There is a God, or There is no god the next generation
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Friday, August 25, 2006 02:57
VIEWED: 14701
PAGE 4 of 11
I do not presume to know all of the intracracies of the universe, i just don't see any sense in attributing what i don't know to something for which there is no hard evidence for. Say-so has some meaning, but doesn't denote truth. It simply means that the idea of god serves some purpose whether there actually is a god or not. I think not, and the idea of god and afterlife exists to alleviate people's concerns, make them more forgiving and give them hope in an unjust world. And now it is perpetuated because the world is still unjust, although now it is counter-productive because religion allows people to not work as hard for justice (in my opinion) because you always have an out, a better place to go to. And that is now a cop-out of responsibility in my opinion. It isn't right, it isn't righteous.
If you think this is all there is, you are going to fight that much harder than someone who thinks they'll be able to go to a better place after they die.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But Antimason, the Bible is a thoroughly self-contradictory text. Christianity is a thoroughly self-contradictory ethos. The few, brief passages you quote are all that's needed to demonstrate at least 2 such contradictions.
Firstly, Paul goes on and on and on about wisdom being worldly and untrustworthy, but then goes on to say, "who is wise and understanding among you? let him show it by his good life, by the deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom." Notice how he don't mention God at all in this definition of wisdom. So apparently, there actually is some real worldly wisdom out there.
And then there's this: "see to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Isn't Paul arguing precisely against your "form of evidence from prior cultures and civilazations?" Before you monotheists took the stage there was politheism and before that, anamism. Anamism is arguably the oldest human spiritual belief and it don't credit the existence of an autonomous deity of any kind. Which prior cultures are we to credit then?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Am I the only one around these boards who understands the concept of an analogy?
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
citizen, you and I have been having arguments like this for a couple weeks now. You seem to want to reduce my arguments down to some simplified, binary oppositions. My mistrust of organized religion, and my own bad experiences with same, imply to you that I don't believe anyone needs teachers. lol
The idea I was trying to impart was that while you say that religion is counterproductive it may be for you, not necessarily for others, and that your personal experiences may not be replicated for everyone or even the majority.
What I was trying to say is that some people may be able to create a moral code, their own faith and spirituality etc without any help, but just as some gifted people don't need teachers to learn, most do. And just like teachers and schools some are good some are adequate and some are bad. In fact I was actually paying you a compliment.
Quote:You seemed to be implying that the knowledge of electrons as an example is not required for modern living, well no it isn't, neither do we have to kill an animal ourselves, but our lives are intimately affected by each. The implication of the statement whether that is what you meant or not is that that information is not important to us in our daily lives, which of course it is, whether we benefit directly or indirectly from that knowledge seems irrelevant to me.
Without needing the information for themselves. I never, never said that I or you or any transplanted Neanderthals didn't or couldn't benefit from modern technology. Never! I don't see how any of what you've been arguing against is implied by what I've said.
Quote:I don’t think you are any of those things. I do find it curious that you *seem* quick to dismiss the idea that religion can be good for some people, given your other postings I’d of thought you would be the last person to do something like that, am I misunderstanding your intent?
I don't think you're a hypocrite or deluded or irrational, but I'm getting the feeling that you kinda think I am.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so lets get this straight: there is no scientific evidence to disprove a "God" or it cant be proven either way
I won't get into why this doesn't make any sense, but I'll ask you this. There's no scientific evidence to disprove a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" either. That puts the concept of God on par with any fantasy people might dream up. Is that what you intend?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lets say then that you rely on evolution for all your answeres. as a scientist, are your arguing that there are limits to the probability of variations of life in the universe? would you deny that any being could possibly exist beyond our own intelligence or dimension?
because you would then be making a presumption that you cant prove otherwise.
in other words, we have such an incredible abundance of life on our planet, literally the mother load..just by random chance, yet nothing superior exists in all the vastness of space and time? thats what im hearing..
any ancient culture who acknowledges super-human beings lends credence to the creation theory, because any polytheistic belief can be equated to the fallen angels of Gen. 6, beings which came from the heavens unto early Man, and taught him knowledge beyond his maturity; this includes any ancient mythological cities, entities or technologies that cant be explained by modern science, or which is conflicting with traditional timelines(such as the Sphynx and the possibility that they were built 10,000+bc)
and what about things which defy physics or reality? like rising from the dead, turning water into wine, healing the blind and the other miracles? Jesus said that we too could walk on water, but that we lacked faith.. similar to this mind over matter theory.
like that guy David Blain, or this new guy mindfreak, theyre more recent examples, but can you argue for a natural explanation as to how someone can pass through solid objects, or levitate? i would argue that there are paranormal phenomon that cant be explained conventionally, and as with ghosts or excorcisms or near death experiences, i think there is more evidence of an extra dimension or plain of existence, or for that matter an afterlife, then no afterlife. if such things are possible, then why not an all powerfull collective consciensousness
and lastly im not so sure you can prove those quotes to be contradictory if you read them in their full context; such as the specific book in its entirety, or even the whole of OT and NT scriptures. for example, most prophetic texts draw from terms and symbolism used in previous books, like Revelation, which requires knowledge of the previous books such as Jeremiah and Daniel. i would argue that in the same way, to understand the progression of thought, the scriptures must be studied in their collective forms
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...like that guy David Blain, or this new guy mindfreak, theyre more recent examples, but can you argue for a natural explanation as to how someone can pass through solid objects, or levitate? i would argue that there are paranormal phenomon that cant be explained conventionally, and as with ghosts or excorcisms or near death experiences, i think there is more evidence of an extra dimension or plain of existence, or for that matter an afterlife, then no afterlife. if such things are possible, then why not an all powerfull collective consciensousness.
Uh... you're kidding right? David Blaine is a street magician, an illusionist. He takes advantage of the desire most people have to believe in magic to entertain them. It's my observation that belief in the other things you mention is motivated by exactly the same desire. But that doesn't make it truth.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
lets say then that you rely on evolution for all your answeres. as a scientist, are your arguing that there are limits to the probability of variations of life in the universe? would you deny that any being could possibly exist beyond our own intelligence or dimension?
because you would then be making a presumption that you cant prove otherwise.
in other words, we have such an incredible abundance of life on our planet, literally the mother load..just by random chance, yet nothing superior exists in all the vastness of space and time? thats what im hearing..
any ancient culture who acknowledges super-human beings lends credence to the creation theory, because any polytheistic belief can be equated to the fallen angels of Gen. 6, beings which came from the heavens unto early Man, and taught him knowledge beyond his maturity; this includes any ancient mythological cities, entities or technologies that cant be explained by modern science, or which is conflicting with traditional timelines(such as the Sphynx and the possibility that they were built 10,000+bc)
and what about things which defy physics or reality? like rising from the dead, turning water into wine, healing the blind and the other miracles? Jesus said that we too could walk on water, but that we lacked faith.. similar to this mind over matter theory.
like that guy David Blain, or this new guy mindfreak, theyre more recent examples, but can you argue for a natural explanation as to how someone can pass through solid objects, or levitate? i would argue that there are paranormal phenomon that cant be explained conventionally, and as with ghosts or excorcisms or near death experiences, i think there is more evidence of an extra dimension or plain of existence, or for that matter an afterlife, then no afterlife. if such things are possible, then why not an all powerfull collective consciensousness
and lastly im not so sure you can prove those quotes to be contradictory if you read them in their full context; such as the specific book in its entirety, or even the whole of OT and NT scriptures. for example, most prophetic texts draw from terms and symbolism used in previous books, like Revelation, which requires knowledge of the previous books such as Jeremiah and Daniel. i would argue that in the same way, to understand the progression of thought, the scriptures must be studied in their collective forms
Well of course there may be super-advanced civilizations, and they very well may be the origin of the religious figures (Childhood's End anyone?). And maybe some super advanced civilization created this universe in an experiment (by creating a black hole in the laboratory) or maybe a super-advanced civilization could seed Earth with life. They're possible, i'll admit. but that means the religions are wrong, there are no gods. Just other sentient beings further along in their level of technological development.
Now raising the dead may be possible if you can scan their brain prior to death (which might be done discretely by simply injecting them with a few nanites that would replicate then make their way to the brain and scan it from the inside). Then you could use local materials and self-replicating universal assemblers to reconstruct the brain and repair damage to the tissue. It's possible. And turning water into wine wouldn't be too awfully difficult given adequate carbon. Nitrogen could be gotten from the air, oxygen and hydrogen from the water. Then the universal assemblers could produce the necessary chemicals to reproduce wine. That'd be possible given adequately advanced technology. Healing the blind would be comparitively easy with only biotech, and downright simple with nanotech and biotech together.
So really, Jesus's miracles could be performed with nanotechnology and biotechnology. Isn't more than a few hundred years or so ahead of us. Hell, it might not even be 100 years ahead. And of course they probably didn't actually occur.
"Sufficiently adv
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
first of all, im not out to convert those who disbelieve, that is a personal choice and i respect that; i do think its hypocritical to say that its ok to disagree as long as someone elses beliefs arent being forced up on you...when evolution is the sole curriculum taught in America. God forbid they teach an alternative theory to life, besides that we live and die and theres nothing more to it. i guess its only offensive when there are positive ethical and hopefull messages that are teached aswell
gods, angels, aliens, or whatever term you want to use for super-human beings does not create a contradiction to the bible. there is only one God, creator of the universe, but many accounts of beings perceived as (g)ods, which litter ancient cultures; even the flood story is nearly universal. the mainstream historical view is that Humans evolved from nothing, and after millions of years arrived at where we are today, solely out of our own ingenuity. yet that is contrary to what all of our ancestors have recorded, when they say that they were visited by "gods"
christianity is based on the belief that there is one, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent being, which exists beyond our reality, like a main frame computer.
can you prove otherwise? can we disprove that any supernatural entity can exist? and i suppose we should just throw out every recorded incident of apparitions, ghosts, evp's, or any thing else un-explained by science presently?
this is the problem, you deny whatever doesnt fit into your strictly physical darwinian view; including the accounts of Jesus, which have been as proven as reletively possible
we could argue about the semantics of this all day..and no one will win, because at the end of the day, there is noscientific evidence which supports either theory conclusively.
the difference is, im an not so arrogant as to believe that humans are the pinnacle of developement and uniqueness in the universe.
i am no so close minded as to deny that a greater consciousness might be at work in the universe.
and ultimately, i dont disregard everything my ancestors recorded as physical events, which actually occured...especially when we are just now rediscovering what the ancients already knew about the universe
you have to deny a greater amount of information to be an athiest, than you do to be a creationist
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have to deny more information to ignore spot the dog than you do to believe in spots existance, what's your point?
Originally posted by antimason:
you have to deny a greater amount of information to be an athiest, than you do to be a creationist
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME