Originally posted by: magomago
Religion is meant as an attempt to answer that which can never be known experimentally. Its a belief in something which you know can never be empircally or theoretically proven. Science is an attempt to answer that which CAN be experimentally tested and theoretically derived
Originally posted by: shira
Man is interested in God because a purposeless existence, ending in annihilation, is too horrible for most people to contemplate.
The belief in God is a coping mechanism.
Originally posted by: shira
The clearest, most convincing argument I can provide you with that your reasoning is totally false is:
I absolutely don't believe in God. I absolutely believe that existence has no "purpose" or "meaning" whatsoever. I absolutely believe that when I die, nothing physical and nothing spiritual will remain of me. Nothing.
Yet I enjoy my life, and want to live as full and enjoyable life as I can.
What possible response can you have to this information, other than to realize that your assumptions are completely incorrect?
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: inspire
The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.
Until that time, I will believe.
Believe what and for what reason? There is no way to derive god from our current understanding of the universe. Therefore, to have a positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. Sorry.
Yeah, but what kind of a brain dead moron would chose a logical consistency over God? You are awfully damn funny.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hehe. Well that's really the conundrum now, isn't it? That's what Pascals Wager is all about, except it isn't to convince Unbelievers as much as to convince Believers who are Doubting.
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hehe. Well that's really the conundrum now, isn't it? That's what Pascals Wager is all about, except it isn't to convince Unbelievers as much as to convince Believers who are Doubting.
Conundrum
not bad as an aperitif and much more stimulating then trying to convince people that god doesn't exist
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: shira
Man is interested in God because a purposeless existence, ending in annihilation, is too horrible for most people to contemplate.
The belief in God is a coping mechanism.
Reading the above, I find this ironic:
Originally posted by: shira
The clearest, most convincing argument I can provide you with that your reasoning is totally false is:
I absolutely don't believe in God. I absolutely believe that existence has no "purpose" or "meaning" whatsoever. I absolutely believe that when I die, nothing physical and nothing spiritual will remain of me. Nothing.
Yet I enjoy my life, and want to live as full and enjoyable life as I can.
What possible response can you have to this information, other than to realize that your assumptions are completely incorrect?
Originally posted by: sandorski
Want some Cheese with that Wine?
hehe, snicker snicker
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All these beautiful laughing children that will turn to dust. It is more pain than I can bear.
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: sandorski
Want some Cheese with that Wine?
hehe, snicker snicker
I know I always go off topic on food but check it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Fog
The best...
Originally posted by: sandorski
I've never been one to experiment with new cheeses. This gets me to thinking I probably should.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: inspire
The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.
Until that time, I will believe.
Believe what and for what reason? There is no way to derive god from our current understanding of the universe. Therefore, to have a positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. Sorry.
Yeah, but what kind of a brain dead moron would chose a logical consistency over God? You are awfully damn funny.
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: inspire
The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.
Until that time, I will believe.
Believe what and for what reason? There is no way to derive god from our current understanding of the universe. Therefore, to have a positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. Sorry.
Yeah, but what kind of a brain dead moron would chose a logical consistency over God? You are awfully damn funny.
why are you trying to debate a matter of faith with a question of logic? the two are opposed to each other. faith is a belief in something for which we have no proof. we cannot *prove* the existence of god, but we nonetheless believe.[/
It seems to me here and in your previous reply to me on the love thingi that you are saying more what I am saying than not and presenting it as an argument against my position. I happen to like logic, but I am fussy about it. I like my logic and don't necessarily consider what you call logic to be LOGIC. I think suicide bombers are probably very logical people too. They are trained into a blind alley where death is the only logical out for them.
I had a teacher who was a master logician and smuggler by the name of Mulla Nasrudin who used to cross a border declaring contraband on his customs form. So they would search the piles of hay he had stacked on his donkey and never find a thing. Years later one of the customs officials met the Mulla in the market place and asked him, what was it you were smuggling all those years that we could never catch you at, he asked. Oh that, said the Mulla, I was smuggling donkeys.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: shira
YOU may be talking about this, but not the rest of us.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are talking about God and we are talking about him, you may not realize, because he is a projection of what we can become. God is as much a part of us as our own hand. The God you imagine does not exist does not exist and never has. The God that exists exists because you do. You just don't know who you are.
If "God" in inseparable from each of us, if "God" exists as a part of us, then why not just speak of each of us? Why complicate matters?
If you want to distinguish between an enlightened and unenlightened self, then do so. You don't need to add "God" to the conversation. You're just muddying the waters.
Somebody awhile back wrote a story about this fellow who said that 'God' was within us... and something about a mustard seed... He was writing to folks who believed God existed as an entity apart from us... while at the same time saying or implying that God wouldn't lie... so which is it... could it be both?
Or neither...
The greatest minds on the subject - on the side that supported the existence of God - were the Jesuits who taught me in high skule... each a highly educated fellow... I asked one time... IF God is God how come he lets children get run over by cars and interviens in seemingly unimportant matters... what could be more important than the life of this person over that one... and before he could say "maybe it was his plan for the future".. I continued.... given if God is God and is eternal and knows all there was and is to come... why let a child be born only to die... and allow a drunk driver to live and run that child over.... It makes no sense.... He looked at me... turned away then looked back... and said... Pray to God for that answer...hehehehhe
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: inspire
The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.
Until that time, I will believe.
Believe what and for what reason? There is no way to derive god from our current understanding of the universe. Therefore, to have a positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. Sorry.
Yeah, but what kind of a brain dead moron would chose a logical consistency over God? You are awfully damn funny.
Hehe. Well that's really the conundrum now, isn't it? That's what Pascals Wager is all about, except it isn't to convince Unbelievers as much as to convince Believers who are Doubting.
Originally posted by: actuarial
Originally posted by: magomago
Religion is meant as an attempt to answer that which can never be known experimentally. Its a belief in something which you know can never be empircally or theoretically proven. Science is an attempt to answer that which CAN be experimentally tested and theoretically derived
Much like most things in life, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. In theory, postulating about the beginning of all things for fun is fine, much like debating existence while puffing on a nice big blunt. There is a HUGE gap between that and practical religion.
See my post before about mandatory curfews to save me from the vampires.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: shira
YOU may be talking about this, but not the rest of us.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are talking about God and we are talking about him, you may not realize, because he is a projection of what we can become. God is as much a part of us as our own hand. The God you imagine does not exist does not exist and never has. The God that exists exists because you do. You just don't know who you are.
If "God" in inseparable from each of us, if "God" exists as a part of us, then why not just speak of each of us? Why complicate matters?
If you want to distinguish between an enlightened and unenlightened self, then do so. You don't need to add "God" to the conversation. You're just muddying the waters.
Somebody awhile back wrote a story about this fellow who said that 'God' was within us... and something about a mustard seed... He was writing to folks who believed God existed as an entity apart from us... while at the same time saying or implying that God wouldn't lie... so which is it... could it be both?
Or neither...
The greatest minds on the subject - on the side that supported the existence of God - were the Jesuits who taught me in high skule... each a highly educated fellow... I asked one time... IF God is God how come he lets children get run over by cars and interviens in seemingly unimportant matters... what could be more important than the life of this person over that one... and before he could say "maybe it was his plan for the future".. I continued.... given if God is God and is eternal and knows all there was and is to come... why let a child be born only to die... and allow a drunk driver to live and run that child over.... It makes no sense.... He looked at me... turned away then looked back... and said... Pray to God for that answer...hehehehhe
To shira:
A gem manifests as it's facets but is more than the sum of them. The window from which the light of God manifests in in your heart and the heart of every person. But what does it matter if it is you, the window or God that is important if the window is shuttered and allows no light to pass. Perhaps you say that religion is a coping mechanism because you are coping........... with darkness. I believe that truth, the way it is spoken of or pointed to is dependent on the time and place, the condition of the people in which the Knower finds him or her self. I have heard it said that you speak to each according to his understanding.
To LunarRay: I am reminded of a contest between the Greeks and the Persians regarding their notions of God and Paradise. A large hall was procured and divided by a curtain. Each side was to create their image of perfection. The Persians labored mightily applying every skill of their civilization to create a powerful masterpiece, whereas the Greeks polished the walls to a perfect mirror. When the curtain was removed nobody could tell which was the more perfect creation. I think it is something like that for those who have found God, for those who have created a perfect image or polished their inner wall. When God appears nobody can tell who is man and who is God because the lover dies in the presence of his Beloved. God is when the self is not. I believe it is called Fana and Baqa by the Sufis and one expression of it is here:
Fana and Baqa (Baka) | spiritual death and resurrection
Sufi master Inayat Khan, may God connect us to his state of realization, in his writing explains beautifully the sufi idea of Fana and Baqa using the metaphor of Jesus Christ and the symbology of the cross:
Belief in God is the first step. By the belief in God is attained the losing oneself in God. If one is able to do it, one has attained a power which is beyond human comprehension.
The process of attaining this is called Fana by the Sufis. Fana is not necessarily a destruction in God (metaphysically thats another way to explain why Quran says, Jesus didn't die on the cross but it appeared so to the unenlightened mind from outside). Fana results in what may be called a resurrection in God, which is symbolized by the picture of Christ.
The Christ on the cross is narrative of Fana; it means, 'I am not.' And the idea of resurrection explains the next stage, which is Baqa, and which means, 'Thou Art', and this means rising towards All-might. The divine spirit is to be recognized in that rising towards All-might. Fana is attained ... by denying one's little self, the false self which covers one's real self, in which the essence of divine Being is to be found.
What is this journey taken by the soul from the source to manifestation, and from manifestation back to the same source which is the goal? Is it a journey, or is it not a journey? It is not a journey in truth. It is a change of experience which makes it a journey, a story; and yet a whole journey produced in moving pictures is in one film which does not journey for miles and miles, as it appears to do on the screen.
Do many journey or one? Many while still in illusion; and one when the spirit has disillusioned itself. Who journeys, is it man or God? Both and yet one: the two ends of one line. What is the nature and character of this manifestation? It is an interesting dream. What is this illusion caused by?
By cover upon cover; the soul is covered by a thousand veils. Do these covers gave happiness to the soul? Not happiness, but intoxication. The farther the soul is removed from its source, the greater the intoxication. Does this intoxication help the purpose of the soul's journey towards its accomplishment? It does in a way, but the purpose of the soul is accomplished by its longing. And what does it long for?
Sobriety. And how is that sobriety attained? By throwing away the veils which have covered the soul, and thus divided it from its real source and goal. What uncovers the soul from these veils of illusion? The change which is called death. This change can be forced upon the soul against its desire, and is then called death. This is a most disagreeable experience like snatching away the bottle of wine from a drunken man, which is most painful to him for a time. Or the change can be brought about at will, and the soul throws away the cover that surrounds it and attains the same experience of sobriety while on earth, even if it be but a glimpse of it. This is the same experience which the soul arrives at after millions and millions of years, drunk with illusion; and yet not exactly the same.
The experience of the former is Fana, annihilation, but the realization of the latter is Baqa, the resurrection. The soul, drawn by the magnetic power of the divine Spirit, falls into it, with a joy inexpressible in words, as a loving heart lays itself down in the arms of its beloved. The increase of this joy is so great that nothing the soul has ever experienced has made it so unconscious of the self; but this unconsciousness of the self becomes in reality the true self-consciousness. It is then that the soul realizes fully that 'I exist'.
+ remembering the holy good friday. may profound Divine peace and blessings be upon Jesus Christ and Mother Mary. if you know, may you read the opening chapter of Quran, sura Fatiha and send the blessings upon both the spirit of Christ and Mary.
Ok, this has absolutely convinced me. Where do I send my check?Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: inspire
The issue is one of faith. Just as Euclid's Parallel Postulate underpinned geometry for millenia until Hilbert put it in its rightful place, deism and atheism will remain a matter of little more than personal belief until the time that this issue, as well, is put to rest.
Until that time, I will believe.
Believe what and for what reason? There is no way to derive god from our current understanding of the universe. Therefore, to have a positive belief in god is a logical fallacy. Sorry.
Yeah, but what kind of a brain dead moron would chose a logical consistency over God? You are awfully damn funny.
Hehe. Well that's really the conundrum now, isn't it? That's what Pascals Wager is all about, except it isn't to convince Unbelievers as much as to convince Believers who are Doubting.
I don't know about Pascal's Wager. I just know that this doesn't even look like bet to me. The choice for God is a win win right now.
And then what?Originally posted by: OCguy
Ruck Feligion.
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: shira
Man is interested in God because a purposeless existence, ending in annihilation, is too horrible for most people to contemplate.
The belief in God is a coping mechanism.
Reading the above, I find this ironic:
Originally posted by: shira
The clearest, most convincing argument I can provide you with that your reasoning is totally false is:
I absolutely don't believe in God. I absolutely believe that existence has no "purpose" or "meaning" whatsoever. I absolutely believe that when I die, nothing physical and nothing spiritual will remain of me. Nothing.
Yet I enjoy my life, and want to live as full and enjoyable life as I can.
What possible response can you have to this information, other than to realize that your assumptions are completely incorrect?
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To shira:
A gem manifests as it's facets but is more than the sum of them. The window from which the light of God manifests in in your heart and the heart of every person. But what does it matter if it is you, the window or God that is important if the window is shuttered and allows no light to pass. Perhaps you say that religion is a coping mechanism because you are coping........... with darkness. I believe that truth, the way it is spoken of or pointed to is dependent on the time and place, the condition of the people in which the Knower finds him or her self. I have heard it said that you speak to each according to his understanding.
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: shira
Man is interested in God because a purposeless existence, ending in annihilation, is too horrible for most people to contemplate.
The belief in God is a coping mechanism.
Reading the above, I find this ironic:
Originally posted by: shira
The clearest, most convincing argument I can provide you with that your reasoning is totally false is:
I absolutely don't believe in God. I absolutely believe that existence has no "purpose" or "meaning" whatsoever. I absolutely believe that when I die, nothing physical and nothing spiritual will remain of me. Nothing.
Yet I enjoy my life, and want to live as full and enjoyable life as I can.
What possible response can you have to this information, other than to realize that your assumptions are completely incorrect?
Perhaps you'd find the second-quoted post less ironic if you understood that "most people" (used in the first-quoted post) doesn't mean "everyone." I am not "most people." Atheists are a distinct minority.