NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking about this for a while, assuming God exists (Be quiet for now and just go with the flow, atheists of NSG). If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not? Either God's looking for acknowledgment for creating everything, which would seem rather like a flawed human quality of being an attention whore, or is just pointlessly testing people cruelly by putting them in a situation where the correct answer is unclear and the punishment is, well... quite hellish. Either way, it doesn't sound like the great, wise and merciful God people tend to go on about. Of course, there's the whole 'God is all-knowing, and so it sent down his moral code so we can all be ethical! So, if you don't believe in God, you're a barbaric heathen!' which, of course, doesn't hold water always because there's always bound to be situation where, by following the divine moral code would be ironically unethical. It also makes it sound like people had no morality whatsoever before God told everyone how to be moral, which is quite untrue.

So, um... yeah, what are your thoughts?

If your child doesn't like you then you'll still love them, but it's much nicer if they do like you.

It's the belief that God is omnipotent that makes Him so. A God's power is based on how many people believe in Him or Her.

Hehehe...reminds me of Black & White.

Sorry. Anyway, Omnipotence is by definition a quality of complete and utter independent power (it's not the official definition, but I think that's close generally). If it needs believers to be all powerful, then aren't we the all-powerful ones? And if God isn't all powerful before believers existed, then what the hell was it before? Pseudo-omnipotent? That's also suggesting there's maybe a competition between different Gods and that THE God is not all that omnipotent.

If your child doesn't like you then you'll still love them, but it's much nicer if they do like you.

Well, there's a difference between liking and acknowledging. Still, that makes it sound, like I said, like God is actively looking for approval, which doesn't seem to be omnipotent behavior to me.

It's the belief that God is omnipotent that makes Him so. A God's power is based on how many people believe in Him or Her.

I was thinking about this for a while, assuming God exists (Be quiet for now and just go with the flow, atheists of NSG). If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not? Either God's looking for acknowledgment for creating everything, which would seem rather like a flawed human quality of being an attention whore, or is just pointlessly testing people cruelly by putting them in a situation where the correct answer is unclear and the punishment is, well... quite hellish. Either way, it doesn't sound like the great, wise and merciful God people tend to go on about. Of course, there's the whole 'God is all-knowing, and so it sent down his moral code so we can all be ethical! So, if you don't believe in God, you're a barbaric heathen!' which, of course, doesn't hold water always because there's always bound to be situation where, by following the divine moral code would be ironically unethical. It also makes it sound like people had no morality whatsoever before God told everyone how to be moral, which is quite untrue.

So, um... yeah, what are your thoughts?

I love this sort of rethoric designed with knowledge of the Abrahmic God in mond. Look at other religoins and you'll not only the simularities but also the differances.

It's easy to debunk, or admit a lothing of God based on what the Bible or the Koran tells us about God.

Myself I don't think that God punishes us at all, and that whorship and submission to the will of God(same thing really) is Gods plan for us. Now of course you don't have to worship, you do have free will, and that too is all part ofthe plan(so I assume).

If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not?
So, um... yeah, what are your thoughts?

The rules of the game state that "whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life..." . If you choose not to play the game or by the rules, the prize is lost.

That prize of course is receiving the vision of God....everlasting life. So wormfood vs vision basically. It isn't difficult, I don't know why so many people struggle with it. :(

I love this sort of rethoric designed with knowledge of the Abrahmic God in mond. Look at other religoins and you'll not only the simularities but also the differances.

It's easy to debunk, or admit a lothing of God based on what the Bible or the Koran tells us about God.

Myself I don't think that God punishes us at all, and that whorship and submission to the will of God(same thing really) is Gods plan for us. Now of course you don't have to worship, you do have free will, and that too is all part ofthe plan(so I assume).

I'm just going with mainstream Abrahamic religions. Not saying that other ideas on the conception of God couldn't also be true...

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you can't imagine why so many people are willing to not believe, perhaps you lack the empathy or imaginition to figure out why.

You misunderstand. I don't have a problem imagining why people don't believe, they have free will of course.

What I can't imagine is why people make the process sound so difficult, it isn't. There are rules and you make a choice to either believe them or not.

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you can't imagine why so many people are willing to not believe, perhaps you lack the empathy or imaginition to figure out why.

Well, there's a whole lot of uncertainty to it. God can't be observed, smelt, tasted, etc., to my knowledge, so naturally, some people are going to be skeptical.

God does not need to receive worship but believers need to worship. If you really believe that the universe was created by an omnipotent omniscient being then you feel a need to show your respect and admiration towards that magnificent being.

I'm just going with mainstream Abrahamic religions. Not saying that other ideas on the conception of God couldn't also be true...

Then how do you hope to speak with knowledge against something you clearly are not knowledgeable about?

It's like asking why do all black youths mug people?

It's clear that not all black youths do so, and so your are already working within the realm of a massive assumption.

When you ask why does God want us to worship God, you assume that is the case without looking at any alternatives, you pick one set of dogma to rail against, not knowing if it has any bearing on the truth.

You misunderstand. I don't have a problem imagining why people don't believe, they have free will of course.

What I can't imagine is why people make the process sound so difficult, it isn't. There are rules and you make a choice to either believe them or not.

But... you're simplifying the whole thing. You're making it sound like it's quite clear, which I think there's a number of reasons why it isn't, and that it's right for God to do this (Of course, he's omnipotent, he's above right or wrong) or that you even got a choice in playing this supposed game.

The rules of the game state that "whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life..." . If you choose not to play the game or by the rules, the prize is lost.

That prize of course is receiving the vision of God....everlasting life. So wormfood vs vision basically. It isn't difficult, I don't know why so many people struggle with it. :(I'm not trying to be mean, but if you can't imagine why so many people are willing to not believe, perhaps you lack the empathy or imaginition to figure out why.

Then how do you hope to speak with knowledge against something you clearly are not knowledgeable about?

It's like asking why do all black youths mug people?

It's clear that not all black youths do so, and so your are already working within the realm of a massive assumption.

When you ask why does God want us to worship God, you assume that is the case without looking at any alternatives, you pick one set of dogma to rail against, not knowing if it has any bearing on the truth.

Wow, lots of anger. I was railing? Sorry if I made it sound like that, but I'm just trying to ask a question, and perhaps my tone is strong at certain points.

I did that because that's currently the most believed in doctrine in the world. It's the one I'm most familiar with, as well as probably most of this forum.

Well, there's a whole lot of uncertainty to it. God can't be observed, smelt, tasted, etc., to my knowledge, so naturally, some people are going to be skeptical.

Neither can love. But we know it is real. ;)

That skepticism is natural, and part of the point is having faith. For instance, I have complete faith that God exists. I don't struggle with it, I made a choice. I went through my days of questioning and wondering and pondering and wanting all the answers NOW. I realized we are not due all the answers now, it's really that simple. Faith is about trust, I choose to trust in God. My free will to choose to do that.

Just as I choose to trust that my husband loves me. I could go around second guessing his love, telling him I don't believe him, checking his every move to see if he is telling me the truth. Constantly looking for proof he doesn't love me. But I don't do that, I trust him. I choose to trust him and I take that leap of faith that his love is real.

Same thing basically.

God does not need to receive worship but believers need to worship. If you really believe that the universe was created by an omnipotent omniscient being then you feel a need to show your respect and admiration towards that magnificent being.

Why? Does it really care?

Neither can love. But we know it is real. ;)

That skepticism is natural, and part of the point is having faith. For instance, I have complete faith that God exists. I don't struggle with it, I made a choice. I went through my days of questioning and wondering and pondering and wanting all the answers NOW. I realized we are not due all the answers now, it's really that simple. Faith is about trust, I choose to trust in God. My free will to choose to do that.

Just as I choose to trust that my husband loves me. I could go around second guessing his love, telling him I don't believe him, checking his every move to see if he is telling me the truth. Constantly looking for proof he doesn't love me. But I don't do that, I trust him. I choose to trust him and I take that leap of faith that his love is real.

Same thing basically.

Er, well, love is different, because people can feel it, and there's various ways of proving it's existence. It's an emotion which most people have felt. Have you felt God in the same way? If you have, well, unfortunately, I have not.

Yeah... I can't do that at this point yet. I'm pretty sure I want to know why God even cares that someone doesn't believe in them.

Wow, lots of anger. I was railing? Sorry if I made it sound like that, but I'm just trying to ask a question, and perhaps my tone is strong at certain points.

Heh me angry, not at all, that rarely happens with me. I wonder why you thought that?

When I say railing, I do not mean you are being aggressive, but the words you used when you asked you question led me to belive that railing was the correct word to use. No matter though, if you say it aint so, then it aint so.



I did that because that's currently the most believed in doctrine in the world. It's the one I'm most familiar with, as well as probably most of this forum.

Thats my point really, it is the most commonly known, but there are other points of view, differant ways to view God, and in several of these ways, your assumptions become meaningless. Its like speaking out agianst all maths, when you know nowt about binary, or hex, do you see what I mean?

Er, well, love is different, because people can feel it, and there's various ways of proving it's existence. It's an emotion which most people have felt. Have you felt God in the same way? If you have, well, unfortunately, I have not.

Yeah... I can't do that at this point yet. I'm pretty sure I want to know why God even cares that someone doesn't believe in them.

I can feel that there is a God. And perhaps you prove the point really. Anyone who has never felt love doesn't really understand it do they? They may think they do, they can certainly read all about it, sing songs about it, and think they get the concept. Yet, if you have ever been in love you know that you didn't have a clue what that 'felt' like in reality.

Same thing. Yes I have felt God in the same way, it is why I no longer question.

Thats my point really, it is the most commonly known, but there are other points of view, differant ways to view God, and in several of these ways, your assumptions become meaningless. Its like speaking out agianst all maths, when you know nowt about binary, or hex, do you see what I mean?

Yes, I do understand. But, can you give me a reason then of why God wants belief, disregarding the assumptions of morality and heaven and hell?

I can feel that there is a God. And perhaps you prove the point really. Anyone who has never felt love doesn't really understand it do they? They may think they do, they can certainly read all about it, sing songs about it, and think they get the concept. Yet, if you have ever been in love you know that you didn't have a clue what that 'felt' like in reality.

Same thing. Yes I have felt God in the same way, it is why I no longer question.

Well, then, I suppose I'm stuck, aren't I?

"Why god wants belief" or "Why god wants to be worshiped" is entirely dependent on what religious aspect of god you take, and that is the point Peepelonia is trying to make.

I could answer you right now, as a follower of a non-abrahamic religion, that the gods are not omnipotent, and need you to pray to them, but rather that they are simmilar to you and me in having attention and things they must also do, and that we need to pray so that they can hear us if we want to praise them, or lament to them, or something. But if we don't, they won't know, or for that matter care, that we didn't.

And that is just one of many different ways to look at it.

Yes, I do understand. But, can you give me a reason then of why God wants belief, disregarding the assumptions of morality and heaven and hell?

God doesn't want or require anything, let alone our belife.

Our belife though IS the only way in which to be removed from the wheel of life-death-rebirth. Ohh and there is no heaven or hell.

"Why god wants belief" or "Why god wants to be worshiped" is entirely dependent on what religious aspect of god you take, and that is the point Peepelonia is trying to make.

I could answer you right now, as a follower of a non-abrahamic religion, that the gods are not omnipotent, and need you to pray to them, but rather that they are simmilar to you and me in having attention and things they must also do, and that we need to pray so that they can hear us if we want to praise them, or lament to them, or something. But if we don't, they won't know, or for that matter care, that we didn't.

And that is just one of many different ways to look at it.

But, why should I even pray or whatever to them? I've been fine so far without them.

Well, then, I suppose I'm stuck, aren't I?


No, not at all. Just because you haven't felt it yet doesn't mean you never will, nor does it mean you don't believe. I believed that love existed before I actually experienced it, I just didn't understand the magnitude of what it meant until the experience. For many people it takes a tragedy, a trauma, or some life altering event, for some it is just a revelation, an epiphany of sorts. For all of us it is a choice.

You are questioning, and that is a good thing. (I sound like Martha Stewart :rolleyes:). :p

But, why should I even pray or whatever to them? I've been fine so far without them.

You don't have to. anybody that tells you otherwise, is trying to force your god given free will that they talk about soooo much, as you'll probably agree that doesn't seem like the action of a God loving person huh.

God doesn't want or require anything, let alone our belife.

Our belife though IS the only way in which to be removed from the wheel of life-death-rebirth. Ohh and there is no heaven or hell.

Well, then, I'm assuming that if I just decided believing in God, I could end my Samsara?(I'm assuming that's the term for thing you're talking about.) How exactly does that even work? Just cause I believe that Uranus is populated by spider monkeys( a very random and extreme case, but just go with it) doesn't make a difference in my being.

You don't have to. anybody that tells you otherwise, is trying to force your god given free will that they talk about soooo much, as you'll probably agree that doesn't seem like the action of a God loving person huh.

I agree.

No, not at all. Just because you haven't felt it yet doesn't mean you never will, nor does it mean you don't believe. I believed that love existed before I actually experienced it, I just didn't understand the magnitude of what it meant until the experience. For many people it takes a tragedy, a trauma, or some life altering event, for some it is just a revelation, an epiphany of sorts. For all of us it is a choice.

You are questioning, and that is a good thing. (I sound like Martha Stewart :rolleyes:). :p

Indeed, you do. :D

But, what if I don't live to make it to that point? Nothing in my life is certain. Will I die a non-believer and go to hell? Is that fair?

You don't have to. anybody that tells you otherwise, is trying to force your god given free will that they talk about soooo much, as you'll probably agree that doesn't seem like the action of a God loving person huh.

So, ok, in that particular conception, I really don't have to, so I won't. I guess that's over with. Awesome.

But, why should I even pray or whatever to them? I've been fine so far without them.

Then don't?
Honestly, if the gods don't care, why should anyone else care? If you want to pray, for whatever reason you have, then go for it. If you don't, then don't. No one can tell you why you should pray, or that you should pray, that's something only you can decide. When, where, how, why, these are things that are up to you in reality. And if you don't want to, then don't.

Keep in mind though that prayer is not a cut-and-dry thing. It's not being on your knees in front of a cross reciting someone's writings, or bowing your head, it's the act of reflection with yourself and with your own soul while respecting that which you do believe. An atheist can pray just as well, as often, and as effectivly as the pope, just because they don't kneel and speak Latin when they do it doesn't mean they arn't, even if they don't know it.

Then don't?

Ok, I won't. :D

Here's an old post of mine that I think is relevant.


According to the God Squad*, there are four basic types of prayers (or "P-mail") that we humans send up: Thanks, Gimme, Oops, and Wow. Thanks are saying cheers to God for an already-received blessing, Gimmes ask for some new blessing, Oops express regret and penitence for a sin or mistake of some kind, and Wow is general awe at how groovy a chap God is.

The way I see it, the only way any of these prayers can make less sense than they do without God is if one DOES believe in God. After all, if God has "a plan," or if God is all-knowing, then everything that is going to happen is already known to him.

He's already decided what he will do, so "Gimmes" are pointless because he will just ignore them if they don't correspond to his plan; indeed, if he DID grant one that went against his original idea then he would be logically disproving his own all-knowingness.

Thanks are likewise irrelevant, because he didn't do anything other than what he was planning on all along, and so he wasn't doing it for you anyway.

Oops don't matter because he knew that you were going to mess up and already decided whether or not he was going to forgive you, and anyhow his all-knowingness already is aware of how sorry you are (or are not).

Wow is the only one that might have merit, but since he already knows how impressed you are (by definition of omniscience) then why bother to pray it to him? He's aware of how cool he is, and, being all-powerful, doesn't need validation from one of his creations.


*http://premierespeakers.com/god_squad

Well, then, I'm assuming that if I just decided believing in God, I could end my Samsara?(I'm assuming that's the term for thing you're talking about.) How exactly does that even work? Just cause I believe that Uranus is populated by spider monkeys( a very random and extreme case, but just go with it) doesn't make a difference in my being.

Well I have no idea how beliving in spider monkeys from Uranas would have much of an impact on your life.

However speaking from my point of view it goes summit like this.

When you do not have God in your life, you are self centered(Manmukh) all of your endevours are ultimatly for your own ends. When you start walking towards God, God notices, and starts out to meet you in return, as time and life goes by you start to become Gurmukh(God centered) and all that you do is for Gods benifit. It must be noted here that for me the word God is interchangeble for the word All.

Once you are Gurmukh, you are not reborn(unless you wish to be)

Worship is just a part of human power dynamics. A lot of people want to have some sort of great whomever/whatever to place above them in a hierarchy. To them, it feels good to feel subservient to something they see as the ultimate greatness. So, many of those who believe in a perfect "God being" find it natural to worship it - thinking thus, the integration of the "master wants worship" idea into their beliefs becomes "obvious", and so it goes.

In other words, just another expression of irrational desire (a hallmark of human nature) for self-disempowerment. (it could be worse - as commonly seen in personality cults)

Indeed, you do. :D

But, what if I don't live to make it to that point? Nothing in my life is certain. Will I die a non-believer and go to hell? Is that fair?

Well for my part, I don't believe in hell so no I don't believe you will go to hell.

Nothing in anyone's life is certain really. But our choices we make in life can be, if we choose to be certain in them. I am certain of my belief, I am certain that I love my children, I am certain that I will die someday. I choose to believe those things.

If you choose to be a non-believer then you are one. Where does "fair" play into this? It is your choice isn't it?

Here's an old post of mine that I think is relevant.


According to the God Squad*, there are four basic types of prayers (or "P-mail") that we humans send up: Thanks, Gimme, Oops, and Wow. Thanks are saying cheers to God for an already-received blessing, Gimmes ask for some new blessing, Oops express regret and penitence for a sin or mistake of some kind, and Wow is general awe at how groovy a chap God is.

The way I see it, the only way any of these prayers can make less sense than they do without God is if one DOES believe in God. After all, if God has "a plan," or if God is all-knowing, then everything that is going to happen is already known to him.

He's already decided what he will do, so "Gimmes" are pointless because he will just ignore them if they don't correspond to his plan; indeed, if he DID grant one that went against his original idea then he would be logically disproving his own all-knowingness.

Thanks are likewise irrelevant, because he didn't do anything other than what he was planning on all along, and so he wasn't doing it for you anyway.

Oops don't matter because he knew that you were going to mess up and already decided whether or not he was going to forgive you, and anyhow his all-knowingness already is aware of how sorry you are (or are not).

Wow is the only one that might have merit, but since he already knows how impressed you are (by definition of omniscience) then why bother to pray it to him? He's aware of how cool he is, and, being all-powerful, doesn't need validation from one of his creations.


*http://premierespeakers.com/god_squad

Umm, I guess that's kind of my point. If God's not omnipotent, I don't think I should care about believing anyways, since it's not an all powerful being that can punish me somehow for not believing.

Why? Does it really care?
You: Why worship?
Me: Because this and that.
You: Why worship?

I'll try to be more clear...

It is humans that have a need to believe, that is why so many seek something to believe in. When people believe in God they have a need to worship. If you really believe that the universe was created by an omnipotent omniscient being then you feel a need to show your respect and admiration towards that magnificent being.

God on the other hand does not need a universe or believers or worship. God doesn't need anything or anyone which must be terribly boring and lonely. God created the universe even though it wasn't necessary, does care about those who live in it even though they are not necessary either and does care about their opinions even though they can't injure God.

It shouldn't be too hard to imagine doing something that is not absolutely necessary. It also shouldn't be too hard to imagine caring about the opinion of someone who can't injure you even if their opinion would be that you deserve to get beaten up.
Er, well, love is different, because people can feel it, and there's various ways of proving it's existence. It's an emotion which most people have felt. Have you felt God in the same way? If you have, well, unfortunately, I have not.

Yeah... I can't do that at this point yet. I'm pretty sure I want to know why God even cares that someone doesn't believe in them.
A lot of people have felt that God exists, for example charismatic Christians feel this very strongly in their worship.

The rules of the game state that "whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life..." . If you choose not to play the game or by the rules, the prize is lost.

That prize of course is receiving the vision of God....everlasting life. So wormfood vs vision basically. It isn't difficult, I don't know why so many people struggle with it. :(
I'm with you.
From where I sit, it's a choice between:

1) Spending an eternal afterlife with the Christian God
and
2) Not spending an eternal afterlife with the Christian God

Easiest. Choice. Ever.

If you choose to be a non-believer then you are one. Where does fair play into this? It is your choice isn't it?

I never got a choice of having both sides of evidence presented to me, if the only way is through personal revelation. I never got the opportunity to know for sure, so, no, it isn't fair. It is my choice, though, as you said, but considering the best evidence I can find, it seems like the most logical choice.

Umm, I guess that's kind of my point. If God's not omnipotent, I don't think I should care about believing anyways, since it's not an all powerful being that can punish me somehow for not believing.
Well, that's flawed logic. God doesn't have to be all-powerful to fuck you up. God could just be really powerful, powerful enough to fuck you up, but not ALL powerful.

Think of the Greek gods. They were really powerful, and fucked up humans all the time, but they were also limited. There are lots of stories of how this god or that god was thwarted.

There's pragmatic reason to kiss God's ass even if God isn't all-powerful, because God might be a really powerful bastard who will fuck up your shit if you don't.

Of course, that would also be reason to do everything you can to trick God and thwart him in the end. Which is what a lot of the Greeks did.

I'm with you.
From where I sit, it's a choice between:

1) Spending an eternal afterlife with the Christian God
and
2) Not spending an eternal afterlife with the Christian God

Easiest. Choice. Ever.

What easier than choc or vanilla ice cream? Nooooooo.

I'm with you.
From where I sit, it's a choice between:

1) Spending an eternal afterlife with the Christian God
and
2) Not spending an eternal afterlife with the Christian God

Easiest. Choice. Ever.

My view on this is similar but something like Pascal's Wager, but in reverse. I am a moralistic human being, not because of religion but because of a secular moralistic code. If my personal beliefs are wrong and there is a Christian God

A This God is omnipotent, loving and merciful then he should reward those who live good and moralistic lives, even if they do not worship him

B He will only reward those who worship him even if they are good/moralistic, in which case he's not a God I wish to worship or spend eternity in his presence.


This is not to say Christianity is bad, or that people shouldn't worship their God as they wish, merely that I do not accept the argument which says I must worship him or else I will not get into heaven, because for me, that's a very poor reason to dedicate your life to a particular religion.

I never got a choice of having both sides of evidence presented to me, if the only way is through personal revelation. I never got the opportunity to know for sure, so, no, it isn't fair. It is my choice, though, as you said, but considering the best evidence I can find, it seems like the most logical choice.

You have all the evidence there is, it isn't going to be presented to you. You have to find it yourself, you have to want to find it. The opportunity is in every moment of everyday. It is "fair", but it is you that has to decide.

I think what you don't find fair is that it isn't clear and finite. It's the 'why' people believe that you want a perfect pat answer to, and that you won't get. Why people believe or even don't believe is as individual as a fingerprint.

If you are waiting on absolute proof either way, you will be waiting a long long time. If a leap of faith were that easy the prize wouldn't be worth much would it?

I can't believe in this day and age that people buy into the transparent lie that 'Eternal life is yours, if you just believe. We offer you no proof, you just gotta trust us. Oh... and send us money so we can spread the word if you don't mind.'

Come on people! If life after death is possible, do you really believe that simply stating a belief switches it on somehow? All logic would rather dictate that if an afterlife is possible it's attainable to all humans, not just those who express certain beliefs. Religion is a tool. It's a tool to control others and achieve power and wealth. It preys on our most basic insecurities and fears.

I'll have no part in it, thank you very much.

Heh thats the thing about belifes though isn't it. Can you show that your belife about it beling a 'transparent lie' is any better about beliveing it is not?

Really then you are just saying 'my belife is better than yours', without presenting us any sort of evidance, now that seems familiar!

I can't believe in this day and age that people buy into the transparent lie that 'Eternal life is yours, if you just believe. We offer you no proof, you just gotta trust us. Oh... and send us money so we can spread the word if you don't mind.'

Come on people! If life after death is possible, do you really believe that simply stating a belief switches it on somehow? All logic would rather dictate that if an afterlife is possible it's attainable to all humans, not just those who express certain beliefs. Religion is a tool. It's a tool to control others and achieve power and wealth. It preys on our most basic insecurities and fears.

I'll have no part in it, thank you very much.


How is about control when it is a choice to believe or not believe? I am not quite following your thought here.:confused:

I think it's greatest attribute is that it isn't about control. No one is telling me I have to believe, I get to choose.

I can't believe in this day and age that people buy into the transparent lie that 'Eternal life is yours, if you just believe. We offer you no proof, you just gotta trust us. Oh... and send us money so we can spread the word if you don't mind.'

Come on people! If life after death is possible, do you really believe that simply stating a belief switches it on somehow? All logic would rather dictate that if an afterlife is possible it's attainable to all humans, not just those who express certain beliefs. Religion is a tool. It's a tool to control others and achieve power and wealth. It preys on our most basic insecurities and fears.

I'll have no part in it, thank you very much.

I was thinking about this for a while, assuming God exists (Be quiet for now and just go with the flow, atheists of NSG). If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not?
So, um... yeah, what are your thoughts?

That's actually a fair question. Here's my effort to respond:

Some of what comes to mind has been said already but I'm gonna put a new spin on it so bear with me.

God doesn't NEED us to worship Him. He doesn't somehow derive power or companionship from us. (Remember, I'm speaking from the point of view of Mormon understanding which makes the most logical sense to me.) His power is independent of our existence and he has plenty of companionship without us. So who benefits from worshipping Him?

We do.

Here's how: Imagine the relationship between God and yourself not as a gigantic-hugely-powerful-unimaginable-uber-megabeing to a gnat, but rather a very wise and experienced father to a son/daughter.

When you're growing up, you follow certain rules and guidelines that your parents set forth for you. These rules aren't in place for their benefit beyond preserving you, whom they love. Those rules are really intended to 1)teach you 2)keep you safe 3)help you develop. In this world, the end result would be an adult like them, self-sufficient and capable of your own achievements and aspirations, and they, if they've done their job well and if you've been open to their guidance, will have succeeded.

Apply that to your relationship with God. A lot of the details are different but the core goal is the same: For you to pass into the next world able and ready to grow and develop on your own. Since He knows how to do His job, it's pretty much up to you to determine the outcome.

In my church we don't do a whole lot of 'worshipping' per se. Our Sunday meetings involve a lot of teaching and prayer. No altars, no chanting. We sing a good bit but worship in and of itself only comes in the form of our being there to learn about the Plan of Salvation.

Here's an old post of mine that I think is relevant.


According to the God Squad*, there are four basic types of prayers (or "P-mail") that we humans send up: Thanks, Gimme, Oops, and Wow. Thanks are saying cheers to God for an already-received blessing, Gimmes ask for some new blessing, Oops express regret and penitence for a sin or mistake of some kind, and Wow is general awe at how groovy a chap God is.


I like this. :P

Applying the logic above:


The way I see it, the only way any of these prayers can make less sense than they do without God is if one DOES believe in God. After all, if God has "a plan," or if God is all-knowing, then everything that is going to happen is already known to him.

He's already decided what he will do, so "Gimmes" are pointless because he will just ignore them if they don't correspond to his plan; indeed, if he DID grant one that went against his original idea then he would be logically disproving his own all-knowingness.


Applying His perspective: To grant prayer requests is a way of building faith and giving blessings is a reward for the faithful. His plan is perfectly adaptable in the case where you do ask, or don't.


Thanks are likewise irrelevant, because he didn't do anything other than what he was planning on all along, and so he wasn't doing it for you anyway.


Unless He planned it all along for your benefit, knowing you'd ask.


Oops don't matter because he knew that you were going to mess up and already decided whether or not he was going to forgive you, and anyhow his all-knowingness already is aware of how sorry you are (or are not).


They do matter, because in order to receive forgiveness one must be sincerely repentant and honest in their desire to receive forgiveness. His response is contingent upon that. To 'eat crow' and confess one's sins openly (in prayer, or, in the case of serious issues, to a Bishop) is a part of the process. Don't they always say the first step in the road to recovery is to openly admit you have a problem?


Wow is the only one that might have merit, but since he already knows how impressed you are (by definition of omniscience) then why bother to pray it to him? He's aware of how cool he is, and, being all-powerful, doesn't need validation from one of his creations.


That acknowledgement benefits the one doing the praying, because it expresses humility.

That sure flushed out the knee-jerk christians... all the focus on my 'lie' comment in the first paragraph without really grasping the whole point of my post which is in the second...:rolleyes:


Oh well... didn't really expect anything different. It's the nature of the machine. It defends itself viciously when attacked.

What was vicious? Both responses to your post were questions, why do you consider questions vicious?

I certainly had no intent to be vicious, I was asking you to clarify why you felt it controlled. I explained why I didn't feel that. How is that vicious?

Edit:
Also, I didn't see your post as an 'attack', was that your point to attack? I thought it was just your opinion.

That sure flushed out the knee-jerk christians... all the focus on my 'lie' comment in the first paragraph without really grasping the whole point of my post which is in the second...:rolleyes:


Oh well... didn't really expect anything different. It's the nature of the machine. It defends itself viciously when attacked.

I was thinking about this for a while, assuming God exists (Be quiet for now and just go with the flow, atheists of NSG). If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not?

Because God is insecure.

Before asking the point of worship, I want to know

What exactly is worship?

To praise a deity.

The rules of the game state that "whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life..." . If you choose not to play the game or by the rules, the prize is lost.

That prize of course is receiving the vision of God....everlasting life. So wormfood vs vision basically. It isn't difficult, I don't know why so many people struggle with it. :(

If we combine simply that passage with the idea that God is everywhere, then the "me" is truly "me". And by believing in the omnipresent "me" why wouldn't the prize be everlasting life.

But I have another theory: God started with the animals and then the angels who were great yes men. What if God just wanted to have a decent conversation? By giving us free will so that eventually we would be able and worthy of discussions with him. That would be patience and love.

why do people masturbate?


For the lawls.

To praise a deity.
If I praise people, concepts, or phenomena, I'm not generally considered to be worshiping them. If I said "I respect Zeus for his leadership abilities and charisma with the ladies" would I necessarily be worshiping him?

I was thinking about this for a while, assuming God exists (Be quiet for now and just go with the flow, atheists of NSG). If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not? Either God's looking for acknowledgment for creating everything, which would seem rather like a flawed human quality of being an attention whore, or is just pointlessly testing people cruelly by putting them in a situation where the correct answer is unclear and the punishment is, well... quite hellish. Either way, it doesn't sound like the great, wise and merciful God people tend to go on about. Of course, there's the whole 'God is all-knowing, and so it sent down his moral code so we can all be ethical! So, if you don't believe in God, you're a barbaric heathen!' which, of course, doesn't hold water always because there's always bound to be situation where, by following the divine moral code would be ironically unethical. It also makes it sound like people had no morality whatsoever before God told everyone how to be moral, which is quite untrue.

So, um... yeah, what are your thoughts?

If God, in His infinite Wisdom imparts morality to humans, assumably that morality is the objective, and definitive set of moral/ethical codes. Therefor, though it may seem unethical, that would only be to our flawed, imperfect human understanding.

Your main mistake was assuming the Biblical God is real, and then comparing Him to many of the athiest objections to His existance froma 'logical' standpoint.

Lets say there is a God. He created this world, breathed life into us, gave us emotions like love and happiness and gives you comfort through rough times. Would it be the worse thing to say thanks every once and a while?

Lets say there is a God. He created this world, breathed life into us, gave us emotions like love and happiness and gives you comfort through rough times. Would it be the worse thing to say thanks every once and a while?

According to athiests... the answer often seems yes. After all what has God done for them? Oh right all that stuff... well He must be a jerk because the human mind can't embrace the Perfect or the Infinite....

If I praise people, concepts, or phenomena, I'm not generally considered to be worshiping them. If I said "I respect Zeus for his leadership abilities and charisma with the ladies" would I necessarily be worshiping him?

"Worship" is actually defined as praise... so yes, you would. There are two definitions (technically the same, but they come apart in usage) for the word "Worship". Anything you praise, or admire could be called worship, while the worship of a deity is typically used in a higher, more 'formal' or exclusive sense.

The idea of Hero Worship is a popular idea, and that revolves around the central theme of veneration for past leaders who are in some way remarkabel... does it mean worhsip in the most commonly though-of way? Not likely, but it is a nonetheless applicable use of the term 'worship'.

Because God is insecure.

Or because He feels (and rightly so) that He deserves it?

Who are you to judge a being you are equal to, much less a being that your finite mind can not even begin to comprehend?

I can't believe in this day and age that people buy into the transparent lie that 'Eternal life is yours, if you just believe. We offer you no proof, you just gotta trust us. Oh... and send us money so we can spread the word if you don't mind.'

Come on people! If life after death is possible, do you really believe that simply stating a belief switches it on somehow? All logic would rather dictate that if an afterlife is possible it's attainable to all humans, not just those who express certain beliefs. Religion is a tool. It's a tool to control others and achieve power and wealth. It preys on our most basic insecurities and fears.

I'll have no part in it, thank you very much.

All logic would dictate what exactly? Surely to make such a bold, and brazen claim you can doubtless prove to me that no such thing as a life after death could exist for a select few.

Your post is rendered utterly void, until you provide irrefutable proof that Christianity (along with most other religions) is (are) wrong.

The burden of proof is on you because you invoked 'all' 'logic', which wasn't a terribly smart move... I suggest you plan ahead before you express the facts about things that you merely presume.

It's the belief that God is omnipotent that makes Him so.Good thing he's terrible in most respects, including his ability to handle iron chariots.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19b.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19c.html
And edit.
A God's power is based on how many people believe in Him or Her.Good thing it's an election year. Out with the old. It's gotten insufferably curdled and the paint's going down with it.

Who are you to judge a being you are equal to, much less a being that your finite mind can not even begin to comprehend?But your mind isn't finite either, then? You comprehend it?

Reality makes a pretty competent judge. Play the "which hand fills up first" game here.

It's the belief that God is omnipotent that makes Him so. A God's power is based on how many people believe in Him or Her.

What is this, Discworld?

All logic would dictate what exactly? Surely to make such a bold, and brazen claim you can doubtless prove to me that no such thing as a life after death could exist for a select few.Of course we can prove that. We can show the biochemical processes that support life, and show how they stop upon death. We can show that when you alter the brain's chemistry by administering at least a certain dosage of anesthesia, your life experience ceases until such biochemical processes are restored. That restoration is currently not possible after death.

Your post is rendered utterly void, until you provide irrefutable proof that Christianity (along with most other religions) is (are) wrong.Christianity contains many contradictions, which have been gone over time and again (biblical inaccuracy/discrepancy, argument from evil, etc). A single contradiction falsifies any set of beliefs which necessarily includes the contradictory elements.

It really amazing actually, because the only thing we need to be atheists is insufficient evidence to believe. Christianity is remarkable because it not only wholly lacks evidence, but it disproves itself entirely.

Of course we can prove that. We can show the biochemical processes that support life, and show how they stop upon death. We can show that when you alter the brain's chemistry by administering at least a certain dosage of anesthesia, your life experience ceases until such biochemical processes are restored. That restoration is currently not possible after death.

Christianity contains many contradictions, which have been gone over time and again (biblical inaccuracy/discrepancy, argument from evil, etc). A single contradiction falsifies any set of beliefs which necessarily includes the contradictory elements.

It really amazing actually, because the only thing we need to be atheists is insufficient evidence to believe. Christianity is remarkable because it not only wholly lacks evidence, but it disproves itself entirely.

*hums along*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#dennis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl9ldtRFigw
http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
http://deludedmailbag.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13507794&postcount=56
*narf*

I'm with you.
From where I sit, it's a choice between:

1) Spending an eternal afterlife with the Christian God
and
2) Not spending an eternal afterlife with the Christian God

Easiest. Choice. Ever.

But as Freddie Mercury said, "Who wants to live forever?"

All logic would dictate what exactly? Surely to make such a bold, and brazen claim you can doubtless prove to me that no such thing as a life after death could exist for a select few.

Your post is rendered utterly void, until you provide irrefutable proof that Christianity (along with most other religions) is (are) wrong.

The burden of proof is on you because you invoked 'all' 'logic', which wasn't a terribly smart move... I suggest you plan ahead before you express the facts about things that you merely presume.

I'm sorry, pal, but you have the burden of proof. It is impossible to prove a negative. Say it with me. "It is impossible to prove a negative." Say it one more time for good measure.

You are the one postulating that there is a fundamental order to the universe provided by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who created teh heavens and earth, defined moral law, made man in his image, etc. That's a pretty tall order for me to accept on faith. Prove it bucko, or shut up.

Who are you to judge a being you are equal to, much less a being that your finite mind can not even begin to comprehend?
That's what I say to Christians who try to judge me.

Who are you to judge a being you are equal to, much less a being that your finite mind can not even begin to comprehend?

So when I hear people say they have a "personal relationship" with God/Jesus/Holy Ghost and such, I know they are lying because, in fact, their "finite minds" couldn't really comprehend God/Jesus/Holy Ghost, yes?

If my mind is so inferior, there really isn't any point in trying to engage in worship or praise or a "personal relationship;" such would be to hopelessly grasp in vain for the unachievable.

Thus, according to the description of God you provide, religion is a waste of time. One's description of God is incompatible with what are presumably the basic requirements of the religion; I cannot meaningfully "know," "worship," "praise," or have a "relationship" with an entity that is beyond my comprehension or the capabilities of my mind. It just doesn't make any sense.

So, if God could be worshiped or known in any meaningful sense, he cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, or otherwise imbued with cosmic superpowers. If this is the case, "he" is hardly worthy of actually being worshiped or even known in particular out of the billions of other mere humans I could otherwise meet. Worshiping or going out of my way to know "him" would be a pointless waste of time. But if God is in fact omnipotent, omniscient, or otherwise imbued with cosmic superpowers, then I couldn't meaningfully worship or know "him" even if I wanted to (my finite mind unable to comprehend "him"), so trying to pretend otherwise is a pointless waste of time.

Ergo...**makes little 3-dot triangle symbol that mathematicians and other Satan-worshiping neer-do-wells make to mean "ergo" in the air with pointer finger**...in all practical cases, God is a pointless waste of time.

Q.E.D.

The Christian god is pointless to worship.

So when I hear people say they have a "personal relationship" with God/Jesus/Holy Ghost and such, I know they are lying because, in fact, their "finite minds" couldn't really comprehend God/Jesus/Holy Ghost, yes?

Not quite. Most of the people have not talked to me yet, but Sally and Sue did. I go out and do Parley Thursdays with them.

Not quite. Most of the people have not talked to me yet, but Sally and Sue did. I go out and do Parley Thursdays with them.

Are you a god? Sumerian or Babylonian?

To meet hot chicks at church.

To meet hot chicks at church.The good chicks don't go to church.

The good chicks don't go to church.

This explains my lack of success.

The good chicks don't go to church.That's not what my Biblezine said! :mad:
It lied to me! :(

According to athiests... the answer often seems yes. After all what has God done for them? Oh right all that stuff... well He must be a jerk because the human mind can't embrace the Perfect or the Infinite....

Well no, to atheists God has done nothing, because he doesn't exist. This is the definition of atheism, that a divine entity does not exist. Therefore why worship something that doesn't actually exist?

Lets say there is a God. He created this world, breathed life into us, gave us emotions like love and happiness and gives you comfort through rough times. Would it be the worse thing to say thanks every once and a while?
Actually, yes, it could be one of the worst things to do.

I mean, you don't know who you're thanking, after all. What if you're thanking the wrong God? What if the real Creator God is pissed off by the fact that you're thanking the wrong person, and he decides to smite you for being such a jackass?

Or what if God is in the bath and really doesn't fucking appreciate you interrupting him with your petty little human prayers? What if he'd rather simply snuff out your life than have to deal with your constant pestering?

Or what if it turns out that God is just a jerk, and that he created the world specifically so that he could torture humanity? Wouldn't it be kind of pathetic for you to be bowing and scraping before him, if that were the case?

You, and the other believers, have provided precisely ZERO reason why any of these possibilities is any less likely than your happy fuzzy puppy time image of God. Frankly, I think you and the other believers aren't taking the idea of God seriously at all.

According to athiests... the answer often seems yes. After all what has God done for them? Oh right all that stuff... well He must be a jerk because the human mind can't embrace the Perfect or the Infinite....
If your mind can't embrace the perfect of the infinite, then that really sucks for you. I don't have the least bit of trouble with either concept. Which is part of why I'm very confident in asserting that the Christian God-image is neither perfect nor infinite.

But you've at least got one little bit right: as an atheist I do not believe that your God-image has done anything for me. Thus, I do not thank it. I also do not thank Santa, leprechauns, or Zeus.

It's looooong.....
God loves us that is why He wants us to believe in him why does he love us? God is Love. So therefore, Love is God. God is How the Universe works, He is the Law of the Universe and his #1 law is Love. (Miracles are just God Love for us breaking all other laws. Love is the Trump Card)
Is worship extreme desire/wanting(?); I worship my Mustang Convertible, I worship God? And praise be acknowledging something; you are wonderful, you are majestic, you are very powerful, you are beautiful?
God is not human but to put it in human terms (I could put it in Godly terms once I am in heaven, but if I wrote it down then it would probably sound close to the Bible): God was going to have a big party in His house. But there was no one to invite so He created Man to love him and to come to His party. But He wanted man to choose to love Him. So He created a man and a woman that He partied with. But He introduced a choice, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17 NIV) Eventually Adam and Eve disobeyed that rule and were separated from God. But God still wanted to party. Meanwhile God introduced a series of laws so mankind can better live following God and His Love.
Eventually, "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NIV) God's Son is still Love so whoever believes in him should also show Love. When they do that they don't have to die and be separated from the party, but they can go to the party when they die. But some people chose not to Love and killed God's Son. But in dying and rising from the dead he conquered Death and Hell. Later God sent the Holy Spirit to help us Love and show Love. So finally we can go to the party if we accept his Love! I want my life to end so full of his Love and joy that I can't tell when I leave Earth and Enter Heaven.
So it all comes down to a choice, believe in God's Son and want to Love Him, or to not believe in God's Son and therefore be a slave to death and sin. This whole story in different context is summed up in Romans 5:12-6:23 and Romans 7:7-25.
It takes Faith in the Bible to accept that God and His Love is Fact. It seems like He doesn't want circumstances to take away from your faith so God give in accordance with his faith. It will (faith) all make sense in the end. Even Voltaire (someone who was against God and His Love.) knew the Bible was the key to the faith, because he said, "If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man's belief in the Bible." In the Bible (Hebrews 11:3 NIV) it talks about this about faith, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
"Open your eyes and the whole world is full of God." -Jakob Bohme
"Anadyr Islands" you might believe that "Uranus is populated by spider monkeys," but how does this change you life? Is there a website I can go to learn about these spider monkeys? I searched for "spider monkeys Uranus" and I didn't get anything major.
About prayer, it is just simply talking to God. It is more of that relationship with God stuff. God knows it already but he wants you to ask him. If God is all knowing you don't have to pray in Latin, He would know all languages equally well. For a short little story on Praying read Matthew 6:5-8 (right before the Lord's Prayer).
On Satan: "Sure as Hell" there is such thing as Satan, he was the top angel but decided to do things his way and was thrown out of Heaven (Isaiah 14:12-15). Satan wants to mess up God's plans, but knows he won't. He wants to turn us away from God. He is a deceiver, cheater, mocker, liar, and he trys to invoke fear, selfishness, glutany, anger, etc. Satan tries to twist what God has made, he is not the opposite of God, he is not Jesus' Brother, he is not light, all of his power is on loan from God. Satan, the Devil, Lucifer are just the same names for the same person. Hell was made for Satan and his angels that followed him (1/3 of all angels). Oh, and people are sometimes deceived by Satan, and want things that will not be good for them. Enough of Satan, he is not worthy of any of this. "But you (Lucifer) are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble?'" (Isaiah 14:15-16 NIV)
Some people ask, "Why does God allow ________ to happen?" I answer with something like, "God's own Son died."
I believe in the Bible, I believe Jesus is the Christ and that he died and rose from the dead (1 John 2:22), I believe that Jesus the Holy Spirit and God are one. I go to a Free Methodist Church, "It's not a religion, it's a relationship." If you want to talk to me more about this subject my E-mail is cyalknight@gmail.com. Or if you have Nation States my countries are "Kukukumkwe" and Kukukumkwe 2" :cool:

Statement:"Of course we can prove that. We can show the biochemical processes that support life, and show how they stop upon death. We can show that when you alter the brain's chemistry by administering at least a certain dosage of anesthesia, your life experience ceases until such biochemical processes are restored. That restoration is currently not possible after death." -Tongass
Rebuttal:"I give you a "brain," prove to me this isn't George Washington's."
Attempt at Explanation:"You cannot prove it isn't because you don't know enough about George Washington to prove that it could not be an elaborate fake. So is life just biochemical? Is Frankenstein's brain Frankenstein's or is it the same personality as the brain's original owner? Is his personality carried over? Do clones have a soul?" Sorry, getting late!

"The good chicks don't go to church." -United Beleriand
"Define 'good.'" -Me

According to athiests... the answer often seems yes. After all what has God done for them? Oh right all that stuff... well He must be a jerk because the human mind can't embrace the Perfect or the Infinite....

There's no such thing... You might want to try actually reading your bible, and then try telling me that your god is 'perfect'.

They are the basis of naval power...oh worship.

Well if you actually believe there is a god who wants you to worship him and punishes you with hell if you don't there is a good reason to do so. It's foolish to try to rationalize this because it isn't based on rationality but on blind faith.

Or because He feels (and rightly so) that He deserves it?

Who says God deserves worship? Oh, thats right. "God". Ok. I deserve worship. By your logic, you must now worship me.

You may begin.

Who are you to judge a being you are equal to, much less a being that your finite mind can not even begin to comprehend?

1. Id hardly say the Biblical God is my equal. I dont see fit to commit mass genocides (or tell my followers to commit mass genocides) because people do things I disagree or are not members of my fan club.

2. I comprehend God fine. He's supposed to omnipotent and perfect. But, evil exists, so if he allows it, he isnt perfect, and if he cant stop it, he sure isnt omnipotent.

And before you say I cant judge God on human morality, than how come you can? How do you know God is good and his ideas are good if you cant judge God with human morality? Because God said so and his perfect? Thats a circuler arguement my friend.

I am not sure that what I do is prayer.

I am not expressing gratitude, or asking for anything, or apologising. It's sort of Wow, but not really directed at god. This is one of the reasons that I don't think it's prayer.

It is merely a deep appreciation or awe at the beauty and complexity of our world. Many atheists do this too, so this is another reason I'm not sure it's prayer.

Like when I eat a peach in the summer, I make an effort to really taste it, to smell it, and watch the juice dry on my skin. Really live in the moment. Since I believe in an immanent god, I already know that god is partaking of the moment, so it's not like I have to put my hands together and bow my head and act all obedient.

And at the same time, I can think about the eons of evolution that it took for fruit trees and mammals to evolve together, influencing each other, until we arrive at one wonderful summer day where primates are enjoying a piece of fruit that they were evolved to enjoy, and that the plant itself evolved to make the fruit tasty as a seed delivery system, and one of the primates lifts his or her head to the sun and laughs at the absurd, joyous, chaotic, beautiful, intricate simplicity of it all.

There is no point to worship, but humans do many pointless things, and we seem to enjoy many of them. There may be a point to worship for some people, but I think that reason resides in the individual, not in god.

I believe that god is so immensely majestic that she doesn't give a rat's ass what we think of her.

I was thinking about this for a while, assuming God exists (Be quiet for now and just go with the flow, atheists of NSG). If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not? Either God's looking for acknowledgment for creating everything, which would seem rather like a flawed human quality of being an attention whore, or is just pointlessly testing people cruelly by putting them in a situation where the correct answer is unclear and the punishment is, well... quite hellish. Either way, it doesn't sound like the great, wise and merciful God people tend to go on about. Of course, there's the whole 'God is all-knowing, and so it sent down his moral code so we can all be ethical! So, if you don't believe in God, you're a barbaric heathen!' which, of course, doesn't hold water always because there's always bound to be situation where, by following the divine moral code would be ironically unethical. It also makes it sound like people had no morality whatsoever before God told everyone how to be moral, which is quite untrue.

So, um... yeah, what are your thoughts?

I imagine that since you used "What is the point of worship?" as your title, that we should respond to that although your discussion seemed a little vague and not really related to "why should we worship the Lord?".

We should worship the Lord because all of creation should worship the Lord. We are created by him. Therefore, we should worship him.

Sometimes, the Lord asks of us to do unethical things. Who are you compared to the Lord? You are next to nothing compared to him. Therefore, you should serve the Lord even if it requries you to do unethical things. We have an ethical duty to others but a higher priority is our duty to the highest power.

1. Id hardly say the Biblical God is my equal. I dont see fit to commit mass genocides (or tell my followers to commit mass genocides) because people do things I disagree or are not members of my fan club.

It is not your role to commit genocide. We are not supposed to kill. However, obviously if God believes that wicked races of men should be wiped off the face of the Earth, he can and should do just that. No man or world leader has the authority to do the genocide thing but certainly the Lord does. What is bad for one to do might be good for another to do. For example, I hope that the Lord determines that the human population is overpopulated and decides to thin our numbers a bit with plagues and war and what have you. This does not mean that it is right for a mortal to go and make a batch of ricin and kill millions.

[/QUOTE]
2. I comprehend God fine. He's supposed to omnipotent and perfect. But, evil exists, so if he allows it, he isnt perfect, and if he cant stop it, he sure isnt omnipotent.[/QUOTE]

If the Lord wants evil to exist, this does not make him imperfect. It is his decision and not yours as to how to structure existance. You have your job to do. He has his.

[/QUOTE]
And before you say I cant judge God on human morality, than how come you can? How do you know God is good and his ideas are good if you cant judge God with human morality? Because God said so and his perfect? Thats a circuler arguement my friend.[/QUOTE]

Just because man is created in the image of God does not mean that we are to be judged by the same standard. A tiger is a good tiger if he tracks down and kills a deer with its teeth. You are not a good person if you start biting a deer with your teeth. Different species need to be judged according to their species. There is nothing circular about this. Apples need to be compared to apples and oranges with oranges. It is basic algebra.

It is not your role to commit genocide. We are not supposed to kill. However, obviously if God believes that wicked races of men should be wiped off the face of the Earth, he can and should do just that. No man or world leader has the authority to do the genocide thing but certainly the Lord does.

What if God told you to commit genocide? He's told people to do so before (at least if one believes the Bible), so why not again?


What is bad for one to do might be good for another to do. For example, I hope that the Lord determines that the human population is overpopulated and decides to thin our numbers a bit with plagues and war and what have you.

You "hope" that God kills off a bunch of humans with plagues and wars?

Let me guess: you don't see yourself being one of the victims of these wars and plagues...


If the Lord wants evil to exist, this does not make him imperfect.

No, it just means He's not benevolent.


It is his decision and not yours as to how to structure existance. You have your job to do. He has his.

Back to the fields with you, serfs!


Just because man is created in the image of God does not mean that we are to be judged by the same standard. A tiger is a good tiger if he tracks down and kills a deer with its teeth. You are not a good person if you start biting a deer with your teeth. Different species need to be judged according to their species. There is nothing circular about this.

1) Yes, actually, what you said is circular.
2) You've changed the subject.


Apples need to be compared to apples and oranges with oranges. It is basic algebra.
Actually, the most fundamental essence of algebra is basically that it is a system of mathematical structure for comparing apples to oranges.

2x = 3y and whatnot.

You "hope" that God kills off a bunch of humans with plagues and wars?

Let me guess: you don't see yourself being one of the victims of these wars and plagues...






I am curious as to why would you assume that? For myself as a Christian if God sees fit that my demise is part of the plan then so be it. The idea that I would somehow be exempt from the action is silly. Why would anyone assume that someone who believes in God and that God has a plan would believe that they were somehow exempt from bad things? That isn't how it works.

Bad things happen to good people all the time, no where does it say that they won't.

(I am not saying that I 'hope' God kills off people, but I am saying that if He does I certainly don't feel that somehow I would be exempt.)

I am curious as to why would you assume that?

Because most people who openly express that they hope to die in a plague are not allowed to roam freely and post on the interwebs. They tend to be institutionalized.


For myself as a Christian if God sees fit that my demise is part of the plan then so be it. The idea that I would somehow be exempt from the action is silly. Why would anyone assume that someone who believes in God and that God has a plan would believe that they were somehow exempt from bad things? That isn't how it works.

Bad things happen to good people all the time, no where does it say that they won't.

(I am not saying that I 'hope' God kills off people, but I am saying that if He does I certainly don't feel that somehow I would be exempt.)
You answered yourself, here.

You don't hope that God kills people off, so obviously you also don't hope that you'll be one of the people God kills off (seeing as how you don't hope for the killing off of people).

That makes sense.

On the other hand, if you DID say that you hope God kills "people" off (as did the person I quoted), it would be normal for others to assume that you weren't including yourself in "people," since most jackasses who hope for plagues to thin the herd are actually rooting for other people to be thinned from the herd.

All of this is actually kind of irrelevant, though, since anybody who would hope for God to slaughter people with plagues and wars is being a giant douche, even if they do hope that they are killed off along with all the other victims.

This should be blindingly obvious. If you say that you hope God kills off "people" with plagues and wars, you should keep in mind that your audience is probably composed of people. I know I am a people, so when somebody wishes death upon "people" they are wishing death upon me.

(Yes, yes, Mr. Douche, I know you didn't mean say you wanted me PERSONALLY to die in a plague, but so what? You wanted people to die. I'm people. My best friends are people. So's my family. You wished death on me and my loved ones and other humans in this world. Maybe instead of hoping God kills your fellow humans, you could hope that he instills you with something approximating a moral compass before you decide that God has given you an "unethical" but necessary mission to wipe out your neighbors.)

Because most people who openly express that they hope to die in a plague are not allowed to roam freely and post on the interwebs. They tend to be institutionalized.


You answered yourself, here.

You don't hope that God kills people off, so obviously you also don't hope that you'll be one of the people God kills off (seeing as how you don't hope for the killing off of people).

That makes sense.

On the other hand, if you DID say that you hope God kills "people" off (as did the person I quoted), it would be normal for others to assume that you weren't including yourself in "people," since most jackasses who hope for plagues to thin the herd are actually rooting for other people to be thinned from the herd.

All of this is actually kind of irrelevant, though, since anybody who would hope for God to slaughter people with plagues and wars is being a giant douche, even if they do hope that they are killed off along with all the other victims.

I see the direction you are taking. My point for my part is that if God sees fit to destroy part of the population by whatever means as a method of thinning things out, then I will accept that and would not consider myself in any form exempt from the action.

Cherry picking isn't God's game. ;)

I can agree that if someone "hopes" for such action there is a problem.

You, and the other believers, have provided precisely ZERO reason why any of these possibilities is any less likely than your happy fuzzy puppy time image of God. Frankly, I think you and the other believers aren't taking the idea of God seriously
I wouldn't say I'm a "believer" but I feel I must counter your blantant hatred towards religion and Christianity in particular. This post is not a reflection of my beliefs merely a rebuttal;
You make the mistake of giving human emotions to God ie the bath comment. 2nd God does love us. How did he show this? He sent Christ to suffer for the sins of man and to show us how to live with our fellow man in harmony. For we should be forever grateful. He loves us because Christ as said so and Christ showed this love while on Earth. During the passion of our Lord he said 'Forgive them father for they know not what they do' I forgive you for the same reasons. And in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit I have defeated you.

The point of worship is for the experience of a greater oneness with one's deity of choice. meditation, Communion, Hajj, prayer, vows, etc. are all designed along this line. It's not a matter of making said deity happy, it's a matter of bringing oneself more closely into being one with said deity.

The point of worship is for the experience of a greater oneness with one's deity of choice. meditation, Communion, Hajj, prayer, vows, etc. are all designed along this line. It's not a matter of making said deity happy, it's a matter of bringing oneself more closely into being one with said deity.

I agree completely.

I see the direction you are taking. My point for my part is that if God sees fit to destroy part of the population by whatever means as a method of thinning things out, then I will accept that and would not consider myself in any form exempt from the action.

Cherry picking isn't God's game. ;)

I can agree that if someone "hopes" for such action there is a problem.

I disagree, cherry picking seems to be exactly God's game. He picks the 'good' people and grants them eternal life in heaven.

I wouldn't say I'm a "believer"

Why not? Your post establishes that you most certainly are. Are you ashamed to admit it?


but I feel I must counter your blantant hatred towards religion and Christianity in particular.

Just because somebody examines a topic critically doesn't mean they're being hateful. You may hate critical thinking, but that doesn't mean everyone shares your beliefs.


This post is not a reflection of my beliefs merely a rebuttal;
You make the mistake of giving human emotions to God ie the bath comment.

Prove it's a mistake. So far, neither you nor anybody else has provided any reason to assume anything about God's feelings (or lack thereof). That's my point.


2nd God does love us. How did he show this? He sent Christ to suffer for the sins of man and to show us how to live with our fellow man in harmony. For we should be forever grateful. He loves us because Christ as said so and Christ showed this love while on Earth. During the passion of our Lord he said 'Forgive them father for they know not what they do' I forgive you for the same reasons. And in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit I have defeated you.
I'm sure your God is very proud of how you use his son's dying words to fluff up your own personal sense of superiority, but I'm not particularly impressed.

I disagree, cherry picking seems to be exactly God's game. He picks the 'good' people and grants them eternal life in heaven.

Umm, not at all. He doesn't "pick" anyone at all for anything. We are given free will to choose whether or not to believe. Nothing more. Actually each of us does the "picking" for ourselves.

Prove it's a mistake. So far, neither you nor anybody else has provided any reason to assume anything about God's feelings (or lack thereof). That's my point.

there's nothing that suggests God does hate man(In the New Testament) or is petty. However there is a great deal of evidence showing God's love and mercy.

Umm, not at all. He doesn't "pick" anyone at all for anything. We are given free will to choose whether or not to believe. Nothing more. Actually each of us does the "picking" for ourselves.Maybe according to your sect, but plenty of Christians believe precisely the opposite.

Indeed, a central point of many Christian sects is that no human action can determine whether or not you are "saved," but only through God's grace can any human attain undeserved salvation.

This is consistent with a central myth of Christianity, the Fall From Paradise. Humans used their free will to chose to turn away from God, but God deliberately put into motion a plan to save humans anyhow. The lynch pin of this plan was a human sacrifice, wherein God sent Jesus to die for the sins of humanity. It is through this gift of sacrifice that humans are able to be saved and get into heaven.

there's nothing that suggests God does hate man(In the New Testament) or is petty. However there is a great deal of evidence showing God's love and mercy.
It's cute how you have to specifically exclude half of the Bible in order to even attempt to claim this.

Maybe according to your sect, but plenty of Christians believe precisely the opposite.

Indeed, a central point of many Christian sects is that no human action can determine whether or not you are "saved," but only through God's grace can any human attain undeserved salvation.

This is consistent with a central myth of Christianity, the Fall From Paradise. Humans used their free will to chose to turn away from God, but God deliberately put into motion a plan to save humans anyhow. The lynch pin of this plan was a human sacrifice, wherein God sent Jesus to die for the sins of humanity. It is through this gift of sacrifice that humans are able to be saved and get into heaven.

The first requisite is to believe. I don't know of or how any Christians can believe that there is salvation without the concious choice to believe first. I do not see where you think any Christians believe "precisely the opposite". It indeed requires a human action, it requires belief, a choice.

The choice to "pick" is in each of us first and above all else. I don't see it as "a plan to save humans anyhow", it is still a matter of choice. He did put a pathway to salvation, we choose to take it or not.

Perhaps I am simply not aware of such a sect as you describe. I would be curious to know a particular case of a Christian sect that doesn't require the human action/choice of believing.

The first requisite is to believe. I don't know of or how any Christians can believe that there is salvation without the concious choice to believe first.

I'd suggest you do a bit more reading on the history of your own religion, in that case. It's kind of sad if an atheist knows more about Christianity than a Christian does.


I do not see where you think any Christians believe "precisely the opposite". It indeed requires a human action, it requires belief, a choice.

Not according to some Christian sects. If you would like to present reason why your version of Christianity should be valued above other versions of Christianity, please feel free.

I'm still waiting to hear why I shouldn't assume that God is a cranky fellow taking a bath, after all, so I'm setting the bar very low here. :D


The choice to "pick" is in each of us first and above all else. I don't see it as "a plan to save humans anyhow", it is still a matter of choice. He did put a pathway to salvation, we choose to take it or not.

As I said, you are obviously free to interpret Christian texts however you choose, just like everyone else. Please be clear: I think Christianity is bunk. I'm not arguing for one version of bunk over another version of bunk. My point was simply that some Christians believe that salvation CANNOT be achieved through any human action, but instead must be granted by God alone. Personally, I think they're just as wrong as the Christians who think that you have to choose to believe in order to be saved.


Perhaps I am simply not aware of such a sect as you describe. I would be curious to know a particular case of a Christian sect that doesn't require the human action/choice of believing.
Well, you could start by reading up on Calvinism, since that's one of the most classic examples.

there's nothing that suggests God does hate man(In the New Testament) or is petty. However there is a great deal of evidence showing God's love and mercy.God is ready to kill every non-believer. How that is love and mercy is beyond me. Love that comes on condition of belief and submission is not love.

I'd suggest you do a bit more reading on the history of your own religion, in that case. It's kind of sad if an atheist knows more about Christianity than a Christian does.


Not according to some Christian sects. If you would like to present reason why your version of Christianity should be valued above other versions of Christianity, please feel free.

I'm still waiting to hear why I shouldn't assume that God is a cranky fellow taking a bath, after all, so I'm setting the bar very low here. :D


As I said, you are obviously free to interpret Christian texts however you choose, just like everyone else. Please be clear: I think Christianity is bunk. I'm not arguing for one version of bunk over another version of bunk. My point was simply that some Christians believe that salvation CANNOT be achieved through any human action, but instead must be granted by God alone. Personally, I think they're just as wrong as the Christians who think that you have to choose to believe in order to be saved.


Well, you could start by reading up on Calvinism, since that's one of the most classic examples.

I think you simply are not getting the point. And that is ok. Salvation is not granted by anyone but God, in that you are correct. But it does require a human action to believe. The act of being saved begins with the acceptance of the belief that you are saved and why you are saved.

We simply are talking about two different things. Salvation is granted only by God. Regardless of which of the five solas a Christian adheres to it does not negate that man is required to choose to believe or not.

A non-believer is never saved, nor granted the Grace of God regardless of sola gratia. Believing is required first. A very human choice. Calvinism does not state anywhere that you do not have to make a choice to believe. It states that good works cannot bring you closer to salvation. The base belief that "once saved always saved". Sure lots of Christian sects believe that you cannot fall from grace, once you are there. That isn't what I have been talking about.

The choice to believe or not is purely human.

there is still the question about Heath Ledger dying so suddenly

some religious groups point at that he played a gay cowboy in that cowboy movie

that would be evil if god killed guys who just pretended to be gay

I think you simply are not getting the point. And that is ok. Salvation is not granted by anyone but God, in that you are correct. But it does require a human action to believe. The act of being saved begins with the acceptance of the belief that you are saved and why you are saved.

We simply are talking about two different things. Salvation is granted only by God. Regardless of which of the five solas a Christian adheres to it does not negate that man is required to choose to believe or not.

A non-believer is never saved, nor granted the Grace of God regardless of sola gratia. Believing is required first. A very human choice. Calvinism does not state anywhere that you do not have to make a choice to believe. It states that good works cannot bring you closer to salvation. The base belief that "once saved always saved". Sure lots of Christian sects believe that you cannot fall from grace, once you are there. That isn't what I have been talking about.

The choice to believe or not is purely human.

This isn't true at all. Calvinism believes that God chooses who will be saved and that people are too fallen in sin to ever willingly choose God. Do your research.

I wouldn't say I'm a "believer" but I feel I must counter your blantant hatred towards religion and Christianity in particular. This post is not a reflection of my beliefs merely a rebuttal;
You make the mistake of giving human emotions to God ie the bath comment. 2nd God does love us. How did he show this? He sent Christ to suffer for the sins of man and to show us how to live with our fellow man in harmony. For we should be forever grateful. He loves us because Christ as said so and Christ showed this love while on Earth. During the passion of our Lord he said 'Forgive them father for they know not what they do' I forgive you for the same reasons. And in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit I have defeated you.

WTF? Weren't you a Muslim at one point?

there is still the question about Heath Ledger dying so suddenly

some religious groups point at that he played a gay cowboy in that cowboy movie

that would be evil if god killed guys who just pretended to be gay

All walks of life contain idiots.

Bottle,

"If God told you to get your genocide on, is it good to do the genocide thing"?
If God actually told me to do something awful, it would be more awful to refuse the Lord than to do the act. If we act with the approval of the Lord we are incapable of sinning. An otherwise sinful act, with the Lord's approval becomes righteous.

"Would you be someone who would die in a plague sent by Gob to kill billions?"
If the Lord wants to give me and billions of others a plague to serve his purpose, then although I will not enjoy the illness, I am still honored to have been able to serve the Lord according to his will.

"No, it just means He's not benevolent." I do not know what we can infer about the nature of God by the existance of evil. All I know is that we should try to avoid following the path of evil to the best of our abilities. I think that evil says more about us than it says about the nature of God.


"Back to the fields with you, serfs!"

Just because we should not judge God by our standards or well at all for that matter, does not mean that we should treat other men in the same fashion.

"1) Yes, actually, what you said is circular.
2) You've changed the subject.
Actually, the most fundamental essence of algebra is basically that it is a system of mathematical structure for comparing apples to oranges.

2x = 3y and whatnot."

God is the sole member of a separate species. Just as men should be judged according to their species, so should God according to his species. Because he is the sole example of his species he automatically is the perfect example of his species.

My point is that the variable includes those of its kind. x=apples y=oranges

This isn't true at all. Calvinism believes that God chooses who will be saved and that people are too fallen in sin to ever willingly choose God. Do your research.

Actually one of the five points is 'total depravity', and yes you are right. I stand corrected. The Calvinists who follow the five points do not believe man has the ability to choose anything. They believe in complete predestination.

My apologies.

It's cute how you have to specifically exclude half of the Bible in order to even attempt to claim this.

Its cute how you ducked my point and avoided addressing, instead choosing to go for more of personal attack.

One thing I will add so there is no confusion. In the US, Calvinist churches represent less than 3% of the population. Considering that 76% of the population is Christian, the philosophy of 'total depravity' is hardly the forerunner in Christianity.

Why not? Your post establishes that you most certainly are. Are you ashamed to admit it?

no ,I thought I was clear in my post. I don't believe it and my arguments were for the sake of argument as it were, but also to defend against what I see as irrational intolerance towards the Christian faith.

Because most people who openly express that they hope to die in a plague are not allowed to roam freely and post on the interwebs. They tend to be institutionalized.


You answered yourself, here.

You don't hope that God kills people off, so obviously you also don't hope that you'll be one of the people God kills off (seeing as how you don't hope for the killing off of people).

That makes sense.

On the other hand, if you DID say that you hope God kills "people" off (as did the person I quoted), it would be normal for others to assume that you weren't including yourself in "people," since most jackasses who hope for plagues to thin the herd are actually rooting for other people to be thinned from the herd.

All of this is actually kind of irrelevant, though, since anybody who would hope for God to slaughter people with plagues and wars is being a giant douche, even if they do hope that they are killed off along with all the other victims.

This should be blindingly obvious. If you say that you hope God kills off "people" with plagues and wars, you should keep in mind that your audience is probably composed of people. I know I am a people, so when somebody wishes death upon "people" they are wishing death upon me.

(Yes, yes, Mr. Douche, I know you didn't mean say you wanted me PERSONALLY to die in a plague, but so what? You wanted people to die. I'm people. My best friends are people. So's my family. You wished death on me and my loved ones and other humans in this world. Maybe instead of hoping God kills your fellow humans, you could hope that he instills you with something approximating a moral compass before you decide that God has given you an "unethical" but necessary mission to wipe out your neighbors.)

Hmmm. My point was that I have no right to kill others. However, just because I as a man do not possess that right does not mean that nobody has it. I believe that God is incapable of sin because he is holy. If God wants to kill off billions of people or billions of dinosaurs that is his perogative and he should do so according to his plan.

When I see what people are doing to the environment I do believe that we are overpopulated and that our destruction of natural habitat is a problem that I hope God will fix. One of the ways that he can do this through plagues. I hope that he uses plagues or whatever else he wishes to use to fix the problem. If he takes my life or yours or your family's or my family, it is arrogance to say that no he should have taken others but not me. You might hgave a point if God used wierd miraculous ways of only killing people that he did not like but fortunately we, through the torch of science, have dispelled a lot of the mystery of the way that God works and we see that he works in ways that are explainable through science. So we are probably not going to see lazers from heaven striking down the worst of the billions of us if he chooses to kill off a lot of us to bring us back into balance, it will probably be something like plague or climate change. He used climate change to kill off lots of species in the past. I would rather see him use plagues instead that way we would not be killed off in a manner that harms other species as well.

People who think that the world is overpopulated do not necessarily belong in a loony bin.

This isn't true at all. Calvinism believes that God chooses who will be saved and that people are too fallen in sin to ever willingly choose God. Do your research.

No Christian denomination that I know of claims that good works get anyone into heaven. All denominations believe that divine grace is the key.

I believe that you are right that Calvinists believed that there are an elect and a damned and that people are predestined to be of the elect or the damned.

I disagree, cherry picking seems to be exactly God's game. He picks the 'good' people and grants them eternal life in heaven.

According to Christians he allows people to pick eternal life in heaven. The first such people I believe were some thieves that were crucified near him. The idea is that he allows people to make that choice, although Calvinism and predestiny is an exception to this.

Most people believe that God's ways are known through meditating on the observations that we make. This is primarily done through a process called scientific observation. Science has made us much more confident of our ability to understand the nature of God. From what we have observed, he is not much of a cherry picker of men.

So, I really don't have a very religious answer to this post. And if this is blasphemous....*shrugs* I don't worship for the person sitting next to me. I don't worship for the dictators, benevolent ppl, or mother Teresa (sp). I worship because when I'm done, I feel good (at peace). I think everyone has a different reason for why they worship what they do. :) If worshipping is an act that makes me happy, do I really need to know the reason for why? Just call me an advocate for, "Ignorance is Bliss"

The point of worship is to appease a selfish and egotistical god.

there's nothing that suggests God does hate man(In the New Testament) or is petty. However there is a great deal of evidence showing God's love and mercy.

And the NT isn't the only part of the bible...

What is the point of worship?

There is no point, except possibly to make yourself feel better.

Are you a god? Sumerian or Babylonian?

I am in the Eye in the Sky; also known as the maker of rules, dealing with fools.

I am in the Eye in the Sky; also known as the maker of rules, dealing with fools.

You'll fit right in then. :p

The point of worship is for the experience of a greater oneness with one's deity of choice. meditation, Communion, Hajj, prayer, vows, etc. are all designed along this line. It's not a matter of making said deity happy, it's a matter of bringing oneself more closely into being one with said deity.

what about going to hell for choosing to not worship? honor the sabbath, for example.

No Christian denomination that I know of claims that good works get anyone into heaven. All denominations believe that divine grace is the key.

I believe that you are right that Calvinists believed that there are an elect and a damned and that people are predestined to be of the elect or the damned.

Yeah, I go to a private Christian school which is actually pretty moderate. We have a few Calvinists, but most of us would probably be Armenian if it came down to it.

What is the point of worship?

Religious worship promotes social congregation, unity, hope & culture and gives answers along with desired certainty.

Religiousness is good for the unity of a group of people and has been the prime motivator behind the most impressive pieces of cultural history ever created, from Hagia Sofia to the Pyramids.

The bad aspects are social division and tension between religions, tendency towards scientific primitivism (we already have all the important answers!) and stagnancy (how? GOD DID IT!) and possible dependency to religion and/or religious structure.


Religion has been pretty much necessary element in cultural evolution but can and does cause undesirable side-effects in globalized world.

Maybe it's part of evolution of a social animal in the first place...Who knows whether wolves worship the moon same way as humans worship their deities?

Religiousness is good for the unity of a group of people and has been the prime motivator behind the most impressive pieces of cultural history ever created, from Hagia Sofia to the Pyramids.

I'll take "Slave Labor building the Pyramids for $1000, Alex."

I'll take "Slave Labor building the Pyramids for $1000, Alex."

Pyramids werent built by slaves. Sorry.

Quick ad dirty history lesson, they were built by free laborers who were paid for their services. If Egypt ever did keep slaves it was not until the late kingdom, and Egypt was no longer building pyramids in the late kingdom.

Umm, not at all. He doesn't "pick" anyone at all for anything. We are given free will to choose whether or not to believe. Nothing more. Actually each of us does the "picking" for ourselves.
Just to be clear, you're obviously NOT talking about Jehovah.

But as Freddie Mercury said, "Who wants to live forever?"
Didn't he also say something like,
I was just a skinny lad
Never knew no good from bad,
But I knew love before I left my nursery,
Left alone with big fat Fanny,
She was such a naughty nanny!
Hey big woman you made a bad boy out of me!
?
and
The Show must go on!
Inside my heart is breaking,
My make-up may be flaking,
But my smile, still, stays on!
...
The Show must go on!
I'll face it with a grin!
I'm never giving in!
On with the show!

I'll top the bill!
I'll overkill!
I have to find the will to carry on!
On with the,
On with the show!
?

So when I hear people say they have a "personal relationship" with God/Jesus/Holy Ghost and such, I know they are lying because, in fact, their "finite minds" couldn't really comprehend God/Jesus/Holy Ghost, yes?

If my mind is so inferior, there really isn't any point in trying to engage in worship or praise or a "personal relationship;" such would be to hopelessly grasp in vain for the unachievable.

Thus, according to the description of God you provide, religion is a waste of time. One's description of God is incompatible with what are presumably the basic requirements of the religion; I cannot meaningfully "know," "worship," "praise," or have a "relationship" with an entity that is beyond my comprehension or the capabilities of my mind. It just doesn't make any sense.

So, if God could be worshiped or known in any meaningful sense, he cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, or otherwise imbued with cosmic superpowers. If this is the case, "he" is hardly worthy of actually being worshiped or even known in particular out of the billions of other mere humans I could otherwise meet. Worshiping or going out of my way to know "him" would be a pointless waste of time. But if God is in fact omnipotent, omniscient, or otherwise imbued with cosmic superpowers, then I couldn't meaningfully worship or know "him" even if I wanted to (my finite mind unable to comprehend "him"), so trying to pretend otherwise is a pointless waste of time.

Ergo...**makes little 3-dot triangle symbol that mathematicians and other Satan-worshiping neer-do-wells make to mean "ergo" in the air with pointer finger**...in all practical cases, God is a pointless waste of time.

Q.E.D.

Nicely done. *bows*

Who says God deserves worship? Oh, thats right. "God". Ok. I deserve worship. By your logic, you must now worship me.

You may begin.


*shrugs*
M'kay.
*worships*
Hey, that did feel kinda good. Thanks!
*wanders off*

For myself as a Christian if God sees fit that my demise is part of the plan then so be it. Good. Without a fight. No wonder the term "flock" and "shepherd" are used so often.

A non-believer is never saved, nor granted the Grace of God regardless of sola gratia.

Can't say that part in the english you've been using so far, huh? Probably because it's not how you were repeatedly told it.
Keep the faith.

The rules of the game state that "whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life..." . If you choose not to play the game or by the rules, the prize is lost.

That prize of course is receiving the vision of God....everlasting life. So wormfood vs vision basically. It isn't difficult, I don't know why so many people struggle with it. :(

Because it DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

If a god will let in a former murderer that "acknowledged" him and let Gandhi for dead, such a god forfeits his right to rule! I refuse to play by these rules, and I hereby create my own reality!

ass kissing.

I was thinking about this for a while, assuming God exists (Be quiet for now and just go with the flow, atheists of NSG). If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not?

It does not.

Either God's looking for acknowledgment for creating everything, which would seem rather like a flawed human quality of being an attention whore, or is just pointlessly testing people cruelly by putting them in a situation where the correct answer is unclear and the punishment is, well... quite hellish.

Preposterous.

Either way, it doesn't sound like the great, wise and merciful God people tend to go on about.

Well, looking at the Old Testament....

Of course, there's the whole 'God is all-knowing, and so it sent down his moral code so we can all be ethical!

Balderdash.

So, if you don't believe in God, you're a barbaric heathen!' which, of course, doesn't hold water always because there's always bound to be situation where, by following the divine moral code would be ironically unethical.

No, it contradicts reason entirely.

It also makes it sound like people had no morality whatsoever before God told everyone how to be moral, which is quite untrue.

Nonsense. Who are we to decide what God's morals are (if any)?

]So, um... yeah, what are your thoughts?

Anyone who knows me long says there are not any.

Oh, goodie, now to choose which God to thank and how...

Or you're making the infinitely presumptuous assumption that you know which God to thank, if any?Why the long "sabbatical" :p , old friend?
Not been around in some time methinks.

ass kissing.

Theo "Pepsi-kids", the lot of us. :p

According to athiests... the answer often seems yes. After all what has God done for them? Oh right all that stuff... well He must be a jerk because the human mind can't embrace the Perfect or the Infinite....

Oh, goodie, now to choose which God to thank and how...

Or you're making the infinitely presumptuous assumption that you know which God to thank, if any?

Well if you actually believe there is a god who wants you to worship him and punishes you with hell if you don't there is a good reason to do so. It's foolish to try to rationalize this because it isn't based on rationality but on blind faith.

A person that believes a FAIR god would do this not only believes the notion of eternal punishment to innocent non-worshipers. They WISH so. That makes them worse than psychopaths, because psychopaths ONLY kill, as opposed to eternally torture.

Actually I have. o_O

Just not seen ya in some time. Only in the last month or so.

Why the long "sabbatical" :p , old friend?
Not been around in some time methinks.

Actually I have. o_O

Well, I showed up at some political ones. Anyways, let's play with these guys.Hopin' to. :)

No Christian denomination that I know of claims that good works get anyone into heaven. All denominations believe that divine grace is the key.

Good thing reality does not work that way.

Even because a god cannot be at the same time fair, good and just and send Gandhi to hell.

Just not seen ya in some time. Only in the last month or so.

Well, I showed up at some political ones. Anyways, let's play with these guys.

Its cute how you ducked my point and avoided addressing, instead choosing to go for more of personal attack.
Actually, what I did was pretty much the definition of a non-personal attack, since I was specifically attacking a flaw in your argument.

I think you simply are not getting the point. And that is ok. Salvation is not granted by anyone but God, in that you are correct. But it does require a human action to believe. The act of being saved begins with the acceptance of the belief that you are saved and why you are saved.

We simply are talking about two different things. Salvation is granted only by God. Regardless of which of the five solas a Christian adheres to it does not negate that man is required to choose to believe or not.

I guess we are talking about two different things, because you keep repeating your personal religious opinions as if they have anything to do with my point.

Let me say this just once more, very clearly:

I understand your views. They are not new to me. Your version of Christianity is not remotely unusual where I live. I am surrounded every day by many people who believe as you do.

The problem here is not my failure to grasp what your views are.

The problem here is that you seem to think all Christians share your views, or that everybody should just assume your version of Christianity is the right view.


A non-believer is never saved, nor granted the Grace of God regardless of sola gratia. Believing is required first. A very human choice. Calvinism does not state anywhere that you do not have to make a choice to believe.

On this you are simply wrong.

The first of the five primary points of Calvanism specifically states that all people are unable to choose to follow God and be saved because of the very essence of human nature.

The second primary point specifically states that God's choice of those who will be saved is not based on virtue, merit, or faith in those people.

The fourth point specifically states that God's will regarding who will be saved can override any resistance on the part of the individual.


It states that good works cannot bring you closer to salvation. The base belief that "once saved always saved". Sure lots of Christian sects believe that you cannot fall from grace, once you are there. That isn't what I have been talking about.

The choice to believe or not is purely human.
Again, I know you believe that. That's lovely for you. Not all Christians agree with you, and you (still) have provided absolutely no reason whatsoever why anybody should care about your personal opinion on this subject. Why should I trust your opinion as opposed to a Calvinists? What evidence or arguments can you present for me? Surely you don't think that your say-so is sufficient when discussing such an important topic, right? I mean, you believe in God, so you probably take God at least a little bit seriously, right?

ass kissing.

i heard that god isn't down with your kinky perversions.

i heard that god isn't down with your kinky perversions.

Ooohhh, you have no idea what God likes...

...let's just say "Missionary Position" is not involved ;)

So when I hear people say they have a "personal relationship" with God/Jesus/Holy Ghost and such, I know they are lying because, in fact, their "finite minds" couldn't really comprehend God/Jesus/Holy Ghost, yes?

If my mind is so inferior, there really isn't any point in trying to engage in worship or praise or a "personal relationship;" such would be to hopelessly grasp in vain for the unachievable.

Thus, according to the description of God you provide, religion is a waste of time. One's description of God is incompatible with what are presumably the basic requirements of the religion; I cannot meaningfully "know," "worship," "praise," or have a "relationship" with an entity that is beyond my comprehension or the capabilities of my mind. It just doesn't make any sense.

So, if God could be worshiped or known in any meaningful sense, he cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, or otherwise imbued with cosmic superpowers. If this is the case, "he" is hardly worthy of actually being worshiped or even known in particular out of the billions of other mere humans I could otherwise meet. Worshiping or going out of my way to know "him" would be a pointless waste of time. But if God is in fact omnipotent, omniscient, or otherwise imbued with cosmic superpowers, then I couldn't meaningfully worship or know "him" even if I wanted to (my finite mind unable to comprehend "him"), so trying to pretend otherwise is a pointless waste of time.

Ergo...**makes little 3-dot triangle symbol that mathematicians and other Satan-worshiping neer-do-wells make to mean "ergo" in the air with pointer finger**...in all practical cases, God is a pointless waste of time.

Q.E.D.

Not quite. It would be better to have your final sentence as "in all practical cases, an omnipotent, transcendent and omniscient God is a pointless waste of time."

To "spend time with" God.

*shrugs*
M'kay.
*worships*
Hey, that did feel kinda good. Thanks!
*wanders off*


*Bestows blessings upon Straughn*

I was thinking about this for a while, assuming God exists (Be quiet for now and just go with the flow, atheists of NSG). If God is omnipotent and all that jazz, why does it matter whether we believe in it or not? Either God's looking for acknowledgment for creating everything, which would seem rather like a flawed human quality of being an attention whore, or is just pointlessly testing people cruelly by putting them in a situation where the correct answer is unclear and the punishment is, well... quite hellish. Either way, it doesn't sound like the great, wise and merciful God people tend to go on about. Of course, there's the whole 'God is all-knowing, and so it sent down his moral code so we can all be ethical! So, if you don't believe in God, you're a barbaric heathen!' which, of course, doesn't hold water always because there's always bound to be situation where, by following the divine moral code would be ironically unethical. It also makes it sound like people had no morality whatsoever before God told everyone how to be moral, which is quite untrue.

So, um... yeah, what are your thoughts?

A couple of separate potential purposes.

When a religious institution is being used as a branch of the government, then the purpose of worshiping an unseen nonrespondent God is so that you will then be obedient to the people who claim to be that God's agents on Earth. You think people would sent Pat Robertson truckloads of money (literally) if he went on his show and said, "God's pretty nice and all, but you gotta have a life. He knows you like him, you don't have to remind him all the time. He's all knowing" then people would think to write out a check? Of course not. They'd go about their lives happily letting Pat Robertson's income dwindle to that which he gets from making crooked deals with war criminals.

Then there is the other purpose of praying that has nothing to do with a church. When you pray, the part of your brain that monitors your sense of time and space becomes less active. This creates a sense of 'peace,' because if you feel less connected to the material world, then the things going on in it seem (briefly) less important. This is a potent stress-management tool.

It also helps clear your thinking so that you are better able to come up with solutions to your problems. This is why it's so much more effective to pray to God for guidance than for intervention. Your less-stressed-out mind is more likely to think up a solution, and more likely to be happy with whatever circumstance that you can create, even if it isn't actually better than what you used to have, and is only marginally better than what you've got now.

And none of that even assumes that he exists.

To "spend time with" God....second base?

A couple of separate potential purposes.

When a religious institution is being used as a branch of the government, then the purpose of worshiping an unseen nonrespondent God is so that you will then be obedient to the people who claim to be that God's agents on Earth. You think people would sent Pat Robertson truckloads of money (literally) if he went on his show and said, "God's pretty nice and all, but you gotta have a life. He knows you like him, you don't have to remind him all the time. He's all knowing" then people would think to write out a check? Of course not. They'd go about their lives happily letting Pat Robertson's income dwindle to that which he gets from making crooked deals with war criminals.

Then there is the other purpose of praying that has nothing to do with a church. When you pray, the part of your brain that monitors your sense of time and space becomes less active. This creates a sense of 'peace,' because if you feel less connected to the material world, then the things going on in it seem (briefly) less important. This is a potent stress-management tool.

It also helps clear your thinking so that you are better able to come up with solutions to your problems. This is why it's so much more effective to pray to God for guidance than for intervention. Your less-stressed-out mind is more likely to think up a solution, and more likely to be happy with whatever circumstance that you can create, even if it isn't actually better than what you used to have, and is only marginally better than what you've got now.

And none of that even assumes that he exists.

Nicely done, as always. *bows*

*Bestows blessings upon Straughn*http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/cool29.gif
Why, THANK YOU! I- wait, you got it in my eyes! I - ARGH! IT BURNS! IT BURNS!

Not quite. It would be better to have your final sentence as "in all practical cases, an omnipotent, transcendent and omniscient God is a pointless waste of time."

"God" is a proper noun, into the definition of which omnipotence, transcendence and omniscience are built. Of course, part of my point was that the case is even worse for a non-omnipotent, non-transcendent, and non-omniscient entity.

With phenomenal cosmic powers, worship cannot be meaningful. Without phenomenal cosmic powers, worship is just stupid.

god's such a prude. :rolleyes:

Yeah, not like the OLD old days as Zeus, impregnating varying members of the populace, even mighty golden showers!

*humph*

...second base?

god's such a prude. :rolleyes:

*snip*

I find your major premise unconvincing. That is, because God is unimaginable, people cannot have a personal relationship with him.
I'll use the atom analogy. Imagine an atom, picture it in your mind.
I can more or less guarantee your image was wrong. You don't know what an atom looks like, it is impossible. If you're like me, you pictured a bunch of blue and red balls, surrounded by smaller green balls whizzing around.

That is wrong. If you are cleverer, you may have pictured a fuzzy black and white image from an electron microscope. However, that is almost as wrong: atoms aren't that big. The most correct way would be to imagine blank space. Of course, an atom is not blank space either, so that is also wrong. You cannot comprehend an atom. I also doubt you can comprehend the solar system, the galaxy, gravity, electricity...most of the natural world is beyond human comprehension. The best we have are metaphors or analogies.

That being said, we can do a heck of a lot with the atom we cannot imagine. We can split it, fuse it, even look at it, in a roundabout sort of way. The same is true with God. We can speak with him, read about him, in short, have a personal relationship, just by using metaphors and analogies.

Well see, (reading first post only) we often look at this from the wrong reason.

What loving God would poof an entire universe into existance for his own pleasure? And if he poofed it into existance, what did he do before we got poofed here?

The better question is, why did God give us this oppurtunity to experience Mortality, and live in a place where darkness exists in contradiction to light... good and evil... why would he place us here instead of just creating a perfect, flawless existance for all of us. Why would he have allowed adam to fall? how is this an act of love?

Answer these questions, and you can start to understand why you're here, where you came from, and where you might just be going after you leave this existance.

Then, you will understand why God is worthy of worship.

"God" is a proper noun, into the definition of which omnipotence, transcendence and omniscience are built. Of course, part of my point was that the case is even worse for a non-omnipotent, non-transcendent, and non-omniscient entity.

With phenomenal cosmic powers, worship cannot be meaningful. Without phenomenal cosmic powers, worship is just stupid.

Not all definitions of god define her as omnipotent, transcendent or omniscient. The Abrahamic God does, and I think your logical criticism is valid for such a god, but it does not suffice for other views of god.

Also, I believe that worship is pointless for god. God has better things to do than worry about whether or not we go to a special building on a certain day of the week and pretend to be obedient. In that respect, worship is a waste of time, and so is prayer. It would be pointless to try and influence god with such banal ritual.

This does not mean that we can not have a personal relationship with god. Admittedly, it is much more difficult with an omniscient, omnipotent and transcendent god such as the Abrahamic one, but not with other views of god.

Let us posit a god that is immanent (i.e. god is the universe and the universe is god) as opposed to transcendent (i.e. god is separate from her creation, the universe).

With such a god, it would be possible to have a personal relationship, as you already have a relationship with smaller discrete parts of the universe, like other humans, pets, locations or buildings you may enjoy. Since god is immanent, by having a relationship with these aspects of the universe, you already have a relationship with god. A practical aspect of this is that people who believe this must act as if all people and all things are god. Such a deep reverence for the world and its inhabitants would provide a powerful moral compass.

I realise I only discussed the difference between the immanent and the transcenedent god and completely ignored the 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' part sof the conversation, but my post was already getting too long, and my kids want to get out of the tub.

Well see, (reading first post only) we often look at this from the wrong reason.

What loving God would poof an entire universe into existance for his own pleasure? And if he poofed it into existance, what did he do before we got poofed here?

The better question is, why did God give us this oppurtunity to experience Mortality, and live in a place where darkness exists in contradiction to light... good and evil... why would he place us here instead of just creating a perfect, flawless existance for all of us. Why would he have allowed adam to fall? how is this an act of love?

Answer these questions, and you can start to understand why you're here, where you came from, and where you might just be going after you leave this existance.

Then, you will understand why God is worthy of worship.Oddly enough, with every SINGLE one of those questions answered in earnest, it's clearly understood that the god mentioned is not worth worship one iota.

Oddly enough, with every SINGLE one of those questions answered in earnest, it's clearly understood that the god mentioned is not worth worship one iota.

heh, share the opinion of the Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy, eh?

In the beginning, God created the universe... this made a lot of people angry and has generally been considered a Bad move on his part :P

heh, share the opinion of the Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy, eh?

In the beginning, God created the universe... this made a lot of people angry and has generally been considered a Bad move on his part :P
It wouldn't surprise you, then, that i only BARELY (and i MEAN BARELY) refrained from posting that myself, in faith that someone else was going to? :)
*bows*

It wouldn't surprise you, then, that i only BARELY (and i MEAN BARELY) refrained from posting that myself, in faith that someone else was going to? :)
*bows*

Hah, well when it comes down to the 2 main popular opinions in the universe as to why God created Earth like this, that's the most common response... heck, it was Lucifer's! How many times has he said "Come on, this is stupid, let ME be God! Seriously! I'll save everyone, everyone will be fine, and no eternal fires or punishments! Honestly, who's with me?"

It's pretty easy to come to the douglas adams conclusion when you look at it without seeing the plan through the father's eyes.

Hah, well when it comes down to the 2 main popular opinions in the universe as to why God created Earth like this, that's the most common response... heck, it was Lucifer's! How many times has he said "Come on, this is stupid, let ME be God! Seriously! I'll save everyone, everyone will be fine, and no eternal fires or punishments! Honestly, who's with me?"You've got the "this is stupid" part, but the rest of it doesn't work for those of us without disproportionate egos (like that OT god who couldn't defeat anyone using iron chariots - see Judges 1:17-19)
Good thing things aren't as polar in opposition as the most simple minded, like the OT god, would like so very very much for others to believe. :)

It's pretty easy to come to the douglas adams conclusion when you look at it without seeing the plan through the father's eyes.Or, more appropriately, the MOTHER's eyes. Someone who would argue an unnecessary gender for a deity probably has to ignore instead of recognize that the creative energies in most civilised understandings of life clearly reflect feminine characteristics. You know, how, as in how many males you see birthing children. In most species, for that matter. Oh, that's right, you don't. But that's okay, the OT god represents the worst characteristics of humanity anyway, specially encapsulated in a male form. Good thing that it's made up anyway, so those little inconsistencies and such aren't any more of a distraction for a whole dribbly, bloody bundle of pathos.
As the more vociferous and less reasonable of folk, here included, argue that other people don't understand "the plan" through "his" eyes. :)

You cannot comprehend an atom.

Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Max Planck, and a whole bunch of other men and women whose names escape me at the moment, those responsible for building the entire scientific discipline of physics, prove that the statement "you cannot comprehend an atom" is complete nonsense.

Our observations of the atom may be indirect and imperfect, but observation is still possible. Observation of "God" consisting of the falsifiable hypothesis and experimental confirmation necessary for the establishment of genuine knowledge is not possible. A frank question: why doesn't an entity with unimaginable cosmic powers just reveal itself directly and put this debate to an end? I am literally screaming at the ceiling right now in total honesty: "Show yourself and I'll convert instantly!" But why doesn't "he?" Because "he" wants us to have "faith?" Again, there are two main possibilities here: 1) "faith" is a nonsense excuse to distract from the fact that "God" doesn't exist, or 2) "God" does exist but prefers to hide behind the curtain and play games, and is thus really just a cosmic childish prick. In either case, "God" is an entity not worthy of worship and I have better ways to waste my time.

Scientific observation of the atom may be indirect, but it is still based upon hypotheses and experimentation that can be and are directly created, observed, and understood by the "finite" human mind. The atom doesn't hide behind the curtain of "faith."

Let us posit a god that is immanent (i.e. god is the universe and the universe is god)...


I fail to see the practical value of such a belief. What additional value or use is produced by what is effectively just replacing the word "universe" with some other name? Calling the "universe" "God" doesn't change the fact that the only means for human minds to develop meaningful knowledge is through the experimental testing of falsifiable hypotheses, a process that does not require or support any kind of religious notions.

Again, religion within the context of a non-transcendent "God" is especially meaningless and pointless. As I said in my original post, "God" without cosmic superpowers really amounts to just another random person. Fine, I could have a relationship with this person if I really wanted to take the time. But in all likelihood, it isn't worth the trouble; this is why I don't have a close personal relationship with all 6 billion people on Earth.

The same is true for an immanent "God" that is one with the universe. I suppose I could use a microscope to observe cellular division and say "look at 'God' at work." So what? My warm fuzzy feeling doesn't change or add to the biological mechanisms that make cellular division work. A belief in an immanent "God" doesn't hurt, but it doesn't add either. There is no real compelling reason to pursue such a belief.


Such a deep reverence for the world and its inhabitants would provide a powerful moral compass.


Yes, but there is no reason to call a knowledge of the word and how it works "God." I may as well call it "cheese" or "Bob" or even perhaps "humanism" or "science."

Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Max Planck, and a whole bunch of other men and women whose names escape me at the moment, those responsible for building the entire scientific discipline of physics, prove that the statement "you cannot comprehend an atom" is complete nonsense.
A misunderstanding seems to have occurred. You can know how an atom works, and you can know it exists. But you cannot picture it in your head, and even atomic properties I doubt you can imagine. For example, atomic spin.
There's some Camus quote which sounds very wise and pithy that I can't find. But just assume that if I had it, you would be convinced of what I'm saying.:)

Our observations of the atom may be indirect and imperfect, but observation is still possible. Observation of "God" consisting of the falsifiable hypothesis and experimental confirmation necessary for the establishment of genuine knowledge is not possible. A frank question: why doesn't an entity with unimaginable cosmic powers just reveal itself directly and put this debate to an end? I am literally screaming at the ceiling right now in total honesty: "Show yourself and I'll convert instantly!" But why doesn't "he?" Because "he" wants us to have "faith?" Again, there are two main possibilities here: 1) "faith" is a nonsense excuse to distract from the fact that "God" doesn't exist, or 2) "God" does exist but prefers to hide behind the curtain and play games, and is thus really just a cosmic childish prick. In either case, "God" is an entity not worthy of worship and I have better ways to waste my time.
How do you know he hasn't shown himself? Again with the atom: atoms have existed for a little less than 14 billion years. All of human history has taken place among atoms; in fact, humans themselves are atoms. But know one knew of them as a scientific idea until about 200 years ago. Now, it's possible that until around 1800, all the matter in the universe was hiding behind a curtain and we were just made of...I don't know, fairy dust or something. But what I think is more likely is that people did not know how to look, and even when they saw atoms they did not know what they were looking at.

Scientific observation of the atom may be indirect, but it is still based upon hypotheses and experimentation that can be and are directly created, observed, and understood by the "finite" human mind. The atom doesn't hide behind the curtain of "faith."
To paraphrase Darth Vader, "I find your concept of faith disturbing." You seem to believe that people who have faith have no reason for believing what they do, and that's not true. They cannot sense God with the physical senses, or explain him with deductive logic, but there are very few religious people who do not "sense his presence," to steal another Star Wars line.
I'm uncreative, so I'll stick with the atom example. I interact with atoms everyday of my life, but I don't sense them. I sense the smell of fish, or the feeling of velvet, or the sound of music. Similarly, I don't see God when I walk outside, I see life, I smell car exhaust, I hear people talking. But the idea of God adequately explains, for me, the unifying thing behind all of this, just as atoms do on a physical level.

EDIT: Despite my reliance on a example from science, I don't consider theology or God to be provable by science. In this way it is an imperfect analogy.

To paraphrase Darth Vader, "I find your concept of faith disturbing."


Its "I find your lack of faith disturbing."


By changing the words around you have completelly changed the meaning of probably the greatest Star Wars line.

A misunderstanding seems to have occurred. You can know how an atom works, and you can know it exists. But you cannot picture it in your head, and even atomic properties I doubt you can imagine. For example, atomic spin.
There's some Camus quote which sounds very wise and pithy that I can't find. But just assume that if I had it, you would be convinced of what I'm saying.:)


I can picture an atom in my head. I know, through the benefit of experimental data collected and confirmed by people much smarter than myself, what an atom is, what it is made of, and how it works. So what if I can't see an atom directly with my own eye?

"God" isn't observable in any fashion, directly or indirectly, but an atom is. This is why the atom is established fact and "God" is nonsense.


How do you know he hasn't shown himself?


I know that I have no compelling reason to believe something true in the absence of falsifiable hypotheses, experimental procedure, and data confirming said truth. Until this confirmation is provided, I cannot say truthfully that "'God' has revealed "himself." Read on...


Again with the atom: atoms have existed for a little less than 14 billion years. All of human history has taken place among atoms; in fact, humans themselves are atoms. But know one knew of them as a scientific idea until about 200 years ago. Now, it's possible that until around 1800, all the matter in the universe was hiding behind a curtain and we were just made of...I don't know, fairy dust or something. But what I think is more likely is that people did not know how to look, and even when they saw atoms they did not know what they were looking at.


Let me know as soon as falsifiable hypotheses and experimental procedures are produced that can confirm or deny the existence of "God" are developed. As I said, if they ever are, and they produce a "yes," I will convert immediately; in the face of real observable evidence that my mind can comprehend and understand, I must convert or I will be living in self-delusion.

Of course, since "God" is of supernatural origin and essence, such hypotheses and experiment are by definition impossible, so I'm not going to be holding my breath. Atoms are of natural origin and essence and thus do not suffer from this problem; again, another reason why your atom metaphor is horribly flawed.

Yes, the human species was once ignorant of the atom. Through science this is no longer the case. Now, if one could kindly ask "God" to step out from behind his curtain?


I interact with atoms everyday of my life, but I don't sense them.


You do sense them, considering that all of your senses operate according to biochemical processes that would be impossible in the absence of atoms. And atoms have been sensed, observed, and confirmed to exist through the processes of science.

Your need to set direct human vision as the only acceptable standard of "sensing" in order to change the atom into some kind of metaphysical device with religious implications simply amounts to a blindfold used to rationalize faith in what isn't there regardless of whatever kind of sensing is used. It is especially silly considering that "God" also fails the direct human vision test. No, direct human vision cannot see atoms. But direct human vision can see the experimental results that must occur if atoms are there.

I have yet to hear of any kind of sensing that confirms God. You yourself say such sensing is impossible:


EDIT: Despite my reliance on a example from science, I don't consider theology or God to be provable by science. In this way it is an imperfect analogy.


Imperfect arguments can only be rejected.

Its "I find your lack of faith disturbing."


By changing the words around you have completelly changed the meaning of probably the greatest Star Wars line.

I know, that's why I said "to paraphrase."
Actually, that's not really paraphrasing either. What I meant was, "to shamelessly steal from."

I can picture an atom in my head. I know, through the benefit of experimental data collected and confirmed by people much smarter than myself, what an atom is, what it is made of, and how it works. So what if I can't see an atom directly with my own eye?
I doubt that. Please describe what the atom looks like.
*snip snip snip*
You are confusing "science" with "reality." Don't get me wrong, the former is certainly a way of learning about the latter, but I question the wisdom of basing your entire understanding of the universe on it.

Yes, the human species was once ignorant of the atom. Through science this is no longer the case. Now, if one could kindly ask "God" to step our from behind his curtain?
I, and many other people, have told you they have "seen" God. It's like a blind man questioning the existence of the tree in front of him because he cannot see it.



You do sense them, considering that all of your senses operate according to biochemical processes that would be impossible in the absence of atoms.
Physically, the olfactory glands, retinas, and taste buds sense atoms. But I don't see with my eyes or smell with my nose, but with my brain. My brain does not process the idea of atoms, it processes "house," or "fried chicken."

Your need to set direct human vision as the only acceptable standard of "sensing" in order to change the atom into some kind of metaphysical device with religious implications simply amounts to a blindfold used to rationalize faith in what isn't there regardless of whatever kind of sensing is used. No, direct human vision cannot see atoms. But direct human vision can see the experimental results that must occur if atoms are there.
That is exactly my point. Atoms exist and play a huge part in our lives, despite our not seeing or hearing or smelling them. And I don't see atoms as having metaphysical implications, I see them as a useful analogy.

I have yet to hear of any kind of sensing that confirms God. You yourself say such sensing is impossible:
I just explained how I indirectly sense God's presence. In fact, I think I used that exact phrasing, which I ripped from the Star Wars movie. I don't sense him with my five senses, but indirectly, just as science uses electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc.

Imperfect analogies only produce arguments that belong in the garbage can.
Unlike the rest of your argument, this doesn't even begin to make sense. Why would I need a perfect analogy? I could just as easily describe the real thing! The entire point of analogies is that they are simplified and easier to understand.

I know that I have no compelling reason to believe something true in the absence of falsifiable hypotheses, experimental procedure, and data confirming said truth.
This little stickler often comes up on NS:G, an I’m always amazed at the lengths some posters will go to deny any knowledge gained outside of a laboratory.

As New Limacon says:
You are confusing “science” with “reality.” Don’t get me wrong, the former is certainly a way of learning about the latter, but I question the wisdom of basing your entire understanding of the universe on it.
And quite right to.

TLO, explain to me why I shouldn’t believe that I, for example, love my parents, enjoy rice pudding, or dislike early Baroque music; three things it would be hard to falsify or examine in a scientific lab? A lot of nonsense is talked by the fanatically religious that 'science is the new religion', and for the most part I laugh these statements off. But when scientists and others attempt to reduce all knowledge to the scientific kind, we are losing vast breadths of knowledge and discussion.

Just take a look at the terrible reclassification of the humanities subjects (politics, sociology, et al) as 'sciences'.

Science is certainly not the be-all and end-all of knowledge, and although I’m not claiming your views are dangerous, attitudes similar to your own have wrecked havoc in many societies during the 20th century.

TLO, explain to me why I shouldn’t believe that I, for example, love my parents, enjoy rice pudding, or dislike early Baroque music; three things it would be hard to falsify or examine in a scientific lab?

But surely you can gain information about their truth value through experimentation?

I doubt that. Please describe what the atom looks like.


Read a physics textbook.

I suppose one will respond that I cannot possibly identify a house if I don't know what color paint a random person in Kalamazoo used to paint his.


You are confusing "science" with "reality." Don't get me wrong, the former is certainly a way of learning about the latter, but I question the wisdom of basing your entire understanding of the universe on it.


I do not equate science with reality. Neither do I mistake the inherently unconfirmable with truth.


I, and many other people, have told you they have "seen" God.


I say I've seen leprechauns, but I make myself a liar. I'm not calling you or anyone else a liar, but simply swearing that you've seen something is not good enough. We all regularly see things that don't actually exist in dreams, hallucinations, or through manipulation (including that which is self-imposed). Science deals with this through the general principles of skepticism and rigorous standards of experimental testing. Religious "faith" does not.


It's like a blind man questioning the existence of the tree in front of him because he cannot see it.


This would be silly because, presumably, a blind man can smell, touch, taste or walk into a tree. I'm not aware of any confirmed cases of people seeing, smelling, touching, tasting, or walking into a "God."

People might claim they have, but that point has already been covered.


Physically, the olfactory glands, retinas, and taste buds sense atoms. But I don't see with my eyes or smell with my nose, but with my brain. My brain does not process the idea of atoms, it processes "house," or "fried chicken."


My brain processed the idea of atoms just fine in Physics 101.


I don't sense him with my five senses, but indirectly, just as science uses electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc.


Of course, electron microscopes and Geiger counters work because they operate according to confirmable principles of science that are ultimately responsible to the five senses. But "God" is undetectable by any scientific instrument or sense.



Unlike the rest of your argument, this doesn't even begin to make sense. Why would I need a perfect analogy?

The analogy doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be not so horribly broken as to make no sense at all.

But surely you can gain information about their truth value through experimentation?
Some information, sure.

But could you give a fully falsifiable, scientific account of someone’s emotions and inner thoughts without leaving out important aspects, such as qualia? I don’t think so.

I believe the failure of many ‘scientific’ accounts of the mind in philosophy (behaviourism, etc.) show the difficult in this. Reducing everything to neurons and synapses leaves something important out. Now, of course, we might just not have come up with a good understanding of the mind in science yet. But there’s massive problems with incorporating beliefs, desires, etc., into scientific study.

Read a physics textbook.
Diagrams of atoms in physics textbooks do not show an accurate picture of what an atom actually looks like. AFAIK, many, if not most, physicists will argue that an atom is almost impossible to conceptualise accurately.

Replying to the origional post: People worship God A: Because he is worthy of it for everything he has done for us and B:"He inhabits the praises of his people." That is strait from the Bible. God will touch your heart and your life when you praise and worship him. This I know from personal experience.

TLO, explain to me why I shouldn’t believe that I, for example, love my parents, enjoy rice pudding, or dislike early Baroque music; three things it would be hard to falsify or examine in a scientific lab?


It is entirely possible to create falsifiable hypotheses and conduct observational experimentation that test all of the above. I can build models based on observations of human behavior that predict how you would probably behave if you did or did not love your parents, if you did or did not enjoy rice pudding or early Baroque music. Then, by observing your actual behavior (respect and care for your parents, how often you eat pudding or listen to a particular kind of music) I can draw meaningful conclusions.

Being a student of political science, I am well aware of the pitfalls of social (so-called "soft") science, including real and potential abuse. But to conclude that human behavior is exempt from scientific examination is going to far.


But when scientists and others attempt to reduce all knowledge to the scientific kind, we are losing vast breadths of knowledge and discussion.


Anyone who invokes science in order to extinguish debate and discussion is a liar, a hypocrite, and a fraud. Science works exactly because it demands doubt, discussion, and debate. I am perfectly capable of being convinced of anything, so long as the evidence exists to warrant it.

But we should not confuse the absolute and vital freedom to discuss and debate with some kind of obligation to automatically accept any statement as valid or worthy of acceptance.

At any rate, if I were absolutely convinced of my own transcendent knowledge or truth, would I be here engaging in argument?


Just take a look at the terrible reclassification of the humanities subjects (politics, sociology, et al) as 'sciences'.


Hey, now, those are fightin' words. :D

(believe me, I am well aware of how nonsense pseudo-science gets passed around in the social sciences. I see and study it everyday.)


...attitudes similar to your own have wrecked havoc in many societies during the 20th century.

I would suspect that, in fact, the perversion of "science" in order to squelch debate and discussion is most responsible for said havoc.

Read a physics textbook.

I suppose one will respond that I cannot possibly identify a house if I don't know what color paint a random person in Kalamazoo used to paint his.
I don't think you're getting the point. I've seen plenty of physics textbooks. There are also plenty of pictures online, for example:
here (http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_model_03.gif)
here (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/images/AtomLabeledLarge.gif)
here (http://www.csmate.colostate.edu/cltw/cohortpages/viney/atom.jpg)
here (http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=96828&rendTypeId=4)
None of these are what atoms truly look like. The first three are unabashed symbols, the last is from a microscope, I imagine. But even it is much larger than a real atom.

I say I've seen leprechauns, but I make me a liar. I'm not calling you or anyone else a liar, but simply swearing that you've seen something is not good enough. We all regularly see things that don't actually exist in dreams, hallucinations, or through manipulation.
I have not actually seen God, I'm not claiming to have visions. That's why I put "seen" in quotation marks. "Sensed" may be a better word.



This would be silly because, presumably, a blind man can smell, touch or walk into a tree. I'm not aware of any confirmed cases of people seeing, smelling, touching, or walking to a "God."
Again you're taking "seen" literally, which I guess is my fault. Fine, imagine Helen Keller if she had no nerve endings in her skin.


My brain processed the idea of atoms just fine in Physics 101.
I'm going to come out looking like I'm an idiot when it comes to physics by the end of all this, but I'm sticking by my original statement. While on an intellectual level you probably understood what an atom was, I don't think your or anyone else can imagine what an atom is perfectly. Just think about how they are described: "the building blocks of all matter," "the fundamental units of matter," "collections of protons, neutrons, and electrons," and many more. But atoms are not building blocks, nor are they simply groups of three elementary particles. I'll use another example from science (finally!): Einstein's idea of gravity. The model that is constantly being referred to is the "rubber sheet model." But spacetime is not really a rubber sheet, it's not even three-dimensional. Even people who realize this cannot imagine what it really is, because we can't picture the fourth dimension. Same with atoms.


The analogy doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be not so horribly broken as to make no sense at all.
I don't think you not understanding the analogy makes it a bad one. As I said, I modified it from a Camus quote. He was certainly no theist, and seemed to understand it just fine. Which leads me to my quasi-pun: "What's good enough for Camus is good enough for me."

Some information, sure.

But could you give a fully falsifiable, scientific account of someone’s emotions and inner thoughts without leaving out important aspects, such as qualia? I don’t think so.

Even if you admit subjective evidence?

Of course, your conclusions are still going to be questionable, and multiple explanations may be viable... but that's true of all science.

Hey, now, those are fightin' words. :D

(believe me, I am well aware of how nonsense pseudo-science gets passed around in the social sciences. I see and study it everyday.)

I thought this (http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-purported-queen-of-the-social-sciences/) was an apt example of how a subject can be "sciency" without actually being, well, science.

Diagrams of atoms in physics textbooks do not show an accurate picture of what an atom actually looks like. AFAIK, many, if not most, physicists will argue that an atom is almost impossible to conceptualise accurately.

Who cares what it "looks" like so long as our confirmed knowledge of how it works allows us to draw meaningful and useful conclusions?

The existence of some degree of ignorance does not automatically justify the supernatural or "God." What it does justify is continued scientific study.

I thought this (http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-purported-queen-of-the-social-sciences/) was an apt example of how a subject can be "sciency" without actually being, well, science.

I'm going to ask you to stop and re-examine the path one may be trying to open here with a question: Do I really have a valid argument here, or am I simply picking out the runt of the litter because it is easier to beat up on?

I am well aware of the limitations of social science. However, the natural/physical/"hard" sciences are far more robust and thus far more difficult to dismiss. Attack social science if one thinks such is a valid approach to one's argument, but do not treat it as if the validity of the natural sciences are somehow impugned as well.

Because that would be a strawman sort of argument, burning a weaker argument in place of the far stronger.

It is entirely possible to create falsifiable hypotheses and observations (and even experiments) that test all of the above. I can build models based on observations of human behavior that predict how you would behave if you did or did not love your parents, if you did or did not enjoy rice pudding or early Baroque music. Then, my observing your actual behavior (respect and care for your parents, how often you eat pudding or listen to a particular kind of music) I can draw meaningful conclusions.
Behavioural analysis isn’t falsifiable; it leaves out the important beliefs, desires, etc., that drive our behaviour. How could you determine, scientifically, that I loved my parents just from observing my kind behaviour from them? I could be merely respecting them, frightened or scared of them and their reprisals to non-kind behaviour, faking my behaviour, be conditioned to behave in a certain way towards adults, etc.

Moreover, love isn’t necessarily translated into behaviour, and it certainly doesn’t determine the exact same behaviour in all individuals. I may express my love (or hate) for my parents in an entirely different way from another person.

Sure, we could gain meaningful insights and the like, but you couldn’t scientifically prove anything beyond woolly conjecture. Same with food or art. How could you distinguish, scientifically, between someone liking, loving or loathing an item of food or a piece of art? Again, you could observe behaviour, but as we have seen, this has massive flaws.

Being a student of political science, I am well aware of the pitfalls of social or “soft” science, including real and potential abuse. But to conclude that human behavior is entirely exempt from scientific examination is going to far.
I’m not saying it’s entirely exempt, I’m just saying there is huge problems with doing so, or at the very least, describing scientifically a whole system of behaviour.

I would suspect that, in fact, the perversion of “science” in order to squelch debate and discussion is most responsible for said havoc.
Perhaps, but I’d point to the Soviet Union’s scientific plan for almost every aspect of life, game theory and other scientific models of society, and other blunders with science.

All I’m saying is that we must be careful to remember that science is a tool, not the sum of reality.

I don't think you're getting the point.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13530541&postcount=188


Again you're taking "seen" literally, which I guess is my fault. Fine, imagine Helen Keller if she had no nerve endings in her skin.


I suppose that with the progressive invention of increasingly nonsensical hypothetical situations the notion of "God" might begin to seem valid. I would take this reliance on nonsensical situations as evidence against the case for "God" however.


I'm going to come out looking like I'm an idiot when it comes to physics by the end of all this, but I'm sticking by my original statement. While on an intellectual level you probably understood what an atom was, I don't think your or anyone else can imagine what an atom is perfectly.


Begging the question: "perfect" knowledge is not necessary in order to understand how an atom works or can be used. Indeed, to assume even the possibility of "perfect" knowledge is to presume the existance of a "perfect" mind capable of such a stunning feat, like "God." One is thus assuming one's conclusion from the start.


Even people who realize this cannot imagine what it really is, because we can't picture the fourth dimension.


We can picture the fourth dimension. One need only take enough math to understand how. I've not had nearly enough math myself, but lots of physicists have.

Even if you admit subjective evidence?
I was under the impression this was a taboo practice in all fields of scientific study; apart from psudeosciences such as psychoanalysis, or fields of study incorrectly named as ‘scientific’, such as sociology.

It goes against the grain of empirical, falsifiable scientific enquiry.

Who cares what it “looks” like so long as our confirmed knowledge of how it works allows us to draw meaningful and useful conclusions?
Me, if you also claim, as you did, that “I can picture an atom in my head”.

You can’t, AFAIK. You can picture a model of an atom, sure. But that’s not the same. A minor point, but an important one.

Behavioural analysis isn’t falsifiable; it leaves out the important beliefs, desires, etc., that drive our behaviour. How could you determine, scientifically, that I loved my parents just from observing my kind behaviour from them? I could be merely respecting them, frightened or scared of them and their reprisals to non-kind behaviour, faking my behaviour, be conditioned to behave in a certain way towards adults, etc.


If anything this list of alternative hypotheses actually demonstrates the falsifiability of behavioral analysis. All of the above possibilities are valid means to falsify my hypothesis that you do genuinely love your parents.

Falsifibility only requires that a question can be answered "yes" or "no," that a statement can be shown "true" or "false." Listing all of the reasons why the answer might be "no" or "false" doesn't demonstrate non-falsifiability.

"God" is by definition supernatural and thus cannot be observed through natural phenomena in a way in which we can be absolutely certain that "God" actually caused said phenomena. You, however, are a natural entity that can be observed. Human behavior may be vastly complex, but this does not affect the fact that it can be observed through the manifestation of natural phenomena.


I’m just saying there is huge problems with doing so, or at the very least, describing scientifically a whole system of behaviour.


Of course there are huge problems. Again, the number of variables to identify and isolate is absolutely emense. But the nature of science, peer review, and constant testing and re-testing is probably the most efficient and productive manner for tackling such a vast problem.

Again, I want to assure you that you are reading the words of probably the strongest critic of social or any other kind of science. This is because attacking the conclusions of science with doubt and skepticism is built into the process. Based on my own experiences, I would not say this is true of religion, however.


Perhaps, but I’d point to the Soviet Union’s scientific plan for almost every aspect of life, game theory and other scientific models of society, and other blunders with science.


Science is not responsible for ideologically-driven rationalization for state terror anymore than Islam is responsible for Osama Bin Laden.

Knowing how and why people do what they do and actively manipulating people through the use of said knowledge are two very different things.

Scientific knowledge can be used to build atom bombs or radiation therapy to stop cancer. It can be used to understand how democracy works or to understand how to destroy democracy. Religion can be used to edify and liberate or to enslave and murder.


All I’m saying is that we must be careful to remember that science is a tool, not the sum of reality.

What are we arguing about? Or, how does my skepticism of religion automatically indicate disagreement here?

I'm going to ask you to stop and re-examine the path one may be trying to open here with a question: Do I really have a valid argument here, or am I simply picking out the runt of the litter because it is easier to beat up on?

I am well aware of the limitations of social science. However, the natural/physical/"hard" sciences are far more robust and thus far more difficult to dismiss. Attack social science if one thinks such is a valid approach to one's argument, but do not treat it as if the validity of the natural sciences are somehow impugned as well.

Because that would be a strawman sort of argument, burning a weaker argument in place of the far stronger.
Hmm? I wasn't making an argument. I just thought this was a funny example of the kind of pseudoscience that you said you saw.
I was just trying to be friendly...:(
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13530541&postcount=188

I saw this after I posted, and it actually clears up what was confusing me. You aren't thinking of "imagine" as in "mentally picture" but rather "understand how it works." In that case your right. I still think one cannot imagine an atom in the way I was talking about, though.
Begging the question: "perfect" knowledge is not necessary in order to understand how an atom works or can be used. Indeed, to assume even the possibility of "perfect" knowledge is to presume the existance of a "perfect" mind capable of such a stunning feat, like "God." One is thus assuming one's conclusion from the start.
This relates to what I said above, about the different definitions we had for "imagine." Although I will add that when I said perfectly, I did not mean "perfect" in the cosmic sense but that we could not imagine atoms as well as we could imagine dogs or rocks or other human-sized things.
We can picture the fourth dimension. One need only take enough math to understand how. I've not had nearly enough math myself, but lots of physicists have.Again, different definitions for "picture." I cannot draw a hypercube, or visualize one in my head.

I will say that while I realize visualization of the subject is not necessary to understand how an atom works or how mass bends spacetime, we do need visualization of the symbols. In other words, if it weren't for the pictures of the solar system atom, or the black, grid rubber sheet, I don't think we could even come close to understanding what these things are. At best, we would have some interesting algebra. I feel the same way about religion and worship: without the symbols they provide, we cannot hope to even begin to understand what they are symbolizing.

I was under the impression this was a taboo practice in all fields of scientific study

Yes, but not really for any epistemological reason. If your question is "Do I love my mother?", it's absurd to invalidate your conclusion just because you founded it on your own emotional experience.

Of course, if I want to test whether or not you love your mother, it's a different matter entirely. It's the public nature of science that makes subjective evidence difficult to deal with, not necessarily any inherent feature of it.

Science is not responsible for ideologically-driven rationalization for state terror anymore than Islam is responsible for Osama Bin Laden.


But worship of science can lead to that, just as worship of Islam (which is not the same thing as the way Muslims worship God) can lead to Osama bin Laden. Basically, anytime people start worshiping a man-made institution, they are destined to screw up, somehow.

I don't think you're guilty of science worship, but it does exist.

If anything this list of alternative hypotheses actually demonstrates the falsifiability of behavioral analysis. All of the above possibilities are valid means to falsify my hypothesis that you do genuinely love your parents.
In what way?

I can display the exact same behaviour whether I love or loath my parents, whether I am respecting them, frightened or scared of them, or have been conditioned to behave in a certain way towards adults. Behavioural analysis only tells us things about behaviour, and nothing concrete, about desires, beliefs, etc.

You can’t in any way scientifically conclude that I hold a certain desire or belief from merely observing my behaviour. All you can conclude is that I am exhibiting a certain behaviour. Behaviourism has failed on that respect.

Falsifibility only requires that a question can be answered “yes” or “no,” that a statement can be shown “true” or “false.”
Well then, tell me how the question, “Does subject X love his parents?”, can be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ conclusively, or whether the statement, “Subject X loves his parents”, can be said to be ‘true’ or ‘false’? Reverting to behavioural analysis only answers the question of whether subject X is exhibiting behaviour that is commonly taken to be loving behaviour, not of whether he actually loves his parents.

“God” is by definition supernatural and thus cannot be observed through natural phenomena in a way in which we can be absolutely certain that “God” actually caused said phenomena.
Then scientists have no business trying to prove or disprove a god or gods, and have no business (in their role as scientists) trying to show that a god or gods do or don’t exist. It’s the wrong domain.

You, however, are a natural entity that can be observed.
Only partially.

Human behavior may be vastly complex, but this does not affect the fact that it can be observed through the manifestation of natural phenomena.
Yet this account of human behaviour does not help us fully explain human emotion, desire, belief, etc. And therein lies the problem.

Science is not responsible for ideologically-driven rationalization for state terror anymore than Islam is responsible for Osama Bin Laden.
‘Science’ isn’t responsible for anything, it being a framework and method of enquiry. But it certainly has been used in terrible ways.

What are we arguing about? Or, how does my skepticism of religion automatically indicate disagreement here?
Because you seem to be coupling your scepticism for religion (which I share) with the notion that science is all that we need; it is the only method of enquiry that is worthwhile.

If that’s not you position, I apologise, but you certainly seemed to be putting across that in your previous posts.

Yes, but not really for any epistemological reason. If your question is “Do I love my mother?”, it’s absurd to invalidate your conclusion just because you founded it on your own emotional experience.
Sure, but it’s hardly scientific. Again, wrong domain.

Behavioural analysis only tells us things about behaviour, and nothing concrete, about desires, beliefs, etc.


I'm going to disengage on this point, not because I think I'm wrong, but because my expertise in the methodologies of social science is still quite limited. I am a mere undergraduate after all.

Draw whatever conclusions one wishes.


Then scientists have no business trying to prove or disprove a god or gods, and have no business (in their role as scientists) trying to show that a god or gods do or don’t exist. It’s the wrong domain.


Of course. Show me a "scientist" who says otherwise, and I'll show you a liar and a damn fool.

However, there is a vast difference between saying "there is no God" and saying "I have no compelling reason to believe there is a God."


Yet this account of human behaviour does not help us fully explain human emotion, desire, belief, etc. And therein lies the problem.


You'll have to talk to the guys in cognitive science/neurobiology about this. Again, beyond my expertise.


‘Science’ isn’t responsible for anything, it being a framework and method of enquiry. But it certainly has been used in terrible ways.


OK, fine. But a misuse of the tool is not an argument against the tool. Otherwise, I'll just mention religion and we're stuck in an infinte and quite pointless loop.


Because you seem to be coupling your scepticism for religion (which I share) with the notion that science is all that we need; it is the only method of enquiry that is worthwhile.


Am I somehow preventing anyone from practicing religion? I believe that science is the only method of inquiry that is worthwhile. What I fail to see is how this makes me into some kind of evil authoritarian who wants to abolish emotion and grow children in bottles and worship the great Ford.

This evidence is “subjective” or “qualitative” in the sense that it constitutes the opinions or reactions of individuals expressed in a fashion not conducive to quantitative analysis. It is also empirical evidence; it is evidence collected in the process of observation of the working of a society and its political system. If one wants to know how a political system works, one observes it. That’s what “empirical” means.
True, but this is not a scientific study; it is a sociological/political study, which may indeed use similar methods that a scientific study uses, but it would be (or should be) thrown out of a scientific laboratory. Subjective experience is at some stage not falsifiable to the degree that proper scientific study needs.

I’m certainly not saying it’s worthless, but I’m saying that it’s worthless to ‘hard’ science. It’s all and good for politics or sociology, because such fields of enquiry have woolly edge with plenty of space for caveats and clauses.

If we want to know whether a government is authoritarian or not, we observe (or empirically analyze) the people living under it. The data is valid and the question/hypotheses/models faslifiable.
Again, behaviour is not the be-all and end-all. If you merely observe the behaviour of society, all you can talk about is social behaviour. You’d get a skewed picture of the true needs, wants, desires, beliefs, etc., of the members of said society. You need to go further than observing behaviour and into the realm of subjective experience; as you have done. Here, again, we find that ‘hard’ science cannot follow us, we are outside of its domain.

After all, if “subjective” or “qualitative” data is unacceptable for determining truth or making decisions on some question or choice, we may as well throw democracy out into the gutter entirely. If your personal opinion is untrustworthy or otherwise without value, I’ve no reason to bother with it.
Or we get past the foolish notion that politics is a science.

Absolute perfect information is an unnecessary and excessively high standard, and one presupposes that such a transcendent state can be achieved at all.
No arguments here; you’re the one who claimed you had a picture of an atom in your head.

Science provides the rigorous standards that are necessary in order to cope with this state of imperfection.
In one field of enquiry.

Philosophy, for example, is another.

Making up unicorns in the sky provides no such standard.
I’d hasten to point out that theology goes far beyond ‘making up unicorns in the sky’; there are plenty of incredibly complicated theories and discussions of the nature of god or the gods.

And there are plenty of conceptions of gods perfectly compatible with the scientific framework, from the First Mover onwards.

Hmm? I wasn't making an argument. I just thought this was a funny example of the kind of pseudoscience that you said you saw.
I was just trying to be friendly...:(


I have a tendency to jump the gun. This is but one of my many, many, many personal character flaws. My apologies.

I think part of it has to do with the fact that I'm about to graduate with a degree in "pseudoscience" and, while I am confident in the value of political science, I am currently fighting one of the more strong cases of cognitive dissonance I have yet encountered. A degree in computer science as I originally planned would have probably made finding a job much easier, anyway. :D But then, it was artificial intelligence that led me to social science in the first place...

OK, fine. But a misuse of the tool is not an argument against the tool.
I wasn’t making one.

I believe that science is the only method of inquiry that is worthwhile.
Then more fool you; I feel sorry for you for missing out in the exciting field of philosophy, for one.

What I fail to see is how this makes me into some kind of evil authoritarian who wants to abolish emotion and grow children in bottles and worship the great Ford.
:p

I don’t think it does, but I think you’re reducing human enquiry, and thus human knowledge, to less than it can be. And as a student of philosophy, I have a vested interest in you not banishing my subject from academia.

EDIT: Scientists have a great deal of influence these days. They are, thankfully, more accessible and in the meantime scientific discoveries are more and more available to the general public. This I can only applaud. However, since the turn of the 19th century, the decline in the Western world of religion (again, something I am not against) has thrown up some interesting conundrums, and has I feel cultivated a sense of scientific superiority. Sometimes, this superiority is quite right -- an astronomer should feel superior to an astrologer, for example -- but sometimes it gets pushed too far, and you get statements such as your own, that 'science is the only worthwhile field of enquiry'.

This, to me, is rather worrying. 'Unscientific' is now deemed to be a purely pejorative word, yet much of our knowledge is gained through unscientific means. True, much unscientific enquiry is nonsensical and useless, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Or we get past the foolish notion that politics is a science.


Politics isn't a science. I can't recall in the two and a half years that I've studied it in the university anyone saying otherwise. Politics, however, can be studied scientifically.

If one's objection are studies that conclude with sentences like "And so we should do..." be assured that my skepticism and doubt are at these points strongest.


No arguments here; you’re the one who claimed you had a picture of an atom in your head.


I do have a picture of an atom in my head. It's your standard of what constitutes a "picture" that is too high.


And there are plenty of conceptions of gods perfectly compatible with the scientific framework, from the First Mover onwards.

Of course, since God is not falsifable and thus true by definition. I wish everything I claimed was automatically true.

And as a student of philosophy, I have a vested interest in you not banishing my subject from academia.


:D

Ah ha! We discover the root of our problem. Our attempts to claw what little legitimacy we can from the elitists over in physical sciences, biology, and engineering have caused us to turn brother against brother. Surely our cause will be strengthened through unity rather than pointless infighting.

Having had strong backgrounds in computer science and biology before turning to social science, trust me, I fight like this with myself when I'm not fighting with the folks over in philosophy.

Who says God deserves worship? Oh, thats right. "God". Ok. I deserve worship. By your logic, you must now worship me.

You may begin.

On the other hand... God is, well, by definition not human... perhaps his credentials are better than yours to deserve worship. But you didn't think of that did you? Didn't think so.

Politics isn’t a science. I can’t recall in the two and a half years that I’ve studied it in the university anyone saying otherwise. Politics, however, can be studied scientifically.
I agree (to a point), and I apologise if I was too harsh; I believe I regarded your opinions as far more ‘fundamentalist’ than they in actuality are.

If one’s objection are studies that conclude with sentences like “And so we should do...” be assured that my skepticism and doubt are at these points strongest.
My fears are abated. :p

I do have a picture of an atom in my head. It’s your standard of what constitutes a “picture” that is too high.
Fair enough.

Of course, since God is not falsifable and thus true by definition. I wish everything I claimed was automatically true.
I too share the annoyance at the believer’s ‘get-out clause’ of unfalsifiability.

:D

Ah ha! We discover the root of our problem. Our attempts to claw what little legitimacy we can from the elitists over in physical sciences, biology, and engineering have caused us to turn brother against brother. Surely our cause will be strengthened through unity rather than pointless infighting.
I truly hope it can! I believe you’ve discovered (and perhaps share) my fear of being diminished to a ‘pseudoscientist’ for advancing theories outside of the laboratory. Philosophy has a lot to gain from science, and vice versa. For, how useless is a philosophic theory if it ignores scientific findings, or a scientific theory if it throws up massive philosophical problems?

Observe NS:G! This is what happens when two rigorous pedants collide! :D

Sometimes, this superiority is quite right -- an astronomer should feel superior to an astrologer, for example -- but sometimes it gets pushed too far, and you get statements such as your own, that 'science is the only worthwhile field of enquiry'.

This, to me, is rather worrying. 'Unscientific' is now deemed to be a purely pejorative word, yet much of our knowledge is gained through unscientific means. True, much unscientific enquiry is nonsensical and useless, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I understand.

There is a distinction to be drawn between philosophy and religion, however. I understand that much of what we know is developed purely through reason. But even that process is subject to standards that are far stronger, I think, than what most religions demand of their own principles and beliefs. In fact, I think that I at least unconsciously extend "science" to include much philosophical work exactly because there are strong standards of reason and logic. This is why I end up making statements like "science is the only worthwhile field of enquiry."

That or I'm just an idiot making excuses. **waves white flag**

Sure, but it’s hardly scientific.

Sure it is. It's empirical and it allows for falsification through observation.

And it's an entirely different kind of thing from faith in God.

There is a distinction to be drawn between philosophy and religion, however. I understand that much of what we know is developed purely through reason. But even that process is subject to standards that are far stronger, I think, than what most religions demand of their own principles and beliefs.
I’d broadly agree. Philosophy is indeed a rigorous subject, and demands one’s arguments to be hard thought-out. And many, if not most, believers do not share this rigour.

However, for every thousand dogmatic believers, there is someone such as Denys Turner; a Cambridge theologian I very much admire, though disagree with strongly. If you have the time, there’s a video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTAagcaFN0) of Denys Turner talking with Jonathan Miller (as part of Miller’s excellent series Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief). Turner is walking, talking proof of the ability of believers to discuss religion rationally and deeply.

In fact, I think that I at least unconsciously extend “science” to include much philosophical work exactly because there are strong standards of reason and logic. This is why I end up making statements like “science is the only worthwhile field of enquiry.”
Ahh, well I like to think of the physical sciences as an offshoot of philosophy; they are, after all, ‘natural philosophy’. ;)

Sure it is. It's empirical and it allows for falsification through observation.
I don't see how it is; the motivations for love, thoughts of love, the very emotion of love, and the intricacies of how that love dffers from, say, love of a partner or love of a piece of art, are very much not empirical or falsifiable.

I don't see how it is; the motivations for love, thoughts of love, the very emotion of love, and the intricacies of how that love dffers from, say, love of a partner or love of a piece of art, are very much not empirical or falsifiable.

Is not love something you experience?

Why is legitimate sensory observation restricted to external objects?

Is not love something you experience?
Of course it is, but we’re not talking about me experiencing my own emotions, but an impartial observer doing so.

Why is legitimate sensory observation restricted to external objects?
A counter-question: can one taste, touch, hear, smell or see our thoughts?

Neither can love. But we know it is real. ;)
Love isn't real. It is a pleasant fiction we like to believe is real. Unlike notions of God, which are the furthest from humanity we can go.

That skepticism is natural, and part of the point is having faith. For instance, I have complete faith that God exists. I don't struggle with it, I made a choice. I went through my days of questioning and wondering and pondering and wanting all the answers NOW. I realized we are not due all the answers now, it's really that simple. Faith is about trust, I choose to trust in God. My free will to choose to do that.

Just as I choose to trust that my husband loves me. I could go around second guessing his love, telling him I don't believe him, checking his every move to see if he is telling me the truth. Constantly looking for proof he doesn't love me. But I don't do that, I trust him. I choose to trust him and I take that leap of faith that his love is real.

Same thing basically.

It isn't so simple as believing. I can believe I'm a giant crab all I want, but that isn't going to be true. Ever. Further, your own experience is crap. Not only is it the worst at bringing people around to the idea, it is a lame attempt to impress people with bunk anecdotes, probably the most widely used there is by Christians.

You putting your trust in a God that may or may not exist has no bearing at all on whether or not any kind of God-figure is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Except without the risk of Hell and damnation? At a certain point it just doesn't matter anyway.

This may be a bit trollish, but your posts irritate me. They aren't worth reading.

I'll leave this thread forever in agreement with Laerod in saying that all gods gain their power through the fools who choose to believe in them. Just imagine if mankind had so many believers.

Of course it is, but we’re not talking about me experiencing my own emotions, but an impartial observer doing so.


A counter-question: can one taste, touch, hear, smell or see our thoughts?

One last thing, as it were... >.>

Who's to say that things we can physically "experience" are real at all? Perhaps they are the greatest illusion our pathetic little lives can identify, second only to our own existence. But then, it makes one wonder what existence is at all, and if there really is such a thing for us beyond the very notion that we do, in fact, exist.

Of course it is, but we’re not talking about me experiencing my own emotions, but an impartial observer doing so.

Why? Why need we bring in anyone else?

A counter-question: can one taste, touch, hear, smell or see our thoughts?

I think my thoughts. Therefore, I sense them.

True, you can't see them. So?

Why? Why need we bring in anyone else?
For verification, peer revue, etc?

I think my thoughts. Therefore, I sense them.
‘Sense’ in the meaning of ‘experience’, not in the meaning of ‘experiencing them through sensory organs’. I fail to see how science can fully understand thoughts if they are unable to be examined through use of our senses.

True, you can’t see them. So?
So I can’t claim to use science to understand them. I use introspection and reasoning instead; two methods not covered under empirical science.

Correct me if wrong: I believed we were discussing the use of science in examining our thoughts?

Who’s to say that things we can physically “experience” are real at all? Perhaps they are the greatest illusion our pathetic little lives can identify, second only to our own existence.
Perhaps, but so what? I do experience thee things, there is no way to get out of that experience, and it gels with other’s experiences around me (even if they, too, are unreal).

I am content. The sceptic does not scare me much.

Love isn’t real. It is a pleasant fiction we like to believe is real.
In what way is it not real?

A counter-question: can one taste, touch, hear, smell or see our thoughts?

I am tele-chewing your thoughts as we speak.
Mmm, crunchy.

For verification, peer revue, etc?

Fine. You're not engaging in a scientific investigation you can use to convince others. But that doesn't make it unscientific in an epistemological sense. It certainly doesn't make it unempirical.

I use introspection and reasoning instead; two methods not covered under empirical science.

Introspection is absolutely empirical.

Fine. You’re not engaging in a scientific investigation you can use to convince others.
Surely a stumbling block to scientific enquiry beyond the individual?

But that doesn’t make it unscientific in an epistemological sense. It certainly doesn’t make it unempirical.
Fair nuff.

Introspection is absolutely empirical.
But, again, only to oneself.

Which is rather problematic for the physical sciences.

Which is rather problematic for the physical sciences.

Well, they're necessarily concerned with objective phenomena.

So people can detach the negatives from themselves and make it so they don't have to worry and work towards a better life. Essentially, religion is laziness.

So people can detach the negatives from themselves and make it so they don't have to worry and work towards a better life. Essentially, religion is laziness.

I've had the pleasure of visiting and working in a boy's and girl's orphanage in Mexico run by a husband and wife team who are Christian. Here I had figured that their daily and constant back-breaking labor caring for many children was motivated by both their religious beliefs and the realities of being desperately poor. But, of course, it was actually laziness.

Nevermind all the World Visions of the world and the Kings, Gandhis, and Bonhoeffers of history. Lazy bastards.

(I'm not a fan of religion as I've made quite clear in this thread. But I can recognize amazing and inspiring people, religious or not. Unfortunately, they do seem outnumbered.)

"What is the point of worship?"

hell if i know. i do know, at least i'm pretty sure, if i was any kind of a god, being worshiped is the last thing in hell i'd want.

now i'm not saying there's anything wrong with some sort of emotional love for 'something big out there', and i don't mean this to criticize anyone else's beliefs, and i DO appreciate the good intentions of all of them to encourage people to want to avoid causing suffering. i just really don't understand any kind of sense of any kind of a god WANTING to be worshiped.

hug and be hugged by your invisible friends certainly, but also remember it is up to us to avoid screwing everything up for everyone else, and along with everyone else, thus our own selves also: and i don't mean by pissing some diety off, but directly by having done so ourselves.

=^^=
.../\...