he deserved to die, but you have to acknowelege the lack of

precaution.

Ive noticed an attitude amongst alot of people today, who mistakenly think,

no violence will befall them, if they offer no resistance to it, this could pay

off sometimes, but what about the time it doesnt?

Are you prepared to gamble yours, or your family or friends lives on this never

ever happenning, if no resistance is ever offered?


all those rape victims and bystanders in drive-by shootins and shaken babies, they all clearly were just sinful bastards who didn't learn enough, so God killed them in order to prevent their bumbling from irritating him any more. what a loving God.

What a ridiculous statement.



wait, so i am supposed to blame murder on the lawyers who defend the legal rights of the accused? are you saying that lawyers are to take responsibility for acts they had no part in, but an all-powerful and all-knowing diety gets to be absolved of any responsibility, even though he personally created all people involved and was able to change events at any time? our good samaritan laws would have God in prision in a heartbeat, you realize.

lol so put God on trial for not coming down, and interring in every court case if

something isnt right, free will involves personal responsibilty, don't

worry but, God will judge in the end.



well hey, if that's just how it is then why the hell is our justice system wasting time punishing the murderer? God wanted the murderer to learn something, and he wanted the victim to die and not have the chance to live and learn any more, so if that's what God wanted then why are we punishing the murderer? God decided that murderer needed to learn through killing, and if we punish him for doing what God wanted him to do then that's not very fair, is it? and we should concentrate more on criticizing any potential limitations or failings of the victim anyway, rather than prosecuting the person who killed them.

What your ignoring here is what society learns from the above scenario, why

was this murderer allowed to kill in the first place, and examine the

circumstances that led up to this terrible apex, usually it comes down to

people not wanting anything to do with it along the way, not God.

You have alot of blame for God, but none for people.


if a parent just let their kids have free will and didn't supervise, or in any way take responsibility for when their kids acted out, most people would say that's a shitty parent. if God is the Father then he bears the responsibility of all father and mothers: what you children does on your watch is your responsibility. if my kid gets hold of a gun and shoots your kid while they were playing in my house, i don't get to say it was all the kids' fault just because i was in the other room at the time. i'm supposed to be watching, and protecting those kids from harming one another. the fact that my kid learned from the experience of shooting your kid doesn't make it good at all; if i were any kind of parent, i could have taught both of them that lesson without anybody having to die.

I think your stretching the arguement too far here, you are comparing adults

as kids, in Gods view, which isnt right, and blaming any faults they have

themselves as adults on God, maybe if these 'adults' had been taught better

by their parents they wouldnt grow up so self centred.

God has given us advice on how to raise children properly, if we dont use it,

then how is it his fault?

and if you don't give God credit for the awfulness then you people had better stop thanking God for any of the good things you do. stop thanking Jesus when you get a promotion, or when your kid graduates, or when another human helps you out. if God's not responsible for the bad then quit thanking him for the good.

I dont give God credit for any awfulness, anything manmade can only be

attributed to people who do not follow Gods teachings, not God himself.

Anything natural, can only be attributed to the laws of Chaos which God

cannot interfere with, as he would be going against his own law of order.

And why not thank him for the good natural things, he created them,

and anything good done by people, I thank his influence.



as i have shown, it would be perfectly possible for us to retain the freedom to choose if we were also given the desire to avoid bad choices. we already have that inside us in the form of self-preservation instincts, and i haven't heard you arguing that we lack free will due to those limitations.

Your talking about free will to harm ourselves, sorry Bottle, but to finally

burst your bubble on this, we do have the free will to harm ourselves,

God is not going to come down and stop you from doing so, any more than

he's going to come down and stop you from harming someone else, the only

thing stopping you is how much pain you can take.

God giving us a greater ability to take pain would not help, we would if we

wanted to harm ourselves badly enough, find a way to do it.

Removing all sensations of pain would cause people to do ridiculous things to

themselves and each other, instead of removing all desire to hurt one

another, it would probably have the opposite effect if anything, not to

mention all the accidents we would suffer as a result of being unaware of

the pain.

Pain is the quickest teacher, and also the best, without it, the human race

would not have survived.

an all-powerful God would have no problem giving us equally strong desires to avoid causing harm to others, and we would not in any way lose our freedom to choose if he did so.

But we would, it would make us less human.


even if God used a less subtle trick it would still not necessarily negate free will; he could give us a physical barrier to harming one another, if he didn't want to muck about with our nature for some reason. we can't all do everything we choose right now...if i choose to fly off my roof it's not going to work. there is a limit on what i can choose to do, so does that mean i have no free will? i am not able to choose to run at 100mph, so does that mean that lacking that choice negates my free will? if there were an equally physical barrier to my harming another person, how would that negate my free will, if these other things do not?

As I answered previously, it would if anything cause resentment, we would

ask, where did this barrier come from, why can't I plunge this knife into

someones head, why do I want to plunge it, if I know I can't anyway?

This, especially the last part, could cause enormous emotional damage, if say

you see a child in this world of yours, being led away by a child molester

who has convinced the child to go with him, you would not under your laws

be able to touch him, thanks to your barrier, have you considered this, or any

other problems that could arise?

Right, and as far as I know most Christians today don't believe in predestination....


Take a map of the USA... draw a line across from the top of the Carolinas, over Alabama and make sure you catch Texas, althouh you can stop before New Mexico.

Now look below that line.

As far as I can tell, most of the people you are now looking at, believe in predestination...

... like a child that is over protected by
anxious parents, it would never grow up....



Yes... and it IS vitally important that mankind evolves and grows isn't it?

What with all these christian doomsayers prophesying the end time any time from tonight to a few years down the line...

That's the problem, it doesn't make sense... why does 'god' need us to learn these lessons the ahrd way, if he's going to torch the planet clean this weekend?

It amazes me that christians seem to think that a) god is wise beyond all comprehension, and yet b) dumb beyond all belief.

I appreciate the mechanism for how an underworld is realised. I appreciate that Duality will always force 'heaven' into the hands of the 'good' god, and the 'underworld' into the hands of the evil god. I also understand why this eventually ended in the corruption of the Angel HaSatan to form a duality with Jehovah - even though Christianity denies this.

What I don't get is how INTERNAL CONSISTENCY allows there to be a hell. It's not even scripturally supported, except in abstracts... and there are so many arguments against...


I see this. I see how a 'hell' works in reincarnation... you screw up, you get 'taught a lesson' by a spell in whatever hell, then get stuck back out there for another throw of the dice, just a little wiser, this time.

But this doesn't hold true in the case of christianity... and yet, the 'afterlife' in 'hell' is a conscious one. The whole point is that you can suffer, and that makes no logical sense, if you never learn anything from the lesson...

It then becomes a vessel of pure punishment... since their is no 'recovery'.. and it makes no sense for a god to make a hell that only carries out acts of vengeance if he actually doesn't WANT to send people there.

He could have saved time and energy by putting a 'sin scanner' on the gates of heaven, and just reject anyone that fails... no hell, nothing, they just don't get in.
I don't have an answer for why the Christian faith has holds onto the idea dispite it not fitting well with their mythology of love, but I've always seen it as a part of tradition, which includes a number of things that are not included in and supported by the Bible. What the book is suggesting, though, is that it was always there, that it began as a hold-over from the lunar worshipping religion out of which monotheistic Judaism arose (creating the duality), and then was modified and molded into the demonized thing it eventually became in Christianity.

=Grave_n_idle]Yes... and it IS vitally important that mankind evolves and grows isn't it?

Yes, it is important, in the sense of people growing up and becoming mature,

I dont think this is some gradual evolvement of humanity, I'm sure their

were people around thousands or hundreds of years ago far more mature,

than a lot of people around now.

What with all these christian doomsayers prophesying the end time any time from tonight to a few years down the line...

It is coming, The great Tribulation is supposed to begin in 2006 and end in

2012, giving the seven years forcast in Revelation.


That's the problem, it doesn't make sense... why does 'god' need us to learn these lessons the ahrd way, if he's going to torch the planet clean this weekend?

The hard way is the only way to learn.


It amazes me that christians seem to think that a) god is wise beyond all comprehension, and yet b) dumb beyond all belief.

Dumb?

But thats a dumb thing to say isnt it?

Isaac Newton was a Christian, are you saying he was an exception to the

rule of all Christians being 'dumb' according to you?

I dont give God credit for any awfulness, anything manmade can only be

attributed to people who do not follow Gods teachings, not God himself.

Anything natural, can only be attributed to the laws of Chaos which God

cannot interfere with, as he would be going against his own law of order.

And why not thank him for the good natural things, he created them,

and anything good done by people, I thank his influence.

Sad.

no emotion is wrong. feeling greed or feeling hate or feeling lust or feeling pride are never, ever wrong, any more than they are "right." they are natural, and neutral. only the way you act upon a feeling can be right or wrong.I dont agree on the neutral bit, if their neutral for never being acted apon,
then you are saying then, that they have no qualitys that influence our
thoughts.
I positively cheered when you raised this point. There is the spiritual journey in a nutshell --the ability of our subjective thoughts and feelings to shape who we are, to shape our reality. What we can "do" with subjective concepts, the output of our feelings that can be judged "right" or "wrong", can be manifest in the physical world or the mental/spiritual one. How we let them influence our thoughts can be as important as the hand we raise in action.

Sad.

Care to elaborate, do you have anything?

I positively cheered when you raised this point. There is the spiritual journey in a nutshell --the ability of our subjective thoughts and feelings to shape who we are, to shape our reality. What we can "do" with subjective concepts, the output of our feelings that can be judged "right" or "wrong", can be manifest in the physical world or the mental/spiritual one. How we let them influence our thoughts can be as important as the hand we raise in action.

Exactly, and thanks Willamenia for saying so.

Bottle fails to realise our thoughts have as much to do with shaping us as

our actions do.

Example a lust filled man addicted to pornography and sex, may not be guilty

a hundred percent of the time for not committing the actual act, but never

the less, his thoughts are filled with lust like a destroying cancer that

obliterates everything else, and makes him blind to how others see him.

Or a young woman overtaken by greed, may not be in the act of robbing her

poor dying rich geriatric husband, but still the intention that overules all other

aspects of her personality because of its magnitude, shapes her as well.

Seriously though, the "right to bear arms" is a load of old shit, if there were no guns people wouldn't need guns to protect themselves. There would be no armed robberies or any of that crap. Why do you think people in America get shot so much? Guns, and the media constantly feeding everyone the same old shit about people getting shot and kidnapped to keep everyone in a state of fear to make money for gun companies.


I like guns because I know that somewhere out there there is somebody who doesn't like me and has a gun, and I'd like to be able to defend myself against that person.

Hey y'all.
I've been through enough forums to know that people hate newbs who show up trying to make it look like they know what's going on and they actually don't so I'll just say my peace and see what happens.
All human beings on earth have asked one basic question at some point, "Why are we here?" It has been man's mission for hundreds of thousands of years to attempt to answer this question. So, one neanderthal looked at the sun one day and thought that the sun was his creator and so he told this to his clan and they took it from there. They began worshipping this "sun god" and passed on their traditions to thier children and their children did the same to the next generation. Thus, religion is born!
One can only assume that this made life a little easier for primitive peoples; always knowing that someone or something is watching over you and keeping you safe. This is perhaps why the simple tradition of having a religion to belong to has lasted for so long. But this gives rise to the problem of, "what does it mean when something bad happens? has the sun abbandoned us in our time of need?" Thus, philosophy is born! With philosophy comes reason and it's pretty easy to see where I am going, I hope.
We must all use reason in our daily lives. This means for both so called Atheists and Religious People alike. I believe in God and that he watches out for me and my family and friends. Does that mean EVERYONE has to as well? No. Reason tells me that everyone will find the answers to their questions when the answers need to be found. I don't believe in religion, but I feel it plays an intrical role in our society, keeping people together and giving them a common ground to stand on with others.
Well, I hope I haven't bored anyone to tears with my little speil. This is where I stand, pretty much middle of the road. feel free to hit me with what ya got, constructive critiscisms if at all possbile. It is four am for me so I may not be getting my ideas out clearly. Thanks and I hope to be able to contribute more insight in the future!

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

I'm sorry, i know this is a completely random quote from ages ago but it amused me. RaidersNation says "athiesm is just a religion" and then later says, quite forcefully "Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion"!

Does anyone see the contradiction.

It is coming, The great Tribulation is supposed to begin in 2006 and end in
2012, giving the seven years forcast in Revelation.


See, that's my point. And what do you base that on, Terminalia?

In 999AD they said that all the requirements of revelation had been fulfilled, and that 1000AD was going to be the end of the age. They've said pretty much the same thing on a fairly regular basis almost every year since. 1666 and 2000 were both supposed to be the 'day of judgement'.

See, doom-seers have been desperate for it to happen pretty much since Jesus died... and it still hasn't. And, every time it doesn't happen, they just pluck a new date from the ether, and decide it really IS going to happen that time...

I find it sad that some people are SO desperate for the end of the world.


Dumb?
But thats a dumb thing to say isnt it?
Isaac Newton was a Christian, are you saying he was an exception to the
rule of all Christians being 'dumb' according to you?

Not even going to reply until you go back and read what I wrote. *SHAKES HEAD IN DISGUST AT TERMINALIA'S INABILITY TO READ*

I'm sorry, i know this is a completely random quote from ages ago but it amused me. RaidersNation says "athiesm is just a religion" and then later says, quite forcefully "Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion"!

Does anyone see the contradiction.

Yes, I dont think it was intended but.

So, one neanderthal looked at the sun one day and thought that the sun was his creator and so he told this to his clan and they took it from there. They began worshipping this "sun god" and passed on their traditions to thier children and their children did the same to the next generation. Thus, religion is born!

I dont think it was just decided on a casual glance at the Sun, the sun was

worshipped by early cultures for the life it gave, the comfort that came from

it.

It caused things to grow, so it fed them, it took away the chill of night, so

it warmed them, I think it was reverred and rightly so, by cultures that

depended on their very lives for it, not as their actual creator, but as a force

that helped create life, in their position wouldnt you do the same?

I would.

See, that's my point. And what do you base that on, Terminalia?

Current attitudes and world events, that correspond with biblical prophecy,

also the ancient Mayan calander runs out

on the year 2012.

In 999AD they said that all the requirements of revelation had been fulfilled, and that 1000AD was going to be the end of the age.

That was just to boost church attendances, the year 1000AD had a

prophetic ring to it, so it was used to the hilt.

And it was the end of an age, the first millenium.

so They've said pretty much the same thing on a fairly regular basis almost every year since. 1666

I666 was always going to be viewed with uncertainty.

London burned down in this year, a prominant Christian city, also forseen by

Nostradamus.

and 2000 were both supposed to be the 'day of judgement'.

Yeah well, theres alot of uncertainty if we are even in the correct year,

early records werent the best.

I think 2000 was a significant marker in biblical prophecy, but not the

beginning of tribulation.

See, doom-seers have been desperate for it to happen pretty much since Jesus died... and it still hasn't. And, every time it doesn't happen, they just pluck a new date from the ether, and decide it really IS going to happen that time...

No one knows when it will happen, there are heaps of verses in the old and

new testaments about that, but it will happen.

And I think the time, has pretty much almost arrived


I find it sad that some people are SO desperate for the end of the world.

Well Im not, I want at least another twenty happy years before I'm

persecuted to death for being a Christian, but its not up to me.



Not even going to reply until you go back and read what I wrote. *SHAKES HEAD IN DISGUST AT TERMINALIA'S INABILITY TO READ*

Quote Grave,
Post 1838:
It amazes me that christians seem to think that a) god is wise beyond all comprehension, and yet b) dumb beyond all belief.

You seem to be saying here either Christians are dumb or God is, why would

God be dumb?

Is that what your saying, if so, why is God in your opinion, dumb?

Quote Grave,
Post 1838:
It amazes me that christians seem to think that a) god is wise beyond all comprehension, and yet b) dumb beyond all belief.

You seem to be saying here either Christians are dumb or God is, why would

God be dumb?

Is that what your saying, if so, why is God in your opinion, dumb?
let me help you out, Terminalia.

Grave was making the point that many Christians claim God is all-knowing but then ascribe behaviors to God that are very, very stupid. he was not claiming God is dumb (or that God is smart, either), nor was he saying Christians are dumb. he was pointing out the inconsistency in some of the beliefs held by Christians. can you see the distinction?

Care to elaborate, do you have anything?

Do you ever?

I'm interested in this whole "Great Tribulation" thing. Is that anything like the Rapture? Cause if it is I don't see how anything like that could ever happen. For the Rapture, all "good" people are to be taken directly to heaven, no death, no loss of soul, nothing. They're just wisked away right into God's arms. But this belief is one I've only heard from Christians who assume that they are the only ones who will ever experience the Rapture and that all Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics and everyone else who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as the "personal savior" will be left behind. If God is supposed to be all merciful and compassionate, why whould He leave anyone behind. God forgive's all sins, why would some be punished and others rewarded?

If God is supposed to be all merciful and compassionate, why whould He leave anyone behind. God forgive's all sins, why would some be punished and others rewarded?

Not that I think the Rapture's going to happen quite like that...

But why would a parent punish one child and reward the other if they act differently? I mean, if he loves them both, wouldn't he treat them exactly the same in all respects all the time?

And further more, if the parent loves both children unconditionally, why should his children obey him?

Not that I think the Rapture's going to happen quite like that...

But why would a parent punish one child and reward the other if they act differently? I mean, if he loves them both, wouldn't he treat them exactly the same in all respects all the time?

And further more, if the parent loves both children unconditionally, why should his children obey him?

Yeah, so if one child doesn't do what you say, you put it in the oven.

Yeah, so if one child doesn't do what you say, you put it in the oven.

So maybe Hell isn't an oven...

So maybe Hell isn't an oven...

Nontheles, it is eternal punishment for a non-eternal offense. Some great parenting there.

Nontheles, it is eternal punishment for a non-eternal offense. Some great parenting there.

Not necessarily. If you'll excuse my personal beliefs getting into the debate here, my interpretation of Catholic dogma suggests hardcore athiests go to Purgatory, which is not eternal. It's also the place I'm probably ending up. Hell's overrated.

Not necessarily. If you'll excuse my personal beliefs getting into the debate here, my interpretation of Catholic dogma suggests hardcore athiests go to Purgatory, which is not eternal. It's also the place I'm probably ending up. Hell's overrated.


Well, I for one, wouldn't want to go to Heaven, eternity in bliss sounds boring (blissfully boring) but boring. I figure hell, while bad, would at least keep my mind occupied.

But to answer the topic of this: I feel death is actually a good thing, it gets you away from all this stupidity called life. When it happens, it's over, nothing afterwards, absolutely nothing. Can't really explain it more than that, and can't see any reason why anyone would fear not existing, if they wouldn't know about it after they stopped existing.

That's my heaven, and while most don't like the idea of nothingness and this life not having a meaning in the grand scheme of things, I see it as the ultimate release. Granted, I won't be able to enjoy my nothingness, but I'm happy now knowing it'll eventually come to that.

Well, I for one, wouldn't want to go to Heaven, eternity in bliss sounds boring (blissfully boring) but boring. I figure hell, while bad, would at least keep my mind occupied.

But to answer the topic of this: I feel death is actually a good thing, it gets you away from all this stupidity called life. When it happens, it's over, nothing afterwards, absolutely nothing. Can't really explain it more than that, and can't see any reason why anyone would fear not existing, if they wouldn't know about it after they stopped existing.

That's my heaven, and while most don't like the idea of nothingness and this life not having a meaning in the grand scheme of things, I see it as the ultimate release. Granted, I won't be able to enjoy my nothingness, but I'm happy now knowing it'll eventually come to that.

Hey, you won't get any resistance from me. Great men and women have aspired to that afterlife (or lack thereof). As an aside, I would never ever describe Heaven as boring, but whatever.

So, if you had to chose, would you pick Heaven, Hell, Nirvanna, or Valhalla? Valhalla would keep your mind occupied! And you'd be in such great shape with all that excercise!

Well, I'd rather have nothingness, but if i had to choose, I'd choose hell. I'm sure I'd meet lots of interesting people there, and from what I keep getting told, it's where I'm going anyways ;)

let me help you out, Terminalia.

Grave was making the point that many Christians claim God is all-knowing but then ascribe behaviors to God that are very, very stupid. he was not claiming God is dumb (or that God is smart, either), nor was he saying Christians are dumb. he was pointing out the inconsistency in some of the beliefs held by Christians. can you see the distinction?

I guess I was right, then... it WAS just Terminalia failing to read it correctly...

Thank you, Bottle.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm being too cryptic, when I think I'm being obvious...

Current attitudes and world events, that correspond with biblical prophecy, also the ancient Mayan calander runs out on the year 2012.


Biblical prophecy is easily like that, though... "Wars and rumours of wars"? I mean, come on.... show me an age without "wars and rumours of wars"...

And the Mayan calender does run out on December 21st 2012, and then the next age begins, after the intersection of the Milky Way with the plane of the ecliptic... but since you are not a Mayan, and since that doesn't prophesise the end of the world, I'm not sure why you mentioned it?


That was just to boost church attendances, the year 1000AD had a
prophetic ring to it, so it was used to the hilt.
And it was the end of an age, the first millenium.


It's always just to boost church attendences, though. The church 'needs' the threat of the world being destroyed, 'needs' the threat of burning in hell... to keep people coming back.


I666 was always going to be viewed with uncertainty.
London burned down in this year, a prominant Christian city, also forseen by
Nostradamus.


Which Nostradumus quatrain do you link to the fire of London? Curious.


Yeah well, theres alot of uncertainty if we are even in the correct year,
early records werent the best.
I think 2000 was a significant marker in biblical prophecy, but not the
beginning of tribulation.


Whereas, I don't think it has ANY scriptural significance, or any other significance, except for being the first year number in the 2000's.


No one knows when it will happen, there are heaps of verses in the old and
new testaments about that, but it will happen.
And I think the time, has pretty much almost arrived


Like I said, people have been saying that same thing for 2000 years now.

Longer, in some cultures.

Yes... and it IS vitally important that mankind evolves and grows isn't it?

What with all these christian doomsayers prophesying the end time any time from tonight to a few years down the line...

That's the problem, it doesn't make sense... why does 'god' need us to learn these lessons the ahrd way, if he's going to torch the planet clean this weekend?

It amazes me that christians seem to think that a) god is wise beyond all comprehension, and yet b) dumb beyond all belief.
Yes, I think it IS vitally important. Even Joseph Campbell, an ex-Christian like yourself, thought so. Not necessarily mature in a Christian religion, but spiritually mature in some sort of religion. Mankind did not suddenly invent religion on a whim or out of the blue (as was susggested in a post by another rather amusing poster) but out of a necessity to feed a very important part of the psyche, one that needs to acknowledge a place in the much larger universe.

Mankind needs to compartmentalise, rationalise and define. Science is a breaking down the world into managable, comprehendable bits that help define the whole. It helps put man in his place in the scheme of things. Religion does the same thing in another way, it puts man in his place and feeds the inner concepts, those areas on which science cannot tread. One method for the objective world (that which is informed by nature), the other for the subjective world (that which is informed by human nature).

Do you ever?

Pointless flamer :rolleyes:

go and find some toys to play with.

Biblical prophecy is easily like that, though... "Wars and rumours of wars"? I mean, come on.... show me an age without "wars and rumours of wars"...
Not fair :-) since history has only been kept since the Bronze Age.

I'm interested in this whole "Great Tribulation" thing. Is that anything like the Rapture? Cause if it is I don't see how anything like that could ever happen. For the Rapture, all "good" people are to be taken directly to heaven, no death, no loss of soul, nothing. They're just wisked away right into God's arms. But this belief is one I've only heard from Christians who assume that they are the only ones who will ever experience the Rapture and that all Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics and everyone else who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as the "personal savior" will be left behind. If God is supposed to be all merciful and compassionate, why whould He leave anyone behind. God forgive's all sins, why would some be punished and others rewarded?

Personally I believe the rapture is for the devout Christians only, as a reward.

Of course this doesnt mean no one else will be saved, during and after the

Tribulation.

Yes, I think it IS vitally important. Even Joseph Campbell, an ex-Christian like yourself, thought so. Not necessarily mature in a Christian religion, but spiritually mature in some sort of religion. Mankind did not suddenly invent religion on a whim or out of the blue (as was susggested in a post by another rather amusing poster) but out of a necessity to feed a very important part of the psyche, one that needs to acknowledge a place in the much larger universe.

Mankind needs to compartmentalise, rationalise and define. Science is a breaking down the world into managable, comprehendable bits that help define the whole. It helps put man in his place in the scheme of things. Religion does the same thing in another way, it puts man in his place and feeds the inner concepts, those areas on which science cannot tread. One method for the objective world (that which is informed by nature), the other for the subjective world (that which is informed by human nature).

I disagree with Joseph Campbell.

I think some people may need to 'evolve' spiritually, but I think it is irrelevent for others. To MY thinking, religion filled the void after the most basic animism, but before an age of enlightenment. Religion is only as necessary now, as an individual feels it is. Like I say, though, that's just my thinking.

What I was referring to, in my discourse with Terminalia, is the irony of insisting on growth within the spiritual context most christians espouse, which calls for the end of the world at any moment. It makes it somewhat of a nonsense to be shaping people by this gradual method, when you are planning on blasting the surface of the world to atoms, three weeks from next friday.

Me, personally? I believe whole-heartedly in growth and self-improvement. But that is because I assume this is all I get, and I have no illusions that I'll be coming back for another try, or sitting on a cloud reviewing my play-by-play at some later date. If this is all I'll get, I'll do everything I can with it.

Not fair :-) since history has only been kept since the Bronze Age.

Now THAT depends on who is keeping the history...

American Natives have oral traditions dating back something like 9,000 years, and the Venus of Willendorf could be argued as a historical artifact somewhere close to 25,000 years old...

I didn't really mean AGES as in the stone age, the bronze age, etc.

(As, I suspect, you well know ;)... )

I meant gradations of our modern history... you know... show me a 20 year gap where everyone was at peace...?

Well, I'd rather have nothingness, but if i had to choose, I'd choose hell. I'm sure I'd meet lots of interesting people there, and from what I keep getting told, it's where I'm going anyways ;)

Enjoy the pitchfork prods.

Which Nostradumus quatrain do you link to the fire of London? Curious.
This one's easily googled. http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/WithBr5.htm
The blood of the just will be
demanded of London
Burnt by fire in the year '66
The ancient Lady will fall from her high place
And many of the same sect will be killed C2 Q51

All that technical jargon leaves me cold, sorry. I don't even know what those words mean, nevermind be able to think in terms of them on any consistent basis.Probably the same problem as I have with Faith, then. Not that my Science is a direct replacement for Faith, it's just a place that I hang my hat because it appears to be fixed to something solid.

As for the rest, I need to take time understanding the terms as they are described, so won't respond directly at this moment. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Biblical prophecy is easily like that, though... "Wars and rumours of wars"? I mean, come on.... show me an age without "wars and rumours of wars"...

Dont forget famine, and plague...



And the Mayan calender does run out on December 21st 2012, and then the next age begins, after the intersection of the Milky Way with the plane of the ecliptic...
Doesnt that bother you, that such an incredible thing was fortold thousands

of years ago, and has also been prophecised by Christians as the end of

Tribulation as well?

What better way to showcase it!


but since you are not a Mayan, and since that doesn't prophesise the end of the world, I'm not sure why you mentioned it?

Well obviously because the dates correspond.


It's always just to boost church attendences, though. The church 'needs' the threat of the world being destroyed, 'needs' the threat of burning in hell... to keep people coming back.

Actually, in all the years I've attended church, I have hardly heard this once

been discussed in a sermon.


Which Nostradumus quatrain do you link to the fire of London? Curious.

Century 2 Quatrain 51

http://www.psychicinvestigator.com/demo/WithBr5.htm



Whereas, I don't think it has ANY scriptural significance, or any other significance, except for being the first year number in the 2000's.

For me, its because its 6 years from the beginning of tribulation, and 6 is the

Devils number.

Like I said, people have been saying that same thing for 2000 years now.
Longer, in some cultures.

I think the time has almost arrived, neverless.

I disagree with Joseph Campbell.

I think some people may need to 'evolve' spiritually, but I think it is irrelevent for others. To MY thinking, religion filled the void after the most basic animism, but before an age of enlightenment. Religion is only as necessary now, as an individual feels it is. Like I say, though, that's just my thinking.

What I was referring to, in my discourse with Terminalia, is the irony of insisting on growth within the spiritual context most christians espouse, which calls for the end of the world at any moment. It makes it somewhat of a nonsense to be shaping people by this gradual method, when you are planning on blasting the surface of the world to atoms, three weeks from next friday.

Me, personally? I believe whole-heartedly in growth and self-improvement. But that is because I assume this is all I get, and I have no illusions that I'll be coming back for another try, or sitting on a cloud reviewing my play-by-play at some later date. If this is all I'll get, I'll do everything I can with it.
I think I've put my foot in it again, by not specifying that I meant religion, not religion. haha

That is, religion as in the internal process of relating outward, as opposed to religion as in the external processes that are impressed inward. Subject/object divide again.

Personally, I don't think there is a human alive who doesn't practice the former, although they may shun the later as organized religions.

Not that I think the Rapture's going to happen quite like that...

But why would a parent punish one child and reward the other if they act differently? I mean, if he loves them both, wouldn't he treat them exactly the same in all respects all the time?

And further more, if the parent loves both children unconditionally, why should his children obey him?
bingo. if God loves me no matter what, then he won't torture me for eternity (that act being totally inconsistent with any kind of love that is worth having), so i don't have to worry about my actions in this life. on the other hand, if God is going to eternally torture me for the act of sleeping with another woman, eating meat on a Friday, or any other temporal sin, then He very clearly doesn't love me. he also very clearly has no sense of justice, since he is choosing to punish me eternally for my non-eternal crime.

so if God is loving, i don't have to do anything in particular during my life, including worshipping him or even acknowledging his presence. if God is unloving then he is not a God that i should worship anyway, and therefore i shouldn't spend any time in this life being religious. cool...even if i assume God exists i still reach the conclusion that i have no reason to be religious.

Probably the same problem as I have with Faith, then. Not that my Science is a direct replacement for Faith, it's just a place that I hang my hat because it appears to be fixed to something solid.

As for the rest, I need to take time understanding the terms as they are described, so won't respond directly at this moment. Sorry.
Let me know if you need any help deciphering what I say, as I often speak from a position of knowing exactly what I'm talking about --and being the only one to do so. ;-)

This one's easily googled. http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/WithBr5.htm
The blood of the just will be
demanded of London
Burnt by fire in the year '66
The ancient Lady will fall from her high place
And many of the same sect will be killed C2 Q51

ah hah... I see the problem... This is always an issue, when translating from a foreign language, especially text that was written nearly 500 years ago...

My translation of Nostradamus gives:

The blood of the just will commit a fault at London,
Burnt through lightning of twenty threes the six:
The ancient lady will fall from her high place,
Several of the same sect will be killed

And, apart from having the words "London", "Burnt" and "twenty threes the six" (whatever that means.. we are just guessing it means 66 or 666... but surely 138 would be more likely?), I still don't see a connection...

Ah well, I guess I'll have to hunt out a french-language version, and see what I can make of it from the native tongue...

What I was referring to, in my discourse with Terminalia, is the irony of insisting on growth within the spiritual context most christians espouse, which calls for the end of the world at any moment. It makes it somewhat of a nonsense to be shaping people by this gradual method, when you are planning on blasting the surface of the world to atoms, three weeks from next friday.
It is my understanding that the "end of the world" is a literalist Evangelist interpretation of Revelations, and again not all Christians fail to recognize the metaphor and symbolism in what is written in the Bible. From speaking with Christian friends in another forum, though, they do seem to share a sense that humanity in its present state is doomed, and that "non-religious thinking" is eroding the "fabric of society". At least, that's what I'm told.

Are Protestants a majority in Christianity?

Doesnt that bother you, that such an incredible thing was fortold thousands
of years ago, and has also been prophecised by Christians as the end of
Tribulation as well?

Well obviously because the dates correspond.


An incredible thing... yes, it is impressive... do you know what the Mayans predicted for 2012?

I mentioned it, but I think you suffered a Terminalia attack, and accidentally tragically didn't read it.

They weren't talking about the end of the world, Terminalia.. they were talking about the 'tree of life'... part of their CREATION myth... the point where the Milky Way will cross the plane of the ecliptic... if anything... it's a beginning of the count again.

ANd I am impressed by the Mayan mathematicians... to calculate precession so accurately that they can pinpoint an astrological alignment to within 24 hours, just based on their observations.

But, I still don't get why Mayan astrology, Mayan 'Creationism', and the conjunction of stars has anything to do with your case...

Or, for that matter, how you can be accepting an 'astrological' evidence (since such are forbidden scripturally)... or why you claim support from an astrological calculation made several hundred years BEFORE Jesus was supposedly even born?

Ah... I see "Well obviously because the dates correspond."... so, it doesn't matter WHAT they were talking about... if they use the same number, they are proving you right... *sigh*

And, apart from having the words "London", "Burnt" and "twenty threes the six" (whatever that means.. we are just guessing it means 66 or 666... but surely 138 would be more likely?), I still don't see a connection...
The connection is that people who want to believe they've deciphered the quatrains fiddle with it unitl it makes a literal sense so that they can ignore the fact that it was written to be cryptic. ;-)

I think Augustine had it right when he said that in Christianity, there MUST be pre-determination. Otherwise, God isn't all knowing.

It's simple. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then everything that will happened has already been set up. Free will cannot co-exist with an all knowing and all-powerful deity. To have "free will" means you can make a decision for yourself. To make a decision for yourself means you can go through door A when Go wants you to go through door B. This is impossible of God is all powerful and all knowing.


Therefore, God decides everything before it happens.
Therefore, all actions exist because of God.
Therefore, if hell exists, and people are sent to hell, they are sent from and because of God.
Therefore God sends people to hell on purpose.
The future is that which has not yet happened. If you presume that even God cannot know things that have not happened, then this line of reasoning falls apart, no? Why must "all-knowing" include things that have not happened?

I suspect this definition of "all-knowing" stems from a time when people believed in Fate through the mechanisation of the universe, as hypothesized by Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria (http://nineplanets.org/psc/theman.html) in the 2nd Century AD.

Ptolemy proposed a model of the universe that was orderly and structured, like a clock-work machine, where effect followed cause in a steady progression of events from the beginning of time to the end. Essentially, he clocked Fate. Ptolemy was a scientist and astrologer, and used his idea to redefine the ground theories supporting how astrology works (he is the father of modern astrology).

Ptolemy's "machine of destiny" served as the working physical and philosophical model for the universe for about 1700 years thereafter, until Copernicus looked through the telescope at Jupiter in 1543. And this long-standing influence still shapes many of the ideas people cling to today, such as our modern definition of Fate and the belief that the future is knowable.

=Grave_n_idle]An incredible thing... yes, it is impressive... do you know what the Mayans predicted for 2012?
I mentioned it, but I think you suffered a Terminalia attack, and accidentally tragically didn't read it.
They weren't talking about the end of the world, Terminalia.. they were talking about the 'tree of life'... part of their CREATION myth... the point where the Milky Way will cross the plane of the ecliptic... if anything... it's a beginning of the count again.

I said it was amazing didnt I?

The Milky way will 'cross' the plane of the ecliptic...

'tree of life'... sounds a bit Christian, don't you think.


ANd I am impressed by the Mayan mathematicians... to calculate precession so accurately that they can pinpoint an astrological alignment to within 24 hours, just based on their observations.

It was as good as the Ancient pyramids, which I think supports an older

vanished civilisation in between them that connected the two, or gave birth

to both.


But, I still don't get why Mayan astrology, Mayan 'Creationism', and the conjunction of stars has anything to do with your case...

Stars if you hadnt noticed, are mentioned alot in the Bible, in fact a hell of a

lot, and of course the dates, both 'faiths' each have, not to mention the

current world situation.


Or, for that matter, how you can be accepting an 'astrological' evidence (since such are forbidden scripturally)... or why you claim support from an astrological calculation made several hundred years BEFORE Jesus was supposedly even born?

Well God made the stars and knows all their allignments, so its not wrong to

set certain dates by them, I think your referring more to the Zodiac and

guiding your life by the stars and planets, which is what the Bible forbids.

Ah... I see "Well obviously because the dates correspond."... so, it doesn't matter WHAT they were talking about... if they use the same number, they are proving you right... *sigh*


Well I find it hard to believe, its coincidence.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

I don't mean to nitpick, but didn't you just contradict yourself?
To put things in perspective, do Athiests cause half as many fights as organised religions?

Why is it narrow-minded for us to struggle to believe that there is nothing after death but OK to think a big guy that created the Earth in 7 days 10,000 years ago and then placed fossils to test our faith will evaluate us and decide whether we go to paradise or suffer for eternity? (of course, that's only the chrisitians)

'tree of life'... sounds a bit Christian, don't you think.


No. Terminalia. They had a 'tree of life' BEFORE Jesus... so it can't be Christian, can it? I suspect you meant Hebrew... but you are ignoring the fact that trees, in one form or another are one of the cores of many mythologies... the Norse World Tree, Odin being hanged from the Tree...


It was as good as the Ancient pyramids, which I think supports an older
vanished civilisation in between them that connected the two, or gave birth
to both.


So... the fact that both cultures could count and build means they must have a common origin?


Stars if you hadnt noticed, are mentioned alot in the Bible, in fact a hell of a
lot, and of course the dates, both 'faiths' each have, not to mention the
current world situation.


Yes... some of the stars sing, don't they. And others fall from the sky and land on the earth... so, I guess it stands to reason that Revelation must be a real prophecy...


Well I find it hard to believe, its coincidence.

Well, I find it hard to believe anyone believes in this 'doomsday' stuff, but they obviously do. Like I said... some people just can't wait for it all to go belly up.

Sin is what makes the world go round? We're all damned if we do and damned if we don't, then...

But seriously, it is hard to argue when you base your arguments on the 'fact' that Free Will is something given by a God (an entity for which there is no proof of existence enacting processes for which there is no understanding) and I remain convinced that Free Will is caused by apparently random quantum fluctuations[1] affecting the macro-scale universe through neural systems and biomechanical actuators resulting from many millenia of selection for organisms that are adaptable to their environment.

[1]I tend to lean towards there being an ineffable underyling rule underlying everything, even quantum mechanics, but the trouble is that it's buried at a level that cannot be perceived by the mechanisms that are working within the confines of the space. It's just beyond the eyeline of the Grand Unified Theory (Which may be obtainable) and can never be discovered until the Universe is examined from the outside. :)
I personally don't believe in "God", not in the sense Christians, Muslims and Jews do of an intelligent being with a "design" and a "plan"; yet I have little problem understanding the concepts they talk about. You seem to have a good grasp of an objective viewpoint necessary to fully comprehend the universe; in the same way, a subjective viewpoint is an absolute requirement to understanding god. It is the only way god can properly be understood.

"...random quantum fluctuations affecting the macro-scale universe through neural systems and biomechanical actuators" is a lovely description of the process objectively viewed, but does nothing to describe the subjective view of the process, which is how man experiences it. Both the objective and subjective view are necessary for a complete understanding of the world around us, because that is how the world is experienced. Only the subjective view is necessary for an understanding of the inner concepts of the mind, heart and soul. That man continually tries to get a wholely objective view on these things is where the whole system of understanding fails.


I was just thinking about unified theories in my post prior to this one. Ptolemy's efforts, which defined the clock-work universe, were an attempt to reconcile science, astrology and religion into a working theory for all, and to a large extent he succeeded in doing just that. His was the working model embraced by each of those studies for more than 1700 years --a remarkable achievement.

ANd I am impressed by the Mayan mathematicians... to calculate precession so accurately that they can pinpoint an astrological alignment to within 24 hours, just based on their observations.

But, I still don't get why Mayan astrology, Mayan 'Creationism', and the conjunction of stars has anything to do with your case...

Or, for that matter, how you can be accepting an 'astrological' evidence (since such are forbidden scripturally)... or why you claim support from an astrological calculation made several hundred years BEFORE Jesus was supposedly even born?
The calculations are astronomical, not astrological. ;-)

The calculations are astronomical, not astrological. ;-)

Owned

lol :)

The calculations are astronomical, not astrological. ;-)

Guess again.

Why were they doing the readings? Why did they need the numbers?

I realise that astronomy is the 'science' and astrology the 'art', if you will... but the Mayans weren't measuring the velocities of astral bodies... they were calculating the conjunction of the path which Lord Pacal could follow to jumpr from the ecliptical track to the Milky Way, so as to enter the "heart of Sky".

I said astological, and I meant astrological... and I stand by it.

(Yes - I understand that the math they generated ALSO gives astronomical data... but that isn't WHY they calculated it, now is it?)

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

I'm narrow minded? Ha! You want to know who is narrow minded? Christians, the most unforgiving, relentless, murderous bastards ever. Don't believe me? Crusades, Spanish Inquistion, Adolf Hitler's Holocaust were all done in the name of God because their enemies had different beliefs. And I'm narrowminded because I think religion is pure stupidity? Go figure, your logic or lack thereof is just incrediably stupid. Why should I devote my life to serving some ethereal being that science has proven fake? Do you know what CERN is? Located in Switzerland and is home to the smartest minds in the planet. At CERN they have created miniature galaxies and life when there was nothing but molecules and air. Isn't that what your God did? Hey! If man can do it then God isn't so high and mighty now is he? Religion is a crutch for the weak minded, the narrow minded and those seeking the salvation that will never come.

As for the dying thing, I know when I die, I rot in a hole in the ground. Nothing special nothing interesting. Just rot

I'm narrow minded? Ha! You want to know who is narrow minded? Christians, the most unforgiving, relentless, murderous bastards ever. Don't believe me? Crusades, Spanish Inquistion, Adolf Hitler's Holocaust were all done in the name of God because their enemies had different beliefs. And I'm narrowminded because I think religion is pure stupidity? Go figure, your logic or lack thereof is just incrediably stupid. Why should I devote my life to serving some ethereal being that science has proven fake? Do you know what CERN is? Located in Switzerland and is home to the smartest minds in the planet. At CERN they have created miniature galaxies and life when there was nothing but molecules and air. Isn't that what your God did? Hey! If man can do it then God isn't so high and mighty now is he? Religion is a crutch for the weak minded, the narrow minded and those seeking the salvation that will never come.

As for the dying thing, I know when I die, I rot in a hole in the ground. Nothing special nothing interesting. Just rot

Um yeah
Ideologically I am on your side (being more agnostic then anything)

But please don’t make the whole cause seem idiotic by your illogic. That is what most of us believe in … the truth one way or another.

For one science has not DISPROVED it just has made it more unlikely … (believers can always fall back to the whole “he just set the big bang in motion” which on a whole is kind of hard to disprove)

And going into a rant about “The smartest minds on the planet”

For one do you know what CERN is?

If not
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html

CERN is a particle physics laboratory … read through their press releases if you wish. You may want to note that they did not create a whole galaxy (you may also want to note that air does not contain the necessary particles nor mass to create one to start with)

What they essentially do is play with a big particle accelerator (which is cool)


Like I said don’t let your fervor for atheism make you resort to both illogic and stupidity (further don’t make un supported statements they are easy to call you on being that online it is easy to do research and your reply is documented giving us essentially infinite time to prove or disprove a statement)

Guess again.

Why were they doing the readings? Why did they need the numbers?

I realise that astronomy is the 'science' and astrology the 'art', if you will... but the Mayans weren't measuring the velocities of astral bodies... they were calculating the conjunction of the path which Lord Pacal could follow to jumpr from the ecliptical track to the Milky Way, so as to enter the "heart of Sky".

I said astological, and I meant astrological... and I stand by it.

(Yes - I understand that the math they generated ALSO gives astronomical data... but that isn't WHY they calculated it, now is it?)

lol to quote Terminalia pwoned :-P

as for death its like umm...not importent ull just provide nutrients to the earth. if u wanna know y im an atheist. its because religion is a bullshitter. cuz the make ppl beleive that there is a huge invisible guy up in the sky and hes watching you ALL OF THE TIME!!!!! :sniper:

Guess again.

Why were they doing the readings? Why did they need the numbers?

I realise that astronomy is the 'science' and astrology the 'art', if you will... but the Mayans weren't measuring the velocities of astral bodies... they were calculating the conjunction of the path which Lord Pacal could follow to jumpr from the ecliptical track to the Milky Way, so as to enter the "heart of Sky".

I said astological, and I meant astrological... and I stand by it.

(Yes - I understand that the math they generated ALSO gives astronomical data... but that isn't WHY they calculated it, now is it?)
I'm not sure what YOU define as the 'art', but what created the Mayan calendar is purely mathematics based on astronomy.

Astrology is simply deriving meaning from the symbols mapped by astronomy. It involves no calculations.

As to why they derived the numbers, made the calendar, and did the readings, the answer is simple: it is part of their religion.

I'm not sure what YOU define as the 'art', but what created the Mayan calendar is purely mathematics based on astronomy.

Astrology is simply deriving meaning from the symbols mapped by astronomy. It involves no calculations.

As to why they derived the numbers, made the calendar, and did the readings, the answer is simple: it is part of their religion.

Well, first of all... Astronomy and Astrology were, archaically, given to mean the same thing, but we'll let that slide for now...

Astronomy: The science which treats of the celestial bodies, of their magnitudes, motions, distances, periods of revolution, eclipses, constitution, physical condition, and of the causes of their various phenomena.

Astrology: In its etymological signification, the science of the stars; among the ancients, synonymous with astronomy; subsequently, the art of judging of the influences of the stars upon human affairs, and of foretelling events by their position and aspects.

I offer that, since the event they were predicting is an astrological conjunction (albeit, obviously, an astronomical one, also), and the fact that they calculated from their astrological data (albeit, obviously, also astronomical data... since their symbols concur with actual bodies), and the fact that even the rotation of the earth held astrological significance to Mayans: Pacal as the Sun; the bone from Tikal engraved with a canoe (representing the Milky Way) sinking below the horizon - the passage of the night as astronomical event; it stands to reason that the calculation is an astrological one... since it is, after all, merely the observation of an astrological pattern, PLUS 13 'baktuns', to account for precession.

And, obviously, it is part of their society... probably even their religion, that drove those ancient Mayans to make this calculation... but the importance is WHY? Terminalia's interpretation of the data would have the Mayan calculations as being some form of support for Judea-Christian Armageddon prophesy, whereas the Mayan symbolism of the Milky Way (Pacal's umbilical cord... path of life and death) implies more of a rebirth... the completion of a cycle.

The future is that which has not yet happened. If you presume that even God cannot know things that have not happened, then this line of reasoning falls apart, no? Why must "all-knowing" include things that have not happened?Knowing everything about what has already happened plus everything about what has happened leads to knowing everything that will happen, under strict interpretation.

Diety-Doubt creeps in is when you allow a theological equivalent to the Heisenburg principle (in which case God is not all-knowing) or there exist a Quantum Foam form of sponntaneous interactions below the level of observation, which also suggests thatr God is not the highest (or at least most prevalent) power in the Universe.

Well, it suggests that to me.

but what about dieing. r u scared? at peace with it? what?

Everyone has to go at some point.
I don't want to die but thinking that some supposed heavenly home filled with clouds and other good people, which we have no proof exists, isn't going to make me feel better about going.

Astrology: In its etymological signification, the science of the stars; among the ancients, synonymous with astronomy; subsequently, the art of judging of the influences of the stars upon human affairs, and of foretelling events by their position and aspects.
I offer that, since the event they were predicting is an astrological conjunction (albeit, obviously, an astronomical one, also), and the fact that they calculated from their astrological data (albeit, obviously, also astronomical data... since their symbols concur with actual bodies), and the fact that even the rotation of the earth held astrological significance to Mayans: Pacal as the Sun; the bone from Tikal engraved with a canoe (representing the Milky Way) sinking below the horizon - the passage of the night as astronomical event; it stands to reason that the calculation is an astrological one... since it is, after all, merely the observation of an astrological pattern, PLUS 13 'baktuns', to account for precession.
I understand, and you're welcome to continue using the phrase, but to call it an 'astrological calculation' is an incorrect term in modern English. Astrology is what happens after all the cacluations are complete.

Also, I just want to point out that that definition of astrology is etymologically incorrect: '-ology' is not a 'science of' in this instance, it is a 'study of'. Astrology is a method of divination, not a science. (And it's incorrect in other regards, but I'll let that slide.)

And, obviously, it is part of their society... probably even their religion, that drove those ancient Mayans to make this calculation... but the importance is WHY? Terminalia's interpretation of the data would have the Mayan calculations as being some form of support for Judea-Christian Armageddon prophesy, whereas the Mayan symbolism of the Milky Way (Pacal's umbilical cord... path of life and death) implies more of a rebirth... the completion of a cycle.
Right, but surely this isn't the first time you've heard the Mayan 2012 (http://www.survive2012.com/) referred to as an 'end of the world' prophecy? I've heard that on television, on radio, and read it in books. It's just a popular modern-day myth.

Knowing everything about what has already happened plus everything about what has happened leads to knowing everything that will happen, under strict interpretation.
Whose strict interpretation? I can see knowing the past, that one's easy as it's happened. And I can see knowing the present, as that's happening. But how does it lead to knowing the future, something that doesn't yet exist?

Life is merely a chemical reaction. Once the reactions are stopped, life is stopped. There is no 'life' after death. That'd just be silly. Granted, most people are afriad of death. So they must create the idea of life after death in order to feel some sort of comfort about the idea of eventually dying. I think this is best represented by the Ancient Egyptians. They had this whole life after death deal figured out. Becoming worm food, just doesn't sound appealing. But, being mumified and locked up in an underground tomb sounds good. Being discovered 5000 years later, badda bing! Life after death achieved.

Joining the discussion rather late here, but here's my take on death.

Nothing really ever disapears, so if there is a soul, a vital energy within each living thing, it makes sense that it would not disapear after the death of that organism either. Hell, even things that go into black holes don't disapear, don't just cease to be. Everything in this universe recycles and disapates back into the whole. Why would we be any different.

I'm not saying I belive in reincarnation as the idea of one person's energy staying in tact and passing into another person, but I do think that as that energy is released from a person in death, it goes out into the universe again, disolving, rearranging itself, giving life to other things.

I'll also put my head out here and say that it is possible to be an atheist/athiest freindly and belive as I do. There's nothing too occult about it. Whatever energy powers us, gives us that spark of life, must follow the same pattern as all other things. Our bodies rot under the ground and give way to greenery. Fire burns old growth and makes room for new seeds to sprout. Everything comes full circle, and though nothing stays the same, nothing ever compleatly goes away either.

To just say we "go into oblivion" would be to belive in an oblivion. There's no proof of oblivion, not even in a black hole, so I would say those who do belive in one have some great faith indeed.

Atheism isn't stupid and pointless. I am not a Atheist,but I respect other people's beliefs and so should you. It's not fair to say something is moronic just because you don't believe in it. Same goes for you atheists who don't respect other people's beliefs.

Right, but surely this isn't the first time you've heard the Mayan 2012 (http://www.survive2012.com/) referred to as an 'end of the world' prophecy? I've heard that on television, on radio, and read it in books. It's just a popular modern-day myth.
As a datum point, I've heard of it. I used to read loads of "Chariots of the Gods"-style books in my younger years, though can't say I really believed any of it even then, though "The Manna Machine" sounded interesting... :)

However, there's always some kook trying to predict the End Of The World based on something Ancient (and, usually, misinterpretable), planetary alignments (dispite negligable gravitational compared with Sun and Moon that regular conjunct or oppose) or even just because of an accident of the calendar (turn of the century/millenium, the number of the beast in the date, even that one for 21/Oct/1987[1]). The ones who are shouting the loudest are the ones who think their turn (or the latest incarnation of their turn, for those who bring out Nostrodamus every other year under the "What? Did I redict the End Of The World would be last year? Surely not..?" banner...) is next.

Logically, though, if you're determined to propogate an End Of The World theory (without, obviously, having any of that 'special knowledge' stuff), wouldn't it be best to make it as far in the future as possible? It takes longer to get proven wrong, that way, and if the Earth is blown up by Vogons in the meantime then there's no-one left to complain you were too optomistic... :)

I often wonder if the Mayan calander was the inspiration for the quote in Terry Pratchett's book "Wyrd Sisters" (I think) that the calendar of (some civilisation) counts down, not up, no-one knowing why, but that it might not be a good idea to hang around.

[1] It was something like "At 5 hours, 14 minutes and 13.1 seconds past (noon and/or midnight) on the 21st of October 1987, some clock or other will have on it the figures '5:14:13.1 21/10/1987' which read backwards shows '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15' and the world will be destroyed"...

Whose strict interpretation? I can see knowing the past, that one's easy as it's happened. And I can see knowing the present, as that's happening. But how does it lead to knowing the future, something that doesn't yet exist?If you're omniscient in the manner required then you have seen A+B=>C happen so many times already that you know that when you see A+B now that C will happen. From knowing that C will happen and knowing that D will happen (through a similar knowledge that it will result from the current situation) then E will happen. Continue ad infinitum (not an arduaous job for a deity such as God) and thus know all of future, and what molecules you ought to tweek to send civilisation down a different route.

It doesn't matter that you've never had Adam previously in the position to be tempted by Eve (for example) in order to 'remember' what happened, you can instead work at the infitesimally smallest levels to know how his thought process works, based upon what you know about how chemicals and charges have interacted in the animal brains you previously created or even just what happened between air molecules. By dint of being omniscient you know that proximity and density and charge and everything else has an effect and know exactly what effects all components imparted and you can work out what the macroscopic being will do (and all others, and how the interactions will procede) given the circumstance and thus know the future and what ultimately happens to, with and by the race that you have created.

Any God less able than that is (IMHO) not omniscient.

If you're omniscient in the manner required then you have seen A+B=>C happen so many times already that you know that when you see A+B now that C will happen. From knowing that C will happen and knowing that D will happen (through a similar knowledge that it will result from the current situation) then E will happen. Continue ad infinitum (not an arduaous job for a deity such as God) and thus know all of future, and what molecules you ought to tweek to send civilisation down a different route.
So God assumes the future, like the rest of us? Okay, I feel better now.

It doesn't matter that you've never had Adam previously in the position to be tempted by Eve (for example) in order to 'remember' what happened, you can instead work at the infitesimally smallest levels to know how his thought process works, based upon what you know about how chemicals and charges have interacted in the animal brains you previously created or even just what happened between air molecules. By dint of being omniscient you know that proximity and density and charge and everything else has an effect and know exactly what effects all components imparted and you can work out what the macroscopic being will do (and all others, and how the interactions will procede) given the circumstance and thus know the future and what ultimately happens to, with and by the race that you have created.

Any God less able than that is (IMHO) not omniscient.
It seems a whole lot simpler to just admit that God doesn't know the future, and that man has free will. It makes so much more sense, then.

Logically, though, if you're determined to propogate an End Of The World theory (without, obviously, having any of that 'special knowledge' stuff), wouldn't it be best to make it as far in the future as possible? It takes longer to get proven wrong, that way...
Hehe, they did! 2000 years ago. ;-)

How can there be free will if there is only one right path? How is it free will when you're damned for taking one course? It would be far kinder to simply not give us a mind, if we're simply to follow.

As far as Adam and Eve go, people seem to forget Adam could have said no. He was warned directly by God himself, after all. Everyone seems to blame Eve...

The idea of an all knowing God, comes primarily from Plato's logic of the universal.

and if you follow that track of thought, as Augustine did, then the concept of pre ordainment is shot out of the water as mumbo jumbo.

The idea of an all knowing God, comes primarily from Plato's logic of the universal.

and if you follow that track of thought, as Augustine did, then the concept of pre ordainment is shot out of the water as mumbo jumbo.
Thank you. I will look that up.

It seems to assume a foreseeable future, though, a fixed Fate, which is not something I subscribe to.

How can there be free will if there is only one right path? How is it free will when you're damned for taking one course? It would be far kinder to simply not give us a mind, if we're simply to follow.
An excellent question, and the answer is simply that there cannot be only one right path, because there is undoubtedly free will... unless....

Unless they mean something different by "one right path"??

Sorry, I was channelling Iakeokeo there.

So God assumes the future, like the rest of us? Okay, I feel better now.I don't believe the quote used the word "assume" at all. The word know was used, and I'm actually quite embaressed that I used the word "know" about a dozen times in two paragraphs (plus "knowing", "knowledge", etc).

It seems a whole lot simpler to just admit that God doesn't know the future, and that man has free will. It makes so much more sense, then.From my point of view, I don't have a conviction about God existing, but from a strict interpretation of an omniscient, omnipresent and infallible God, He should have absolute knowledge of how any given current situation will resolve itself in the future. Add Omnipotence to the equation and he can tweak the universe to make it turn out the way he should.

That's all I'm stating. Maybe you interpret that this means that a 'perfect' God forced us into Sin or that He didn't care to work out how we'd end up when he first created us or even just that He doesn't have control (or knowledge) of things on a quantum level and is thus less than All-Powerful, despite being the greatest single sentient force in the Universe. I don't mind, but none of this helps support the Judeo-Christian God. "God moves in mysterious ways"..?

I don't believe the quote used the word "assume" at all. The word know was used, and I'm actually quite embaressed that I used the word "know" about a dozen times in two paragraphs (plus "knowing", "knowledge", etc).
True, it demonstrated assumption. ;-)

From my point of view, I don't have a conviction about God existing, but from a strict interpretation of an omniscient, omnipresent and infallible God, He should have absolute knowledge of how any given current situation will resolve itself in the future. Add Omnipotence to the equation and he can tweak the universe to make it turn out the way he should.

That's all I'm stating. Maybe you interpret that this means that a 'perfect' God forced us into Sin or that He didn't care to work out how we'd end up when he first created us or even just that He doesn't have control (or knowledge) of things on a quantum level and is thus less than All-Powerful, despite being the greatest single sentient force in the Universe. I don't mind, but none of this helps support the Judeo-Christian God. "God moves in mysterious ways"..?
Cool. I'm going to read up on the logic of all-power/all-knowledge when I have more time.

How can there be free will if there is only one right path? How is it free will when you're damned for taking one course? It would be far kinder to simply not give us a mind, if we're simply to follow.ONe idea I have is that this is one of those Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games with no single "winning condition" nor one single route to get to it/them. :)

As far as Adam and Eve go, people seem to forget Adam could have said no. He was warned directly by God himself, after all. Everyone seems to blame Eve...But Eve wouldn't have done that had it not been for the serpent, which begs the age-old question of whether or not God has complete control over His servants (and hence what they do to the world) and if He has then He allowed it and if He didn't then is He isn't all-powerful.

Well, yadda yadda yadda. That's just a postulation, not a personal point of view.

Eerie whispers trapped beneath my pillow
Won't let me sleep, your memories
I know you're in this room, Im sure I heard you sigh
Floating in-between where our worlds collide

Scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see
And it scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see

Yeah yeah yeah...

I know the moments near
And there's nothing we can do
Look through a faithless eye
Are you afraid to die?

It scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see
And it scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see

Yeah yeah yeah...

It scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see
And it scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see

Yeah yeah yeah...


Ja? Muse come in handy sometimes.

I've been there, and I wasn't too impressed. I used to be a christian, then I got old enough to think and stop being indoctrinated. Thats when I saw all the problems with religion. After that point, I stopped believing in religion.

There arn't any problems with religion. Religion is simply an explination of what is unfathomable, and that is why the atheistic aproach is radical to me. It is narrow minded to think that there is nothing greater than us. That we are the best of everything. How can that be? If you take the evolution approach then what about everything that is intangable but still felt, like love. How do u explain love?? If evolution is true, then we should feel no more love than a single celled organisim.


A man walks up to you on the street, He says "I can give you a billion dollars a day for the rest of your life, but first, you have to come listen to me talk every sunday for your entire life, donate money to me, and believe everything I say.
Your response - the guy is a wack job. That's how I see religion.

That is not an accurate comparison because here the guy offers no explanation of what has been and what will be. Offers no explination for the unexplainable. You can not tell me that there are somethings in life that just happen by chance, and that all the unexplained events in life just happen. Even something like the big bang theory is so unlikely compared to the thought of a God. Stephen Hawkin even once said that there is a greater chance that there is a God, than the chance that we just came into existence. The chance that we just formed is a one in quadrillion quadrillion chance (1 in 10^31)

So, instead of telling other people to open their minds to religion, why don't you open yours to the problems and hypocrisy of religion. If you can, that is.

The problem is not us opening our minds to the problems and hypocrisies of religion. Im not saying there arnt hypocrits in religion, because there are. But religion does not support hypocrasy, but it is a human nature, "do as i say not as i do" complex, and this complex is partly what religion tries to abolish. And it really isnt us who need to open our minds, because in all actuallity it takes someone with an open mind to believe in something that is "outside" the box of logic. It takes an open mind to believe that we are not the greatest.

Joining the discussion rather late here, but here's my take on death.

Nothing really ever disapears, so if there is a soul, a vital energy within each living thing, it makes sense that it would not disapear after the death of that organism either. Hell, even things that go into black holes don't disapear, don't just cease to be. Everything in this universe recycles and disapates back into the whole. Why would we be any different.

I'm not saying I belive in reincarnation as the idea of one person's energy staying in tact and passing into another person, but I do think that as that energy is released from a person in death, it goes out into the universe again, disolving, rearranging itself, giving life to other things.

I'll also put my head out here and say that it is possible to be an atheist/athiest freindly and belive as I do. There's nothing too occult about it. Whatever energy powers us, gives us that spark of life, must follow the same pattern as all other things. Our bodies rot under the ground and give way to greenery. Fire burns old growth and makes room for new seeds to sprout. Everything comes full circle, and though nothing stays the same, nothing ever compleatly goes away either.

To just say we "go into oblivion" would be to belive in an oblivion. There's no proof of oblivion, not even in a black hole, so I would say those who do belive in one have some great faith indeed.
I tried to state something similar when I first started on these boards, but you've said it much better than I could. :-)

This is in keeping with my own beliefs.

...It is narrow minded to think that there is nothing greater than us. That we are the best of everything. How can that be? If you take the evolution approach then what about everything that is intangable but still felt, like love. How do u explain love?? If evolution is true, then we should feel no more love than a single celled organisim.I, personally, don't think that "there is nothing better than us" (or even me). And intangibles like love are something that allows us as a race to survive, by a sense of community where a lone existence would have been eventually fatal to each and every member of the race of hairless apes, if we had even progressed that far.

Even something like the big bang theory is so unlikely compared to the thought of a God.A hard statement to justify, there. Are you approaching this from the direction of "God exists, we just need to believe in him, and in working out how the Universe came into being we now need to wonder why he caused a Big Bang rather than just made it so from the start", or am I putting words in your mouth/thoughts in your head?

Stephen Hawkin even once said that there is a greater chance that there is a God, than the chance that we just came into existence. The chance that we just formed is a one in quadrillion quadrillion chance (1 in 10^31)I'll check up on that quote. As for the quadrillion quadrillion (10^28 (edit: oops, meant 48) in US money, IIRC, 10^96 otherwise), well, we are here, so it happened. If it hadn't, we wouldn't have been. That's a tired and worn-out argument but still relevant.

And it really isnt us who need to open our minds, because in all actuallity it takes someone with an open mind to believe in something that is "outside" the box of logic. It takes an open mind to believe that we are not the greatest.I saw a nice quote recently with (vague) relevance to that statement...
"I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it."

-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)

:)

[Grave_n_idle #1802]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tioszaea
HAS THIS THREAD GONE ON LONG ENOUGH?! IS THERE NO END TO IT?!?!

Just kidding

But seriously, don't you people think that 118 pages is enough of a debate? Atheists believe what they want, and Christians believe what they want. The original question that started this thread has been answered, so why bother to continue it? I think its time people stopped arguing about religion and continue on with their lives.

The crazy thing is that there are christians involved in this thread at all, what with it being about Atheists views of what happens after death....

As I continue to say....

THESE FORUMS ARE NOT DEBATES..!

I do wish I knew where people get this perverse idea..!

:D

[Willamena #1800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
But observing it, listening to it for direction, taking consolation in it, has value if you choose to do so.

And no one can really NOT do that. It's just a question of whether listening to your "superior" and taking direction from it annoys you or not.

And in that annoyance, god speaks to us all about the annoyed.

So.... if God annoys you, and then you're annoying, that's you trying to be god? :-)

Er,... huh..!? :D

The annoyance of the annoyed is gods snicker and chuckle at his own joke.

I tend to want to snicker and chucle right along with god, which usually further annoys the annoyed which creates more god chuckles which creates more annoyance, etcetera, until the annoyed either attacks me or gets the joke.

The question is how long it takes you to get the joke. :)

[Willamena #1912]
Quote:
Originally Posted by E B Guvegrra
I don't believe the quote used the word "assume" at all. The word know was used, and I'm actually quite embaressed that I used the word "know" about a dozen times in two paragraphs (plus "knowing", "knowledge", etc).

True, it demonstrated assumption. ;-)

Quote:
From my point of view, I don't have a conviction about God existing, but from a strict interpretation of an omniscient, omnipresent and infallible God, He should have absolute knowledge of how any given current situation will resolve itself in the future. Add Omnipotence to the equation and he can tweak the universe to make it turn out the way he should.

That's all I'm stating. Maybe you interpret that this means that a 'perfect' God forced us into Sin or that He didn't care to work out how we'd end up when he first created us or even just that He doesn't have control (or knowledge) of things on a quantum level and is thus less than All-Powerful, despite being the greatest single sentient force in the Universe. I don't mind, but none of this helps support the Judeo-Christian God. "God moves in mysterious ways"..?

Cool. I'm going to read up on the logic of all-power/all-knowledge when I have more time.

Heh he he he he he he he..!! :D

That's a really short pamphlet. (The "Logic of Omniscio-potence 101" subject area!)

The all powerful can do anything. The all knowledgable knows everything. Therefore, unless the all powerful stays out of it's creation, it's simply going to mess up what it created.

The question is why would the all powerful and all knowing HAVE to do anything EXCEPT "create" his creation..?

"Letting the creation run" is merely an illusion perpetrated on those "inside" the creation. It's all completely decided how the "run" will go.

But then what does that do to free will..!?

Free will is then also an illusion. BUT,.. it is an illusion in exactly the same way that an all powerful, all knowing entity is an illusion.

Which is perfect symmetry, if you think about it. :D

[Willamena #1800]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
But observing it, listening to it for direction, taking consolation in it, has value if you choose to do so.

And no one can really NOT do that. It's just a question of whether listening to your "superior" and taking direction from it annoys you or not.

And in that annoyance, god speaks to us all about the annoyed.

So.... if God annoys you, and then you're annoying, that's you trying to be god? :-)

Er,... huh..!? :D

The annoyance of the annoyed is gods snicker and chuckle at his own joke.

I tend to want to snicker and chucle right along with god, which usually further annoys the annoyed which creates more god chuckles which creates more annoyance, etcetera, until the annoyed either attacks me or gets the joke.

The question is how long it takes you to get the joke. :)
I was just kidding.

I like your ideas, and they reflect your personality well. :-)

[Willamena #1921]
I was just kidding.

I like your ideas, and they reflect your personality well. :-)


I kinda figured that. :)

You know what makes me a bit crazy about this place (the NS forums)..?

How many people have no ideas of their own. They simply regurgitate overused platitudes.

Not that I have anything against platitudes,.. I use them all the time,.. but at least I can improvise my own words from my platitudinal base, as I pretend that I might actually understand the reason for my attraction to the various platitudes that I employ.

Ya' know what I mean..? :D

I understand, and you're welcome to continue using the phrase, but to call it an 'astrological calculation' is an incorrect term in modern English. Astrology is what happens after all the cacluations are complete.


I still disagree. I have a collection of books on various divination techniques (among many many other things), and a large number of references occur to 'astrological calculations', especially in regard to plotting influences on birth, etc. I'm sticking with the concept that, if you make the calculations with your 'astrologer' hat on, then they are astrological calculations.

I guess it's like a stack of bricks. It's just a stack of bricks till someone calls it art... then, like it or not, it's art. (Maybe not GOOD art... but still art).


Also, I just want to point out that that definition of astrology is etymologically incorrect: '-ology' is not a 'science of' in this instance, it is a 'study of'. Astrology is a method of divination, not a science. (And it's incorrect in other regards, but I'll let that slide.)


It didn't say it was an etymological definition, it said etymological significance.

Once again, I guess it depends on who is wearing which hat. You study it according to rigourous scientific principles, you expose it to scientific criticism, it's science.

People still argue over whether archeology is a science.


Right, but surely this isn't the first time you've heard the Mayan 2012 (http://www.survive2012.com/) referred to as an 'end of the world' prophecy? I've heard that on television, on radio, and read it in books. It's just a popular modern-day myth.

I've heard of it as the end of the world before. And I disagreed with it then.

You are correct, it is a popular modern day myth, and I endeavour not to perpetuate the errors, when it is quite obvious (Terminalia could have found out, if he wished to), that the 'end of the world' is not what they were calculating.

I still disagree. I have a collection of books on various divination techniques (among many many other things), and a large number of references occur to 'astrological calculations', especially in regard to plotting influences on birth, etc. I'm sticking with the concept that, if you make the calculations with your 'astrologer' hat on, then they are astrological calculations.
Well, when you define it like that, I have to agree. *lol*

I guess it's like a stack of bricks. It's just a stack of bricks till someone calls it art... then, like it or not, it's art. (Maybe not GOOD art... but still art).
Egads. ;-)

It didn't say it was an etymological definition, it said etymological significance.

Once again, I guess it depends on who is wearing which hat. You study it according to rigourous scientific principles, you expose it to scientific criticism, it's science.

People still argue over whether archeology is a science.
But then it wouldn't be astrology, if what you're studying is the study itself, it would be "astrologyology". :-)

I kinda figured that. :)

You know what makes me a bit crazy about this place (the NS forums)..?

How many people have no ideas of their own. They simply regurgitate overused platitudes.

Not that I have anything against platitudes,.. I use them all the time,.. but at least I can improvise my own words from my platitudinal base, as I pretend that I might actually understand the reason for my attraction to the various platitudes that I employ.

Ya' know what I mean..? :D
Yeah. People know what they know, and sometimes all they know is what they've heard that other people know.

I realised today that about half the replies I make to posts are ones I spend twenty minutes composing and never click "Submit". My reason is that I only compose it for my own satisfaction, to satisfy myself that I know what's what; I don't submit because I have no great need to educate the world with my superior wisdom/knowledge/opinion. ;-) Moreso, because the one it is intended for is usually the one who will not listen (you can tell by the quality (or quantity??) of the platitudes ;)).

Well, when you define it like that, I have to agree. *lol*


Egads. ;-)


But then it wouldn't be astrology, if what you're studying is the study itself, it would be "astrologyology". :-)

I want to be an "astrologyologist".

I didn't want to particularly quibble over astrology v's astronomy... and I'm glad I finally managed to explain what I was meaning... but your debate sidetracked the issue away from Terminalia... from whom I was trying to get an explanation of why he was setting so much store in an almost prehistoric collection of astrology... seemingly, just because the 'numbers' match with what he wants.

Oh - and the brick thing... I seem to recall JUST SUCH a construct winning a major art competition (Turner Prize, maybe?) just a few years ago...

:)

Oh - and the brick thing... I seem to recall JUST SUCH a construct winning a major art competition (Turner Prize, maybe?) just a few years ago...

:)Still in the Tate Modern last time I went...

I want to be an "astrologyologist".
...........

If astrology is the study, and an astrologyologist is the studier of the study...

Can I study the studier and call myself an astrologyologistologist?

And more importantly, who would I have to approach to get paid for being such a thing?




Ahh, I'm just trying to avoid studying for my exams... hopefully this is close enough to on-topic to not be spam. And if not... well, maybe I can study the spam and devise a word for 'studier of spam'. Or... something.

If astrology is the study, and an astrologyologist is the studier of the study...

Can I study the studier and call myself an astrologyologistologist?

And more importantly, who would I have to approach to get paid for being such a thing?

huh... astrologyologistologist...that sounds like such an exciting job [/sarcasm]

huh... astrologyologistologist...that sounds like such an exciting job [/sarcasm]

Now now, you're forgetting that it appears it's people like Grave who would be interested in being astrologyologists... so, I dunno. It could be interesting. Although, thinking about it in those terms makes me think less 'science' and more, like 'omg creepy stalking-ness'.

So, maybe not.

Gack, too much omg-fan-girl-ness... *beats a hasty retreat, fearing the no-doubt imminent raising of eyebrow*

Now now, you're forgetting that it appears it's people like Grave who would be interested in being astrologyologists... so, I dunno. It could be interesting. Although, thinking about it in those terms makes me think less 'science' and more, like 'omg creepy stalking-ness'.

So, maybe not.

Gack, too much omg-fan-girl-ness... *beats a hasty retreat, fearing the no-doubt imminent raising of eyebrow*

See, it's people like Shaed who make it worth your while visiting the forum.

:)

Not sure who you can get to pay you for it, though... but it does leave the obvious career opening of astologyologisologist-ologist...

Okay... maybe now it's getting silly...

See, it's people like Shaed who make it worth your while visiting the forum.

:)

Not sure who you can get to pay you for it, though... but it does leave the obvious career opening of astologyologisologist-ologist...

Okay... maybe now it's getting silly...

Could a polyologyologist position be created to deal with this issue, or would self-study/navel-gazing be a problem... :)

Could a polyologyologist position be created to deal with this issue, or would self-study/navel-gazing be a problem... :)

We need to create a study group to study this vital issue... let's send out a call to all the polyologyologists and astrologyologyologists, right away!

Okay... maybe now it's getting silly...
Maybe NOW??! *lol* :)

I didn't mean to side-track, either, but the astrology/astronomy thing is an important distinction, and has been since Ptolomy in the 2nd Century AD. The plotting of the stars is astronomy stuff; astrology is what you do with the plotting.

Firstly, evolution does not explian how life began. It explians how life formed from lesser form of life. With no God how did life get to earth? You can still be religous and believe in evolution.

What is the point of a pointless life?

What is the point of a pointless life?

By definition, none.

But who said atheists live pointless lives?

I think there's much more to be done in life than waiting around for an after-life. That's enough point to my life for me.

Firstly, evolution does not explian how life began. It explians how life formed from lesser form of life. With no God how did life get to earth? You can still be religous and believe in evolution.You're confusing the death of athiests with the birth of life on Earth... Not that I don't like discussing this, but it's been done before a million times, with neither side conceding. (And if by "how did life get to Earth?" do you mean pansporia? Personally, I'm happy enough that it started here, or at least close by, rather than a single universal source seeding the galaxy. This, however, is two seperate scientific theories competing with each other on roughly equal terms, rather than God vs Science. And off-topic.)

What is the point of a pointless life?To sharpen the pencils.

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.

One could say that Christians are narrowminded for refusing to believe in Muslim doctrine, or Judiasm for not believing that Jesus was God. Calling someone narrowminded just shows how closed you are to their beliefs. Atheists don't believe that God created the world or that he exists. Its simply a belief, no different than the belief in God. If people could grasp this then there wouldn't be issues between the different groups. I practice Deism. By my belief, your both wrong :D, but its just a difference of belief. Theres not need to criticize one another.

I may be a little late in this thread, but as an Atheist, I have no fear of death only of religion, which is surely the most argued about subject ever.

"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

What is the point of a pointless life?
if you need superstition to give your life meaning then you have my deepest sympathy.

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:

I don't spend too much time thinking about that, but sure death is a little scary. The fact that all you know is about to change and not to mention there is a fine uncertainness that I'm sure frightens everyone. Oblivion can't be all bad though, or anything at all really.

I find it best to just live first and worry about the afterlife when I'm dead.

if you need superstition to give your life meaning then you have my deepest sympathy.
You say that like it's a bad thing. :-) I too sympathize with people who have the capacity to utilize the irrational mind to give symbolic meaning to the world around them, especially those who can relate it through metaphor. This is a good thing, indicating a participatory consciousness. This is a large part of what it is to be human.

Well, well. I neglect to check the forums for a while and look what happens.

I noticed that as more and more people post on the thread, there are several topics that just seem to keep being repeated by people who don't want to read through the whole thread (and I don't blame them).

1. Atheists answering Spencer and Wellington's original post. They all have pretty much the same anser: oblivion.
1a. Usually, there will be a followup from Terminalia calling the atheist "sad" and/or "pathetic". Of course, when someone else calls Terminalia "sad" and/or "pathetic" then this is a terrible insult which is immediately followed up by counter-insult by Terminalia asserting that the not-Terminalia-guy is a "pointless flamer".
1b. One third of these atheists feel the need to correct Spencer and Wellington's spelling. Another third has equally bad spelling themselves.
2. Flames directed at RaidersNation's troll on the first page. While the arguments used against him are sound, they're getting old.
3. Theists of whatever denomination flaiming atheism with pretty much the same stuff that RaidersNation used.
3a. Atheists answering "IS NOT!".
4. Theists of whatever denomination claiming they're right because of Pascal's wager, even though it has been debunked many times, even before this thread was started.

You're probably not going to listen to me anyway, but...

Firstly, evolution does not explian how life began.
True, we have abiogenesis for that. I suggest you read up on it. It works.

It explians how life formed from lesser form of life.
Not lesser, just earlier. People think that bacteria are "lesser", but fact is, they've been around the longest of all life forms and they're STILL here, more numerous in both individuals and species than any other creature on Earth. Not so bad, eh?

The only reason we consider humans to be the best life forms is that humans are the ones doing the classifying.

With no God how did life get to earth?
How did God get to Earth? Or Heaven? Or a spiritual plane of existence? Or wherever your beliefs claim he lives?

You can still be religous and believe in evolution.
Some religions, maybe. It doesn't work with Christianity, though - the bible specifically states that God created the animals, not that God created bacteria and the bateria evolved into animals by themselves.

A few questions from an athiest to religious folk:
Where do you think your god(s) come from?
Why do you think they/him/her do what they do, and to what end?
And why do you feel that life would be empty/meaningless/etc. without them?

Please flame me if something like this has already been asked earlier in the thread.

- A curious disavower of belief systems.

P.S. Dying seems like a natural force to me. To me dying is almost the same as living. The one difference is that while living we always feel that we have something we want, and in death there's nothing we want. Naive, I know. I'm working on it.

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

The idea behind atheism is a system of belief within proof. At least you got that part right. Atheists tend not to believe anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or prove exists. They then set out to find the things that cannot be defined by such sense and to either prove their existance or non-existance.

No, they're agnostic. Atheists believe there is nothing. Agnostics don't know.

Some religions, maybe. It doesn't work with Christianity, though - the bible specifically states that God created the animals, not that God created bacteria and the bateria evolved into animals by themselves.

No. Not all Christians take the Bible literally. In fact, very few do, and even fewer before the Seventh Day Adventists showed up. They were the first to teach creationism, and they've only been around for a short while in relative terms. Most Christians accept that Genesis (which is, by the way, two different creation stories, not one) is merely a means to explain that God created the Universe.

No. Not all Christians take the Bible literally. In fact, very few do, and even fewer before the Seventh Day Adventists showed up. They were the first to teach creationism, and they've only been around for a short while in relative terms. Most Christians accept that Genesis (which is, by the way, two different creation stories, not one) is merely a means to explain that God created the Universe.
Right, and it's been my experience that even those who claim to take the Bible literally recognize the meaning in the stories without identifying that that is non-literal.

Right, and it's been my experience that even those who claim to take the Bible literally recognize the meaning in the stories without identifying that that is non-literal.

Read The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell.

Very interesting stuff, about how the same mythologies in different guises have popped up time and time again in different cultures that have no direct links between them.

One of the most interesting things is that most mythologies had the goddess (who usually represents the Earth and nature) as their main figurehead, but then the Hebrew people went into Canaan, destroyed their civilisation, and then set about destroying their legacy. The Canaanites had a goddess as their main deity, and so the mythology (or religion if that's going to offend some people) of Judaism developed with the male God we all know and love. Thus this new religion was built on Man vs Nature, or nature existing to serve Man, rather than Man and Nature existing symbiotically (unlike, say, many North American Native religions, where animals were often ritually thanked for giving their life to feed them, as part of the circle of life).

Hence the big three religions we have now fucking things up for everyone.

Come on! This is fucking controversial here!! SOMEBODY FLAME ME!!!

You say that like it's a bad thing. :-) I too sympathize with people who have the capacity to utilize the irrational mind to give symbolic meaning to the world around them, especially those who can relate it through metaphor. This is a good thing, indicating a participatory consciousness. This is a large part of what it is to be human.
symbolic meaning, imagination, and metaphor are worlds away from superstition. in fact, i tend to think that the superstitious are those who cannot grasp metaphor or symbolism without assuming it is reality; they don't fully understand how to view the world through symbol or metaphor, so they give literal or "real" meanings and significance to symbols and metaphors.

When there is no irrefutable proof, it's equally irrational to deny something is possible as it is to believe and never to question.

When there is no irrefutable proof, it's equally irrational to deny something is possible as it is to believe and never to question.
i don't know if i would say it is EQUALLY irrational. after all, Santa Claus cannot be disproven, given his magical powers, but i don't hear anybody saying that an adult who believes in the literal existence of Santa is as rational as an adult who believes Santa is a myth.

if you ask most adults, "do you think it is possible that Santa Claus is a real being?" they will answer, "well, i guess anything is possible, but..." that's how i think a rational person will respond when asked the same question about God. ;)

symbolic meaning, imagination, and metaphor are worlds away from superstition. in fact, i tend to think that the superstitious are those who cannot grasp metaphor or symbolism without assuming it is reality; they don't fully understand how to view the world through symbol or metaphor, so they give literal or "real" meanings and significance to symbols and metaphors.
Symbolic assignation and imagination are exactly the processes that produce omens and divination from coincidence. I don't think superstitious people are following a different process --they just don't recognize it as such. I think they have minds that understand better than anyone how to view the world symbolically, and when an experience is "declared" as real it is meant with no differentiation between what is subjectively real, something intended especially for them to see, and what is objectively real. Of course, from the objective observer who cannot share in the experience, there can be only skepticism.

Symbolic assignation and imagination are exactly the processes that produce omens and divination from coincidence. I don't think superstitious people are following a different process --they just don't recognize it as such. I think they have minds that understand better than anyone how to view the world symbolically, and when an experience is "declared" as real it is meant with no differentiation between what is subjectively real, something intended especially for them to see, and what is objectively real. Of course, from the objective observer who cannot share in the experience, there can be only skepticism.
i guess it is a matter of opinion. i believe the superstitious are unable to conceptualize symbols and metaphoric meanings without moving them into a new frame of reference (i.e. interpretting those symbols in exactly the same way they interpret literal and empirical stimuli). i also think they allow their personal feelings to dictate most of the reality they experience; people who are non-superstitious have the ability to do that, too, but they also have the ability to turn off such emotive interpretation and view the world in a slightly more objective context. i think superstitious thought becomes habitual and limiting, and the ability to use multiple perspectives and frames of reference is more valuable than the ability to live entirely in a self-deluding dream world. but that's just based on my opinion of how to lead a good life, and i suppose there are probably plenty of people who would say the goal of life is to construct an especially pleasing dream world and move into it full time.

i am not afraid of dying when i finaly kick the bucket i would hate to go to heavan i mean it looks like childrens t.v also the if god is real hes really really lazy :mad: and boring if i could choose a god it would be jack dee (the comedian) ;)

i guess it is a matter of opinion. i believe the superstitious are unable to conceptualize symbols and metaphoric meanings without moving them into a new frame of reference (i.e. interpretting those symbols in exactly the same way they interpret literal and empirical stimuli). i also think they allow their personal feelings to dictate most of the reality they experience; people who are non-superstitious have the ability to do that, too, but they also have the ability to turn off such emotive interpretation and view the world in a slightly more objective context. i think superstitious thought becomes habitual and limiting, and the ability to use multiple perspectives and frames of reference is more valuable than the ability to live entirely in a self-deluding dream world. but that's just based on my opinion of how to lead a good life, and i suppose there are probably plenty of people who would say the goal of life is to construct an especially pleasing dream world and move into it full time.
I agree with your second sentence; it's basically what I said, except that I see that as a strength, as a way to utilize the conceptualized omen or symbol. Moving it into another frame of reference is precisely what is needed to do divination. :-) Whether the ability to see the world in this way is hard-wired, learned or habitual, to turn this ability into a useful tool it is just a matter of education about the subject/object divide and raising self-awareness. I don't know about superstitious people being unable to turn off their feelings in regard to what they observe, but I have no reason to assume they are all so ...inflicted. Using emotion to shape the experience can also be a useful tool, provided one learns to accentuate the positive.

"Dream world" is a phrase that I understand as something deliberately 'not real', like wishful fantasy, but perhaps it's used differently on other parts of the Earth.

i don't know if i would say it is EQUALLY irrational. after all, Santa Claus cannot be disproven, given his magical powers, but i don't hear anybody saying that an adult who believes in the literal existence of Santa is as rational as an adult who believes Santa is a myth.

if you ask most adults, "do you think it is possible that Santa Claus is a real being?" they will answer, "well, i guess anything is possible, but..." that's how i think a rational person will respond when asked the same question about God. ;)
It is an irrefutable fact that I got neither presents nor coal last Christmas, or for that matter any Christmas in my life. So while a fat guy with flying reindeer on the north pole might exist, the popular mythology about him is provably wrong.

Similarly, it is impossible to completely disprove the existence of a supreme being (as silly as the idea is), but most of the specific religions claiming one to exist (exception: Deism, because it makes no claims beyond "God exists") CAN be disproven. And they have been, but nobody listens.

It is an irrefutable fact that I got neither presents nor coal last Christmas, or for that matter any Christmas in my life. So while a fat guy with flying reindeer on the north pole might exist, the popular mythology about him is provably wrong.
Mythology is not disproven by demonstrating that the stories are not factually correct. The validity of a myth is in its symbolism or metaphor.

\Myth\, n. 1. A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.
2. A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.

\Myth\, n. 2. A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.
Exactly.

Besides, even if my choice of words wasn't entirely correct I'm sure you can see what I meant.

Good God (whoops) this thread is growing quicker than my ability to follow it.

I'm not an atheist anymore (I used to be), but I'm still tired of a few things:

People who assume atheists must be immoral because they have no system of penalties and rewards (other than those developed by society?) to keep them on the straight and narrow. If people of religion need a system like this, shouldn't /they/ be the ones considered immoral? I've known plenty (and was) of atheists who could at the very least be considered humanitiarians. When there's no afterlife, helping humanity *now* is really all that matters because that's all you'll see.

Atheism isn't a religion. It's a faith. Now I'm going to get yelled at by both sides. To the religious, yes, there's a big difference between those two words. To the atheist, you can't /proove/ there's no god just like we can't prove there is one, so it's a faith. A lack of proof on either side does not constitute proof on the opposite side. Philisophically, it's one of those things that /can't/ be proven, so both sides must act soley on their own ideas of what is true.

Let's play the semantics game.

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.


Atheism could be (1) in the sense of any statement you hold to be true that is not self-evident but this is very general and applies to both athiesm and theism equally (as well as includes "faith" that the Sun will "rise" the next day, the theory of gravity will hold, electricity will flow from negative to positive in that battery you just bought, etc.) while Theism runs the gamut from (1 - 6).

This makes it confusing to refer to atheism as a faith because it only applies in a very general sense and has negative connotations because of its specialized meanings for religion.

be·lief Audio pronunciation of "belief" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

(3) is , again, very general and applies equally to both ideas. However (1 and 2) imply that belief involves a positive affirmation towards a certain something. Theism does this, atheism does not.

This makes it easy to categorize them.

Theism is a belief.
Athiesm is the lack of that belief (or a lack of belief).

A fair point, God King, but it depends which dictionary you use. I'll choose Webster as it's sitting on my desk.

Faith:
1) allegiance to duty or a person : Loyalty : fidelity to one's promises : sincerity of intentions
2) belief and trust in and loyalty to God : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion : firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust
3) something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym: See Belief

The first definition centers around loyalty. In this particular case, "fidelity to one's promises" fits most neatly and answers quite nicely to both atheism and theism.

The second definition uses the example of religion, but also says, "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or "complete trust". There are "logical" arguments that "proove" the existance of a god just as there are the same arguments which prove no god can exist. Philosophy in most studies basically calls it a wash. There can be no proof for or against something that exists outside a causal structure within a causality argument. So this definition fits both systems as well.

Definition 3 states that a faith is something that is believed with strong conviction. Also fair to use for both systems.

Then the synonym ... the only one, I might point out ... is belief.

My point was that atheism is a faith, just like any other belief system, but more specifically is /not/ a religion. There is no concrete proof of it, just as there is no concrete proof of any theism. For you to call it a synonym for faith instead of a faith by the definition of one dictionary is unnecissary.

As to that definition, I would similarly argue that atheism fits definitions 1,2, 5, and 6 just as easily as theism, and unless you're talking about christianity specifically, fits any non-group oriented theism as easily as number 3. Also, unless you're talking specifically about christianity (which I am not), 4 is moot.

You've agreed it fits 1. Definition 2, I would argue from the philosophic standpoint that neither can be proven with certainty, and thus cannot rest on proof (can you prove there is no god? Not that the "christian" god does not exist, but that there is no such thing as a being outside of time which created our universe? It is theoretically impossible to make that claim unless you assign yourself the powers of the god you're trying to disprove and thus disprove yourself). Definitions 3 and 4 I've just spoken to. Definition 5 is simply the dogma or rhetoric of any faith, of which atheism has as much as some theistic beliefs. I was guilty of one for quite a long time that was self-destructive. I would claim there can be no such thing as infinites, such as a god, and then claim there was no need for a god since the universe was in a cyclical big bang cycle ... creating an infinite regression of universes. Definition 6 simply says a faith is a set of beliefs, and if you claim atheism is a belief, then it fits that definition.

Thus: atheism is a faith just as any theism is. It is not a lack of faith, it is a lack of faith in theism. Oppositely, theism could simply be called a lack of faith in atheism, or the disbelief that there could not be a god.

So atheism fits your definition quite well for faith as well.

Sorry, I missed that you were saying it was /not/ a belief (what a difference a word makes), but I think my argument still holds. Let's look at your definition of belief anyway:

The first definition requires placing trust in another which I would certainly say not all theistic groups do for their god (which is what I assume you are implying). In fact, in many cultures, they /distrust/ their god and instead, try to placate that god. Is religion then in those cultures a lack of belief? I think not. This part of the definition does not apply.

The second definition is a mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. You say atheism doesn't fit this bill and theism does? Then theists are the only ones who believe they are right? Incorrect, sir. Both groups fit that definition or there wouldn't even be an argument.

The third defintion is a slight modification of the second, saying it is a /specific/ thing that is believed to be true. In this case, as you say, both groups certainly have a specific side of the argument they believe in.

So theism and atheism both qualify as beliefs, or synonyms of faith.

The point you make that calling atheism a faith (note I do not call it a religion) is discrediting to your stance because the word has negative connotations is simply dodging the issue. The definition of the words, whether the connotation is generally used for theistic purposes or not, fits both sides. The word "religion" does not, and it is to that word I object.

Exactly.

Besides, even if my choice of words wasn't entirely correct I'm sure you can see what I meant.
Yeah, I get too nit-picky, but demonstrating a myth isn't real only proves it as a myth, not disproves. ;-)

The first definition requires placing trust in another which I would certainly say not all theistic groups do for their god (which is what I assume you are implying). In fact, in many cultures, they /distrust/ their god and instead, try to placate that god. Is religion then in those cultures a lack of belief? I think not. This part of the definition does not apply.

Which theisms do not place their trust in what they believe?

A fair point, God King, but it depends which dictionary you use. I'll choose Webster as it's sitting on my desk.


I don't like Webster, not one bit.


Faith:
1) allegiance to duty or a person : Loyalty : fidelity to one's promises : sincerity of intentions
2) belief and trust in and loyalty to God : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion : firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust
3) something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym: See Belief

The first definition centers around loyalty. In this particular case, "fidelity to one's promises" fits most neatly and answers quite nicely to both atheism and theism.


(1) is a stretch. A really big stretch. Even if we follow through with this linguistic gymnastics to get it to mean what you want it to, al you've got is that sadly general [1] from my post.


The second definition uses the example of religion, but also says, "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or "complete trust". There are "logical" arguments that "proove" the existance of a god just as there are the same arguments which prove no god can exist. Philosophy in most studies basically calls it a wash. There can be no proof for or against something that exists outside a causal structure within a causality argument. So this definition fits both systems as well.

The burden of proof is on the theist.
"Firm belief"? Sure, just like the theory of gravity.
"Complete trust"? No. No atheist claims to have complete certainity. (Except for the embarrasing high-school "I'm an atheist because it's cool and I hate God." atheists.) It's a logical conclusion based on our knowledge at the time. Logical induction.

Looks like there's some differences here.


Definition 3 states that a faith is something that is believed with strong conviction. Also fair to use for both systems.


Strong conviction ... as in blind faith?
Or strong conviction in the vadility of an idea?


Then the synonym ... the only one, I might point out ... is belief.

For you to call it a synonym for faith instead of a faith by the definition of one dictionary is unnecissary.


Belief is more than just a synonym for faith, it's fundamental to the idea and it is the root of where the difference between athiesm and theism lies.


You've agreed it fits 1. Definition 2, I would argue from the philosophic standpoint that neither can be proven with certainty, and thus cannot rest on proof (can you prove there is no god? Not that the "christian" god does not exist, but that there is no such thing as a being outside of time which created our universe? It is theoretically impossible to make that claim unless you assign yourself the powers of the god you're trying to disprove and thus disprove yourself).

Unless I never made the claim wih absolute certainity in the first place. Hur hur hur.


Definitions 3 and 4 I've just spoken to. Definition 5 is simply the dogma or rhetoric of any faith, of which atheism has as much as some theistic beliefs.


Sorry, it specifically states "religion" which you yourself argued atheism is not.


I was guilty of one for quite a long time that was self-destructive. I would claim there can be no such thing as infinites, such as a god, and then claim there was no need for a god since the universe was in a cyclical big bang cycle ... creating an infinite regression of universes.


The origin of the cosmos is a fun idea. Especially since the "laws" (Sorry, Newton but Classical Physics is wrong) of cause and effect break down at the Big Bang because Time began at the Big Bang so there is no "before".


Definition 6 simply says a faith is a set of beliefs, and if you claim atheism is a belief, then it fits that definition.


A lack of belief. Big difference. Futhermore, like unifying thing amongst atheists is their lack of belief in God(s) only. The term "Atheism" doesn't tell you anything about what a person believes, only what they don't.

The burden of proof is on the theist.

Actually, the burden of "no proof" is on the theist.

A lack of belief. Big difference. Futhermore, like unifying thing amongst atheists is their lack of belief in God(s) only. The term "Atheism" doesn't tell you anything about what a person believes, only what they don't.

No, atheism is a belief that there is no god.

A lack of belief is agnosticism. There's a world of difference.

Join Agnostics Unite! today and learn that difference.

No, atheism is a belief that there is no god.

A lack of belief is agnosticism. There's a world of difference.

Join Agnostics Unite! today and learn that difference.

Agnosticism means a lack of knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief.

There are agnostic atheists (myself) and agnostic theists. There is no fence-sitter position, either you actively believe or you don't. Which one are you?

Agnosticism means a lack of knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief.

There are agnostic atheists (myself) and agnostic theists. There is no fence-sitter position, either you actively believe or you don't. Which one are you?

I don't know and I don't care. I'm agnostic. I'm not atheist because I don't believe there is nothing. Likewise I'm not theist because I don't believe there is something.

I don't know and I don't care. I'm agnostic. I'm not atheist because I don't believe there is nothing. Likewise I'm not theist because I don't believe there is something.

Look at me! I'm superior because I claim to have no opinion! Hur hur hur ... that ws a good laugh.

You missed the point completely.

If you don't believe in any sort of God(s), you are an atheist by definition. There's only two sides of the coin. Again, agnosticism only refers to knowledge, not your beliefs (or lackthereof.)

Look at me! I'm superior because I claim to have no opinion! Hur hur hur ... that ws a good laugh.

You missed the point completely.

If you don't believe in any sort of God(s), you are an atheist by definition. There's only two sides of the coin. Again, agnosticism only refers to knowledge, not your beliefs (or lackthereof.)

Never said I have no opinion.



www.dictionary.com:

Agnostic:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


Atheist:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Actually, the burden of "no proof" is on the theist.
That doesn't make sense. There is no way to prove something doesn't exist. For example, I could say that the Universe was created by a fluffy magical rabbit and it is this rabbit who will judge us after our deaths and either devour us or let us live between its fur. One of the condition to not be eaten is that you must believe in its existence and adore it. Let the fluffy magical rabbit guide you.

Do you have any proof that this rabbit doesn't exist and won't eat you after your death?

Or, furthermore, do you have any proof that the hindu, mayan or other gods don't exist and that you will go to their particular version of hell (or be reincarnated) for being an non-believer?

Actually, the burden of "no proof" is on the theist.That doesn't make sense. There is no way to prove something doesn't exist.I read that (perhaps incorrectly) as a dig on the fact that a theist is a theist through "faith" + "no proof", and thus "no proof" was what had to be proven by the theist (the same as "proof" has to be, and can be, supplied by a supporter of the evolutionary ideas)...

a) I could be wrong, and that wasn't what was meant at all,
b) It's a lot less funny and completely unspontaneous when an explanation has to be made...

:)

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:

I don't care about dying. I just hope that it doesn't hurt. And ofcourse that I want wrong in my disbelieve :p

There is no way to prove something doesn't exist.
Exactly, and that is the only burden a theist must bear. They don't *have to* prove it exists --they have their faith.

Originally posted by <b>Iztatepopotla</b>
That doesn't make sense. There is no way to prove something doesn't exist.

That, plus Torching Witches' dictionary.com definition (since apparently websters isn't appropriate) of atheism was exactly what I was using. Theists believe there /is/ a god, atheists believe there is /no/ god. If you are an "agnostic atheist" doesn't that mean you're both "away from god" and "without knowledge" or does it mean you're without knowledge about atheism? That's a rather confusing stance to take.

Originally posted by <b>The God King Eru Sama</b>
(1) is a stretch. A really big stretch. Even if we follow through with this linguistic gymnastics to get it to mean what you want it to, al you've got is that sadly general [1] from my post.

And I would say it's a generaltiy for theists as well if you want to get nit-picky. You can't talk about loyalty to the idea of having a god (note, we're not talking any specific god, just the idea that there /is/ some kind of god-creature) as being very different from the idea that there is not one in terms of loyalty.

Originally posted by <b>The God King Eru Sama</b>
The burden of proof is on the theist.
"Firm belief"? Sure, just like the theory of gravity.
"Complete trust"? No. No atheist claims to have complete certainity. (Except for the embarrasing high-school "I'm an atheist because it's cool and I hate God." atheists.) It's a logical conclusion based on our knowledge at the time. Logical induction.

No, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a hypothesis, whether that hypothesis is "there is a god" or "there isn't a god". I love it when people say the burden of proof lies on one group or another, because *both sides are impossible to prove*.

And just as well, most theists I've met won't claim to have complete certainty either, so what's the difference? Unless you're saying (as Torching Witches noted) that you're actually going to use the definition of agnostic for yourself, not atheist. Both groups come to a "logical" conclusion based on what they see in the world around them. This conclusion rests on the understanding of that world and becomes a belief. Continued adherence to a belief without proof, I would call faith. In fact, the agnostics are the only ones who really make any sense, logically.

And willamena,

Originally posted by <b>Willamena</b>
Which theisms do not place their trust in what they believe?

This point of the definition simply was defined as "alliegance to a person", which was the part I was arguing. It doesn't fit neatly because not all theists believe their god is a "good" god, and instead of being loyal to that god or swearing alliegance in any way, they try to placate that god.

My point, (to reiterate) was that faith is a term which can be used to describe atheism. Faith, while it may have a connotation that tends towards theism, is not that limited in its actual definition. The term "religion" which people have been throwing around, however, can not, in any way, be used to describe an atheist. What I was saying, if you want to get picky, is that truly the one with no belief or no faith, is an agnostic. They don't believe things that no one can prove.

Exactly, and that is the only burden a theist must bear. They don't *have to* prove it exists --they have their faith.
And that's all very well and good. But when it comes to trying to convince a person that doesn't believe in their God (or some other god) through rationalist means then they must present proof on the existence of this god.

Notice that I wrote "rationalist means". You can still make the philosophical or spiritual discussion on the need for a god or faith in a god without having to demonstrate it's physically real.

Now, I don't think there is a god, I prefer trying to explain physical and mental phenomena through explanations not involving god. Sure, you can point at god whenever you find something you don't understand to fill the empty spaces, but that's not as satisfying, or even necessary.

Do I believe there is no god? No, I have no belief one way or the other. If there's one that's ok; if not, that's ok too.

But if somebody tries to convince me of the existence of a particular god and of a particular way to worship and the consequences or not doing so, then I demand proof of what they're saying.

And that's all very well and good. But when it comes to trying to convince a person that doesn't believe in their God (or some other god) through rationalist means then they must present proof on the existence of this god.

Notice that I wrote "rationalist means". You can still make the philosophical or spiritual discussion on the need for a god or faith in a god without having to demonstrate it's physically real.

Now, I don't think there is a god, I prefer trying to explain physical and mental phenomena through explanations not involving god. Sure, you can point at god whenever you find something you don't understand to fill the empty spaces, but that's not as satisfying, or even necessary.

Do I believe there is no god? No, I have no belief one way or the other. If there's one that's ok; if not, that's ok too.

But if somebody tries to convince me of the existence of a particular god and of a particular way to worship and the consequences or not doing so, then I demand proof of what they're saying.
wow, you and i seem to be in 100% agreement on this subject. how rare.

Do I believe there is no god? No, I have no belief one way or the other. If there's one that's ok; if not, that's ok too.

But if somebody tries to convince me of the existence of a particular god and of a particular way to worship and the consequences or not doing so, then I demand proof of what they're saying.

Wonderful. Excellent.

Good points. Very well made.

*Applause*.... Take a bow, Iztatepopotla.

Death? Whatever. I intend to live forever. So far, so good. In the event that I must perish, then I hope (and truly expect) to take a lot of people/animals/landscape with me. If you're gonna do something, do it with style, right?

An afterlife? Unnecessary, really. I think it would be enough to just not have to do anything anymore. It's very preposterous, I think, for someone to consider himself more worthy of an afterlife than another. What would the point of an afterlife be, anyway? What, so you didn't do enough in the first one? If you're gonna waste your time waiting for the next level (which might not exist) then I doubt you really deserve it.

You can have your afterlifes, your reincarnations, your heavens and your hells. if more people gave half a damn about the current world, we'd be a lot better off.

*snip*


Hurray for colloquial meanings? I prefer looking at the etymology.
a = without
gnosis = knowledge
theos = god

Anyway, the term agnostic can be applied both to a theist or an atheist. This makes it not very usefull by itself when "declaring sides" so to speak. There's a lack of specificity about the term.

The way I see it:
Agnostic Athiest - also called the Weak Athiest = Lack of belief
Gnostic Atheist - also called the Strong Athiest or Positive Athiest = Belief no gods exist

You just call the weak atheist an agnostic and say all self-proclaimed atheists are strong atheists, thus we run around in circles.

To reiterate, the problem with doing this is that theists can be agnostic too and we end up sticking thiests and atheists together in one "central" group that has no clear stance on the issue.

Hurray for colloquial meanings? I prefer looking at the etymology.
a = without
gnosis = knowledge
theos = god

Anyway, the term agnostic can be applied both to a theist or an atheist. This makes it not very usefull by itself when "declaring sides" so to speak. There's a lack of specificity about the term.

The way I see it:
Agnostic Athiest - also called the Weak Athiest = Lack of belief
Gnostic Atheist - also called the Strong Athiest or Positive Athiest = Belief no gods exist

You just call the weak atheist an agnostic and say all self-proclaimed atheists are strong atheists, thus we run around in circles.

To reiterate, the problem with doing this is that theists can be agnostic too and we end up sticking thiests and atheists together in one "central" group that has no clear stance on the issue.

I tend to follow the path of etymology, also. Although it can sometimes lead you into traps ("Sarcophagus" being one of my favourite examples)... it is usually the best way (I feel) to get to the meaning behind a word.

A-Theist = without god.

How much more simple can it be?

And that's all very well and good. But when it comes to trying to convince a person that doesn't believe in their God (or some other god) through rationalist means then they must present proof on the existence of this god.

Notice that I wrote "rationalist means". You can still make the philosophical or spiritual discussion on the need for a god or faith in a god without having to demonstrate it's physically real.

Now, I don't think there is a god, I prefer trying to explain physical and mental phenomena through explanations not involving god. Sure, you can point at god whenever you find something you don't understand to fill the empty spaces, but that's not as satisfying, or even necessary.

Do I believe there is no god? No, I have no belief one way or the other. If there's one that's ok; if not, that's ok too.

But if somebody tries to convince me of the existence of a particular god and of a particular way to worship and the consequences or not doing so, then I demand proof of what they're saying.
Perhaps my problem is that I've never met an Evangelical, nor anyone who tried to "convince a person that doesn't believe in their God (or some other god) through rationalist means". They are so far removed from any religious concepts I know, or know of, that I would no doubt consider them insane, as bottle does, were I ever to meet one. Never talked to one, never listened to one on television, tuned off the scary Crusade shows that interrupt my prime time viewing, never been solicited at my doorstep, never felt threatened as if ideas were being imposed on me. There was an old man who stood on a street corner downtown when I was a kid, and preached aloud waiving his Bible in the air. I think he passed away a few decades ago, and no one's taken his place.

Most religions I have ever encountered, and this includes Protestant Christians here where I live, do not espouse a god that you can touch, feel and see. God, they say, is everywhere and intangible. So tell me, what sort of "proof" are you looking for that would allow you to believe in this god?

Most religions I have ever encountered, and this includes Protestant Christians here where I live, do not espouse a god that you can touch, feel and see. God, they say, is everywhere and intangible. So tell me, what sort of "proof" are you looking for that would allow you to believe in this god?
If their definition of god is simply that it's everywhere and it's intangible then we can say that fits energy (cosmic background radiaton) or gravity, both of which are very appreciable and measurable. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I think their definition goes beyond that simple statement.

Now, if by intangible it means that you can not measure it or its effects, then it has no relevance on the Universe and therefore it doesn't matter whether there's a god or not, or whether you believe in one or not.

Simple, ain't it?

That, plus Torching Witches' dictionary.com definition (since apparently websters isn't appropriate) of atheism was exactly what I was using. Theists believe there /is/ a god, atheists believe there is /no/ god. If you are an "agnostic atheist" doesn't that mean you're both "away from god" and "without knowledge" or does it mean you're without knowledge about atheism? That's a rather confusing stance to take.


I have no knowledge of a god, don't see it or observe its effects anywhere, so based on my knowledge, I conclude no such entity exists unless it becomes demonstratable otherwise.


And I would say it's a generaltiy for theists as well if you want to get nit-picky. You can't talk about loyalty to the idea of having a god (note, we're not talking any specific god, just the idea that there /is/ some kind of god-creature) as being very different from the idea that there is not one in terms of loyalty.

That's my point, it's a very broad and general definition and thus has little substance to us.


[quote]
No, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a hypothesis, whether that hypothesis is "there is a god" or "there isn't a god". I love it when people say the burden of proof lies on one group or another, because *both sides are impossible to prove*.


We didn't have theism until some punks started claiming supernatural forces to explain the world around them. Seeing as we didn't have a conscious model of logic or the scientifc method early on and we were very ignorant of the world, it seemed as a good an explanation as any. I'm sure to the idea of currying favour from the gods and having some sense of certainity in the fearsome and indifferent natural world was quite appealing as well.

I've yet to see these claims be substantiated.


And just as well, most theists I've met won't claim to have complete certainty either, so what's the difference? Unless you're saying (as Torching Witches noted) that you're actually going to use the definition of agnostic for yourself, not atheist. Both groups come to a "logical" conclusion based on what they see in the world around them. This conclusion rests on the understanding of that world and becomes a belief.


See my previous post about agnosticism. You've shown the problem with this broad inclusion of "agnostics."

Most theists have their book and that's where the ideas come from, which every way they choose to interpret it (I've got a bone to pick with that, but that's another topic). There are also those "spiritual" people (Hi agnostic theists!) which are what you describe.

We're really derailed here though.

My point as an agnostic atheist is that we don't make positive claims but discredit theistic claims and refuse to accept the idea without satisfactory justification. We're skeptics. Faith doesn't come into it.

My classification still works.

If their definition of god is simply that it's everywhere and it's intangible then we can say that fits energy (cosmic background radiaton) or gravity, both of which are very appreciable and measurable. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I think their definition goes beyond that simple statement.

Now, if by intangible it means that you can not measure it or its effects, then it has no relevance on the Universe and therefore it doesn't matter whether there's a god or not, or whether you believe in one or not.

Simple, ain't it?
So, we've gone from
"The burden of proof is on the theist."
to
"The burden of proof is on the theist who attempts to convert me by rationalizing their god."
to
"The burden of proof is on the theist who attempts to convert me by rationalizing their god as some sort of measurable physical presence in the universe, because if there's nothing to prove to me then I can't be bothered to be converted."

Do I have that right? The god with a physical presence is the only one you want to believe in, for whom you would consider converting to a religion? Because, seriously, if you wouldn't consider converting anyway then the whole demanding of proof thing is pointless.

I tend to follow the path of etymology, also. Although it can sometimes lead you into traps ("Sarcophagus" being one of my favourite examples)... it is usually the best way (I feel) to get to the meaning behind a word.

A-Theist = without god.

How much more simple can it be?As I've said before (not in an attempt to either clarify or confuse the issue, just to broaden the vision of everyone) it depends on whether you think the word is:
A-theist - Not (a God/gods/etc believer), or
Athe-ist - (A no God/gods/etc) believer....


I swing towards the former (of all the beliefs an atheist might have, they do not have any concerning the Gods, etc) but that's just me, a "Not (a Knower about God)", a.k.a. "agnostic". :)

Okay, let's say God one day stands up in the middle of a crowded auditorium full of people watching Star Wars XXVII and says, "It's me."

It's really him. Everyone can tell immediately; there's no doubt. The question is, would you convert to his religion? and why?

Do I have that right? The god with a physical presence is the only one you want to believe in, for whom you would consider converting to a religion? Because, seriously, if you wouldn't consider converting anyway then the whole demanding of proof thing is pointless.

No. It hasn't gone from one to the other. It's always been like that. The clarifications have been for your benefit only.

Let me explain. If you believe in an entity with no physical presence or which is immesurable in any way (that is, exists outside what we call reality), then your belief is a simple issue of faith and requires no proof or demonstration. However, it's also a choice and all you can do is either believe in that entity or not. You can't "convert" anyone or try to convince someone else to follow that same belief, simply explain it and then other people will either choose to believe the same thing or not.

But if you believe there is a real entity that has effect on the Universe and your actions or what will happen to you in the future, that requires demonstration.

I don't "want" to believe in a god, or convert to any religion, neither do I want you or anyone else to stop believing. If I choose to believe or not it will have nothing to do with proof or anything else. It will be a simple matter of choosing a belief system. However, I find no need to do so.

The point is that some people think that their beliefs are more than just choice and faith, that they trascend into 'greater reality' and therefore anyone who doesn't share their particular beliefs is 'wrong'. To those people I say "show me the proof".

Okay, let's say God one day stands up in the middle of a crowded auditorium full of people watching Star Wars XXVII and says, "It's me."

It's really him. Everyone can tell immediately; there's no doubt. The question is, would you convert to his religion? and why?
Sure, such an entity would have a physical, corroborable presence. I expect that its claims of being god and having power over the physical and spiritual realms are open to verification and experimentation.

Would I then "convert" to its religion? What would be there to convert to? What's there to "believe"? Do I worship the sun just because I know it's there? I would simply acknowledge its existence and if that changes my life in any significative way, I'd just change it.

Okay, let's say God one day stands up in the middle of a crowded auditorium full of people watching Star Wars XXVII and says, "It's me."

It's really him. Everyone can tell immediately; there's no doubt. The question is, would you convert to his religion? and why?
Depends on which god it is. If he's the sort of jerk who everyone should constanly praise him and condemns anyone who doesn't to hell, then, well, reserve some brimstone for me. Omnipotent or not, I'm not just going to worship a tyrant.

If the god in question is actually a nice and sensible guy, then sure.

Plus, what Iztatepopotla said.

No. It hasn't gone from one to the other. It's always been like that. The clarifications have been for your benefit only.
I needed no clarification; the (incorrect) blanket statement did.

Let me explain. If you believe in an entity with no physical presence or which is immesurable in any way (that is, exists outside what we call reality), then your belief is a simple issue of faith and requires no proof or demonstration. However, it's also a choice and all you can do is either believe in that entity or not. You can't "convert" anyone or try to convince someone else to follow that same belief, simply explain it and then other people will either choose to believe the same thing or not.

But if you believe there is a real entity that has effect on the Universe and your actions or what will happen to you in the future, that requires demonstration.

I don't "want" to believe in a god, or convert to any religion, neither do I want you or anyone else to stop believing. If I choose to believe or not it will have nothing to do with proof or anything else. It will be a simple matter of choosing a belief system. However, I find no need to do so.

The point is that some people think that their beliefs are more than just choice and faith, that they trascend into 'greater reality' and therefore anyone who doesn't share their particular beliefs is 'wrong'. To those people I say "show me the proof".
And now the blanket statement has been qualified down to individuals. Thank you.

I agree that people who profess their religion is the only right one and god is "real" are asking for it. To me, that doesn't mean we have to "give it to them". ;-)

Sure, such an entity would have a physical, corroborable presence. I expect that its claims of being god and having power over the physical and spiritual realms are open to verification and experimentation.

Would I then "convert" to its religion? What would be there to convert to? What's there to "believe"? Do I worship the sun just because I know it's there? I would simply acknowledge its existence and if that changes my life in any significative way, I'd just change it.
Exactly. And proof of god's presence would in no way alter the spiritual journey that is the religion(s) people practice *about* god.

So... do you really expect an answer from any of them to whom you ask for proof? And finally, if not, isn't it all a waste of time and effort?

Exactly. And proof of god's presence would in no way alter the spiritual journey that is the religion(s) people practice *about* god.

So... do you really expect an answer from any of them to whom you ask for proof? And finally, if not, isn't it all a waste of time and effort?
Frankly, no. But since some people seem bent on forcing everyone else to their beliefs, one has to. And, yes, it is a waste of time, but that what the Nation States forum is for :)

Okay, let's say God one day stands up in the middle of a crowded auditorium full of people watching Star Wars XXVII and says, "It's me."

It's really him. Everyone can tell immediately; there's no doubt. The question is, would you convert to his religion? and why?

No.
1/ I believe he doesn't exist, therefore I believe this could never happen.
2/ There won't be a Star Wars XXVII, therefore this event can never take place.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.
On the contrary, wasting my time sitting in church for a great portion of my life is 'stupid and pointless' why go to church and listen to an hour-long speech about ethics when you already know what you need to know in order not to fuck your life up? And if you don't have your ethics straight, I'm sure the Wal-Mart you work at offers some sort of 'common sense for our dumbass employees' program you can join. I hope you choke.

Okay, let's say God one day stands up in the middle of a crowded auditorium full of people watching Star Wars XXVII and says, "It's me."

It's really him. Everyone can tell immediately; there's no doubt. The question is, would you convert to his religion? and why?
but that's just the thing, we couldn't tell. even if He raised the dead, turned back time, made a flight of phoenixes appear from nothing, and danced the hoochie-coo on the ceiling, that wouldn't be any evidence that the being in question is GOD. it could just be some really really powerful being that is trying to convince us it's God. it could be an evil being trying to masquerade as God, for all we know.

however, i will try to answer what i think is your underlying question. if, somehow, God made his reality known to me in an unequivocal manner, then obviously i would believe in the existence of God. however, if that God told me that i had to do certain things that go against my personal moral code, perhaps as requirements for worshipping him, i would not do them unless he could rationally convince me of the necessity that i do so. well, to be more precise, i would only do them if he threatened my loved ones with direct harm, and then i would be doing them only for as long as would be necessary to figure out how to escape from or otherwise thwart that God-being. in short, the only way a God could compel me to break my established moral code out of "faith" would be through dishonorable and cruel tactics.

If I tell you "Alright, I'm going to hell." will you just shut the hell up? Not that I care wether or not I'm going to heaven or hell, such places don't exist, nor will they ever exist or have existed.