Belief in God
Bricriu
an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am unlikely
to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no scientific
evidence
for his existence. If he truly was there, then surely we would have found
something to show that he was there. A lack of evidence, is evidence to the
contrary.
Also many claims about the nature of the Universe, made in Gods name, have
been shown to be false. Few rational people doubt Darwins evidence, for
natural selection. This falsifies Genesis, as being the word of God, and by
association, increases doubt about the authenticity of other texts.
You could say that the reason that we have not found evidence, by scientific
enquiry, is that God exists outside the Universe, and cannot be found by
empirical means. The problem with this argument is that the material world
appears totally self-animated. Laws of Nature, govern the universe in its
entirety and there is no room left for outside intervention.
True, it seems that the Universe was created in a Big Bang. You could say
that God created the universe in such a way, as it would naturally evolve
towards a goal. But this would be an impotent God, innaccessible to
prayer, and for all purposes non-existent to our material selves. Also it
seems incredible that miracles, and visitations by angels, can be the
result of the action of natural law.
Perhaps God is a metaphor for Natural Law. This is fine, so long as you
don't start adding detail such as the ressurection of christ, or the
imposition
of commandments. This sort of pantheism is fine, but personally I find
it a bit wishy-washy.
Another argument I've heard is that God transcends all reason, therefore
it is not possible to speculate on the true nature of God. One must find
God on the spiritual plane, not by philosophising. Again there is no
evidence
of a spiritual plane. If God transcends reason, how can you possibly
conceive
of him in the first place.
Some people just like to have their own personal God, and simply don't
want to talk about the evidence for or against. This is a comfort God. You
may as well believe in fairy stories. It is impossible to argue against this
kind of mindset.
I think I have put my main points forward. I have others, but I will see how
the discussion evolves, before putting any new points forward
Randy Story
also check out previous posts under How Come!!
"Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zZika.4$LR...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s).
>
It's one of the small questions, actually, with a very easy answer.
People believe in gods for the same reason that they expect Mondays to be
shitty, superstition.
--
All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They
have their exits and their entrances, - Macbeth
Ron Peterson
> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s). I am
> an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am unlikely
> to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
Why do you care?
Do you think that religion is bad for people? If so, why not say you
don't believe in religion instead?
> My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no scientific
> evidence for his existence. If he truly was there, then surely we
> would have found something to show that he was there. A lack of
> evidence, is evidence to the contrary.
That's not good reasoning. God may not want to disclose his existence.
> Also many claims about the nature of the Universe, made in Gods name, have
> been shown to be false. Few rational people doubt Darwins evidence, for
> natural selection. This falsifies Genesis, as being the word of God, and by
> association, increases doubt about the authenticity of other texts.
> You could say that the reason that we have not found evidence, by scientific
> enquiry, is that God exists outside the Universe, and cannot be found by
> empirical means. The problem with this argument is that the material world
> appears totally self-animated. Laws of Nature, govern the universe in its
> entirety and there is no room left for outside intervention.
Suppose the universe is a computer model. Then, we don't have any way to
communicate with the programmer, but the programmer can change any part
of the universe at will.
> True, it seems that the Universe was created in a Big Bang. You could say
> that God created the universe in such a way, as it would naturally evolve
> towards a goal. But this would be an impotent God, innaccessible to
> prayer, and for all purposes non-existent to our material selves. Also it
> seems incredible that miracles, and visitations by angels, can be the
> result of the action of natural law.
Why would you think that any god would respond to human prayer?
> Perhaps God is a metaphor for Natural Law. This is fine, so long as you
> don't start adding detail such as the ressurection of christ, or the
> imposition of commandments. This sort of pantheism is fine, but
> personally I find it a bit wishy-washy.
So, I take it that your main objection is to Christian mythology?
> Some people just like to have their own personal God, and simply don't
> want to talk about the evidence for or against. This is a comfort God. You
> may as well believe in fairy stories. It is impossible to argue against this
> kind of mindset.
Do you think those people are putting themselves at a great disadvantage
in having a personal god?
> I think I have put my main points forward. I have others, but I will see how
> the discussion evolves, before putting any new points forward
There was an author on CSPAN Book TV giving a talk about his new book on
Madalyn Murray O'Hare this weekend. The book sounds interesting as it
discusses her strategy in obtaining rights for the non-religious.
--
Ron
David
> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s).
They were told to. Also a belief in the gods of your society
usually means that you get to stay in and be a part of that
society. It's simple. Those that believe have many friends.
Those that don't believe are (or were) killed.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
Bricriu
"Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:v93l3us...@corp.supernews.com...
> Why do you care?
>
> Do you think that religion is bad for people? If so, why not say you
> don't believe in religion instead?
I don't necessarily believe that religion is bad, merely false. I think most
religions
believe in God(s), although there are some such as Buddhism, which aim
to achieve a higher state of mind.
I don't think going to church on Sunday, does any great harm to people. They
meet people of a similar mind, and have the chance to socialize. Of course
the
thing which distinguishes church from a social club, is the belief in God.
I do actually believe that some forms of religion are bad for the
individual, but
to discuss these, would broaden the argument too much. In order to conduct
a rational conversation, it is necessary to deal with each point, one at a
time and
the point I am discussing at the moment, is the evidence for the existence
of
God.
Why should I care? Because I believe that it is important in society for
people
with opposing points of view to talk to each other. That way, we can hear
both sides of an argument, and maybe reach a consensus. If we fail to reach
a consensus, at least we have gained an understanding of how another
person thinks
I also hold some regard for the Truth, and therefore if I believe I am
correct
in something, I think it is my duty to communicate my views.
I also regard intelligent argument as stimulating, and a good way to pass
time.
> > My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no scientific
> > evidence for his existence. If he truly was there, then surely we
> > would have found something to show that he was there. A lack of
> > evidence, is evidence to the contrary.
> That's not good reasoning. God may not want to disclose his existence.
If we believe in the historicity of an individual, such as King Arthur, we
look for records
of his reign, and archeological evidence. If we do not find such evidence we
assume that he did not exist. Do you believe in King Arthur? I find that
perfectly good reasoning
If God does not want to disclose his existence, he denies us evidence, and
we have no reason to suppose he exists. Most religions believe that God
has disclosed his existence, and continues to do so. These particular
disclosures, for example the parting of the Red Sea, should be amenable
to scientific enquiry.
> > Also many claims about the nature of the Universe, made in Gods name,
have
> > been shown to be false. Few rational people doubt Darwins evidence, for
> > natural selection. This falsifies Genesis, as being the word of God, and
by
> > association, increases doubt about the authenticity of other texts.
>
> > You could say that the reason that we have not found evidence, by
scientific
> > enquiry, is that God exists outside the Universe, and cannot be found by
> > empirical means. The problem with this argument is that the material
world
> > appears totally self-animated. Laws of Nature, govern the universe in
its
> > entirety and there is no room left for outside intervention.
>
> Suppose the universe is a computer model. Then, we don't have any way to
> communicate with the programmer, but the programmer can change any part
> of the universe at will.
If the programmer changes part of the program, it will have an effect on the
universe. We can look out for any anomalies, and if we find them we will
have found positive evidence for such a programmer. If we don't find them,
then that is evidence that no such programmer exists.
If the programmer changes part of the program, only when we are not looking,
He denies us the evidence, and so there is no reason why we should believe
in
him. Of course, it remains a possibility, but frankly it is a possibility I
find absurd.
There is an infinite array of possibilities, and we must weed out those that
are
absurd, in order to seek after the truth..
> > True, it seems that the Universe was created in a Big Bang. You could
say
> > that God created the universe in such a way, as it would naturally
evolve
> > towards a goal. But this would be an impotent God, innaccessible to
> > prayer, and for all purposes non-existent to our material selves. Also
it
> > seems incredible that miracles, and visitations by angels, can be the
> > result of the action of natural law.
>
> Why would you think that any god would respond to human prayer?
Most religions believe in the efficacy of prayer. If God has indeed revealed
himself in the past, then there is probably some truth in their tradition.
If
you do actually believe in this impotent God, then fine. Tell me why you
hold such an opinion.
> > Perhaps God is a metaphor for Natural Law. This is fine, so long as you
> > don't start adding detail such as the ressurection of christ, or the
> > imposition of commandments. This sort of pantheism is fine, but
> > personally I find it a bit wishy-washy.
>
> So, I take it that your main objection is to Christian mythology?
I don't have any objection to the mythology of any tradition. I merely point
out that it is incompatible with our empirical understanding of Natural Law.
> > Some people just like to have their own personal God, and simply don't
> > want to talk about the evidence for or against. This is a comfort God.
You
> > may as well believe in fairy stories. It is impossible to argue against
this
> > kind of mindset.
>
> Do you think those people are putting themselves at a great disadvantage
> in having a personal god?
I don't necessarily believe they are putting themselves at a disadvantage,
if
they lead otherwise normal healthy lives, however this is again straying
from
the topic.
Sir Frederick
unless you understand the false folk theory
known as "believing" or "belief".
--
Bricriu
restricted your post to talk.philosophy.humanism. In doing so you have
narrowed your readership. I have therefore amended the newsgroup header.
<itis...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7524-3E9...@storefull-2197.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> By wanting 'scientific evidence' to believe in God...does that mean that
> you would need to see this intelligent Being with your own 2 eyes before
> you would believe....or...would extra ordinary evidence showing his
> distinctive handiwork from a scientific/engineering standpoint, be
> enough for you to believe ?
As a matter of fact I have recieved positive evidence for the existence of
God, on a personal level. I am a schizophrenic, and during one of my
paranoid episodes, I noticed co-incidences which seemed to me to infer
that I was being manipulated by a higher entity. I did not call this entity
God, as I did not have any evidence to his nature. When my paranoia
passed, I re-evaluated my experience, and decided that the co-incidences
were a result of my imagination.
By Scientific evidence, I mean any evidence which can be shared by
everybody,
and that the result is a consensus of opinion that it indeed proves there is
a God. An example of this would be Egyptian hyroglyphs, carbon-dated to
prove that they were genuine, which documented the loss of an entire army
due to the Red Sea parting and then closing again.
> Further, if you were convinced that the intelligent Creator
> existed...would you think it appropriate for you to bow before him and
> surrender your life giving him the reigns to your life, applying the
> Bible which he inspired for your life, and trusting Christ as the Son
> of God dying to reconcile you to God ? If you would like to answer
> these questions honestly....then we can take it from there.
I mentioned above that during a schizophrenic episode, I had reason to
believe I was being manipulated by a higher entity. I made no assumptions
as to his nature. For all I know, I could have been manipulated by
Aliens. I tried to think, as rationally as I could at the time, what the
most likely explanation was, and what my best course of action was.
I was very confused, and could reach no conclusions as to what to do.
If I actually saw him come down from heaven, and address me. I think
I would naturally be very afraid, but my main concern would be my
own personal well-being. If I thought it would be in my interest to
bow down before him and confess my guilt for not believing in him, I
would naturally do so.
If there is indeed a God and he is not a complete bastard, I think he
would respect me for trying to be a decent person in life, and for
acting truthfully, for the evidence he gave me and I would be allowed
to enter heaven.
If he instead sent me to Hell, for not having faith, I would curse him
forever in my eternal torment.
Kalevi Rinne
ignorant about believing in God(s).
Yes, there is no rational way to prove that God(s) exist. I mean that there
is no way to rationally convince all that God(s) exist. As long as people
have been conscious they have believed in spirits, gods etc. There seems to
be some hints that there are higher forms of animal life where exists some
sort of tendency to believe in higher powers. We the Christians are not
superstitious or pretending some seriousness etc. We have insight in our own
lives that the Holy Trinity exists and Christ lives to us in our minds. It
is a proof to us that the Holy Trinity exists. The seriousness that follows
comes from the fact that we feel so much sinful in the eyes of God that we
are condemned if we don't believe in Christ who has the mercy upon us to
free us from our sins and it really is something serious. The only near
rational common proof about God's existence is: We all have computers in
front of us. The computers have paths that lead to some target and the path
is logical. We the humans have the path to believe in God(s), we the
Christians have path to Christ. I feel it ridiculous to think that the
target of that path would not as logically exist as is the case about the
computers. It is possible that it is totally psychology, that inside of us
is somekind of psychological urge to believe in God(s) though He/They would
not exist. But I feel it very impropable because I have seen my prayers to
be fullfilled and they could not be fullfilled if there were nobody. There
has been in a baptist university in the USA a double blind test, where
people were told to pray for some sick person of which they knew only the
forename and disease. The diseased ones did not know that they were praying
for them. Those who were prayed for, got well 10 % better than those who
were not prayed for.
Myriad of Pain
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3E923605...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com...
Should read: "You will never make sense of your query after reading my post
unless you understand that I am completely insane. -- Freddy"
MoP
Bricriu
news:b6thia$f9m$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> I don't like to do this but I feel obliged to because you seem to be so
> ignorant about believing in God(s).
I don't think there is anything ignorant, about my posts. I think I am
trying to conduct a debate in a rational manner. If I have no inner
conviction that God exists, why would I approach the subject in
any other manner.
> Yes, there is no rational way to prove that God(s) exist. I mean that
there
> is no way to rationally convince all that God(s) exist. As long as people
> have been conscious they have believed in spirits, gods etc. There seems
to
I think belief in Spirits and Gods, is most common in primitive societies.
Not having access to modern science, they try to make sense of their
surroundings in the best manner they can. Magic too is most often
practised by the savage, although ineffective, it shows an enquiring
mind, and is the forerunner of science.
When civillisation started and people began to live together in large
numbers, Tree spirits and nymphs became less important and it
became important to believe in a divine lawgiver, so people could
live in harmony. The first known set of divine commandments are recorded
in Babylonia, which also happens to be one of the earliest civilisations.
> be some hints that there are higher forms of animal life where exists some
> sort of tendency to believe in higher powers. We the Christians are not
> superstitious or pretending some seriousness etc. We have insight in our
own
> lives that the Holy Trinity exists and Christ lives to us in our minds. It
> is a proof to us that the Holy Trinity exists. The seriousness that
follows
What about Unitarians, and religions of other cultures, do they not have the
same insights you do. They cant all be true.
If you admit they do have these insights, why do you believe that your
view is superior.
> comes from the fact that we feel so much sinful in the eyes of God that we
> are condemned if we don't believe in Christ who has the mercy upon us to
> free us from our sins and it really is something serious. The only near
Why doesn't God give me these insights. If he is not a complete Bastard,
why does he not give me these insights, which would save me from being
condemned. After all I have behaved very decently to people, and I
have strived after the truth in my own way, to the best of my ability.
I don't think of myself as a sinner. I am only human after all, what do you
expect.
> rational common proof about God's existence is: We all have computers in
> front of us. The computers have paths that lead to some target and the
path
> is logical. We the humans have the path to believe in God(s), we the
> Christians have path to Christ. I feel it ridiculous to think that the
> target of that path would not as logically exist as is the case about the
> computers. It is possible that it is totally psychology, that inside of us
I don't find this argument very convincing.
> is somekind of psychological urge to believe in God(s) though He/They
would
> not exist. But I feel it very impropable because I have seen my prayers
to
> be fullfilled and they could not be fullfilled if there were nobody. There
> has been in a baptist university in the USA a double blind test, where
> people were told to pray for some sick person of which they knew only the
> forename and disease. The diseased ones did not know that they were
praying
> for them. Those who were prayed for, got well 10 % better than those who
> were not prayed for.
If this could be proved to be statististically significant, then that would
indeed
constitute evidence for the existence of God. You have contradicted your
earlier claim that such scientific methods could bear no fruit.
Has this trial been investigated by proffessional debunkers, such as 'The
Skeptikal Enquirer'. Is there a website available where I can evaluate the
evidence for myself.
I think I have answered your questions honestly, and to the best of my
ability. I look forward to hearing your reply.
Keynes
wrote:
>Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s). I am
>an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am unlikely
>to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
>
Your quarrel is with the bible and similar miraculous books.
But the idea of God is pretty universal for many reasons.
Here's a reprint from a very recent thread --
There is no doubt of a supreme power over the cosmos.
It is inescapable by reason. Since not a single thing
exists except by relative causes and effects, no person
is his own master in body or mind. Emotions are caused.
Thoughts are caused. Everything without exception is
caused and not effective.
The bible talks about creation. Hindus and buddhists
take an eternal view, accepting a cycle of creation and
destruction without beginning or end. First cause or
eternal karma-causation makes no never mind.
Causation is an inescapable fact.
To reduce the Mover of all that moves to mere human
ignorance is a great mistake. Omniscience means that
"even the hairs on your head have been numbered."
It means that, "Not even a sparrow falls that God
doesn't know..." It doesn't mean that the inevitable
future result of all causes up to the present is 'known'
in the human sense.
Theoretically the future could be known if all causes could
be traced, but why would that be an attribute of a God?
It doesn't necessarily follow. Even in human terms it
seems to be a pointless, awful, and useless cruelty.
Why impute it to the Mover of the cosmos?
Yet we know well that bad causes will produce bad effects,
and good causes will produce good effects. That is our basis
of action for the future. Just a little prediction is sufficient
for us. The best laid plans of mice and men go oft awry.
Omnipotence is merely the acknowledgement of the fact
that no-thing is out of the control of karma-cause-and-effect.
The only existence or being of anything whatsoever depends
on the all inclusive chain of causation. The Mover is the
necessary ground of our being.
Accepting the powerlessness of man or any other thing
leads inevitably to the concept of a single source of all things
and actions. Theists call it God. Atheists call it bad names.
But in these times we have the superstition that man is
his own mover and his own cause, and that he has the
god-like power of uncaused action, namely free will.
With the illusion of free will comes the desperate duty
to make the right choices, either to 'please God' or
just to succeed in the world. Theists and atheists
hold this irrational view, and thereby deny the existence
of the Mover of the cosmos.
SInce man has arisen from the chain of causes and effects,
it is plain that the Mover has made him. This allows that the
Power has an affinity and affection for man. The world
is made in such a way that we can live and prosper,
both the 'good' and the 'evil' humans. This implies the
goodness and the 'mercy' of the Mover. If life and love
are good, then they are called the gifts of a good God.
Along with what humans consider good comes what humans
consider evil - pain, war, cruelty, oppression, disease, decay
and death. Why are these bad? Because life is good.
Could life be so good without these god-awful mistakes?
The design of the cosmos is such that good passes into
evil and evil passes into good, and while it is happening
you will never get men to agree on which is which.
It is a fatal error to reduce the Mover to human motives
and frailties. By this mistake we trivialize the concept
of God, and can dismiss Him by simple human bickering.
We can find the Great Mover to be beneath human moral
standards and even below middling intelligence. Then
we can overlook the truth that men are not their own masters,
and pretend to sit on the high throne of wisdom and power.
What absolute foolishness. We are monkeys sitting in
the Master's chair, giving commands for more bananas -
commands that no one will hear and obey.
Whatever happens, even our doubts, fears, illusions, and
prejuduces are not human mistakes. They too are caused.
Not even our sins can be claimed as our own.
There is a way out of this mess, but few care to find it.
David
> ....There has been in a baptist university in the USA
> a double blind test, where people were told to pray for
> some sick person of which they knew only the forename and
> disease. The diseased ones did not know that they were
> praying for them. Those who were prayed for, got well 10
> % better than those who were not prayed for.
When the experiment was duplicated with better controls and
NOT done by a biased christian university, the results
barely made it to the level of chance.
David
>
> There is no doubt of a supreme power over the cosmos.
> It is inescapable by reason.
As has been said before, reason does not support your
conclusion. All you presented was conjecture based on a
priori assumptions.
dacote
> My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no
> scientific evidence
> for his existence. If he truly was there, then surely we would have
> found something to show that he was there. A lack of evidence, is
> evidence to the contrary.
If you woke up today with the entire library of factual knowledge humankind
has discovered, and no social influence, would you believe in God? I
wouldn't, and I don't now. 1000 or 100 years ago would have been different
though, and the tendency for new generations to take after their elders
(especially when conformity is enforced by death) explains the continued
existance of religion.
IMO.
An interesting site:
www.christianfaq.com
Sir Frederick
To "Mother of Punks" (MoP) :
Criminal misinformational mugger.
To others :
Read the books of Paul and Patricia Churchland.
"Believing" as false folk theory is from them.
--
Not so quick
"Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zZika.4$LR...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Celestial
wrote:
>This is not a reply, to the post I gave. You have started a new thread, and
>restricted your post to talk.philosophy.humanism. In doing so you have
>narrowed your readership. I have therefore amended the newsgroup header.
>
><itis...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:7524-3E9...@storefull-2197.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>> By wanting 'scientific evidence' to believe in God...does that mean that
>> you would need to see this intelligent Being with your own 2 eyes before
>> you would believe....or...would extra ordinary evidence showing his
>> distinctive handiwork from a scientific/engineering standpoint, be
>> enough for you to believe ?
>
>As a matter of fact I have recieved positive evidence for the existence of
>God, on a personal level.
Sounds to me like you have answered your own question.
>I am a schizophrenic, and during one of my
>paranoid episodes, I noticed co-incidences which seemed to me to infer
>that I was being manipulated by a higher entity. I did not call this entity
>God, as I did not have any evidence to his nature.
Or maybe not....
>When my paranoia
>passed, I re-evaluated my experience, and decided that the co-incidences
>were a result of my imagination.
Well then you have lost nothing, it was just one of your episodes,
like any number of the other ones.
>
>By Scientific evidence, I mean any evidence which can be shared by
>everybody,
You won't find any and yet you will find many people who believe.
>and that the result is a consensus of opinion that it indeed proves there is
>a God.
There is none. You already know this. Why are you crying into the
wind?... as I said, consider it as you have the other episodes you
experienced and when you can do that you will see you have lost
nothing by doing so.
>An example of this would be Egyptian hyroglyphs, carbon-dated to
>prove that they were genuine, which documented the loss of an entire army
>due to the Red Sea parting and then closing again.
As I said, there is none.and you already know this.
>
>> Further, if you were convinced that the intelligent Creator
>> existed...would you think it appropriate for you to bow before him and
>> surrender your life giving him the reigns to your life, applying the
>> Bible which he inspired for your life, and trusting Christ as the Son
>> of God dying to reconcile you to God ? If you would like to answer
>> these questions honestly....then we can take it from there.
>
>I mentioned above that during a schizophrenic episode, I had reason to
>believe I was being manipulated by a higher entity.
Ok, so now you know better. Put this thing behind. Do not cry into the
wind as if you had actually lost something. Because that just isn't
so...... am I right?
> I made no assumptions
>as to his nature. For all I know, I could have been manipulated by
>Aliens. I tried to think, as rationally as I could at the time, what the
>most likely explanation was, and what my best course of action was.
>I was very confused, and could reach no conclusions as to what to do.
What makes you think you had to do anything? What happened in
previous episodes you had? Let this one go man, let it go.
>
>If I actually saw him come down from heaven, and address me. I think
>I would naturally be very afraid, but my main concern would be my
>own personal well-being. If I thought it would be in my interest to
>bow down before him and confess my guilt for not believing in him, I
>would naturally do so.
Well good thing you came here. Let me assure you there is nothing to
this, it is like the other episodes you had. No reason to think any
differently and the meds should help you stabilize so that you don't
suffer these delusions....and in time you will see how silly it ever
was for you to think this way. As if there was this, you know, wonder
or beauty or *pfffffft* divine truth or something. The DSM will give
you great insight into your episodes.
>
>If there is indeed a God and he is not a complete bastard, I think he
>would respect me for trying to be a decent person in life, and for
>acting truthfully, for the evidence he gave me and I would be allowed
>to enter heaven.
I think it would be much easier for you to just let it go, stop
tormenting yourself.
NoGod does this to you.
>If he instead sent me to Hell, for not having faith, I would curse him
>forever in my eternal torment.
Hmmmm, well now what arrogant God would ask for your faith? That's
pretty primitive. With all the modern day medicines and therapy
available for your condition I am surprised that you trouble yourself
with all of *this* nonsense.
Jesse Nowells
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Bricriu wrote:
> I am a schizophrenic, and during one of my paranoid episodes, I
> noticed co-incidences which seemed to me to infer that I was being
> manipulated by a higher entity.
Isn't it uncanny how employment can make you feel that way?
Jesse Nowells
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Bricriu wrote:
>> We have insight in our own lives that the Holy Trinity exists and
>> Christ lives to us in our minds. It is a proof to us that the Holy
>> Trinity exists ...
> What about Unitarians, and religions of other cultures, do they not
> have the same insights you do. They cant all be true.
Whoa, Tex. Unitarianism is about being free to believe whatever in a
context of live & let live with your fellow church members. IOW, you can
be an anything-ist & be a Unitarian, as long as you're not an active
socio-path. So, in that context, whether or not all insights are true or
equally valid, it is irrelvant. Therefore, not all religions operate with
rigid creed-structures that require everyone to agree exactly on every
single thing.
Keynes
wrote:
>Keynes wrote:
>>
>> There is no doubt of a supreme power over the cosmos.
>> It is inescapable by reason.
>
>As has been said before, reason does not support your
>conclusion. All you presented was conjecture based on a
>priori assumptions.
Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
Morpheus, Inc.
[snip]
> As a matter of fact I have recieved positive evidence for the existence of
> God, on a personal level. I am a schizophrenic, and during one of my
> paranoid episodes, I noticed co-incidences which seemed to me to infer
> that I was being manipulated by a higher entity. I did not call this entity
> God, as I did not have any evidence to his nature. When my paranoia
> passed, I re-evaluated my experience, and decided that the co-incidences
> were a result of my imagination.
[snip]
> I mentioned above that during a schizophrenic episode, I had reason to
> believe I was being manipulated by a higher entity. I made no assumptions
> as to his nature. For all I know, I could have been manipulated by
> Aliens. I tried to think, as rationally as I could at the time, what the
> most likely explanation was, and what my best course of action was.
> I was very confused, and could reach no conclusions as to what to do.
My experience is very similar to yours. However, since during psychotic
episodes the experience is very subjective from an external standpoint,
I'd seriously doubt such "proofs" could ever used "universally" to
address the issue.
It does feel like some sort of "entity" occasionally manipulates this
reality, based on the "coincidences" that you mention.
However, I'd seriously doubt that this "entity" is benign. A trully
benign entity would (in my opinion anyway), completely retract itself
from the scenes and leave forever, leaving us all alone, so as to not
violate our freedom of choice.
Anything less, including sporadic "interjections" of reality
manipulation, probably denotes a malignant perpetrator behind the
scenes.
My sincere suspicion is that this "entity" that you speak of, isn't any
"god" by far. Just a more advanced life form, sort of like a puppeteer.
Having the power to manipulate this reality to some extent, doesn't
necessarily imply that the manipulator is "god".
In other words,
Reality interference implies malignancy.
--
Ioannis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
_____________________________________________
The moment you think it's x, it changes to ~x
Ron Peterson
> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> news:v93l3us...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Why do you care?
>> Do you think that religion is bad for people? If so, why not say you
>> don't believe in religion instead?
> I don't necessarily believe that religion is bad, merely false. I think most
> religions believe in God(s), although there are some such as
> Buddhism, which aim to achieve a higher state of mind.
> I don't think going to church on Sunday, does any great harm to people. They
> meet people of a similar mind, and have the chance to socialize. Of course
> the thing which distinguishes church from a social club, is the
> belief in God.
> I do actually believe that some forms of religion are bad for the
> individual, but to discuss these, would broaden the argument too much.
> In order to conduct a rational conversation, it is necessary to deal
> with each point, one at a time and the point I am discussing at the
> moment, is the evidence for the existence of God.
Why should we care whether there is a god?
> Why should I care? Because I believe that it is important in society for
> people with opposing points of view to talk to each other. That way,
> we can hear both sides of an argument, and maybe reach a consensus. If
> we fail to reach a consensus, at least we have gained an understanding
> of how another person thinks
Do you think that the purpose of religion is to worship god?
> I also hold some regard for the Truth, and therefore if I believe I am
> correct in something, I think it is my duty to communicate my views.
Do you think that your views are of benefit to anyone? If so, why?
> I also regard intelligent argument as stimulating, and a good way to pass
> time.
Are you just being a troll?
>> That's not good reasoning. God may not want to disclose his existence.
> If we believe in the historicity of an individual, such as King Arthur, we
> look for records of his reign, and archeological evidence. If we do
> not find such evidence we assume that he did not exist. Do you
> believe in King Arthur? I find that perfectly good reasoning
I don't consider that good reasoning. You are saying that if there is
no evidence King Arthur existed that he never existed. I am sure that
there are many people that we have no evidence of their existence that
have existed.
> If God does not want to disclose his existence, he denies us evidence, and
> we have no reason to suppose he exists. Most religions believe that God
> has disclosed his existence, and continues to do so. These particular
> disclosures, for example the parting of the Red Sea, should be amenable
> to scientific enquiry.
But, your argument is with religious dogma, not the existence of god.
>> Suppose the universe is a computer model. Then, we don't have any way to
>> communicate with the programmer, but the programmer can change any part
>> of the universe at will.
> If the programmer changes part of the program, it will have an effect on the
> universe. We can look out for any anomalies, and if we find them we will
> have found positive evidence for such a programmer. If we don't find them,
> then that is evidence that no such programmer exists.
So that doesn't mean that there isn't a programmer.
> If the programmer changes part of the program, only when we are not looking,
> He denies us the evidence, and so there is no reason why we should believe
> in him. Of course, it remains a possibility, but frankly it is a
> possibility I find absurd. There is an infinite array of
> possibilities, and we must weed out those that are absurd, in order to
> seek after the truth..
You are saying that if a proposition is absurd, that it's not true. But,
how can you determine if a proposition is absurd?
>> Why would you think that any god would respond to human prayer?
> Most religions believe in the efficacy of prayer. If God has indeed revealed
> himself in the past, then there is probably some truth in their tradition.
> If you do actually believe in this impotent God, then fine. Tell me
> why you hold such an opinion.
I just find it hard to believe that any god would bother with any
humans. Why do you think a god would find humans worth his concern?
>> Do you think those people are putting themselves at a great disadvantage
>> in having a personal god?
> I don't necessarily believe they are putting themselves at a disadvantage,
> if they lead otherwise normal healthy lives, however this is again
> straying from the topic.
I think that I am addressing an important issue. That is if you think
religion is a positive force for mankind, and you are trying to
discredit religion, than you aren't going to convince anyone.
--
Ron
Balmy
Yes, I see many "indicators" or "coincidences". Some my be just
coincidence. Others, well, God is around.
"Jesse Nowells" <jnow...@transbay.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.31.0304080028500.96669-100000@localhost...
David
That a god or higher power exists.
Kim
Well, while we're all coming out of the closet ;-)
I am a schizophrenic Athiest.
Actually I'm not exactly. When being schizophrenic I start to beleive.
Before becoming schizophrenic I was an athiest. When I became
schizophrenic I started to beleive because of the co-incidences etc,
then once recovering I realised how foolish such thoughts had been and
resumed my athiesticity ;-)
This shows a lot about the illness I feel, and maybe shows something
of the thought processes behind believing. I severely doubt that a
belief in God is like a partial schizophrenic state in all cases at
least, but I think in many cases some of the same thought patterns
kick in at times.
I know what I mean. You may not.
Where did I put my medication?
Stop plotting against me.
Cheers,
Kim.
Kim
> Keynes wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 22:54:55 -0700, David <da...@thellamaranch.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Keynes wrote:
> >>
> >>>There is no doubt of a supreme power over the cosmos.
> >>>It is inescapable by reason.
> >>
> >>As has been said before, reason does not support your
> >>conclusion. All you presented was conjecture based on a
> >>priori assumptions.
> >
> >
> > Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
>
> That a god or higher power exists.
I don't think he's putting forward that it is a God necessarily. He's
saying that at very least the laws of physics are a higher power than
you, and that if you know these laws you too can predict the future
etc.
He's not cancelling out the God possibility either, but the statement
that "It is inescapable by reason" is indicating that "you" are not
the greatest controlling thing in the universe. There is something,
call it nature/physics/God greater than you. The nature of it is up
for debate.
Cheers,
Kim.
David
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>
>> Keynes wrote:
>>
>>> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no doubt of a supreme power over the
>>>>> cosmos. It is inescapable by reason.
>>>>
>>>> As has been said before, reason does not support
>>>> your conclusion. All you presented was conjecture
>>>> based on a priori assumptions.
>>>
>>> Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
>>
>> That a god or higher power exists.
>
> I don't think he's putting forward that it is a God
> necessarily. He's saying that at very least the laws of
> physics are a higher power than you, and that if you know
> these laws you too can predict the future etc.
The "laws of nature" are not higher or lower than anyone.
They just are.
> He's not canceling out the God possibility either, but
> the statement that "It is inescapable by reason" is
> indicating that "you" are not the greatest controlling
> thing in the universe. There is something, call it
> nature/physics/God greater than you. The nature of it is
> up for debate.
"Inescapable by reason," or "by the light of nature," or
whatever, It is just an attempt at ducking the burden of
proof. That I am not a "controlling thing in the universe"
is just a strawman since I have never made any such claim.
Mike Dubbeld
Sorry to hear your lack of experience. People that don't learn to
scuba dive don't have scuba diving experiences either. But they
apparently still hope some day a suit and tanks will jump up
onto their bodies and transport them out into the ocean to
have this experience. In the meantime however, they completely
deny the possibility of exploring under the water by 'scuba diving.'
Not only that but some are radical scuba diver debunkers. These
are your hard-core oldies who have been waiting for the mountain
(opps -scuba experience) to come for many years and are the more
confident bunch. Few can argue successfully with this bunch
from all their lack of experience of scuba. Meanwhile the scuba
divers just smile and have a good time.
Nobody ever believed in God by proving God. That all you know
is your 5 inputs and believe your brain to be capable of understanding
everything is your problem. Nobody is going to scuba dive for you
and this silly post is only evidence of your shallow attempts to
justify the failures of your ego and mind. Whinner is much simpler.
Don't believe in God? Thats your problem. Just because you are
a minority group, that does not mean the world owes you
anything. I see you mention Geneis below. I guess this likely means
by God you only have some vague notion of Christianity or something.
Some day it may dawn on you - Oh! other people have different versions
of God! Since you pride yourself as an atheist, you are not too bright.
Most atheists these days have figured out it is far better to call
themselves Buddhists. That way they don't have to believe in a God
or soul and be considered spiritual by others at the same time.
I have a bridge for sale that crosses the Potomac in case you are
interested......
Mike Dubbeld
Keynes
wrote:
>Kim wrote:
>> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>
>>>> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no doubt of a supreme power over the
>>>>>> cosmos. It is inescapable by reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been said before, reason does not support
>>>>> your conclusion. All you presented was conjecture
>>>>> based on a priori assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
>>>
>>> That a god or higher power exists.
>>
I certainly did not.
I stated a conclusion before the argument,
but the argument was there.
>> I don't think he's putting forward that it is a God
>> necessarily. He's saying that at very least the laws of
>> physics are a higher power than you, and that if you know
>> these laws you too can predict the future etc.
>
>The "laws of nature" are not higher or lower than anyone.
>They just are.
>
And so are you, such as you may be.
Would you like to reduce yourself to the level of meat?
That appears to be your great ambition.
>> He's not canceling out the God possibility either, but
>> the statement that "It is inescapable by reason" is
>> indicating that "you" are not the greatest controlling
>> thing in the universe. There is something, call it
>> nature/physics/God greater than you. The nature of it is
>> up for debate.
>
>"Inescapable by reason," or "by the light of nature," or
>whatever, It is just an attempt at ducking the burden of
>proof. That I am not a "controlling thing in the universe"
>is just a strawman since I have never made any such claim.
(But you can say "poo poo" in many different ways, no doubt.)
Is there cause and effect?
Say "no" and we're done.
If there is cause and effect, then determinism is true.
(No miracles allowed for the Godly OR for the atheist.)
If determinism is true, then all thoughts and actions are caused.
If so, then there is no free will, and no claim for human supremacy
or individual action apart from automatic reactions fully accountable
by cause and effect deterrminism.
Then where are the individuality and powers of man (or anything else)?
At this point we are left to account for the supposed powers and
achievements of the human race in general and persons in particular.
Since they have all been caused by previous causes,
what is your explanation for the shape the world is in?
( Or would you love to be an Oscar Meyer wiener?
With an attitude, no less. Don't forget, as you define
the world, you are inescapably defining yourself.
Will you be dead meat or what? )
David
> (garbage snipped) Don't believe in God? Thats your
> problem. Just because you are a minority group.....
Most of the world does not believe in your god. In order to
prove your god is the right one; you have to disprove all
those other gods, and every other god ever mentioned in
human literature. Us Atheists believe in only one less god
than you do.
David
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:12:28 -0700, David
> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>
>> Kim wrote:
>>
>>> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no doubt of a supreme power over the
>>>>>>> cosmos. It is inescapable by reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As has been said before, reason does not
>>>>>> support your conclusion. All you presented was
>>>>>> conjecture based on a priori assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
>>>>
>>>> That a god or higher power exists.
>
> I certainly did not. I stated a conclusion before the
> argument, but the argument was there.
The argument was only to support your assumption.
>>> I don't think he's putting forward that it is a God
>>> necessarily. He's saying that at very least the laws
>>> of physics are a higher power than you, and that if
>>> you know these laws you too can predict the future
>>> etc.
>>
>> The "laws of nature" are not higher or lower than
>> anyone. They just are.
>
> And so are you, such as you may be. Would you like to
> reduce yourself to the level of meat? That appears to be
> your great ambition.
Not a very good strawman argument. No one said anything
about reducing anything to any level.
>>> He's not canceling out the God possibility either,
>>> but the statement that "It is inescapable by reason"
>>> is indicating that "you" are not the greatest
>>> controlling thing in the universe. There is
>>> something, call it nature/physics/God greater than
>>> you. The nature of it is up for debate.
>>
>> "Inescapable by reason," or "by the light of nature,"
>> or whatever, It is just an attempt at ducking the
>> burden of proof. That I am not a "controlling thing in
>> the universe" is just a strawman since I have never
>> made any such claim.
>
> (But you can say "poo poo" in many different ways, no
> doubt.)
>
> Is there cause and effect?
>
> Say "no" and we're done.
If you try the "first cause" argument, we're done.
> If there is cause and effect, then determinism is true.
> (No miracles allowed for the Godly OR for the atheist.)
>
> If determinism is true, then all thoughts and actions are
> caused.
close enough to the first cause argument.
Bye.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> They just are.
>
It is, however, interesting to note just how difficult people find it to
accept that things 'just' are.
They are happy to believe any sort of nonsense you can imagine, ghoulies,
ghosties, long-leggedy things that go bump in the night, miracles, gods,
cures for obesity that don't involve cutting down eating, aliens with a deep
interest in their wobbly bits, you name it - the simple fact that things
'just are' defeats them, however.
A rum lot, people. That is, of course, just the way they are.
--
"To try to do something which is inherently impossible is always a
corrupting enterprise." - Oakshott
Keynes
wrote:
>Keynes wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:12:28 -0700, David
>> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kim wrote:
>>>
>>>> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no doubt of a supreme power over the
>>>>>>>> cosmos. It is inescapable by reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As has been said before, reason does not
>>>>>>> support your conclusion. All you presented was
>>>>>>> conjecture based on a priori assumptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
>>>>>
>>>>> That a god or higher power exists.
>>
>> I certainly did not. I stated a conclusion before the
>> argument, but the argument was there.
>
>The argument was only to support your assumption.
>
I made no assumptions, you imbecile.
>>>> I don't think he's putting forward that it is a God
>>>> necessarily. He's saying that at very least the laws
>>>> of physics are a higher power than you, and that if
>>>> you know these laws you too can predict the future
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> The "laws of nature" are not higher or lower than
>>> anyone. They just are.
>>
>> And so are you, such as you may be. Would you like to
>> reduce yourself to the level of meat? That appears to be
>> your great ambition.
>
>Not a very good strawman argument. No one said anything
>about reducing anything to any level.
>
"Strawman". You can do better than that. (Or can you?)
The implications of the atheist position have no doubt
escaped your enormous intellect.
>>>> He's not canceling out the God possibility either,
>>>> but the statement that "It is inescapable by reason"
>>>> is indicating that "you" are not the greatest
>>>> controlling thing in the universe. There is
>>>> something, call it nature/physics/God greater than
>>>> you. The nature of it is up for debate.
>>>
>>> "Inescapable by reason," or "by the light of nature,"
>>> or whatever, It is just an attempt at ducking the
>>> burden of proof. That I am not a "controlling thing in
>>> the universe" is just a strawman since I have never
>>> made any such claim.
>>
>> (But you can say "poo poo" in many different ways, no
>> doubt.)
>>
>> Is there cause and effect?
>>
>> Say "no" and we're done.
>
>If you try the "first cause" argument, we're done.
>
>> If there is cause and effect, then determinism is true.
>> (No miracles allowed for the Godly OR for the atheist.)
>>
>> If determinism is true, then all thoughts and actions are
>> caused.
>
>close enough to the first cause argument.
>
It's OK to be an idiot, or a fundy atheist, but do you need
to advertise your stupidity and dishonesty worldwide?
>Bye.
Chickenshit.
In the origianl article, There was no reliance on first cause.
Eternal causation, or first cause. There is cause.
You are an ass.
Kim
> > David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Keynes wrote:
> >>
> >>> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Keynes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is no doubt of a supreme power over the
> >>>>> cosmos. It is inescapable by reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> As has been said before, reason does not support
> >>>> your conclusion. All you presented was conjecture
> >>>> based on a priori assumptions.
> >>>
> >>> Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
> >>
> >> That a god or higher power exists.
> >
> > I don't think he's putting forward that it is a God
> > necessarily. He's saying that at very least the laws of
> > physics are a higher power than you, and that if you know
> > these laws you too can predict the future etc.
>
> The "laws of nature" are not higher or lower than anyone.
> They just are.
;-)
I see your point, have no doubt.
The truth is, though, that in that sense the "higher or lower" you are
using is based on your perspective.
One could say that, if you beleive in detirminism, that YOU YOURSELF
are just part of the laws of physics/nature and therefor YOU are no
higher or lower than say, a parrot or a bee. Indeed from a determinism
perspective you are no higher or lower... we are all part of the
whole and that is it.
But the human mind creates highers and lowers itself anyhow. It is
part of our reality.
How do you clarify what justifiably makes something higher or lower
than something else... and indeed what puts the laws of nature out of
the running for being "higher"? The fact that they have no
consciousness? But they have many... yours among them.
The truth is that our minds each decide how we compare these things.
It is your world view that nature is not a part of the "higher and
lower"... but in truth the whole image of their being a higher and
lower at all is just a matter of your personal judgements on things...
and who/what has the most attributes that YOU consider positive.
>
> > He's not canceling out the God possibility either, but
> > the statement that "It is inescapable by reason" is
> > indicating that "you" are not the greatest controlling
> > thing in the universe. There is something, call it
> > nature/physics/God greater than you. The nature of it is
> > up for debate.
>
> "Inescapable by reason," or "by the light of nature," or
> whatever, It is just an attempt at ducking the burden of
> proof. That I am not a "controlling thing in the universe"
> is just a strawman since I have never made any such claim.
But we are ALL some kind of controlling force. We all have an effect.
I don't think he's ducking anything. He's just viewing nature as a
living thing... and considering every living thing is a part of
nature, it's a fair perspective.
Personally I can see the world from that direction, but prefer to view
it from others. I can see what you're saying, but I don't think Keynes
is wrong as such.
Cheers,
Kim.
Keynes
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>"David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
>>
>> The "laws of nature" are not higher or lower than anyone.
>> They just are.
>>
>You are, of course right.
>
>It is, however, interesting to note just how difficult people find it to
>accept that things 'just' are.
>
So how are things?
("Fine. How's by you?")
The only problem with drifting aimlessly is drifting aimlessly.
>They are happy to believe any sort of nonsense you can imagine, ghoulies,
>ghosties, long-leggedy things that go bump in the night, miracles, gods,
>cures for obesity that don't involve cutting down eating, aliens with a deep
>interest in their wobbly bits, you name it - the simple fact that things
>'just are' defeats them, however.
>
Such folks don't usually post to alt.philosophy.
(well, maybe just lately.)
>A rum lot, people. That is, of course, just the way they are.
People of the tribe define themselves in tribal ways.
They don't look up. They don't look down. They just don't look.
Is there any other way to live? Naaah. Can't happen.
"It is, however, interesting to note just how difficult people find it
to accept that things 'just' are."
What in the world do you mean by this?
Can you stand over the body with a smoking gun and
go free by just telling the police "Shit happens"?
At the very least, you owe it to yourself
to maximize the profits in your life.
Jeff Relf
<< Since you pride yourself as an atheist, you are not too
bright. Most atheists these days have figured out it is far
better to call themselves Buddhists. That way they don't
have to believe in a God or soul and be considered
spiritual by others at the same time. >>
Buddhism comes from Hinduism.
The Buddhist slogan is " In Gods we trust. "
I'm very proud to be an atheist.
Non-atheists are far too deluded for my tastes.
Lewis
to scroll down.
"Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zZika.4$LR...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s). I am
> an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
unlikely
> to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
If I was marooned on an island, I would hope that it would be with people
very different from myself. That way each would bring something totally
different that might help in survival. And the world is not too much
different. Most people who claim to be atheist are great thinkers. There is
nothing wrong with wanting substantial scientific proof that a God or higher
power does exist. If believers and athiests were gathered into a small room
and given a sales pitch concerning a new investment that would earn them
much money with some of their money being invested, wouldn't everyone want
prove that it was a wise investment? Who knows, maybe the skeptic mind of
the atheist might be the ones who make the best investment. I write this
because when the proof of God does arrive, the skeptics or atheists might be
the people who shout "God does exist" louder than anyone. There is not one
thing wrong with desiring proof and God knows this.
Which is the most sincere group of people? Atheists who desire proof of God,
or people who have faith and belief yet do not desire to have the proof? For
some people, faith and belief are just not enough. I have always known deep
down that God must exist because of the perfection in things seen around me.
No one can tell me that this Earth can spin around the sun so accurately
without a little help. I have always believed in God but for me that just
wasn't enough. I wanted proof that would be acceptable to science and
religion alike and proof that would open the door to a greater knowing of
things around me. I finally found the proof in 1974, and have studied it
ever since. Knowing that God exists and where God is in relation to creation
is not a difficult thing to know and prove. The same can be said for many
other mysteries that science and religion has wondered about. Life and
death, does reincarnation exist, what matter or substance is, what is this
universe based on, and many other answers. I write this as humbly as
possible because the "key" to finally knowing such truths is embarrassingly
simple and has just been overlooked through the years. The only thing that
truly bothers me is seeing people still wondering about God, life and death,
etc. They should know these things if they really desire to because for the
first time in human history, the world finally has the comprehension needed
to understand such mysteries. Remember when Jesus told his people that they
lacked comprehension? That comprehension is now here and quite strong. The
world is ready but must first learn the language that God speaks and
controls the universe by.
> You could say that the reason that we have not found evidence, by
scientific
> enquiry, is that God exists outside the Universe, and cannot be found by
> empirical means. The problem with this argument is that the material world
> appears totally self-animated. Laws of Nature, govern the universe in its
> entirety and there is no room left for outside intervention.
Actually God exists within everything around us. There is not one thing that
God does not center from within and control from without. From the
revolution of each planet to the throwing of a baseball into the air, God is
ever present, controlling, balancing and voiding all actions. You write
:God...cannot be found by empirical means". You are absolutely correct!
Words written into a book are words of information, not knowledge. Knowledge
is cosmic and open to any thinker who knows how to tap into such knowing.
But...the world is an "open book" that is ready to reveal great truths to
any person when they finally know how to "read what they are seeing". To
finally know the great truths and comprehend where God is, can be as easy as
understanding the simple principle that God balances and controls the
universe by. This universe is one of great simplicity not complexity.
> True, it seems that the Universe was created in a Big Bang. You could say
> that God created the universe in such a way, as it would naturally evolve
> towards a goal. But this would be an impotent God, innaccessible to
> prayer, and for all purposes non-existent to our material selves. Also it
> seems incredible that miracles, and visitations by angels, can be the
> result of the action of natural law.
The Big Bang theory does not conform to the principle or Law that God
created the universe with and will eventually be discarded. Actually, the
idea behind the Big Bang does not answer any questions because of what it
implies. Think about it for a moment. Some scientists believe that something
exploded and the universe was created. This is their answer to creation that
does not make sense or even come close to answering the question. Didn't
"something" have to first create the object BEFORE it could be exploded?
This theory doesn't answer anything and returns the scientists back to where
they started because now they have to figure out who created the exploding
OBJECT. Plus, an obscure explosion that leaves planets orbiting our sun with
absolute precision? THAT stretches the imagination a bit.
> Perhaps God is a metaphor for Natural Law. This is fine, so long as you
> don't start adding detail such as the ressurection of christ, or the
> imposition
> of commandments. This sort of pantheism is fine, but personally I find
> it a bit wishy-washy.
>
> Another argument I've heard is that God transcends all reason, therefore
> it is not possible to speculate on the true nature of God. One must find
> God on the spiritual plane, not by philosophising. Again there is no
> evidence of a spiritual plane. If God transcends reason, how can you
possibly
> conceive of him in the first place.
Maybe people say that "God transcends all reason" because it is easier to
have faith and belief than excert the effort needed to actually gather proof
and know. Plus, people have been told for so many years that proof does not
exist that they have learned not to question the statement and do not
attempt to look for a new unknown proof of God. But when a person finally
knows, actual dynamic knowledge that can offer proof will replace faith and
belief. People have had to rely on faith and belief because of the lack of
scientific proof through the years. This is not anyone's fault. But that
knowledge does exist. If you can add and subtract and comprehend the
mechanics that comprise your breathing cycle, then you have the basis of
comprehending things you never dreamed of and very quickly I might add.
> Some people just like to have their own personal God, and simply don't
> want to talk about the evidence for or against. This is a comfort God. You
> may as well believe in fairy stories. It is impossible to argue against
this
> kind of mindset.
For many people, what you write is quite true. People have the comprehension
needed to scientifically comprehend God and the universe but lack the desire
required to learn such deep secrets.
> I think I have put my main points forward. I have others, but I will see
how
> the discussion evolves, before putting any new points forward
Good points and I enjoyed reading them.
Celestial
wrote:
>Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s). I am
>an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am unlikely
>to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
If you are unlikely to be converted from the opening position, is what
you seek really re-affirmation of your starting position?
>
>My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no scientific
>evidence
>for his existence. If he truly was there, then surely we would have found
>something to show that he was there. A lack of evidence, is evidence to the
>contrary.
Consider the implications of transmittable, recreatable proof of God
in human's hands...
>Also many claims about the nature of the Universe, made in Gods name, have
>been shown to be false. Few rational people doubt Darwins evidence, for
>natural selection. This falsifies Genesis, as being the word of God, and by
>association, increases doubt about the authenticity of other texts.
Genesis can also be understood on a symbolic level. The smallest
universal unit of time, is the day, with its sunrise and sunset by
universal I mean can be understood in any land even one without
changing seasons, and in any society whether primitive or developed.
Metaphorically,each large thing created can be understood to be
completed in a cycle.
>You could say that the reason that we have not found evidence, by scientific
>enquiry, is that God exists outside the Universe, and cannot be found by
>empirical means. The problem with this argument is that the material world
>appears totally self-animated. Laws of Nature, govern the universe in its
>entirety and there is no room left for outside intervention.
Some physicsts are suggesting at the smallest material level they have
discovered a possible connection to God, every experiment they perform
on these small units changes and seems to be completely dependent on
the observer performing the experiment. So now they are concluding
that our consciousness actually interacts with the natural world
surrounding us. We are not a mistake just plunked down here on the
earth, we are connected to it in ways we never previously concieved.
The signs spoken of by the sages of old and the consistent references
to nature in spiritual texts actually held a truth we are on the verge
of discovering.
The caveat is that we will never conclusively discover it, because it
is larger than us, and science requires firm concrete predictablility
--it will never happen. Design purpose? Transmittable Conclusive
Proof of God would be contaminated and misappropriated in clumsy human
hands....and plus we all might think we are "done", which is
antithetical to design purpose.
>
>True, it seems that the Universe was created in a Big Bang. You could say
>that God created the universe in such a way, as it would naturally evolve
>towards a goal. But this would be an impotent God, innaccessible to
>prayer, and for all purposes non-existent to our material selves.
So you look at the natural world and use that to attribute human,
mortal limitations on God?
>Also it
>seems incredible that miracles, and visitations by angels, can be the
>result of the action of natural law.
Time and space seem to be within the sphere of natural law. Do you
ever believe there is such a thing as no time and no space, or that
these rules can bend significantly? That falls outside of our natural
laws.
>Perhaps God is a metaphor for Natural Law. This is fine, so long as you
>don't start adding detail such as the ressurection of christ, or the
>imposition
>of commandments. This sort of pantheism is fine, but personally I find
>it a bit wishy-washy.
It isn't pantheism. It is the different ways for God to reach us.
Above and within and without. Transcendent, immanent and in-dwelling.
>
>Another argument I've heard is that God transcends all reason, therefore
>it is not possible to speculate on the true nature of God. One must find
>God on the spiritual plane, not by philosophising. Again there is no
>evidence
>of a spiritual plane. If God transcends reason, how can you possibly
>conceive
>of him in the first place.
reason is a gate on perception. in some ways limiting that perception.
the human mind is on a global scale not realizing its full potential
of its capabilities. You can hear it in some music when it is really
great and you feel like you have been witness to the union of truth
and man and it is also your truth, or in really magnificent poetry.
They speak to a place that hearkens the spirit, a call to genius that
reminds us all somehow that the world was not meant to be this way, a
remembrance of home.
some use certain drugs to chemically release that gate. It creates a
safe ritual for going in and out of that plane--to a point. that gate
might open and shut without safe rituals and predictable
boundaries---an interesting area for discussion. The path to God is a
safe release on that gate.
The proof I suppose when speaking of this would really require you to
have an open mind. Suspend arguments you have against the idea and
investigate the situation as you would and anthropologist, looking
close up and personal at the lives of those affected, not a reading
from a newspaper or a book from a filtered down view. That's not
really thinking for yourself, it is taking the opinions of others and
concluding from them.
Look at the lives of people up close and personal and find out how and
why and in what ways God changed them. We are ego-driven humans and
yet you will find people blaming their failures on themselves and
giving credit for success to God.
If it was solely the idea of granting responsibility to the big guy
to remove personal accountability, as some humans are wont to do, they
would blame their failures on Him. Up close and personal, beyond the
societal lampooning you are fed--they don't.
If it was just a change your mind change your life perception based
belief system, every success they would take credit for personally, as
a conquest of shabby belief systems. Up close and personal, beyond
the societal lampooning they give it to God.
What I find as a constant where I check for someone's authentic basis
for faith is well I always look for evidence of transcendence. That
is what God is for, where He brings us, to transcend beyond the
mundane, the ordinary and the limited and that transcendence goes
beyond the scope of the individual successes, but grows into a larger
world view and concern, and a doing, ultimately, Proof of God shown
through actions, the need for words dropping as spiritual maturity
increases.
>Some people just like to have their own personal God, and simply don't
>want to talk about the evidence for or against. This is a comfort God. You
>may as well believe in fairy stories. It is impossible to argue against this
>kind of mindset.
See above, at a certain point, arguing, itself , is a mindset to
transcend .
>
>I think I have put my main points forward. I have others, but I will see how
>the discussion evolves, before putting any new points forward
>
I kind of felt the same way myself.
Mike Dubbeld
> Mike Dubbeld wrote:
> > (garbage snipped) Don't believe in God? Thats your
> > problem. Just because you are a minority group.....
>
> Most of the world does not believe in your god.
You take dumb pills or what? Pull out ANY almanac
lame brain.
In order to
> prove your god is the right one;
Prove? I am sorry. It is incumbant on the minority
to disprove - this means YOU. Also this dream about
my having to prove something or another - don't flatter
yourself. Right one? Can you say anthropomorphization?
How about dumb God down to your idiot brain level?
It is by your criterion that God is right or wrong.
It is you who stand in judgement of God after all.
Did your mother drop you on your head when you were
little?
you have to disprove all
> those other gods, and every other god ever mentioned in
> human literature. Us Atheists believe in only one less god
> than you do.
I like that 'us atheists.' It figures stupid people group
together - which you need to for moral support. Ohhhhh
wait a minute. Atheists don't have morals. Yes they do.
Law of the jungle. Do it to them before they do it to you.
Only the strong survive. If it feels good do it. Wait a
minute. That is not morality. That is Hedonism. Much like
all the other animals. The way to keep an atheist animal
in line then - is to put the fear of God in his heart. Nope.
How about the fear of prison or death? So actually to
prevent an atheist from stealing or lying about something
or killing someone you must ensure the atheist believes he
can not get away with it. Fear. Like any other animal.
Like my dog. But then, my dog is not too bright either.
I bet there is an atheist gene.
Clock is ticking. Did you party enough today? Your going
to be dead soon. When your dead your dead. Six feet under.
How does an atheist justify investment of their time in
things they will not live to see? Simple. Don't do it.
Atheists are dumber than your average bear. It simply does
not pay to spend too much time on rocket science. It subtracts
from hedonistic party hardy activities. Can't take it with you
when you go. 'People are animals too.' Are you embarrassed
to have someone discover you did something nice? How
do you justify this action rationally? This is not Zero Sum
game here.
Stay away from high places and carry a lot of medical
insurance. Buy a lot of crying towels.
Mike Dubbeld
Mike Dubbeld
I already knew you were an idiot. You didn't have
to add your ignorance of Buddhism to prove it also.
Mike Dubbeld
"Jeff Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Xns9358258...@130.133.1.4...
David
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
>
>>The "laws of nature" are not higher or lower than anyone.
>>They just are.
>>
>
> You are, of course right.
>
> It is, however, interesting to note just how difficult people find it to
> accept that things 'just' are.
>
> They are happy to believe any sort of nonsense you can imagine, ghoulies,
> ghosties, long-leggedy things that go bump in the night, miracles, gods,
> cures for obesity that don't involve cutting down eating, aliens with a deep
> interest in their wobbly bits, you name it - the simple fact that things
> 'just are' defeats them, however.
>
> A rum lot, people. That is, of course, just the way they are.
I guess they feel more comfortable with their fantasies than
they do with reality.
David
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:46:21 -0700, David <da...@thellamaranch.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Keynes wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:12:28 -0700, David
>>><da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is no doubt of a supreme power over the
>>>>>>>>> cosmos. It is inescapable by reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As has been said before, reason does not
>>>>>>>>support your conclusion. All you presented was
>>>>>>>>conjecture based on a priori assumptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That a god or higher power exists.
>>>
>>>I certainly did not. I stated a conclusion before the
>>>argument, but the argument was there.
>>
>>The argument was only to support your assumption.
>>
>
>
> I made no assumptions, you imbecile.
Oh, it looks like I hit a sore spot. If you can't understand
your own argument, then I ain't going to bother to explain
it to you.
David
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message news:<3e93...@news.sti.net>...
>
>>Kim wrote:
>>
>>>David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Keynes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no doubt of a supreme power over the
>>>>>>>cosmos. It is inescapable by reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As has been said before, reason does not support
>>>>>>your conclusion. All you presented was conjecture
>>>>>>based on a priori assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
>>>>
>>>>That a god or higher power exists.
>>>
>>>I don't think he's putting forward that it is a God
>>>necessarily. He's saying that at very least the laws of
>>>physics are a higher power than you, and that if you know
>>>these laws you too can predict the future etc.
>>
>>The "laws of nature" are not higher or lower than anyone.
>>They just are.
>
>
> ;-)
>
> I see your point, have no doubt.
>
> The truth is, though, that in that sense the "higher or lower" you are
> using is based on your perspective.
You can invent different perspecives, but that won't change
reality, just your preception of it.
> One could say...
One could say many things.
> But the human mind creates highers and lowers itself anyhow. It is
> part of our reality.
Some human minds create a heirarchy with humans at the top.
Doesn't mean anything though.
> How do you clarify what justifiably makes something higher or lower
> than something else...
You can't, which why I don't spend much time worrying about
the concept.
>>>He's not canceling out the God possibility either, but
>>>the statement that "It is inescapable by reason" is
>>>indicating that "you" are not the greatest controlling
>>>thing in the universe. There is something, call it
>>>nature/physics/God greater than you. The nature of it is
>>>up for debate.
>>
>>"Inescapable by reason," or "by the light of nature," or
>>whatever, It is just an attempt at ducking the burden of
>>proof. That I am not a "controlling thing in the universe"
>>is just a strawman since I have never made any such claim.
>
>
> But we are ALL some kind of controlling force. We all have an effect.
Except that's not what the discussion is about.
David
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3e93...@news.sti.net...
>
>>Mike Dubbeld wrote:
>>
>>>(garbage snipped) Don't believe in God? Thats your
>>>problem. Just because you are a minority group.....
>>
>>Most of the world does not believe in your god.
>
>
> You take dumb pills or what? Pull out ANY almanac
Oh, look, I wouldn't fall for their lies so they come right
out with the ad hominem. Typical behavior for those that
follow a loving god.
Jesse Nowells
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Mike Dubbeld wrote:
>> In order to
>> prove your god is the right one ...
> Prove? I am sorry. It is incumbant on the minority to disprove - this
> means YOU.
1) You can't determine that something is true based on its popularity. 2)
You can't presume something is true until it is proven false, or visa
versa. So, if you want to say something is the case, you have to prove
it.
> Also this dream about my having to prove something or another - don't
> flatter yourself.
Sounds like you're projecting.
Jeff Relf
<< I already knew you were an idiot. You didn't have
to add your ignorance of Buddhism to prove it also. >>
I live with Buddhists. From Tibet, China and Nepal.
How much time have you spent around Buddhists ?
How many of their services have you attended ?
Keynes
wrote:
You haven't the power even to read, let alone discuss.
You are deliberately insulting, and dishonest with your snipping.
Dismissal is not a refutation. Refusal to debate makes a loser.
Obviously you have an indefensible position. You can't even try.
(Which is the kind way of calling you a moron.)
This wins you what? May you keep your mind closed up tight and
safe from all contaminating thoughts, you fundamentalist Blockhead.
(Are all fundie athiests idiots, or only you?)
I'm retiring from discussion with you,
even though you beat me to it -- several times. Geeez
Keynes
The Buddha denied the reality of gods, and even
of the 'self' of any person. This is the true doctrine
of the Dalai Lama, the therevada, and at least
the zen sects of rinzai and soto.
Are you sure you understand the difference between
idols and icons?
David
One question" when the young prince, Gautama, was in the
garden on day; where were the gods he was talking to? I
forgot their names. Oh, the prayer wheels, and beads, just
who, or what, are the prayers going to?
David
>>>
>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David<da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kim wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no doubt of a supreme power
>>>>>>>>>>> over the cosmos. It is inescapable by
>>>>>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As has been said before, reason does
>>>>>>>>>> not support your conclusion. All you
>>>>>>>>>> presented was conjecture based on a
>>>>>>>>>> priori assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excuse me? What a priori assumptions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That a god or higher power exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly did not. I stated a conclusion before
>>>>> the argument, but the argument was there.
>>>>
>>>> The argument was only to support your assumption.
>>>
>>> I made no assumptions, you imbecile.
>>
>> Oh, it looks like I hit a sore spot. If you can't
>> understand your own argument, then I ain't going to
>> bother to explain it to you.
>
I can read, but you've given me nothing logical to read.
Your ad hominems just make you look worse than you already
do. You make claims, yet provide nothing to back up those
claims with. Like other theists of your ilk, you present
trite, hackneyed, arguments like they are brand new and
expect to everyone to just fall in line worshiping your and
your god. Try coming up with something new.
Kim
What I am saying is the whole picture you have of higher/lower and
nature NOT being higher or lower than anyone is your perspective.
You said nature is not higher or lower than anyone. That is your
perspepective. Cool.
Higher and lower is a part of everyone's perspective... otherwise we
would not understand the words in the metaphoric sense, and I think we
all do.
How can you justify that it is wrong to say nature is higher than us?
How can you justify that perspective as wrong?
I personally would suggest that reality has no higher and lower
whatsoever. Things just are. There is no hierarchy. Only stuff that
happens and follows laws. But our perspectives classify things as
higher and lower. People have more power than others. etc. our
perspectives put higher and lowers all around us.
So you can say that from YOUR PERSPECTIVE "The 'laws of nature' are
not higher or lower than anyone. They just are." but that does nothing
to make anyone elses perspective wrong in itself.
It is an assertion that on it's own does nothing to show anything
other than what your perspective is, which is fine, but it doesn' make
Keyne's perspective wrong.
All in all, it is what philosophy is about. The relationship between
our perspectives and reality.
Often our perspectives are wrong. The trick is to be able to show when
this is the case. I don't think you have.
Cheers,
Kim.
Hannibal
alt.sz is a support group for recovering schizophrenics, not a debating society. Please delete the crossposted
alt.sz element in your To: field before posting replies in this thread. It would be deeply appreciated.
Hannibal
Kim wrote:
> "Balmy" <frederic...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<R7Eka.4704$yA5....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > I am a schizophrenic who believes firmly in GOD.
> >
> > Yes, I see many "indicators" or "coincidences". Some my be just
> > coincidence. Others, well, God is around.
> >
> >
> > "Jesse Nowells" <jnow...@transbay.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.BSF.4.31.0304080028500.96669-100000@localhost...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Bricriu wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am a schizophrenic, and during one of my paranoid episodes, I
> > > > noticed co-incidences which seemed to me to infer that I was being
> > > > manipulated by a higher entity.
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't it uncanny how employment can make you feel that way?
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> Well, while we're all coming out of the closet ;-)
>
> I am a schizophrenic Athiest.
>
> Actually I'm not exactly. When being schizophrenic I start to beleive.
> Before becoming schizophrenic I was an athiest. When I became
> schizophrenic I started to beleive because of the co-incidences etc,
> then once recovering I realised how foolish such thoughts had been and
> resumed my athiesticity ;-)
>
> This shows a lot about the illness I feel, and maybe shows something
> of the thought processes behind believing. I severely doubt that a
> belief in God is like a partial schizophrenic state in all cases at
> least, but I think in many cases some of the same thought patterns
> kick in at times.
>
> I know what I mean. You may not.
>
> Where did I put my medication?
>
> Stop plotting against me.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
Jeff Relf
> The Buddha denied the reality of gods, and even
> of the 'self' of any person. This is the true doctrine
> of the Dalai Lama, the therevada, and at least
> the zen sects of rinzai and soto.
>
> Are you sure you understand the difference between
> idols and icons?
To read about Bonten and Taishaku,
the gods of the sun and the moon,
See the " Lectures on the Gosho " found at UIC.EDU
( University of Illinois at Chicago )
http://www.cs.uic.edu/~hkim2/PropagationWise.htm
Jeff Relf
<< where were the gods [ Gautama ] was talking to?
Oh, the prayer wheels, and beads, just
who, or what, are the prayers going to ? >>
You should do something about your memory lapses.
Buddhists are not atheists.
There's a pantheon of good and evil gods
in all Buddhist sects.
The records were poor three thousand years ago,
So actual connections to Hinduism are hard to make.
Some Hindu texts were only preserved in Tibet.
These texts are _ Not _ analogous to the Bible.
Ocean County,N.J.
rewrite your true understandable meaning.. Believing in God, for humble
me, is less important.. Understanding what God means, to humble me, is
most important.. For me, this God idea represents a positive spirit good
opinion of who I am, leaving no room for arguing where negative
confusion tries to exist..Oh yes,negative confusion exists for those who
cleverly make an occupation of it.. chimme@webtv,net from N.J.
Wordsmith
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Bricriu wrote:
>
>
> > I am a schizophrenic, and during one of my paranoid episodes, I
> > noticed co-incidences which seemed to me to infer that I was being
> > manipulated by a higher entity.
Why the "OT"? Isn't belief in a deity a suitable topic for alt.phil?
Wordsmith :)
David
>
> What I am saying is the whole picture you have of higher/lower and
> nature NOT being higher or lower than anyone is your perspective.
That's your perspective.
> How can you justify that it is wrong to say nature is higher than us?
Define "higher than us"?
> I personally would suggest that reality has no higher and lower
> whatsoever...
Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along?
> So you can say that from YOUR PERSPECTIVE "The 'laws of nature' are
> not higher or lower than anyone. They just are." but that does nothing
> to make anyone elses perspective wrong in itself.
No, because your perspective of my perspective is just your
perspective. So, instead of dealing with perspectives, why
not deal with reality? If someone has a different
perspective of reality, does that change the reality?
> Often our perspectives are wrong. The trick is to be able to show when
> this is the case. I don't think you have.
I don't think you've made any case at all, you just used the
word 'perspective' a lot.
David
> David feigns :
> << where were the gods [ Gautama ] was talking to?
> I forgot their names.
> Oh, the prayer wheels, and beads, just
> who, or what, are the prayers going to ? >>
>
>
> You should do something about your memory lapses.
Senior moments. :-)
> Buddhists are not atheists.
My point exactly.
> There's a pantheon of good and evil gods
> in all Buddhist sects.
Then why can't the Buddhists here in the USA admit that?
Keynes
This is Nichiren. (1276)
He formed his own Japanese sect which is still around
today. There is a temple in Chicago on route 53, I think.
I had a friend in Wis who tried to interest me in Nichiren,
which she said consisted of chanting sutras. This is not
the whole of buddhism, and I would consider nichiren a
heresy myself.
The mahayana (great vehicle -- later developments) lists gods
and boddisatvas as a symbolic aid. There is the danger of going too
far, and some of the sects did. The therevada (way of the elders,
ie. original buddhism) is empty of gods and metaphysics,
but mahayana can get wild.
Zen is a pretty straight forward reaction to
other mahayana excesses. Zen is a return to the
core of original therevada, but it is even more laconic
and vigorous.
Here is a bit of early chinese zen. Quite a difference.
The Hsinhsinming
The "Hsinhsinming" ("Shinjinmei") was one of the first treatises
on Zen, at least, of those that remain to us. The author of this
Buddhist "hymn", Sengtsan (Sosan), the third (Chinese) Zen
patriarch from Bodidharma, the first Chinese and the twenty-eighth
Indian Zen patriarch, lived during the sixth century, dying in
606 A.D. His place of origin is unknown. The conversion of
Sengtsan at the hands of Huike (Eka), the Second Patriarch, is
recorded in the "Chuantenglu" ("Dentoroku", "Transmission
of the Lamp"), Part 3:
Sengtsan asked Huike, saying, "I am diseased: I implore you to
cleanse me of my sin". Huike said, "Bring me your sin and I will
cleanse you of it". Sengtsan thought for awhile; then said, "I
cannot get at it". Huike replied, "Then I have cleansed you of it".
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE HSIN HSIN MING (Faith in Heart-Mind)
There is nothing difficult about the Great Way,
But, avoid choosing!
Only when you neither love nor hate,
Does it appear in all clarity.
A hair's breadth of deviation from it,
And deep gulf is set between heaven and earth.
If you want to get hold of what it looks like,
Do not be anti- or pro- anything.
The conflict of longing and loathing, --
This is the disease of the mind.
Not knowing the profound meaning of things,
We disturb our peace of mind to no purpose.
Perfect like a Great Space,
The Way has nothing lacking, nothing in excess.
Truly, because of our accepting and rejecting,
We have not the suchness of things.
Neither follow after,
Nor dwell with the Doctrine of the Void.
If the mind is at peace,
Those wrong views disappear of themselves.
When activity is stopped and passivity obtains,
This passivity is again the state of activity.
Remaining in movement or quiescence, --
How shall we know the One?
(Note - Blankness or annihilation is not it.)
Not thoroughly understanding the unity of the Way,
Both (activity and quiescence) are failures.
If you get rid of phenomena, all things are lost.
If you follow after the Void,
you turn your back on the selflessness of things.
The more talking and thinking,
The farther from truth.
Cutting off all speech, all thought,
There is nowhere that you cannot go.
Returning to the root, we get the essence;
Following after appearances, we loose the spirit.
If for only a moment we see within,
We have surpassed the emptiness of things.
Changes that go on in this emptiness
All arise because of our ignorance.
Do not seek for the Truth;
Religiously avoid following it.
If there is the slightest trace of this and that,
The Mind is lost in a maze of complexity.
Duality arises from Unity, --
But do not be attached to this Unity.
When the mind is one, and nothing happens,
Everything in the world is unblameable.
If things are unblamed, they cease to exist;
If nothing happens there is no mind.
When things cease to exist, the mind follows them;
When the mind vanishes, things also follow it.
Things are things because of the Mind;
The Mind is the Mind because of things.
If you wish to know what these two are,
They are originally one Emptiness.
In this Void both (Mind and things) are one,
All the myriad phenomena contained in both.
If you do not distinguish refined and coarse,
How can you be for this or against that?
The activity of the Great Way is vast;
It is neither easy nor difficult.
Small views are full of foxy fears;
The faster, the slower.
When we attach ourselves (to the idea of enlightenment) we lose our
balance;
We infallibly enter the Crooked Way.
When we are not attached to anything, all things are as they are;
With Activity there is no going or staying.
Obeying our nature, we are in accord with the Way,
Wandering freely, without annoyance.
When our thinking is tied, it turns out from the truth;
It is dark, submerged, wrong.
It is foolish to irritate your mind;
Why shun this and be friend of that?
If you wish to travel in the True Vehicle,
Do not dislike the Six Dusts.
(Note - the senses and thoughts.)
Indeed, not hating the Six Dusts
Is identical with Real Enlightenment.
The wise man does nothing;
The fool shackles himself.
The Truth has no distinctions;
These come from our foolish clinging to this and that
Seeking the Mind with the mind, --
Is not this the greatest of all mistakes?
Illusion produces rest and motion;
Illumination destroys liking and disliking.
All these pairs of opposites
Are created by our own folly.
Dreams, delusions, flowers of air, --
Why are we so anxious to have them in our grasp?
Profit and loss, right and wrong, --
Away with them once for all!
If the eye does not sleep,
All dreaming ceases naturally.
If the mind makes no discriminations,
All things are as they are.
In the deep mystery of this "Things as they are",
We are released from our relations to them.
When all things are seen "with equal mind",
They return to their nature.
No description by analogy is possible
Of this state where all relations have ceased.
When we stop movement, there is no-movement
When we stop resting, there is no-rest.
When both cease to be,
How can the Unity subsist?
Things are ultimately, in their finality,
Subject to no law.
For the accordant mind in its unity,
(Individual) activity ceases.
All doubts are cleared up,
True faith is confirmed.
Nothing remains behind;
There is not anything we must remember.
Empty, lucid, self-illuminated,
With no over-exertion of the power of the mind.
This is where thought is useless,
This is what knowledge cannot fathom.
In the World of Reality,
There is no self, no other-than-self.
Should you desire immediate correspondence (with this Reality)
All that can be said is "No Duality!"
When there is no duality, all things are one,
There is nothing that is not included.
The Enlightened of all times and places
Have entered into this Truth.
Truth cannot be increased or decreased;
An (instantaneous) thought lasts a myriad years.
There is no here, no there;
Infinity is before our eyes.
The infinitely small is as large as infinitely great;
For limits are non-existent things.
The infinitely large is as small as the infinitely minute;
No eye can see their boundaries.
What is, is not,
What is not, is.
Until you have grasped this fact,
Your position is simply untenable.
One thing is all things;
All things are one thing.
If this is so for you,
There is no need to worry about perfect knowledge.
The believing mind is not dual;
What is dual is not the believing mind.
Beyond all language,
For it there is no past, no present, no future.
Myriad of Pain
> an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
unlikely
> to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
>
> evidence
> for his existence.
Well, that's not a very good reason when you consider that God isn't the
sort of thing that requires evidence.
> If he truly was there, then surely we would have found
> something to show that he was there.
The fact that he is there, for those inclined to believe, is not
contradicted by what we've found.
> A lack of evidence, is evidence to the
> contrary.
This just isn't true. Scientific theories must lend themselves to
falsification, but things like Superstring Theory have so far been
untestable. There has been no evidence to support Superstring Theory.
However, this does not mean that the theory is false. If Superstring Theory
predicts 'a', and we observe '~a', then we have evidence to the contrary.
But no evidence isn't evidence of anything.
Beyond this, though, God/religion isn't science.
>
> Also many claims about the nature of the Universe, made in Gods name, have
> been shown to be false.
How about some examples...
> Few rational people doubt Darwins evidence, for
> natural selection. This falsifies Genesis, as being the word of God, and
by
> association, increases doubt about the authenticity of other texts.
Actually, Darwin's theory doesn't contradict Genesis at all. Genesis isn't
a science text on the origin of the world and humanity. Besides, there are,
somewhat contradictory, creation account in Genesis. Their purpose, if it
were to genuinely 'do' science, would be called into question by this sort
of thing. But, the purpose of these stories is not to 'do' science; it is
to say something about how the concept of God is to be regarded, etc.
(Saying "God created the world" in a "sciencey" sort of way would mean
something very different that saying "God created the world" in such a way
as to advocate reverence for God.)
>
> You could say that the reason that we have not found evidence, by
scientific
> enquiry, is that God exists outside the Universe, and cannot be found by
> empirical means. The problem with this argument is that the material world
> appears totally self-animated. Laws of Nature, govern the universe in its
> entirety and there is no room left for outside intervention.
No. The problem with that argument is that it talks about God like He is a
chair, a table, a bookcase, and so on. You don't "have God to your house
for dinner"; He doesn't "give you a ride to work." What is going on with
your concept of God that makes Him seem 'funny' is that your concept of God
is inaccurate. If you want to get clear on what God is, then you should see
how the concept functions in its native use. This is rather hard,
admittedly, because contemporary religious practice seems to have been
neutered by the confused notion of 'God as hypothesis'.
>
> True, it seems that the Universe was created in a Big Bang.
Which is a weird thing to say in itself. You're so quick to cite the Big
Bang, but I venture that you'll find it difficult if you try to make it
intelligible.
> You could say
> that God created the universe in such a way, as it would naturally evolve
> towards a goal. But this would be an impotent God, innaccessible to
> prayer, and for all purposes non-existent to our material selves.
I don't see that impotence follows in any sense from your premises here.
Care to clarify?
> Also it
> seems incredible that miracles, and visitations by angels, can be the
> result of the action of natural law.
What is incredible about it?
>
> Perhaps God is a metaphor for Natural Law.
God isn't a metaphor for anything. What do you mean here by "Natural Law"?
Are you referring to 'the laws of nature' or Aquinas' 'Natural Law Theory'?
> This is fine, so long as you
> don't start adding detail such as the ressurection of christ, or the
> imposition
> of commandments. This sort of pantheism is fine, but personally I find
> it a bit wishy-washy.
>
You should say that differently. I'm not sure I 'get' it as written.
> Another argument I've heard is that God transcends all reason, therefore
> it is not possible to speculate on the true nature of God. One must find
> God on the spiritual plane, not by philosophising.
The notion of God as beyond reason isn't a descriptive notion that needs to
be supported. It is a statement about how we use the word. It is the same
thing as what I said above when I stated that God isn't the sort of thing
that requires evidence (or reasons). That is just a fact about the concept
itself. Whether or not you are able to make use of the concept in anything
like its original use can come into question here, but the notion of God
that you are attacking is the product of confusion about the 'rules' of the
language of religion.
> Again there is no
> evidence
> of a spiritual plane.
The mere notion of a 'spiritual plane' is a product of confusion. "[Where
our language suggests a body and we do not see one, we are tempted to call
it 'ghost' or 'spirit']".
> If God transcends reason, how can you possibly
> conceive
> of him in the first place.
We conceive of lots of things that transcend reason in the way that God
does. However, we don't all conceive of the same things. "If what is true
is what is grounded, then the ground is not true, nor yet false" -- God is a
ground, "not true, nor yet false". Logic and math function much the same
way. As do beliefs like "the world has existed a long, long time before my
birth", "material objects exist", "no two objects can be in the same place
at the same time", etc. These are true or false, reasoned or concluded;
they are the background against which we 'deal' with the rest. For a
religious person, you can odd God to that mix. However, genuinely religious
people seem to be in short supply in this day and age. Personally, I blame
it on the Modern phenomenon of the hypothetico-deductive method (science).
Though I don't fault science for destroying religion. I think they could
have coexisted. However, somehow the notion that religion is supposed to be
the same sort of thing as science crept in at some point -- in the minds of
religionists and scientists -- and it has been devastating to religion. I
wonder how much mulitculturalism played a part, too, though -- but that is a
different conversation.
>
> Some people just like to have their own personal God, and simply don't
> want to talk about the evidence for or against. This is a comfort God. You
> may as well believe in fairy stories. It is impossible to argue against
this
> kind of mindset.
It is impossible to argue against God at all, unless you become confused
with the use of the concept. There is no ground upon which God is able to
be criticized. If you 'make an illegal move' with God, and start using the
concept like you would use the concept of a plant in Biology, then you can
find all sorts of problems. However, they are not problems with God, but
rather with your confusion regarding the concept of God.
>
> I think I have put my main points forward. I have others, but I will see
how
> the discussion evolves, before putting any new points forward
>
Fair enough. I enjoyed your post.
MoP
Myriad of Pain
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:b6sgkf$8ck$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:zZika.4$LR...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net
>
> >
>
> People believe in gods for the same reason that they expect Mondays to be
> shitty, superstition.
>
And why are people superstitious? What does this mean?
Beyond that, aren't superstitions 'directed'? -- Don't they have an aim?
But what is the aim of religion?
Your solution is inadequate, I'm afraid.
MoP
>
> --
> All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They
> have their exits and their entrances, - Macbeth
>
>
>
Myriad of Pain
>
> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> news:v93l3us...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Why do you care?
> >
> > Do you think that religion is bad for people? If so, why not say you
> > don't believe in religion instead?
>
> I don't necessarily believe that religion is bad, merely false.
Religions are neither true nor false. See my direct answer to your original
post.
> I think most
> religions
> believe in God(s), although there are some such as Buddhism, which aim
> to achieve a higher state of mind.
>
> I don't think going to church on Sunday, does any great harm to people.
They
> meet people of a similar mind, and have the chance to socialize. Of course
> the
> thing which distinguishes church from a social club, is the belief in God.
>
> I do actually believe that some forms of religion are bad for the
> individual, but
> to discuss these, would broaden the argument too much. In order to conduct
> a rational conversation, it is necessary to deal with each point, one at a
> time and
> the point I am discussing at the moment, is the evidence for the existence
> of
> God.
The idea of "the evidence for the existence of God" is a chimera. God isn't
the sort of thing that requires evidence. Just like your notion that chairs
aren't going to suddenly disappear out from under you, for a religious
person, God is just 'there' (like the fact about the chair).
>
> Why should I care? Because I believe that it is important in society for
> people
> with opposing points of view to talk to each other. That way, we can hear
> both sides of an argument, and maybe reach a consensus. If we fail to
reach
> a consensus, at least we have gained an understanding of how another
> person thinks
>
> I also hold some regard for the Truth, and therefore if I believe I am
> correct
> in something, I think it is my duty to communicate my views.
>
> I also regard intelligent argument as stimulating, and a good way to pass
> time.
>
> > > My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no
scientific
> > > evidence for his existence. If he truly was there, then surely we
> > > would have found something to show that he was there. A lack of
> > > evidence, is evidence to the contrary.
>
> > That's not good reasoning. God may not want to disclose his existence.
>
> If we believe in the historicity of an individual, such as King Arthur, we
> look for records
> of his reign, and archeological evidence. If we do not find such evidence
we
> assume that he did not exist. Do you believe in King Arthur? I find that
> perfectly good reasoning
Obviously, God does not function in the same way as King Arthur. There are
different 'rules' for using those two terms. A lack of archeological
evidence about God, to a genuinely religious person, is to miss the point
entirely. Again, God is a ground, not something concluded from the ground.
>
> If God does not want to disclose his existence, he denies us evidence, and
> we have no reason to suppose he exists. Most religions believe that God
> has disclosed his existence, and continues to do so. These particular
> disclosures, for example the parting of the Red Sea, should be amenable
> to scientific enquiry.
>
> > > Also many claims about the nature of the Universe, made in Gods name,
> have
> > > been shown to be false. Few rational people doubt Darwins evidence,
for
> > > natural selection. This falsifies Genesis, as being the word of God,
and
> by
> > > association, increases doubt about the authenticity of other texts.
> >
> > > You could say that the reason that we have not found evidence, by
> scientific
> > > enquiry, is that God exists outside the Universe, and cannot be found
by
> > > empirical means. The problem with this argument is that the material
> world
> > > appears totally self-animated. Laws of Nature, govern the universe in
> its
> > > entirety and there is no room left for outside intervention.
> >
> > Suppose the universe is a computer model. Then, we don't have any way to
> > communicate with the programmer, but the programmer can change any part
> > of the universe at will.
>
> If the programmer changes part of the program, it will have an effect on
the
> universe. We can look out for any anomalies, and if we find them we will
> have found positive evidence for such a programmer. If we don't find them,
> then that is evidence that no such programmer exists.
Well, beyond the confusion about the God concept, you're doing other things
wrong here, too. A programmer doesn't have to make a change in the code
after finishing a program, but that doesn't mean that he does not exist and
that the program wasn't programmed by a programmer.
>
> If the programmer changes part of the program, only when we are not
looking,
> He denies us the evidence, and so there is no reason why we should believe
> in
> him.
And here again, I feel the need to be redundant, so please just pretend I
repeated myself here...=)
> Of course, it remains a possibility, but frankly it is a possibility I
> find absurd.
> There is an infinite array of possibilities, and we must weed out those
that
> are
> absurd, in order to seek after the truth..
>
It is also possible that chairs disappear occasionally while people sit in
them, but you would be thought very weird if you started fearing to sit down
in them.
I don't wish to read the rest -- I hope I've covered enough...
MoP
<snip>
Myriad of Pain
> Bricriu wrote:
> > Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s).
>
> usually means that you get to stay in and be a part of that
> society. It's simple. Those that believe have many friends.
> Those that don't believe are (or were) killed.
Who told the very first religious people to be religious?
MoP
Roger Johansson
>Who told the very first religious people to be religious?
When mankind learned to talk we developed ideology which expressed the
lifestyle and social traditions.
Myths were told around the camp fires, stories held in a secret
language so the uninitiated, children and women, would not understand
what they were not supposed to understand.
The creation myths talked about the initialization rites in the human
society, described and gave recipes for social processes.
These creation myths later developed into religions and were written
down.
There are still a lot of people who live after these recipes, their
lifestyle is modelled after the creation myths, creation religions.
That is why they get so upset about Darwin and evolution, this new
knowledge threatens the religious ideology, threatens their lifestyle.
--
Roger J.
David
> "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:zZika.4$LR...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
>> believe in God(s). I am an atheist, and not just a
>> passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
>
> unlikely
>
>> to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
>>
>> My main reason for not believing in God, is that there
>> is no scientific evidence for his existence.
>
> Well, that's not a very good reason when you consider
> that God isn't the sort of thing that requires evidence.
Why would a god be exempt?
>> If he truly was there, then surely we would have found
>> something to show that he was there.
>
> The fact that he is there, for those inclined to believe,
> is not contradicted by what we've found.
You've found only what you wanted to find. You convinced
yourself a god exists and then you try to claim that's
proof. It doesn't work that way.
>> A lack of evidence, is evidence to the contrary.
>
> This just isn't true. Scientific theories must lend
> themselves to falsification....
And you claim your god is not falsifiable, therefore, you
can't support a claim that it exists.
David
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>> "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
>>> believe in God(s).
>>
>> It's one of the small questions, actually, with a very
>> easy answer.
>>
>> People believe in gods for the same reason that they
>> expect Mondays to be shitty, superstition.
>
> And why are people superstitious?
It's part of the culture they grew up in. Different
cultures, different superstitions.
David
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3e91...@news.sti.net...
>
>> Bricriu wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
>>> believe in God(s).
>>
>> They were told to. Also a belief in the gods of your
>> society usually means that you get to stay in and be a
>> part of that society. It's simple. Those that believe
>> have many friends. Those that don't believe are (or
>> were) killed.
>
> Who told the very first religious people to be religious?
Someone that had just eaten some mushrooms.
Roger Johansson
>lifestyle is modelled after the creation myths, creation religions.
>
>That is why they get so upset about Darwin and evolution, this new
>knowledge threatens the religious ideology, threatens their lifestyle.
Creation and initiation are two words for the same thing.
It is about how to create a powerful man, how to transform boys to
men.
These ideologies and initiation rites are still alive in many parts of
the world.
Much of the youth culture today is about the same thing.
The priests have lost all power and have disappeared, in the modern
parts of the world, but they are replaced by idols like rappers and
other pop and rock stars.
They spread the old ideologies just like the priests did earlier.
They defend a lifestyle, patriarchism based on the created male mind.
Honor and respect are common concepts in this context.
A typical creation myth:
God created Man by taking a piece of clay, shaped it after his own
form, and blew life into the Man.
Then he created a woman suitable for the man.
This story, with minor modifications has been told around the camp
fires in many prehistoric cultures.
We find a similar story in the Bible, about how God created the Man,
and then created a woman out of a rib from the Man.
The other creation story in the bible, the one about creating heaven
and earth (heaven and hell) is a description of the society which is
based on creation of violent and powerful male minds.
We get a divided society, you are either a member of the holy people
or you are outside the religious community, you are in in heaven or in
hell.
We also get a violent society, because these violent men have to feed
their "strength" with new violence all the time.
The human brain calms down by itself if left alone, so they have to
excite themselves with violence in movies and television again, so
they can be respected (feared) by others.
The italian mafia and vendetta system is a typical consequence of the
creation of male minds and the creationist society.
Men have a secret cooperation between each other.
They keep each other on a high level of violence, so they get mental
power over women and children.
This mental power, based on hidden violence, is the basis for concepts
like allpowerful, allknowing, the properties of the created Man.
Less excited people are trapped by the mental power of the created
man, they lack the readiness for violence, they lack mental power, so
they experience lack of free will.
This is the basis for the old debate about "free will".
The "lack of free will" which less violent and more natural people
often exhibit, in the eyes of the violent men, is taken as a
justification for the system.
The scared people seem to be mentally inferior to the violence trained
men. So a lot of people draw the conclusion that the evil is a
necessary part of the human mind.
Evil is not a necessary part of the human mind, it is just a necessary
part of the creationist culture.
Today we see how the old system is changing, not only men are trained
in violence, women, and even children, are drawn into the system and
learn to be tough.
But that is not a good solution to the problem.
We cannot get out of the male culture by making every human into a
violent man.
When we realize that we live in a stone age system based on violence
and social domination we can abolish that old system, abolish the male
mind.
Then we can all be like children.
This will save enormous amounts of human effort and violence, and free
the human mind from having to live on a very high stress level.
We do not have to mistreat our minds like this anymore, there are far
better ways to organize our society.
--
Roger J.
Myriad of Pain
> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> >
> >> "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
> >>> believe in God(s).
> >>
> >> It's one of the small questions, actually, with a very
> >> easy answer.
> >>
> >> People believe in gods for the same reason that they
> >> expect Mondays to be shitty, superstition.
> >
> > And why are people superstitious?
>
> It's part of the culture they grew up in. Different
> cultures, different superstitions.
> --
That was the least important of my questions, and the response misses my
point. Perhaps that is my fault, though.
MoP
Myriad of Pain
"Roger Johansson" <no-e...@home.se> wrote in message
news:f92c9v8jr7nf6mkhk...@4ax.com...
I think there is a lot of mythology in what you're saying, too. For
example, the idea of humanity before language is mythological. It is
something that is speculated by certain people, but it is not anything that
we have evidence for. Plus, the progression you advocate is no more than
conjecture. If you mean that it is supposed to be a reason why people are
religious, I'm also inclined to say that you are mistaken. If you convince
a religious person that his or her religion came from ancient mythologies,
that religious person will likely not abandon the faith. Hence, your
explanation doesn't explain anything at all.
I must admit that I do not think I am perfectly clear on some of what you
mean to say. Please accept my apology in advance for anything I may have
misinterpreted.
MoP
Myriad of Pain
> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> > "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e91...@news.sti.net...
> >
> >> Bricriu wrote:
> >>
> >>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
> >>> believe in God(s).
> >>
> >> They were told to. Also a belief in the gods of your
> >> society usually means that you get to stay in and be a
> >> part of that society. It's simple. Those that believe
> >> have many friends. Those that don't believe are (or
> >> were) killed.
> >
> > Who told the very first religious people to be religious?
>
> Someone that had just eaten some mushrooms.
>
Your persistent missing of my points is making me worry that you're a hair
dense. Care to try again?
MoP
Jeff Relf
>> There's a pantheon of good and evil gods
>> in all Buddhist sects.
David wrote :
> Then why can't the Buddhists here in the USA admit that?
" Records " of ( say ) 900 BC India are very poor,
It's like quotes of quotes of quotes etc.,
A lot gets lost in the translations.
So people can just pick and choose what they want to believe.
I do the same thing, I enjoy reading about ancient Athens.
As a Cynic myself,
I especially like Diogenes of Sinope. ( Athens, 400 BC )
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/diogsino.htm
Kim
> Kim wrote:
> >
> > What I am saying is the whole picture you have of higher/lower and
> > nature NOT being higher or lower than anyone is your perspective.
>
> That's your perspective.
Is it not yours?
>
> > How can you justify that it is wrong to say nature is higher than us?
>
> Define "higher than us"?
More powerful? Having more control? Effecting more things?
That's a matter of "perspective" what makes it higher. Sorry to use it
again...
>
> > I personally would suggest that reality has no higher and lower
> > whatsoever...
>
> Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along?
Yes, but you've been stating it like it's fact. That is my perspective
AND your perspective I beleive, but while I am inclined towards your
view, I can't really specifically find fault with Keynes's. I'm trying
to find out if you can.
>
> > So you can say that from YOUR PERSPECTIVE "The 'laws of nature' are
> > not higher or lower than anyone. They just are." but that does nothing
> > to make anyone elses perspective wrong in itself.
>
> No, because your perspective of my perspective is just your
> perspective. So, instead of dealing with perspectives, why
> not deal with reality? If someone has a different
> perspective of reality, does that change the reality?
Reality has no higher or lower other than those that we view with it,
excepting of course that everything is subject to the laws of nature
so they have a lot of say over what goes on.
>
> > Often our perspectives are wrong. The trick is to be able to show when
> > this is the case. I don't think you have.
>
> I don't think you've made any case at all, you just used the
> word 'perspective' a lot.
I'm not trying to make a case. I'm trying to see if you can. I support
your view, but can't really say what is wrong with Keynes's.
I disagree with your suggestion that the laws of nature can't be
considered higher. From one perspective they can. From another they
"just are". I can't see you've made a case that one of those two
perspectives is wrong.
You never told me why exactly why it is wrong to consider the laws of
nature "higher" than us. What is the criteria?
Don't say there is no higher or lower. If that's the case what is it
that comes to your mind when I say the words?
Regards,
Kim.
David
>>>
>>>> Bricriu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
>>>>> believe in God(s).
>>>>
>>>> They were told to. Also a belief in the gods of
>>>> your society usually means that you get to stay in
>>>> and be a part of that society. It's simple. Those
>>>> that believe have many friends. Those that don't
>>>> believe are (or were) killed.
>>>
>>> Who told the very first religious people to be
>>> religious?
>>
>> Someone that had just eaten some mushrooms.
>
> Your persistent missing of my points is making me worry
> that you're a hair dense.
So, what is your point? Ad hominens? I get your points, I've
heard them all before, a hundred times. Someone tried to
explain it to you in another posting. I just didn't want to
take the time to explain it to someone I didn't think would
listen.
Myriad of Pain
> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> > "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:zZika.4$LR...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> >> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
> >> believe in God(s). I am an atheist, and not just a
> >> passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
> >
> > unlikely
> >
> >> to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
> >>
> >> My main reason for not believing in God, is that there
> >> is no scientific evidence for his existence.
> >
> > Well, that's not a very good reason when you consider
> > that God isn't the sort of thing that requires evidence.
>
> Why would a god be exempt?
>
It is a matter of fact that the concept of God is exempt. There is no
'why?' to it. Reasons have to stop somewhere: "[If what is true is what is
grounded, then the ground is not true, nor yet false]". For religious
people, the concept of God is the ground.
It isn't like this is a unique thing to religious people. I don't see
science crumbling in the face of the 'problem of induction', for instance.
More simply, how about things like 'either p or not-p', 'if p then q,
therefore, if not-q, then not-p'? Are these things we've concluded? No.
They are the background from which we reason. It is the same with a
genuinely religious person -- for him or her, the concept of God does not
stand in need of supporting reasons; it isn't entailed by anything, but
rather certain things are entailed from it (like how the person goes about
his or her life).
There is nothing all that controversial here. If you'll stop thinking and
just look at religious people, genuinely religious people, you'll see that
this is simple a fact about how the concept functions. It is part of the
grounds of a particular form of life.
Ask yourself, Why do we shake hands when we meet someone? This may not bare
directly on the question at hand, but I have a hunch it can at least serve
to elucidate my point.
> >> If he truly was there, then surely we would have found
> >> something to show that he was there.
> >
> > The fact that he is there, for those inclined to believe,
> > is not contradicted by what we've found.
>
> You've found only what you wanted to find. You convinced
> yourself a god exists and then you try to claim that's
> proof. It doesn't work that way.
>
Careful where you throw those 'you's'...=P I am not at all religious,
myself.
Anyway, there is no issue of finding anything. It is before your eyes. For
those who use the concept of a God, the word "God", it is clear that it is
not something that is looked for like we might look for a theory of gravity.
I did not "[convince myself] a god exists and then . . . try to calim that's
proof]". If I did that, then I would be contradicting my claim that God
isn't something that one proves, unless one is misusing the concept --
i.e. - using it very differently than it is used in its primary, original
form of life.
Children of religious families do not grow up hearing arguments for the
existence of God, and then, once convinced, go on to study the Bible or
what-not. Rather they are spoken to about God much like you would speak to
your children about books, chairs, and so on. The uses are analogous in
that you don't argue for the existence of books prior to asking your child
to bring you a book from the coffee table. That books exist is something
that is unargued for you and the rest of us. For genuinely religious
people, God is the same sort of thing.
> >> A lack of evidence, is evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > This just isn't true. Scientific theories must lend
> > themselves to falsification....
>
> And you claim your god is not falsifiable, therefore, you
> can't support a claim that it exists.
>
That only follows if what I said about God is a theory, but it is not. It
is a description. If I tell you that the sentence before this one contained
four words, would you say that that is a theory? Of course not. Well, I
said something about how the concept of God actually functions for genuinely
religious people, and thus it does not follow that this must lend itself to
falsification. Do you subject '1 + 1 = 2' to falsification? How would that
look? Can you even conceive of, say, selecting three oranges at the grocery
store, placing them in a bag, selecting one more, placing it in the bag, and
then counting the contents of the bag to find that you have five oranges?
You would say, of course, that you must have gotten one more than you
realized, or that the bag already had an orange in it, or that someone
slipped another orange in, or that quantum variation caused an orange to
appear in the bag, or that you misounted, etc. On the other hand, if I say
that there is a Brazilnut tree in front of the White House, you can and
would test that. Precisely by looking and testing whatever tree you might
find there. "God exists" for the genuinely religious person is much more
like the mathematical truths than the calim about the tree at the White
House. When you try to make the concept of God function like the concept of
a tree, then you are using the concept very, very differently than a
genuinely religious person. The difference is significant enough to be akin
to comparing apples to oranges.
Hopefully that is clearer.
MoP
David
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>> Kim wrote:
>>
>>> What I am saying is the whole picture you have of
>>> higher/lower and nature NOT being higher or lower
>>> than anyone is your perspective.
>>
>> That's your perspective.
>
> Is it not yours?
No. All you have is your perspective on my perspective.
Since it is your perspective and not mine, it would not be
the same as my perspective.
>>> How can you justify that it is wrong to say nature is
>>> higher than us?
>>
>> Define "higher than us"?
>
> More powerful? Having more control? Effecting more
> things?
How is the law of angular momentum more powerful than us?
Wouldn't control be relative? Anyway, the higher power the
person brought up was a god type Higher Power, of which
there is no logical reason to believe one exists.
>>> I personally would suggest that reality has no higher
>>> and lower whatsoever...
>>
>> Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along?
>
> Yes, but you've been stating it like it's fact....
It is. Someone "perspective" cannot change that fact. What
if it was my perspective that 2+2=42? Would that change the
fact that it isn't?
>>> So you can say that from YOUR PERSPECTIVE "The 'laws
>>> of nature' are not higher or lower than anyone. They
>>> just are." but that does nothing to make anyone elses
>>> perspective wrong in itself.
>>
>> No, because your perspective of my perspective is just
>> your perspective. So, instead of dealing with
>> perspectives, why not deal with reality? If someone has
>> a different perspective of reality, does that change
>> the reality?
>
> Reality has no higher or lower other than those that we
> view with it, excepting of course that everything is
> subject to the laws of nature so they have a lot of say
> over what goes on.
The original Higher Power of this topic is not subject to
those laws of nature.
>>> Often our perspectives are wrong. The trick is to be
>>> able to show when this is the case. I don't think you
>>> have.
>>
>> I don't think you've made any case at all, you just
>> used the word 'perspective' a lot.
>
> I'm not trying to make a case. I'm trying to see if you
> can. I support your view, but can't really say what is
> wrong with Keynes's.
Higher Power is just a euphemism for 'god'.
> I disagree with your suggestion that the laws of nature
> can't be considered higher....
I never said they were. I don't rate things like that.
> You never told me why exactly why it is wrong to consider
> the laws of nature "higher" than us. What is the
> criteria?
The problem is that the Higher Power in question is a god.
> Don't say there is no higher or lower. If that's the case
> what is it that comes to your mind when I say the words?
That you're trying to defend a belief in Higher Powers, or
gods. That's what this topic was all about.
Myriad of Pain
> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> > "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> >>
> >>> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote;
> >>>
> >>>> Bricriu wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
> >>>>> believe in God(s).
> >>>>
> >>>> They were told to. Also a belief in the gods of
> >>>> your society usually means that you get to stay in
> >>>> and be a part of that society. It's simple. Those
> >>>> that believe have many friends. Those that don't
> >>>> believe are (or were) killed.
> >>>
> >>> Who told the very first religious people to be
> >>> religious?
> >>
> >> Someone that had just eaten some mushrooms.
> >
> > Your persistent missing of my points is making me worry
> > that you're a hair dense.
>
> So, what is your point? Ad hominens?
Let's not play that game. If you want to be clear, then make something of
an effort. Your posts completely misrepresent what I'm saying, because
you're giving me knee-jerk reactions and not thinking. You clearly had me
painted into a 'theistic' box, already, and I'm sure that colors your
responses significantly. As noted in another post, though, I am not at all
religious. So maybe I'm worth paying a bit more attention to, but I'll let
you decide that.
> I get your points, I've
> heard them all before, a hundred times.
Really? I've not heard my points nearly that many times. Religious folks
often seem bothered by my analysis to a great degree. So I do wonder who
you've heard them from...? Perhaps, though, you haven't heard them at all.
Perhaps you're responding to things I'm not actually saying at all. Perhaps
if you'd think more, look more at the facts, and not be so reactionary,
you'd learn something. I hope you're not just hell-bent on religion being
total crap, after all. You are interested in the truth of the matter,
aren't you?
> Someone tried to
> explain it to you in another posting.
To explain what to me where? -- Maybe I haven't read it yet...
> I just didn't want to
> take the time to explain it to someone I didn't think would
> listen.
> --
Oh, I'll listen. But I do hope ot hear something new. I gave your
arguments back in high school, and that was a *long* gime ago! But I was a
pretty smart kid back then, so don't feel bad...=)
Again, I'm not religious -- it won't hurt my feelings if it turns out that
God is like a particular sort of chair that was never actually made.
Sorry for the "dense" remark, if you weren't deliberately trying to raise my
ire. I suppose it would be sensible that you might night read my posts as
closely as perhaps you should -- I skim posts all of the time, myself.
MoP
David
>>
>>> "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
>>>> believe in God(s). I am an atheist, and not just a
>>>> passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
>>>>
>>>> My main reason for not believing in God, is that
>>>> there is no scientific evidence for his existence.
>>>
>>> Well, that's not a very good reason when you consider
>>> that God isn't the sort of thing that requires
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Why would a god be exempt?
>
> It is a matter of fact that the concept of God is exempt.
Not acceptable. Just because you define a god in such a way
does not mean it is beyond questioning.
>>>> If he truly was there, then surely we would have
>>>> found something to show that he was there.
>>>
>>> The fact that he is there, for those inclined to
>>> believe, is not contradicted by what we've found.
>>
>> You've found only what you wanted to find. You
>> convinced yourself a god exists and then you try to
>> claim that's proof. It doesn't work that way.
>
> Careful where you throw those 'you's'...=P I am not at
> all religious, myself.
Then why are you using the exact same arguments (fallacies)
that christians do?
> Anyway, there is no issue of finding anything. It is
> before your eyes.....
There is no god before my eyes, just a computer screen.
>>>> A lack of evidence, is evidence to the contrary.
>>>
>>> This just isn't true. Scientific theories must lend
>>> themselves to falsification....
>>
>> And you claim your god is not falsifiable, therefore,
>> you can't support a claim that it exists.
>
> That only follows if what I said about God is a theory,
> but it is not. It is a description.
That does not excuse it from needing logical supports.
> Hopefully that is clearer.
No. Sorry.
David
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>
>> Myriad of Pain wrote:
>>
>>> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Myriad of Pain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote;
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bricriu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would
>>>>>>> anyone believe in God(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were told to. Also a belief in the gods of
>>>>>> your society usually means that you get to
>>>>>> stay in and be a part of that society. It's
>>>>>> simple. Those that believe have many friends.
>>>>>> Those that don't believe are (or were) killed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who told the very first religious people to be
>>>>> religious?
>>>>
>>>> Someone that had just eaten some mushrooms.
>>>
>>> Your persistent missing of my points is making me
>>> worry that you're a hair dense.
>>
>> So, what is your point? Ad hominens?
>
> Let's not play that game.
Then why did you start?
If you want to be clear, then
> make something of an effort. Your posts completely
> misrepresent what I'm saying, because you're giving me
> knee-jerk reactions and not thinking.
Not "knee'jerks" just boredom at hearing the same old
arguments presented as if they were new.
>> I get your points, I've heard them all before, a
>> hundred times.
>
> ....I hope you're not just hell-bent on religion
> being total crap, after all. You are interested in the
> truth of the matter, aren't you?
The truth won't be found in a religion.
>> Someone tried to explain it to you in another posting.
>
> To explain what to me where? -- Maybe I haven't read it
> yet...
You read it, and dismissed it.
>> I just didn't want to take the time to explain it to
>> someone I didn't think would listen. --
>
> Oh, I'll listen....
You didn't listen to the person that explained it.
--
Myriad of Pain
> >>>
> >>> Your persistent missing of my points is making me
> >>> worry that you're a hair dense.
> >>
> >> So, what is your point? Ad hominens?
> >
> > Let's not play that game.
>
> Then why did you start?
>
Because I'm a very bad person. Now can we move on?
> If you want to be clear, then
> > make something of an effort. Your posts completely
> > misrepresent what I'm saying, because you're giving me
> > knee-jerk reactions and not thinking.
>
> Not "knee'jerks" just boredom at hearing the same old
> arguments presented as if they were new.
>
If they're so cliche, let's hear you summarize them, hmm? I think you only
think you understand them. However, when you say things supposedly against
me that I really don't have a big problem with, yet I still think you miss
the point, well, then you've probably missed the point.
> >> I get your points, I've heard them all before, a
> >> hundred times.
> >
> > ....I hope you're not just hell-bent on religion
> > being total crap, after all. You are interested in the
> > truth of the matter, aren't you?
>
> The truth won't be found in a religion.
>
See? This is missing my point. If by truth you mean the key to
understanding the universe, then I agree. But I'm saying that that is a
misunderstanding of what religion does. Understand that I'm not even
speaking from within religion. What I'm doing is looking at religion and
describing what I see: that "God" isn't used like "M-Theory". Many people
do use the concept of God like they'd use the concept of a scientific
theory, and I think you are justified in your criticism at that point.
However, you'd do better to explain to them that they are misusing the
original concept of God.
Example: It is a descriptive fact of reality that the statement "All
bachelors are unmarried men" is not a theoretical or descriptive statement.
If someone tells you they've found a married bachelor, you wouldn't say "Oh
dear! I guess I was mistaken about the nature of bachelors..." You'd say
"No. If a man is married, then he is not a bachelor. Bachelors are
*un*married men. That's just how we talk about 'Bachelors'. . ." "God" is
like this for a religious person. You don't have to agree to talk about
"God" as "existing" -- I don't -- but if you are wanting to critique
religion it isn't really fair to make a straw man out of their concepts. As
a descriptive matter of fact, for genuintely religious people, "God" is not
an hypothesis, theory, or descriptive account of the universe. If "He" is
construed that way, then your arguments can get a foothold, but they show
you're also misunderstanding the relevant game that is being played.
> >> Someone tried to explain it to you in another posting.
> >
> > To explain what to me where? -- Maybe I haven't read it
> > yet...
>
> You read it, and dismissed it.
>
Give me the message ID, and I'll be glad to look it up on
http://groups.google.com .
> >> I just didn't want to take the time to explain it to
> >> someone I didn't think would listen. --
> >
> > Oh, I'll listen....
>
> You didn't listen to the person that explained it.
>
Perhaps I haven't, but it wasn't a conscious decision...
MoP
Myriad of Pain
> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> > "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone
> >>>> believe in God(s). I am an atheist, and not just a
> >>>> passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
> >>> unlikelyto be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
> >>>>
> >>>> My main reason for not believing in God, is that
> >>>> there is no scientific evidence for his existence.
> >>>
> >>> Well, that's not a very good reason when you consider
> >>> that God isn't the sort of thing that requires
> >>> evidence.
> >>
> >> Why would a god be exempt?
> >
> > It is a matter of fact that the concept of God is exempt.
> > There is no 'why?' to it....
>
> Not acceptable. Just because you define a god in such a way
> does not mean it is beyond questioning.
>
What I'm saying is akin to me saying that we have been having a discussion
about God. It isn't something that is open to being acceptable or
unacceptable. It is just a matter of fact. The word "God" is used in a
very specific way in religion that I have described. You cannot find my
description unacceptable, perhaps inaccurate. Do you see more traditional
religions and genuinely religious people as putting forth God as a
scientific theory? I do not. If/when they do, they are making the same
mistake that you're making here.
I am not "defining" God in any way. I am describing the *use* of the
concept of God in religions. I am talking about the rules for how one is
supposed to use the concept and how one is not supposed to use it.
> >>>> If he truly was there, then surely we would have
> >>>> found something to show that he was there.
> >>>
> >>> The fact that he is there, for those inclined to
> >>> believe, is not contradicted by what we've found.
> >>
> >> You've found only what you wanted to find. You
> >> convinced yourself a god exists and then you try to
> >> claim that's proof. It doesn't work that way.
> >
> > Careful where you throw those 'you's'...=P I am not at
> > all religious, myself.
>
> Then why are you using the exact same arguments (fallacies)
> that christians do?
>
I am probably more familiar with fallacies than you -- not that I couldn't
make a mistake, of course (but you haven't shown that that is the case, and
I'm not even arguing anything, so . . .) -- and I have not committed any at
all, so far as I can tell (again, because I'm not arguing anything). I have
also not advanced any arguments. One does not argue toward descriptions.
One only gives descriptions that more or less accurately describe what they
seek to describe. That "describe" has 8 letters in it is not something that
one would argue for. You simply count them.
If I'm discussing the way the concept of God is used in traditional
religions, which I am, then I am looking at those religions and describing
what I see. Consider, were you raised in a religious family? If not, I'm
sure you know someone who was. Think about how children learn about their
families religion. How are they taught about God? Certainly they are not
presented with the ontological argument, cosmological argument, etc. They
are told things like: "God loves you", "We are going to church to worship
God", and so on. This is how we learn the word "book", too. No parent
presents their child with arguments that books exist. They don't even say
that books exist. They say to "fetch books", and so on.
> > Anyway, there is no issue of finding anything. It is
> > before your eyes.....
>
> There is no god before my eyes, just a computer screen.
>
Well, *that's* God!... I'm kidding, of course. What I mean is that if you
want to know what God is or means, then look to see how it is used in its
original use. That is very easy to see -- it is "before your eyes". Just
like if you wanted to know what grain is a staple in the diet of people from
Thailand, you'd go look, not theorize or argue.
> >>>> A lack of evidence, is evidence to the contrary.
> >>>
> >>> This just isn't true. Scientific theories must lend
> >>> themselves to falsification....
> >>
> >> And you claim your god is not falsifiable, therefore,
> >> you can't support a claim that it exists.
> >
> > That only follows if what I said about God is a theory,
> > but it is not. It is a description.
>
> That does not excuse it from needing logical supports.
>
Okay. Prove to me that books exist, that 1 + 1 = 2, that chairs are
material objects. You'll find that these things are not in need of "logical
support". For a religious person, neither is God. If they wish to believe
that God created Adam and Eve, that we are all descended form them, then
they run into some problems, admittedly. However, it is not likely that
that is what the authors of Genesis meant to convey. Rather they meant to
convey something about the attitude one should have toward the concept of
God.
> > Hopefully that is clearer.
>
> No. Sorry.
>
Well, it is difficult stuff. Think a lot about what I'm saying about
description vs. theorizing, though. I think that is where you getting
confused. That and the fact that I'm not arguing for or against God in any
traditional sense. I am only describing how "God" functions in its use in
the original situations. Of course, the same is true of all religious
concept in all cultures. Of course you cannot think that I mean to argue
that they're all "true" in the way you mean to use the term!
MoP
Pastor Frank
news:u2mla.242$S6...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:zZika.4$LR...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s). I
am
> > an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
> > unlikely to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
> > My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no scientific
> > evidence
> > for his existence.
>
> Well, that's not a very good reason when you consider that God isn't the
> sort of thing that requires evidence.
>
as the spirit or quality of love (1 John 4:8,16). Therefore, we are to
"evidence" the existence of our Christian God by the quality of our words
and actions. Loving words and actions evidence the existence of the God of
Christ.
--
Pastor Frank
GOD
Jesus in Jn:4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth.
Jesus in John 14:7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:
and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8: Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and
how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the
words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God
is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Pastor Frank
news:zZika.4$LR...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s). I am
> an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
unlikely
> to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
> My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no scientific
> evidence for his existence.
Among many other such qualities, our Christian "God is love" (1 John
4:8,16) . What "scientific evidence" do you require to believe love exists,
and which was fully manifested in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary?
Listen to Christ talking about His God. (see below). Btw the "god" of
your definition does in truth "not exist". As a rule, the God theists
believe in is NEVER the same god atheists disbelieve in.
Pastor Frank
Pastor Frank
>
> In order to conduct
> a rational conversation, it is necessary to deal with each point, one at a
> time and
> the point I am discussing at the moment, is the evidence for the existence
> of God.
>
qualities. What "evidence" do you require as to the existence of love?
The god of your definition does indeed not exist, in fact the god of
atheist definition is never the God theists believe in. See below Christ
discussing His God.
--
Pastor Frank
GOD
Pastor Frank
>
> This is not a reply, to the post I gave. You have started a new thread,
and
> restricted your post to talk.philosophy.humanism. In doing so you have
> narrowed your readership. I have therefore amended the newsgroup header.
>
> <itis...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:7524-3E9...@storefull-2197.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > By wanting 'scientific evidence' to believe in God...does that mean that
> > you would need to see this intelligent Being with your own 2 eyes before
> > you would believe....or...would extra ordinary evidence showing his
> > distinctive handiwork from a scientific/engineering standpoint, be
> > enough for you to believe ?
>
> As a matter of fact I have recieved positive evidence for the existence of
> God, on a personal level. I am a schizophrenic, and during one of my
> paranoid episodes, I noticed co-incidences which seemed to me to infer
> that I was being manipulated by a higher entity. I did not call this
entity
> God, as I did not have any evidence to his nature. When my paranoia
> passed, I re-evaluated my experience, and decided that the co-incidences
> were a result of my imagination.
>
> By Scientific evidence, I mean any evidence which can be shared by
> everybody,
> and that the result is a consensus of opinion that it indeed proves there
is
> a God. An example of this would be Egyptian hyroglyphs, carbon-dated to
> prove that they were genuine, which documented the loss of an entire army
> due to the Red Sea parting and then closing again.
>
> > Further, if you were convinced that the intelligent Creator
> > existed...would you think it appropriate for you to bow before him and
> > surrender your life giving him the reigns to your life, applying the
> > Bible which he inspired for your life, and trusting Christ as the Son
> > of God dying to reconcile you to God ? If you would like to answer
> > these questions honestly....then we can take it from there.
>
> I mentioned above that during a schizophrenic episode, I had reason to
> believe I was being manipulated by a higher entity. I made no assumptions
> as to his nature. For all I know, I could have been manipulated by
> Aliens. I tried to think, as rationally as I could at the time, what the
> most likely explanation was, and what my best course of action was.
> I was very confused, and could reach no conclusions as to what to do.
>
> If I actually saw him come down from heaven, and address me. I think
> I would naturally be very afraid, but my main concern would be my
> own personal well-being. If I thought it would be in my interest to
> bow down before him and confess my guilt for not believing in him, I
> would naturally do so.
>
> If there is indeed a God and he is not a complete bastard, I think he
> would respect me for trying to be a decent person in life, and for
> acting truthfully, for the evidence he gave me and I would be allowed
> to enter heaven.
>
> If he instead sent me to Hell, for not having faith, I would curse him
> forever in my eternal torment.
>
You haven't a clue what the word "god" means, do you?
Pastor Frank
news:u3p49v47v8j5rj4e2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:54:38 +0100, "Bricriu" <bri...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s). I am
> >an atheist, and not just a passive atheist, but a radical one. I am
unlikely
> >to be converted, but I will keep my mind open.
>
> But the idea of God is pretty universal for many reasons.
>
His "quarrel" is not with the Bible but his understanding of it. Like
most atheists, they seek to debate their personal strawmen gods and devils.
The Bible features multiple levels of "understanding", such as the most
concrete as in Christ's parables. Many seem unable to go any deeper. See
Christ's comments below
--
Pastor Frank
Matt 13:10: And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest thou
unto them in parables?
11: He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he
hath.
13: Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they looking see not; and
listening they hear not, neither do they understand.
14: And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By
listening
ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and looking ye shall see, and shall
not perceive:
15: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see
with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their
heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Pastor Frank
news:b6tob2$7k0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Bricriu wrote:
> >
> > My main reason for not believing in God, is that there is no
> > scientific evidence
> > found something to show that he was there. A lack of evidence, is
> > evidence to the contrary.
> snip
>
> If you woke up today with the entire library of factual knowledge
humankind
> has discovered, and no social influence, would you believe in God? I
> wouldn't, and I don't now. 1000 or 100 years ago would have been different
> though, and the tendency for new generations to take after their elders
> (especially when conformity is enforced by death) explains the continued
> existance of religion.
> IMO.
>
The god you so strenuously disbelieve in is merely your own personal and
private straw-man and NOT the God Christians believe in.
Jeff Relf
> The point I am discussing at the moment is
> the evidence for the existence of God.
" God " can only exist in the shadows.
Wherever the light of science is shined,
" God " is immediately purged from that location.
" God " is a delusion, A form of ignorance,
A kind of randomness.
David
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3e96...@news.sti.net...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>Your persistent missing of my points is making me
>>>>>worry that you're a hair dense.
>>>>
>>>>So, what is your point? Ad hominens?
>>>
>>>Let's not play that game.
>>
>>Then why did you start?
>
> Because I'm a very bad person. Now can we move on?
No thanks. From what I've seen there is no where to move on to.
David
Except that your definition of 'god' keeps changing to fit
your argument.
Pastor Frank
> > Bricriu wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s).
> >
> > usually means that you get to stay in and be a part of that
> > society. It's simple. Those that believe have many friends.
> > Those that don't believe are (or were) killed.
>
> Who told the very first religious people to be religious
>
"God" has no scriptural basis, and therefore is your own self-invented
straw-man.
Pastor Frank
>
> You've found only what you wanted to find. You convinced
> yourself a god exists and then you try to claim that's
> proof. It doesn't work that way.
>
4:8,16). Tell us what "proof" you need to believe that love exists? Are you
a cynic, believing that all expression of love are fake and only acting to
extract from others what one wants?
Pastor Frank
news:f92c9v8jr7nf6mkhk...@4ax.com...
> "Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote:
> >
> >Who told the very first religious people to be religious?
>
> When mankind learned to talk we developed ideology which expressed the
> lifestyle and social traditions.
> Myths were told around the camp fires, stories held in a secret
> language so the uninitiated, children and women, would not understand
> what they were not supposed to understand.
> The creation myths talked about the initialization rites in the human
> society, described and gave recipes for social processes.
> These creation myths later developed into religions and were written
> down.
> There are still a lot of people who live after these recipes, their
> lifestyle is modelled after the creation myths, creation religions.
> That is why they get so upset about Darwin and evolution, this new
> knowledge threatens the religious ideology, threatens their lifestyle.
>
quality, such as what is good and what is evil, and what constitutes the
ideal man who exemplifies all virtues. Furthermore, religion seeks to
motivate people to acquire these ideals and to strive to follow / implement
them in their lives, and thus becoming virtuous themselves.
Christ is the role-model of scriptural Christians, who ask themselves at
every moral / ethical juncture: "What would Jesus do?"
Pastor Frank
news:p2sla.500$S6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
definition of God and test it for veracity.
I.e. "God is love"" (1 John 4:8,16) and what kind of evidence, and how
much of it would an atheist need to regard the existence of love proved?
A cynic would regard all love merely sly manipulation, in order to
extract from others what one wants. And indeed that possibility exists.
Therefore the existence of God (love) can only be predicated on belief and
faith, never on logical reasoning, evidence and/or proof.
Pastor Frank
> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> >
> > but it is not. It is a description.
>
> That does not excuse it from needing logical supports.
>
scientific proof you would accept for the existence of quality. Our
Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16). Tell us how you would
scientifically measure and quantify the love of a person, i.e. when a person
is loving, and when not.
Myriad of Pain
"Jeff Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Xns935A465...@130.133.1.4...
You misunderstand the concept entirely.
MoP
Myriad of Pain
"David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3e96...@news.sti.net...
> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> > "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e96...@news.sti.net...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>>>Your persistent missing of my points is making me
> >>>>>worry that you're a hair dense.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, what is your point? Ad hominens?
> >>>
> >>>Let's not play that game.
> >>
> >>Then why did you start?
> >
> > Because I'm a very bad person. Now can we move on?
>
> No thanks. From what I've seen there is no where to move on to.
>
Heh... Usually the strong atheist is the one to be pressing an issue in an
intellectual direction. Interesting here to see you turning tail, obviously
frightened, and fleeing like a startled deer! Guess I was right to call you
pretty dense, huh? It was another of those descriptive facts of the matter.
BTW, what was that we agreed about the necessity of a theory to be subject
to falsification? I believe you do have a theory -- or so you call it in
wishing to be so 'objective'. Yet here you're shown to simply have a
dogmatic belief, something that is just a part of your way of life. In your
case, then, there is a profound similarity to a religious person. You see,
for me, nothing turns around the idea of God or the tenants of any religious
faith. For you, everything must turn around their opposites. Interesting.
MoP
Myriad of Pain
"Pastor Frank" <Halle...@ptl.net> wrote in message
news:1050081508.197317@arakis...
> "Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
> news:Uimla.245$S6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e91...@news.sti.net...
> > > Bricriu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I'll ask the big question. Why would anyone believe in God(s).
> > >
> > > They were told to. Also a belief in the gods of your society
> > > usually means that you get to stay in and be a part of that
> > > society. It's simple. Those that believe have many friends.
> > > Those that don't believe are (or were) killed.
> >
> > Who told the very first religious people to be religious
> >
> That is false. Your assertion proves, that your definition of the word
> "God" has no scriptural basis, and therefore is your own self-invented
> straw-man.
I'm sorry -- I don't see how your comment follows from what you quoted. You
quoted my remark: "Who told the very first religious people to be
religious?" That was something I said to point out to another poster that
it is rather odd to suppose that everyone in history has been religious just
because someone told them to be so. I'm not sure what definition of "God"
you're seeing in that, but I really wasn't advancing one there.
I would appreciate a clarification, and then I will be glad to address your
criticisms as soon as I better understand them.
Thank you.
MoP
Myriad of Pain
Nope. I keep saying the meaning or "definition" of God is to be found in
its use, namely in its early, most prominent use, when it was a staple of
everyday existence for most people. Though, when looking at people, say, at
church, even today, it seems that the use is more or less the same. In
church, no one puts forth definitions or arguments for God.
MoP