NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe there is a god, but I don't think a) he is necessarily good or b) he has the attributes many people give him, but I am willing to accept that there was something that caused us to be here. Abiogenesis seems a little too random and I'm too lazy to read through so many comments to see if there is an explanation. Just my say. Anyone read the 'Night Warriors' series by Graham Masterton... Something along the lines of that.

Yes, pretty close for me too. Then I ran into this religion that talked about all people now matter where they came from being one people. And that there was really only one religion the religion of God. Baha'u'llah said it to Glory not is this that you love your country but that you love mankind. This kind of stuff jsut blew me away because I had always believed that kind of thinking. There is so much more. But in a nut shell most all of my question about religion were answered with the Baha'i Faith.

I like the sound of that. I'll have to look in to it. :)

Yeah mine was expidited by "events" in the 4th grade (my priest was one of "thoes" priests) and I ... lost my faith in that organization :)

Catholic too huh. Me too. Lucky for me I did not have one of those priests. I feel for you though. The corruption of religion happens time and time again when the people in power drift away from the spiritual teachings. The same thing happened in Judiams, Islam etc. That is why today Baha'u'llah has returned to bring back the spirit to religion.

I like the sound of that. I'll have to look in to it. :)

There are lots of good websites. I will post one here.

Here's one.

http://www.bahai.org/

I believe there is a god, but I don't think a) he is necessarily good or b) he has the attributes many people give him, but I am willing to accept that there was something that caused us to be here. Abiogenesis seems a little too random and I'm too lazy to read through so many comments to see if there is an explanation. Just my say. Anyone read the 'Night Warriors' series by Graham Masterton... Something along the lines of that.

I have never read Masterton. But I agree that abiogenesis is hard for me to believe. I do believe in the evolution of life. I just believe that the spark that started it was God breathe if you will.

There are lots of good websites. I will post one here.

Here's one.

http://www.bahai.org/

Thanks, I just bookmarked it on my account.

To me this indeed is not a simple question to answer as one might think. I am a bit of a mix of Wiccan, Taoist, Jainist and, Shintoist. I am heavily pantheistic and animistic. I see there to be an essence to all things which can be manifested as a goddess, god or gods. But I view it as all matter of perspective. There is something there if you look for it but if not it's just an essence. Something that connects all things and is different to each. Therefore, I feel every perspective is valid and true.

Thanks, I just bookmarked it on my account.

Happy to do it. Good reading.

To me this indeed is not a simple question to answer as one might think. I am a bit of a mix of Wiccan, Taoist, Jainist and, Shintoist. I am heavily pantheistic and animistic. I see there to be an essence to all things which can be manifested as a goddess, god or gods. But I view it as all matter of perspective. There is something there if you look for it but if not it's just an essence. Something that connects all things and is different to each. Therefore, I feel every perspective is valid and true.

I agree that every perspective has validity and truthfullness. And God is more than just an essense. It is always hard to describe the Creator because we lack adequate words to describe something that for the most part we can only feel. We can't touch God, but still we have to try and talk about God. So to call God the Unknowable Essense is just one more attempt in do the almost impossible.

God exists, here are some reasons to consider...


1. Does God exist? Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.
Billions of people, who represent diverse sociological, intellectual, emotional, educational makeups...believe that there is a Creator, a God to be worshipped. Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?
"Anthropological research has indicated that among the farthest and most remote primitive people today, there is a universal belief in God. And in the earliest histories and legends of people all around the world, the original concept was of one God, who was the Creator. An original high God seems once to have been in their consciousness even in those societies which are today polytheistic."3


2. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.4 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents.5

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.6

Water is also chemically inert. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.7

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of this article in your hand. Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.8 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ?

When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.


3. Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.
Imagine looking at Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.
This article only touches on a few amazing aspects of our world: the Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"9

When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life. The Bible describes God as the author and sustainer of life.


4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?
And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.


5. Does God exist? God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.
God's thoughts, personality, and attitudes can only be known if God chooses to reveal them. All else would be human speculation. We are at a loss if God does not wish to be known. But God wants us to know Him and has told us in the Bible all we need to know about His character and how to relate to Him. This makes the reliability of the Bible an important consideration.
Archaeological findings continue to confirm rather than refute the accuracy of the Bible. For example, an archeological find in northern Israel in August 1993 confirmed the existence of King David, author of many of the Psalms in the Bible.10 The Dead Sea Scrolls and other archaeological discoveries continue to substantiate the historical accuracy of the Bible.

The Bible was written over a 1500-year span, by 40 different authors, in different locations and on separate continents, written in three different languages, covering diverse subject matters at different points in history.11 Yet there is an astounding consistency in its message. Throughout the entire Bible the same message appears:

God created the world we live in, and created us specifically to have a relationship with Him.
He deeply loves us.
We have sinned and are under God's judgment, in need of His forgiveness.
God provided a way for our sins to be forgiven.
He asks us to receive His forgiveness and have a relationship with Him that will last eternally.
Along with this central script, the Bible specifically reveals God's character. Psalm 145 is a typical summary of God's personality, thoughts and feelings toward us. If you want to know God, here He is.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at Him. Though He talked about His Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in Him, believed in the Father.
He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."12 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."

MATHEMATICIAN SAYS GOD EXISTS

Aristotle and Descartes would be pleased to hear Dr. William Hatcher proclaim that even God Himself cannot defy logic.

Hatcher, who is a self-proclaimed Platonist philosopher with a Ph.D. in mathematics, delivered a logical proof for the existence of God before an over-filled auditorium in Warren Hall last night.

The event marked the first in what the Baha'i student organization hopes will be a series of discussions about religion, science, and philosophy, and how the three topics interrelate.

"We just felt like there wasn't enough discussion on campus" about these matters, said Natasha Bruss, BC '05, President of the Baha'i club at Columbia. Baha'i is based on the teachings of the prophet Baha'u'llah, who preached that all religions are one, religion is progressive, and that faith is not meant to be dogmatic.

Hatcher, a Baha'i adherent himself, is similarly uninterested in dogma. His discussion explored the existence of God and carefully shied away from any of its implications. Rather, he stated, "we have to transform the religious discourse from a discourse about belief to a discourse about truth."

To that end, Hatcher began his discussion with an introduction to Aristotlean, or attributional, logic and its shortcomings.

Aristotle purported to have proven the existence of God, but he did so based on a kind of logic that deals with properties of objects, an approach, he argued, that's less than satisfying considering that God's attributes cannot be perceived. Aristotle insisted that there must be a first cause, namely God, in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies of an infinite regress of causes for the universe.

Avicenna, an ancient Muslim philosopher, employed a different form of logic in his proof. He examined the relations between objects rather than their attributes, and in doing so accomplished what Hatcher called "really amazing stuff." He claimed to have proved the existence of God without recourse to Aristotle's infinite regression principle.

Hatcher said that though many subsequent philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonedes built on Avicenna's proof, they continued to fall back on the infinite regression principle. Hatcher argued that this principle is not sufficient to prove the necessity of God's existence. Modern mathematics demonstrates the logical possibility of infinite regression; negative integers, for instance, do not have a minimal element or something that can be labeled a "first cause."

Thus, Hatcher has attempted to wed modern mathematics and ancient philosophy in a proof of God's existence, drawing on Avicenna's concept of relational logic. "In relational logic, we want to know how the object relates to other objects. It turns out that the relational approach often yields more useful information [than Aristotlean attributional logic]."

The proof itself rests on four principles, the first of which is the assertion that something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, he pointed out, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists.

Further, he said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the "principle of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. "Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing," he said.

Working from these principles, Hatcher first defined what he called "the minimum criteria for Godhood," and then set about trying to prove the existence of a phenomenon to fit those criteria. God, he said, must exist and be unique, and must be self-caused as well as being the cause of everything else. "Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with God," he said.

He then delved into Avicenna's discussion of the part-whole relationship. "All known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum mechanics," he stated. Thus, if A is a component of B, then B is composite, and furthermore a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place.

From these definitions, he said, one can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components.

Then, the universe could similarly not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe.

He concluded that G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

Hatcher said that the strength of the proof is that each assumption it rests on is empirically grounded and is "far more reasonable than its negation."

David Kline, CC '07, said he was impressed, even though he felt that the logical proof of God, far from justifying faith, only requires a different kind of faith. But, with that faith in reason so characteristic of Columbia students, he said he appreciated that the talk was "a purely logical representation of the existence of God and not the meaning of God."

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

If there was no God, then life must have started spontaneously by chance. For life to have even come about, the exact right chemical would have to come together in the exact right quantities, under the exact right temperature and the exact right pressure and other controlling factors and all be rigidly and strictly maintained for the precisely direct length of time. Furthermore, for life to have begun and been sustained on earth, these chance events would have to be repeated thousands of times. But how is it likely is it for even one such event to take place? The chance that atoms and molecules falling into place to form a simple protein molecule is 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000. The chance of ANYTHING happening is 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Far than one simple molecule is needing for life. Some 2000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10e+40000 (that is 10 followed by 40000 zeros). If one is not prejudiced by either social beliefs or self-destructive cynicismm then the idea that life originated on Earth just by chance is grossly illogical. In addition, all known natural phenomena appear to follow the same basic scientific laws and that there is precise logic and order in EVERYTHING that is taking place in the universe, which is explained by mathematical terms. Also, that in these lwas, there are certain factors in which the values must be precisely and EXACTLY fixed for the universe, the ENTIRE physical world as we know it, to EVEN exist. Among these fundamental constants are unit of electric charge on the proton and the masses of certain fundamental particles.

God exists, period. It may not be the Christian idea of God, or any other religion, but it is illogical to deny the existence of a higher authority. Anything else is WRONG. These are not my "beliefs" or my so-called "opinion", this is what I and most humanity KNOWS. Atheists and pessimists can spend all their time seeking "proof" that God does not exist, filibuster as much as they can, whine about how belief in God is "irrational" or whatever, complain of the violence done in religion's name, and whatever they can do to promote their desperate crusade. Atheism is invented by men who are too arrogant and proud to recognise an authority higher that themselves or those who feel like getting "revenge" or what not (God, you are giving me an unfair life. Well, you'll see. I just won't believe in you, so there. Nyah nyah!).

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
-Winston Churchill

God does not play dice with the universe.
-Albert Einstein

A lot of people now find belief in God immature, and eventually a lot of people may find realism immature.
-Richard Porty

The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.
-Thomas Jefferson

Plain and simple..God exists. No more to tell.

That was very interesting! Are you Baha'i?

But if there are infinite planets, then there are infinite possibilities. Therefore, every eventuality must be fulfilled, so it's a logical certainty that, god or no god, we would exist somewhere.

Not quite.

Jesus was not God's mouthpiece, but rather God's very own Son. Those here probably all know that He did not come to earth on God's behalf, but rather on our own. Jesus did not come to be a teacher, he came, although teaching was accomplished in his lifetime, to become a sacrafice, much like any sheep or goat would have been to the Jews, but so, so, so, soooooo much bigger than even the most perfect white sheep.

Speculation.

The 'divinity' of Jesus was not even a believed conspet during his life... and remained a heretical sub-sect of the 'faith' until a considerable time later.

I say again, Jesus did come, and taught, but His prime goal was to die as a sacrafice, and you should know that.

Or, alternatively, Jesus is a fictional character, he never existed, and he is a creation of those who wish to avoid the obvious truth that we all die and rot, and you should know that....

You just pick which side appeals to you more, I guess.

Or, alternatively, Jesus is a fictional character, he never existed, and he is a creation of those who wish to avoid the obvious truth that we all die and rot, and you should know that....

You just pick which side appeals to you more, I guess.

I realise that the "hard" proof of the existense of Christ is probably non-extant. But it is diffucult for me to believe that Christ was purely fictional. I can think fo no other fictional character in history who has had the same or nearly the same impact as the supposedly fictional character of Christ.

I realise that the "hard" proof of the existense of Christ is probably non-extant. But it is diffucult for me to believe that Christ was purely fictional. I can think fo no other fictional character in history who has had the same or nearly the same impact as the supposedly fictional character of Christ.
Re the "impact", are you talking about the length of time involved, or some other factor?

Re the "impact", are you talking about the length of time involved, or some other factor?

The most important thing that Christ fictional or non-fictional was the radical change in the character of human beings. This is to me the real test of the Christ figure. Early documents point to the impact that the character of Christians impressing the gentiles so much that they converted. It was this resurrection of human spirit that is so impressive. And is "proof" of Christ.

The most important thing that Christ fictional or non-fictional was the radical change in the character of human beings. This is to me the real test of the Christ figure. Early documents point to the impact that the character of Christians impressing the gentiles so much that they converted. It was this resurrection of human spirit that is so impressive. And is "proof" of Christ.
Interesting. What is this change in character, and what did it alter them from? If this quality of human spirit was "resurrected" do you mean to imply it was possessed, then lost, then regained?
(*just curious*)

Is the quality of human spirit regained the same as had in the Garden (surely not)?

Interesting. What is this change in character, and what did it alter them from? If this quality of human spirit was "resurrected" do you mean to imply it was possessed, then lost, then regained?
(*just curious*)

Just one example is the higher moral standards of Christians as compared to those around them. This was large attracter and converter of the early church. By resurrected i mean "born again" if you will. They had to die and then be born again in Christ. They left behind the old character and developed anew. It was a spiritual birth. And yes one could say the human "spirit" was lost and then regained.

Interesting. What is this change in character, and what did it alter them from? If this quality of human spirit was "resurrected" do you mean to imply it was possessed, then lost, then regained?
(*just curious*)

Is the quality of human spirit regained the same as had in the Garden (surely not)?

I don't see the Garden as physical place. It is a setting for the telling of a spiritual story that is meant to be understood in terms of attachment to the physical world. The struggle that all humans have with their dual nature, the spritual side and the physical or material side.

I don't see the Garden as physical place. It is a setting for the telling of a spiritual story that is meant to be understood in terms of attachment to the physical world. The struggle that all humans have with their dual nature, the spritual side and the physical or material side.
Nevertheless, in the story of the Garden mankind had a spirtual "fall", so I just wondered if that was akin to what was regained. In your opinion.

To answer the poll question: Don't Know, Don't Care (that'll probaly change when I'm on my deathbed though, quick, I repent, oh God, Jesus, Allah, Shiva, Andraste!)

Nevertheless, in the story of the Garden mankind had a spirtual "fall", so I just wondered if that was akin to what was regained. In your opinion.

Yes, I would say this is what Jesus brought to the world. The Message was rejected by the people of the time and was then taken elsewhere. Hence the radical change in character of the gentiles.

I realise that the "hard" proof of the existense of Christ is probably non-extant. But it is diffucult for me to believe that Christ was purely fictional. I can think fo no other fictional character in history who has had the same or nearly the same impact as the supposedly fictional character of Christ.
Santa claus ... At least current incarnation effects a LOT of people and even effects adults who know it is a fictional charicter (same ballpark not nessisarily quite as much but yeah)

And there always has to be a "most" meaning nothing is exactly as equal it is all a matter of how fine our mesuring tools

Meaning there had to be at least one fictional charicter that effected us "most" maybe jesus was just that one

Santa claus ... At least current incarnation effects a LOT of people and even effects adults who know it is a fictional charicter (same ballpark not nessisarily quite as much but yeah)
...


Actually, if there is any one thing that bothers modern Christians, I would say it is Santa Claus. The entirety of Santa Claus is a myth, which grew up around a young man who made a gracious gift by leaving money in a shoe. (St. Nicholas.)

Yet, Santa Claus, who is entirely fake, has been deified by the masses and used as a substitute God for all those people who want something simple and anthropomorphic to identify to at Christmastime. This has been further exacerbated by good-meaning people who try to bring the situation back in to line by portraying Santa Claus as more Christ-like and more God-like. But in reality the majority of the ethos surronding Christmas only serves to distract potential Christians from the truth of Christ's birth.

More and more I agree with the Jehova's Witnesses on this one principal - that the holidays (which used to be "holy days") serve as a distraction from true Christianity. All the energy expended celebrating the "ethos" surrounding the holidays only serves to take away from the reality of why they were founded; all that energy could have been used to educate nonChristians about the truth of Christianity instead of to peddle holiday-centric goods.

It belongs in the past, as does Islam. It is time to abandon the shackles of Medievalism and adopt something new. It is sad that much of society has not matured, come of age, and still continues to worship. It is a sign of the fruition of a great society that it shakes off the shackles of religion and moves towards secularism. Religion has caused more wars, created more divisions and has encouraged more evil than any other idea.

God? The notion is a foolish one. Religion is even more foolish. If you believe in God, why not believe in elves and pixies. At least there's fake photo evidence to justify the existence of the latter.

It belongs in the past, as does Islam. It is time to abandon the shackles of Medievalism and adopt something new. It is sad that much of society has not matured, come of age, and still continues to worship. It is a sign of the fruition of a great society that it shakes off the shackles of religion and moves towards secularism. Religion has caused more wars, created more divisions and has encouraged more evil than any other idea.

God? The notion is a foolish one. Religion is even more foolish. If you believe in God, why not believe in elves and pixies. At least there's fake photo evidence to justify the existence of the latter.

Fortunately people like you are not allowed to legislate other people's religion. At least not yet.

The notion of god is unfalsifiable and therefore pointless, or at least untill he starts talking to people who aren't crazy. Damn even the buddhist know that. Why don't we debate wheter the glass is half full or half emply while were at it. I say fill the fucker up, have a drink and contemplate something useful.

Fortunately people like you are not allowed to legislate other people's religion. At least not yet.

Unfortunately, religious nutballs have a grip on American politics and the politics in many other countries. Talk about hypocrisy- freedom of religion my arse.

The notion of god is unfalsifiable and therefore pointless, or at least untill he starts talking to people who aren't crazy. Damn even the buddhist know that. Why don't we debate wheter the glass is half full or half emply while were at it. I say fill the fucker up, have a drink and contemplate something useful.
The notion of a broken heart is unfalsifiable, and therefore pointless. So why do rational people bother to continue having them?

Unfortunately, religious nutballs have a grip on American politics and the politics in many other countries. Talk about hypocrisy- freedom of religion my arse.

It's classic: Freedom of religion, as long as you believe what we do. :rolleyes:

In the South, all you have to do is drop the "J-word" a few times mixed with "family values" for good measure and you're in office!

Santa claus ... At least current incarnation effects a LOT of people and even effects adults who know it is a fictional charicter (same ballpark not nessisarily quite as much but yeah)

And there always has to be a "most" meaning nothing is exactly as equal it is all a matter of how fine our mesuring tools

Meaning there had to be at least one fictional charicter that effected us "most" maybe jesus was just that one

I don't think it is fair to compare the two. Christ and the effects that Christ has had on humanity is totaly different from Santa Claus. Santa Claus made no claims to be anything. Since he is purely fictional he couldn't. Christ and other Messengers did make claims to be able to change and redeem people. And many people claim that the power of the Messengers has changed them.

Santa Claus made no claims to be anything. Since he is purely fictional he couldn't.
We could always write that in. No problem.

So then how did we get here on earth??? If their's no god? I believe in God

The notion of a broken heart is unfalsifiable, and therefore pointless. So why do rational people bother to continue having them?

Ahh, the heart. The one piece of property that the Creator is interested in.

O SON OF BEING!
Thy heart is My home; sanctify it for My descent. Thy spirit is My place of revelation; cleanse it for My manifestation.

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

So then how did we get here on earth??? If their's no god?
Let me ask you something: Why does it matter, as long as you're here now?

God can be considered to be as fictional as Santa Claus, or even Vulcans. The only "proof" is a book written by humans. Amazing evidence. So... that means... Klingons exist too. After all, they're even on TV!

The whole argument that certain events and incidents concerning the universe prove the existence of god is pretty... weak. I mean... the verdict over the universe from a species that can't even reach the closest planet in its own solar system -not to mention reaching the closest solar system- is really impressive... not. Sure, we can fly to the moon (actually, we can't, there's no rocket atm to produce enough power to get out of earth's orbit with the mass of a lunar lander; Saturn V doesn't count, no blueprints of that thing anymore), but the moon is... well, the distance to the moon is insignificant compared to the size of the universe.

But let me put it simple.

There can't be a god. Otherwise there wouldn't be Teletubbies and Barney!

How did we get on earth? Well, two options: a) Evolution; b) Goa'uld

So then how did we get here on earth??? If their's no god? I believe in God
now lets see ever heard of evolution we came from apes then ...................................... i could keep going on for a long time
I dont beleve in god

God can be considered to be as fictional as Sasnta Claus, or even Vulcans. The only "proof" is a book written by humans. Amazing evidence. So... that means... Klingons exist too. After all, they're even on TV!

The whole argument that certain events and incidents concerning the universe prove the existence of god is pretty... weak. I mean... the verdict over the universe from a species that can't even reach the closest planet in its own solar system -not to mention reaching the closest solar system- is really impressive... not. Sure, we can fly to the moon (actually, we can't, there's no rocket atm to produce enough power to get out of earth's orbit with the mass of a lunar lander; Saturn V doesn't count, no blueprints of that thing anymore), but the moon is... well, the distance to the moon is insignificant compared to the size of the universe.

But let me put it simple.

There can't be a god. Otherwise there wouldn't be Teletubbies and Barney!
That's what we call a strawman argument. The evidence for most people, except literalists, is not in the fact of the written word but in their hearts.

God has not been proven to not exist. But he has not been proven TO exist either, so therefore, he must not exist.

This is my argument too, however, this takes away the whole idea of "faith."

We could always write that in. No problem.

Certainly, claims have been made of Christ and the meaning of Christianity that have no basis in the teachings of Christ. But if we are to call Christ fictional then we have to discount all of the early history where people were so radically changed. Do that number of people become so in love with Christ that they change their lives, that is difficult for me to believe. I realise that people, mostly small numbers of people, have followed some rather strange leaders with strange ideas, but this does not last beyond a gereration. Hard for me to believe that can happen from a totatly fictional character.

Certainly, claims have been made of Christ and the meaning of Christianity that have no basis in the teachings of Christ. But if we are to call Christ fictional then we have to discount all of the early history where people were so radically changed. Do that number of people become so in love with Christ that they change their lives, that is difficult for me to believe. I realise that people, mostly small numbers of people, have followed some rather strange leaders with strange ideas, but this does not last beyond a gereration. Hard for me to believe that can happen from a totatly fictional character.
I don't accept that they were radically changed, although I accept that you think they were. What accounts I have read of people converting at that time has nothing to do with them changing and everything to do with them finding a religion more compatible with their own beliefs* than that offered by the Roman Empire.

*Namely, the dying and resurrected god-king.

I don't accept that they were radically changed, although I accept that you think they were. What accounts I have read of people converting at that time has nothing to do with them changing and everything to do with them finding a religion more compatible with their own beliefs* than that offered by the Roman Empire.

*Namely, the dying and resurrected god-king.

I don't have the source in front of me, but I can find it. It might take me a few days. I will either post here or pm you. I have to go and get ready for some friends coming over for prayers and pancakes. Care to stop by? :)

If you can't stop by for pancakes, here is a prayer for all of you.

Blessed is the spot, and the house, and the place, and the city, and the heart, and the mountain, and the refuge, and the cave, and the valley, and the land, and the sea, and the island, and the meadow where mention of God hath been made, and His praise glorified.

(Compilations, Baha'i Prayers)

I don't have the source in front of me, but I can find it. It might take me a few days. I will either post here or pm you. I have to go and get ready for some friends coming over for prayers and pancakes. Care to stop by? :)
I'll keep an eye on this thread.

Good eating!

If you can't stop by for pancakes, here is a prayer for all of you.

Blessed is the spot, and the house, and the place, and the city, and the heart, and the mountain, and the refuge, and the cave, and the valley, and the land, and the sea, and the island, and the meadow where mention of God hath been made, and His praise glorified.

(Compilations, Baha'i Prayers)
Thank you. (She is blessed, indeed.)

No, i belive in darwinisim.

No, i belive in darwinisim.
That's it? Not the modern theory of evolution, just Darwinism?

I don't think it is fair to compare the two. Christ and the effects that Christ has had on humanity is totaly different from Santa Claus. Santa Claus made no claims to be anything. Since he is purely fictional he couldn't. Christ and other Messengers did make claims to be able to change and redeem people. And many people claim that the power of the Messengers has changed them.
I think it is compleatly fair because you DONT KNOW if he was real as stated in the bible. If he is indead made up then by your logic he couldent make the claimes he did

For some reason I am having trouble describing what I mean

Basicaly you say cant compare one is fictional (therefore cant claim anything) and the other is not

But santa claus indead makes claims such as "be good or no presents" the whole checking his list thing. even though he is fictional he makes claims (or the idea of him does)
How is this different from if jesus was indeed fictional?

Thank you. (She is blessed, indeed.)

Thereupon the Maid of Heaven hastened forth, unveiled, and resplendent, from Her mystic mansion, and asked of their names, and all were told but one. And when urged, the first Letter thereof was uttered, whereupon the dwellers of the celestial chambers rushed forth out of their habitation of glory.

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 59)

I'll keep an eye on this thread.

Good eating!

Real quick two character changes that came form the teachings of Christ are Francis of Assisi and Paul or Saul. I will look for the other source.

I'll keep an eye on this thread.

Good eating!

In this letter it mentions how Christians took pledges to avoid all kinds of immoral conduct. I put one part in boldface to make it easier to find.

Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 AD. We have a whole set of exchanges of his letters with the emperor Trajan on a variety of administrative political matters. These two letters are the most famous, in which P. encounters Christianity for the first time.
Pliny, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

In this letter it mentions how Christians took pledges to avoid all kinds of immoral conduct. I put one part in boldface to make it easier to find.
[*snip*]

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.
[*snip*]

Okay, but a vow or pledge to behave in a particular manner is not the same as having been changed or altered in some way, and it doesn't indicate that Christians are any different than other people. That a person takes a vow to not do something does not indicate that they did do it prior to taking the vow.

The first paragraph is more revealing that Christians are not different that others. Pliny asks, "It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent."

He seems to be puzzled as to what the offense of these people really is, which would indicate he cannot really tell that these people have done anything truely wrong. Surely if it was a clear-cut offense, he would not be in doubt nor asking for advice.

I really don't know.

I doubt the existence of a single higher being, yet I'm still open to the possiblity.

It's impossible to truly KNOW whether there is or isn't a god, anyway. Despite what people on either side say, it's not something that can be proven.

I really don't know.

I doubt the existence of a single higher being, yet I'm still open to the possiblity.

It's impossible to truly KNOW whether there is or isn't a god, anyway. Despite what people on either side say, it's not something that can be proven.
You sir or ma`am sound very agnostic :)

It's impossible to know anything except that you exist.

It's impossible to know anything except that you exist.
Damn. 12 years of high school for nothing.

:eek: Haha! what a great typo... I meant 12 years of schooling.

You can have what ever opinion you like but I believe in God.

Okay, but a vow or pledge to behave in a particular manner is not the same as having been changed or altered in some way, and it doesn't indicate that Christians are any different than other people. That a person takes a vow to not do something does not indicate that they did do it prior to taking the vow.

The first paragraph is more revealing that Christians are not different that others. Pliny asks, "It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent."

He seems to be puzzled as to what the offense of these people really is, which would indicate he cannot really tell that these people have done anything truely wrong. Surely if it was a clear-cut offense, he would not be in doubt nor asking for advice.

The offense was that they were Christian, don't you think? True this letter does not follow the people mentioned through the rest of their lives. That would be pretty difficult. It does show how the expectation of change.

There is another source I am having trouble finding, but I am sure I will. Back later.

It's impossible to know anything except that you exist.

Yay solipsism. I'm more of a nihilist myself, but its always good to see a kindred philosophy.

It's impossible to know anything except that you exist.

I'm not convinced yet.

I'm not convinced yet.
What if I could give you photographic evidence of your existance.

What if I could give you photographic evidence of your existance.

Such could be a reassuring self-delusion.

Yup, sure do!

What if I could give you photographic evidence of your existance.

Then you would have to prove the camera exists too.

eh, Rene Descartes: 'I think therefore I am'

eh, Rene Descartes: 'I think therefore I am'

This proves that your consciousness exists on some plane. It does not prove that your perception of reality is correct. Take for example The Matrix...

Throughout the Matrix Trilogy, if you look closely you will notice that whenever the team is inside the Matrix, everything has green-coloured sheen to it. (The real reason for this is because of residuals from the green screen mocap, but bear with me.)

So whenever they were in the Matrix, they had a 'clue' that something was not in line with reality, because of the pervasive green highlights in places they shouldn't be.

In like manner, there are things in the world that we feel 'just aren't right.' This is our clue that their might be a world out side the "Matrix" (for lack of a better term.)

This opens up the door to the supernatural, a plane of existence where wars are fought over galaxies; and legions of people are mere pawns on the side of good or evil.

Then you would have to prove the camera exists too.
Damn

i believe in a deity.

the only explanation i need for a deity is, if there is none, then how are we here? oh yeah, the primordial soup..but where did that come from? big boom? who made the things that went "boom"? descended from apes? where did the apes come from?

but in the same regards, where did god come from?

i do NOT believe in a vengeful, jealous, or otherwise "human" god..i believe in a supreme, omniscient, omnipotent deity. it is neither male or female, but both.

it does not care who you worship, or even whether or not you worship. but i also believe in karma :)

This proves that your consciousness exists on some plane. It does not prove that your perception of reality is correct. Take for example The Matrix...

Throughout the Matrix Trilogy, if you look closely you will notice that whenever the team is inside the Matrix, everything has green-coloured sheen to it. (The real reason for this is because of residuals from the green screen mocap, but bear with me.)

So whenever they were in the Matrix, they had a 'clue' that something was not in line with reality, because of the pervasive green highlights in places they shouldn't be.

In like manner, there are things in the world that we feel 'just aren't right.' This is our clue that their might be a world out side the "Matrix" (for lack of a better term.)

This opens up the door to the supernatural, a plane of existence where wars are fought over galaxies; and legions of people are mere pawns on the side of good or evil.

I see your point.

I realise that the "hard" proof of the existense of Christ is probably non-extant. But it is diffucult for me to believe that Christ was purely fictional. I can think fo no other fictional character in history who has had the same or nearly the same impact as the supposedly fictional character of Christ.

Did Zeus exist? Hercules (or Heracles)? What about Osiris?

Surely, to the Hebrew-spawned religions... all the 'pagan' gods must be accepted as fictional... and yet, for thousands of years, empires were shaped and re-shaped, rose and fell, blossomed and died, in the names of those other gods.

Being popular is not the same as being 'True'.

Fortunately people like you are not allowed to legislate other people's religion. At least not yet.

Unfortunately (as Everymen pointed out), many religious persons DO attempt (on a daily basis, no less) to force their chosen beliefs on others... by law, if possible.

I don't have the source in front of me, but I can find it. It might take me a few days. I will either post here or pm you. I have to go and get ready for some friends coming over for prayers and pancakes. Care to stop by? :)

Prayer and pancakes.... but I'd have to drive all the way to Minnesota... :(

Prayer and pancakes.... but I'd have to drive all the way to Minnesota... :(
You can come visit me ... But sorry we would only have pancakes :p (also in minnesota lol)

If there is a "God" then what are we doing here? and no its not to spread "God's" word for the simple fact if that was so then y put Adam and Eve here in the first place if they were the first 2 humans then who did they need to spread the word too?

So there must not be a "God" for the simple fact that no reasonable thinking being would go through all that work for nothing.

and for the arguement about if there was no god we would of already killed our selves off, thats not true for only in the last 100 years have we had the power to do so (which if there was a god he wouldnt let us have that kind of power) and the only reason y we havent killed each other off yet is because although the human race is a simple minded being we are afraid to use that power for the fear of death over all yes a few are willing to die for a not so worth while cause but the majority as a whole are afraid to die.

PS if this has already been said sorry 55 pages of forum to read through is quite a bit to read through

You can come visit me ... But sorry we would only have pancakes :p (also in minnesota lol)

Well... don't tell anyone, but it was the pancakes I was looking for, really... :)

:fluffle:

Well... don't tell anyone, but it was the pancakes I was looking for, really... :)

:fluffle:
Was it the pancakes or the fluffle you were looking for :fluffle:

Such could be a reassuring self-delusion.
You'd have to first prove that there is such a thing as self-delusion.

You'd have to first prove that there is such a thing as self-delusion.
But to prove that you would have to prove that proof was real? :p

But to prove that you would have to prove that proof was real? :p
Oh, well now you're just bein' silly. :D

Was it the pancakes or the fluffle you were looking for :fluffle:

Oooh, now THERE'S a real thorny problem... nobody should EVER have to decide between pancakes and fluffles!

:)

Oh, well now you're just bein' silly. :D
First you would have to prove I am real and then that silly is real :fluffle:

LOL :-D

Oooh, now THERE'S a real thorny problem... nobody should EVER have to decide between pancakes and fluffles!

:)
Ok both it is :fluffle: *looks for the pancake smily*

Ummmm -------- <---- pancake

First you would have to prove I am real and then that silly is real :fluffle:

LOL :-D
I can prove what is real by simply asking, "What is real?"

and bringing it back to subject.

Yes, and all who don't probably should start now.

Yes, and all who don't probably should start now.
Why?

I can prove what is real by simply asking, "What is real?"
And I can answer by saying "the opposite of not real" :p

And I can answer by saying "the opposite of not real" :p
Then I shall ask, "What is not real?"

Then I shall ask, "What is not real?"
The oposite of real duh :fluffle: (you know I am just going to keep this up :fluffle: )

Ok both it is :fluffle: *looks for the pancake smily*

Ummmm -------- <---- pancake

That's no good, is it... I can't believe there is no 'pancake' smiley.... these people don't live in the real world.

:)

This has got to be one of the best threads in a while.... UpwardThrust and Willamena arguing over the 'opposite of not real'.... priceless. :)

I'm amazed, it's still alive...

And I'm also still alive, even though some nuts here said god will punish me... HAHA!

*monkeywrenches*

By asking "What is real?" you can't prove anything. You can only prove to yourself that you might be real. But that doesn't mean that anything else is real. It's not "cogito ergo sum" for no reason.

That's no good, is it... I can't believe there is no 'pancake' smiley.... these people don't live in the real world.

:)

This has got to be one of the best threads in a while.... UpwardThrust and Willamena arguing over the 'opposite of not real'.... priceless. :)
:p Great things happen when you are in a silly mood :D

The oposite of real duh :fluffle: (you know I am just going to keep this up :fluffle: )
Really?

Really?
I dont know whats real?(and btw that is HORRIBLE :p )

I dont know whats real?(and btw that is HORRIBLE :p )
:)

Did Zeus exist? Hercules (or Heracles)? What about Osiris?

Surely, to the Hebrew-spawned religions... all the 'pagan' gods must be accepted as fictional... and yet, for thousands of years, empires were shaped and re-shaped, rose and fell, blossomed and died, in the names of those other gods.

Being popular is not the same as being 'True'.

No doubt pagan gods have had their impact and they were not "real". The spread of those religions were in large part because they were "State" religions. Whereas Christianity and Isalm and today Baha'i were spread not by force but by the power of the spoken word. The Christian movement and that of Islam later took on the power of the "State" religion. This aspect is lacking in the Baha'i Faith and will remain lacking. I realize this is not a strong proof and don't expect it to change anyones mind. I have to compare what supposedly happened in Christianity with what I know happened in the Baha'i Faith and I see such strong parallels that I can understand what it must have been like for those who heard Christ speak and were transformed by His words. Popular certianly would not describe Christ during His lifetime. Nor, would it describe who the early Christians were preceived. And it was not all what I was saying in my earlier statements. It was more a question of impact on the people and the civilization.

I have to ask ... where in minnesota :-D (I know not on topic but eh)

I have to ask ... where in minnesota :-D (I know not on topic but eh)

Bemidji. And you?

Coming for pancakes?

Bemidji. And you?

Coming for pancakes?


Bemidji, perhaps you know John Parsons? He does a radio programme there.

Bemidji. And you?

Coming for pancakes?
Bout 10 miles out of St. Cloud :p I am a network admin for St.Cloud State and MINSCU :p

I will be up in Bemiji next weekend :) got a friend in BSU lol

Bemidji, perhaps you know John Parsons? He does a radio programme there.

Don't know him. What radio station and what is the topic--talk radio, music?

Bout 10 miles out of St. Cloud :p I am a network admin for St.Cloud State and MINSCU :p

I will be up in Bemiji next weekend :) got a friend in BSU lol

Close. I will expect you for pancakes then.

Bout 10 miles out of St. Cloud :p I am a network admin for St.Cloud State and MINSCU :p

I will be up in Bemiji next weekend :) got a friend in BSU lol

Bring your friend. I'm serious. I can skip the prayes if you like.

Hm, im like the idea of pancakes right now.

Hm, im like the idea of pancakes right now.

Sat or Sunday best for you?

Bring your friend. I'm serious. I can skip the prayes if you like.
Lol do you go to the collage up there or not that age? (if you dont listen to the campus radio station ... he is one of the dj's there as well as being an engeneering major lol)

We might :p though will have to see might be runing out to his cabin in brainard though

Sat or Sunday best for you?

Sunday works for me ;)

Lol do you go to the collage up there or not that age? (if you dont listen to the campus radio station ... he is one of the dj's there as well as being an engeneering major lol)

We might :p though will have to see might be runing out to his cabin in brainard though

I sometimes listen to the Monday night Jazz program. My daugher is a student, first year Ed. Major. My middle daughter grad. last year.
number is in the book--crawford, tim

[QUOTE=The Winter Alliance]Bemidji, perhaps you know John Parsons? He does a radio programme there.[/QUOTE

Are you English?

I sometimes listen to the Monday night Jazz program. My daugher is a student, first year Ed. Major. My middle daughter grad. last year.
number is in the book--crawford, tim
Well that would make me about 3 years older then that daughter (the ed major) :p I feel young lol

Well that would make me about 3 years older then that daughter (the ed major) :p I feel young lol

I feel old to think that my youngest is going to be leaving the home soon. She will going to UofM in Cities next year.

I feel old to think that my youngest is going to be leaving the home soon. She will going to UofM in Cities next year.
Well I am 22 lol ... and after I finish up my networking masters (just got done with my security masters) I might end up at U of M or Minnesota University (mankato)

Well I am 22 lol ... and after I finish up my networking masters (just got done with my security masters) I might end up at U of M or Minnesota University (mankato)

Stop by on Sunday bout 11am. We can eat pancakes.

Stop by on Sunday bout 11am. We can eat pancakes.
Will try :-D anyways I think we derailed the debate :p

Will try :-D anyways I think we derailed the debate :p
yes, I think we did. Maybe tomorrow for more of the debate. goodnight

No doubt pagan gods have had their impact and they were not "real". The spread of those religions were in large part because they were "State" religions.

Well, Christianity actually became popular WHEN it became a state religion - when a Roman Emperor decided to break with tradition and declare himself Christian. And so you got that the most powerful entity in the West announced itself Christian. And of course, as Europe came to start to dominate the world (colonization and all that), they spread their beliefs with them.

So yeah, Christianity has been spread by power - the most powerful people or empires decide what the "truth" is... not that that says anythign about whether it is right or wrong, it's kind of the way things work. Might makes right, apparently.

God has not been proven to not exist. But he has not been proven TO exist either, so therefore, he must not exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm an agnostic.

No doubt pagan gods have had their impact and they were not "real". The spread of those religions were in large part because they were "State" religions.

The "pagan" gods have absolutely the same reality as the deity currently worshipped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
And when you look a little closer on Yah you will recognize that he actually is one of the "pagan" gods. He has only been re-interpreted by the Israelites, that's all.

The "pagan" gods have absolutely the same reality as the deity currently worshipped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
And when you look a little closer on Yah you will recognize that he actually is one of the "pagan" gods. He has only been re-interpreted by the Israelites, that's all.
Right, but you are referring to the images of god, not god itself. The stories (the myths) of each tribe are built up around their image of god. They all have the same reality. The mistake made by modern man is in taking the images as the god (even the Abrahamic god is not immune from this, from both sides of the belief divide). It is a result of literalism.

No doubt pagan gods have had their impact and they were not "real". The spread of those religions were in large part because they were "State" religions. Whereas Christianity and Isalm and today Baha'i were spread not by force but by the power of the spoken word. The Christian movement and that of Islam later took on the power of the "State" religion. This aspect is lacking in the Baha'i Faith and will remain lacking. I realize this is not a strong proof and don't expect it to change anyones mind. I have to compare what supposedly happened in Christianity with what I know happened in the Baha'i Faith and I see such strong parallels that I can understand what it must have been like for those who heard Christ speak and were transformed by His words. Popular certianly would not describe Christ during His lifetime. Nor, would it describe who the early Christians were preceived. And it was not all what I was saying in my earlier statements. It was more a question of impact on the people and the civilization.

First - it is easy to dismiss 'pagan' gods as not 'real'... yet there is as much (or more) evidence for the existence of Osiris or Zeus as there is for the 'god' of Israel.

Every religion perceives every different religion as based upon fiction - and assumes that that makes that ONE religion true.

Second - regarding the 'earlier' faiths... Egyptian, for example.... you are correct AND incorrect. Yes - in later periods Pharaoh may have dictated who was most powerful among the pantheon - lending a 'state' authority to religion, but Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions were much more democratic in their 'youths'... being largely the gained popularity of individual deities associated with localities or concepts. Thus - Bast ascended pantheon order from a localised fertility icon to one of the central figures of the mythology - as the Bast 'concept' became more popular.

Early Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions thus spread in a manner very similar to early Hebrew or Christian theology... through word of mouth, and gradual 'acceptance'.

And yet - those figures had empire-shaping significance... shaped the very world around them. No different to the aspects of Christianity or Islam, one could argue, except that communication was less effective in such times, and thus the message was not as widely proclaimed.

First - it is easy to dismiss 'pagan' gods as not 'real'... yet there is as much (or more) evidence for the existence of Osiris or Zeus as there is for the 'god' of Israel.

Every religion perceives every different religion as based upon fiction - and assumes that that makes that ONE religion true.

Second - regarding the 'earlier' faiths... Egyptian, for example.... you are correct AND incorrect. Yes - in later periods Pharaoh may have dictated who was most powerful among the pantheon - lending a 'state' authority to religion, but Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions were much more democratic in their 'youths'... being largely the gained popularity of individual deities associated with localities or concepts. Thus - Bast ascended pantheon order from a localised fertility icon to one of the central figures of the mythology - as the Bast 'concept' became more popular.

Early Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions thus spread in a manner very similar to early Hebrew or Christian theology... through word of mouth, and gradual 'acceptance'.

And yet - those figures had empire-shaping significance... shaped the very world around them. No different to the aspects of Christianity or Islam, one could argue, except that communication was less effective in such times, and thus the message was not as widely proclaimed.

I put real in quotation marks because the realness is in question and can mean different things to different people. And the people of the time considered them real just as religious people today consider Christ and others real without the kind of proof that is necessary for other people. The theme of my statement was that Christ and his words changed people there are many examples of this including Paul/Saul, Francis of Assisi and many others. And especially the common and not so common people of the first two centuries of Christianity. The "proof" of Christ is really in the ability of His words to change people even to this day. I am not Christian and I see this. The same thing happened in Islam and everyone other religion that has exisited. From my little bit of reading I don't see this mentioned in what is considered the "Pagan" religions. Chrisitianity had an impact on the world because of the words of Christ. That is real legacy of Christ. No one know what Christ looks like. No one alive today saw Christ. No one know what color His skin was. All that is left is the words. When He returns, or if He has already returned then the test of who that is must be in the speech of the person, the impact that the words have on the lives of people. Nothing else matters. No other test is important. No of the dogama that the Church or other experts claim to be necessary to the second coming are the important. Those who claim to be knowledgeable forget that the books are closed to them until the "end times."

Yes.But I'm not always right so don't take my word for it.

Yes.But I'm not always right so don't take my word for it.

Oh, I think I get it.

yes because nothing makes sense without god. you have to have a supreme manipulating being to explain origin.

Oh, I think I get it.

This could go around in circles.

This could go around in circles.

Circles have no beggining or end--like God. So where you calling yourself God or was there something else that I was not getting?

Circles have no beggining or end--like God. So where you calling yourself God or was there something else that I was not getting?

Try drawing a circle without starting at some point on the page.

Try drawing a circle without starting at some point on the page.

That answers my question.

That answers my question.

What question?

What question?

So where you calling yourself God or was there something else that I was not getting?

Absolutely, but I disagree with aspects of almost every religion I found

So where you calling yourself God or was there something else that I was not getting?

I think you're reading too much into it.Read my post again.I was displaying humility.

Bah! Odin owns you all. :D

Circles have no beggining or end--like God. So where you calling yourself God or was there something else that I was not getting?

Following that line of thought, no geometric shape has a beginning or an end. *bows to rectangular calculator* ohmmmm... :-p

I think you're reading too much into it.Read my post again.I was displaying humility.

I am more than a little dense at times. Humility is a wonderful attribute that we should have more of.

I am more than a little dense at times. Humility is a wonderful attribute that we should have more of.
I R0X0RS!!! at being HUMBLE !!!!11!!

i do, he's the only reason i exist

Originally Posted by GoodThoughts
Circles have no beggining or end--like God. So where you calling yourself God or was there something else that I was not getting?

I was a god for a little while.....till i lost my one and only follower. it was kinda wierd had my own lil shrine and everything *shudders* glad she grew out of it lol

i do, he's the only reason i exist
I would argue that you (humans) are the only reason he exists

Originally Posted by UpwardThrust
I would argue that you (humans) are the only reason he exists

i have to agree but shouldnt it be us (humans)

No I do not believe in a 'god' or any higher power. The bible is a great history tool, it's events do match up to other documented events but it was still just written by people trying to prove and declare the majesty of their god. Whether they were telling the truth about divine happenings; it is impossible to tell.

i have to agree but shouldnt it be us (humans)
Lol was trying to reply too much to the poster :) LOL sorry you are correct US humans lol

I would argue that you (humans) are the only reason he exists

You know you may be right that the reason God exists is to help humans.

"Man is the supreme Talisman. Lack of a proper education hath, however, deprived him of that which he doth inherently possess. Through a word proceeding out of the mouth of God he was called into being; by one word more he was guided to recognize the Source of his education; by yet another word his station and destiny were safeguarded. The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom. If any man were to meditate on that which the Scriptures, sent down from the heaven of God's holy Will, have revealed, he would readily recognize that their purpose is that all men shall be regarded as one soul, so that the seal bearing the words "The Kingdom shall be God's" may be stamped on every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and mercy may envelop all mankind."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 259)

I put real in quotation marks because the realness is in question and can mean different things to different people. And the people of the time considered them real just as religious people today consider Christ and others real without the kind of proof that is necessary for other people. The theme of my statement was that Christ and his words changed people there are many examples of this including Paul/Saul, Francis of Assisi and many others. And especially the common and not so common people of the first two centuries of Christianity. The "proof" of Christ is really in the ability of His words to change people even to this day. I am not Christian and I see this. The same thing happened in Islam and everyone other religion that has exisited. From my little bit of reading I don't see this mentioned in what is considered the "Pagan" religions. Chrisitianity had an impact on the world because of the words of Christ. That is real legacy of Christ. No one know what Christ looks like. No one alive today saw Christ. No one know what color His skin was. All that is left is the words. When He returns, or if He has already returned then the test of who that is must be in the speech of the person, the impact that the words have on the lives of people. Nothing else matters. No other test is important. No of the dogama that the Church or other experts claim to be necessary to the second coming are the important. Those who claim to be knowledgeable forget that the books are closed to them until the "end times."

Actually, if Jesus is not entirely a fictional character, we can have a fairly good idea of how he must have looked, just from the fact that we have his alleged origins, and the fact that nobody in the bible comments on his outlandish appearance... thus - we can assume that he was a fairly typical looking male of Nazarene extraction... which makes him fairly dark skinned, and gives us a rough idea of wht his features may have looked like.

I agree that there is a capacity for change, and that many people are inspired by the words believed to have been uttered by Jesus - but I disagree that no other entity has had the same sort of effect... although I don't know about the SCALE of the thing. But then - popularity has little to do with truth.

Actually, if Jesus is not entirely a fictional character, we can have a fairly good idea of how he must have looked, just from the fact that we have his alleged origins, and the fact that nobody in the bible comments on his outlandish appearance... thus - we can assume that he was a fairly typical looking male of Nazarene extraction... which makes him fairly dark skinned, and gives us a rough idea of wht his features may have looked like.

I agree that there is a capacity for change, and that many people are inspired by the words believed to have been uttered by Jesus - but I disagree that no other entity has had the same sort of effect... although I don't know about the SCALE of the thing. But then - popularity has little to do with truth.

I agree that we can make a pretty good guess that Jesus would have been dark in complexion, dark hair and short by todays standards. The comments were meant to a statement about what we do know about Jesus, if the Bible is to be believed.

And yes others have inspired change. Mostly, those who have inspired long-lasting change over several generations have been the Prophets of God. Popularity and truth seldom are related at first. As the popularity of Christ increased the corruption of the Church increased until the present day when it has become a shell of its former self.

I agree that we can make a pretty good guess that Jesus would have been dark in complexion, dark hair and short by todays standards. The comments were meant to a statement about what we do know about Jesus, if the Bible is to be believed.

And yes others have inspired change. Mostly, those who have inspired long-lasting change over several generations have been the Prophets of God. Popularity and truth seldom are related at first. As the popularity of Christ increased the corruption of the Church increased until the present day when it has become a shell of its former self.
I totally agree with your second statement. The number of 'christians' that actually resemble a model of 'christ' in their life is a vanishingly small proportion of those who pay lip-service to the church.

This is the flaw I perceive wih all 'organised' religions. To me, faith is something that is between a person and their deity, and once another body starts 'regulating' how faith is 'observed', you no longer have faith, you have tradition.

What do you think about Buddha? Prophet of God?

I totally agree with your second statement. The number of 'christians' that actually resemble a model of 'christ' in their life is a vanishingly small proportion of those who pay lip-service to the church.

This is the flaw I perceive wih all 'organised' religions. To me, faith is something that is between a person and their deity, and once another body starts 'regulating' how faith is 'observed', you no longer have faith, you have tradition.

What do you think about Buddha? Prophet of God?

Budhha was a Prophet of God. He became enlightened while sitting under the "Tree of Life." Baha'is consider all of the Prophets as equal. It is only the Message that they were able to share that is different, and that is different in the social teachings not the spiritual teaching. That is why there are so many similiaritys found in the different religions. So in a sense you can say that they are all the same with the same message. They speak with the same tongue and share the same soul.

"All the Prophets of God," asserts Bahá'u'lláh in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, "abide in the same tabernacle, soar in the same heaven, are seated upon the same throne, utter the same speech, and proclaim the same Faith." From the "beginning that hath no beginning," these Exponents of the Unity of God and Channels of His incessant utterance have shed the light of the invisible Beauty upon mankind, and will continue, to the "end that hath no end," to vouchsafe fresh revelations of His might and additional experiences of His inconceivable glory. To contend that any particular religion is final, that "all Revelation is ended, that the portals of Divine mercy are closed, that from the daysprings of eternal holiness no sun shall rise again, that the ocean of everlasting bounty is forever stilled, and that out of the Tabernacle of ancient glory the Messengers of God have ceased to be made manifest" would indeed be nothing less than sheer blasphemy."

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 58)

I R0X0RS!!! at being HUMBLE !!!!11!!

I'm a million times as humble as you.

Yes, I believe that God exists.
Let me clarify that I do not mean to say that I know that God exists. I certainly will not claim to have proof of God's existance. Knowledge, proof, and belief are three entirely different matters. Knowledge comes from evidence and logic. The scientific method is absolutely the best system for gaining knowledge, but personal experience can also add to one's knowledge. Proof is a mathematical process of guaranteeing the truth of a statement. It is an ideal that cannot be reached in most fields of knowledge. Belief comes, (for me) not only from knowledge and proof but also from ...




hope. I didn't say faith. Yay! I really do not see the point of faith for its own sake. That, however, seems to be exactly what some of my fellow Christians are advocating. I, personally, find Pascel's wager very disgusting.
Douglas Adam's genius response to Pascel's wager: "If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway"
Hope is different from faith. When I say that my belief in God comes from hope, I mean that my natural optimism causes me to believe that which I want to be true so long as I find it plausible. (Especially in the case of religion since belonging to a religious group such as Christianity really doesn't hurt as long as one takes the right approach to one's religion.) Therefore, I believe in God, and I believe, that if one is going to be religious, as I am, then belief through hope is the right way to do it. Furthermore, if you do not believe that God ought to exist, or if you do not care, I don't blame you whatsoever, nor do I think that non-Christians will be excluded from Heaven.