Religion

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Only in death will an atheist finally find proof of God, but even if they were to come back to the living who would believe them?

So true, and it happens all the time.

 

[makken]

This is a fuzzy one for me.
My parents never really imparted nor forced any religion on me. However, my entire family (both Stateside and in Hong Kong) goes to "bai shen" (pay respect to the gods) every year. I reguarly attend when I can, but I do so more out of respect for the tradition than actual belief.

As for christianity, I believe the bible is a well written tall tale, nothing more.
Nothing really stuck me as being 'the truth' in it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Only in death will an atheist finally find proof of God, but even if they were to come back to the living who would believe them?

So true, and it happens all the time.

Do you believe in a form of reincarnation?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Only in death will an atheist finally find proof of God, but even if they were to come back to the living who would believe them?

So true, and it happens all the time.

Do you believe in a form of reincarnation?

I do not know what to make of reincarnation. I have read that the Dali lama, as a mere child, pointed to a box owned by a previous lama and said, those are my false teeth. It was said that he was that very lama and it was indeed old false teeth belonging to that lama. But I don't know whether this is a part of myth making and subterfuge or an actual event that would be very hard to explain. Then, there may be explanations I have not thought of or could not possibly know anything about.

Things of this sort baffle me. But reincarnation was not what I was referring to above. I think the resurrection spoken of in religion refers to another kind of death and rebirth, one that opens the realization that this right here is heaven.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ntdz
I'm not religious because I've been provided with exactly no evidence of any God, among other reasons.

And for me I'm religious because I have been provided positive evidence of God. And I'm one of the most realist/show-me-to-prove-it kinda guy you'll ever meet.

What evidence is this.

Sorry if I dont get sucked into this argument. Was just answering the OP's question. I'll just say this about proof: There are basicically 3 types of people. First imagine a large table with a book on it. The first person cannot see it because he is blind, therefore claims it may or may not be there, and has no proof. The second man is also blind, but he uses his hands and outstretched arms to feel all around him, but because the book is out of his reach, he doesnt feel it. He therefore says no book exists because he searched and didnt find it. The third man is not blind, and sees the book. He says I beleive there is a book because I see the evidence.

Now. For the first man, he simply needs more information, because he didnt make any effort to see the book. The second cannot be conviced there is a book there, because he tried to find it, did not, therefore claimed no book existed. Does the second man's failure to find the book deny it's existance? No. Only in his mind.

On a messageboard, I pretty much refuse to get caught up in the Is there or Is there not a God argument, because I end up arguing with people who resemble the second man in my illustration. If someone really and truly wants to find proof, it's there. It's not my job to find it for you.

 

[dimensionOFdissension]

I am scared of the knowledge that what I have is all I will ever have. But I am no longer in denial about it.
I feel only now can I really appreciate what I do have.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: DVK916
I wouldn't cross the street to save a burning theist life.
When a theist dies, the world as a whole is elevated.

Am I correct in assuming you don't like people who believe in a God? Would you say that you hate them?

No I don't hate then. I just think the world would becomes a better place when a theist dies.

Do you believe in leading through example, or leading through force? And, may I ask, why do you think the world would be a better place if/when a theist dies?

I believe in leading through example. I support freedom of religion, people should worship as they see fit, but that doesn't mean I can't teach them the error of their "faith". The world becomes a better place because Religion has done nothing good for humanity. We can't advance as a species until we rid ourself of the bounds of god belief.

You poor, lost man. I feel pity for you. Perhaps you are the one who needs to learn the errors of your ways.

Oops I forgot. You are omnicient. Perfect in thought and all knowing. I forgot. Sorry.

/sarcasm off

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Only in death will an atheist finally find proof of God, but even if they were to come back to the living who would believe them?

So true, and it happens all the time.

Do you believe in a form of reincarnation?

I do not know what to make of reincarnation. I have read that the Dali lama, as a mere child, pointed to a box owned by a previous lama and said, those are my false teeth. It was said that he was that very lama and it was indeed old false teeth belonging to that lama. But I don't know whether this is a part of myth making and subterfuge or an actual event that would be very hard to explain. Then, there may be explanations I have not thought of or could not possibly know anything about.

Things of this sort baffle me. But reincarnation was not what I was referring to above.

Yeah, I knew it's not what you meant, but I know a handful of Christians who do believe in reincarnation. They think, and I mean that literally (they don't claim to have a hard belief) that when a man dies, he may be given another chance on earth as a new man. I find it very interesting.

I think the resurrection spoken of in religion refers to another kind of death and rebirth, one that opens the realization that this right here is heaven.

You may have confused me here.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: lyssword
I have faith in bible/christianity. I do not go to church, but I believe God exists. Some of you here would think that I was forced to think that way and I don't really think for myself and i'm not open minded. But ask yourself, as an atheist what do you want to do? you probably want every religious person to agree with evolution etc. If you could get away with it you would probably destroy all the churches (like 50+ were set on fire in alabama). Are christians/religious people able to contribute to society? you bet. Most have jobs, a lot are scientists/engineers/doctors. Do they pay taxes to government? yes they do. And compared to secular society i think they are less likely to do drugs/be drunk (but that is not for a fact, because I have not researched it). You guys think that there is some misterious line that divides religious people/w non-religious. But I think we are all humans, and think very much alike except for few differences (like evolution etc). I don't want to force any belief on anyone, it is their choice. (people are no more forced into christinity then they are forced into buying Mountain Dew) But I also don't want to be forced to only believe in evolution and make it illegal to believe in God. Can't we just get along? (we mostly do, I believe )

Lot of assumptions in there. All wrong, unfortunately.. but that is what you get for assuming!

Btw, I have NEVER encountered anyone agnostic or atheist that has pushed their beliefs on me.. and I HAVE encountered religious people that do constantly(door to door witnesses, my entire set of in laws(we even got a bible for a wedding gift on her side and neither of us follow that set of beliefs)).

Umm, by telling him that he's wrong and that everything he says is only an assumption, aren't you trying to push your agnostic or atheist belief onto him by trying to correct his erroneous ways?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DVK916
1. I am not a troll.
2. I said the world would be better place when there are no more theist, this is true. But I never said this would happen. I know we will always have people who believe in some diety.

You still haven't proven 2, so I cannot accept 1, unless you're asking me to accept it on faith alone.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: DVK916
1. I am not a troll.
2. I said the world would be better place when there are no more theist, this is true. But I never said this would happen. I know we will always have people who believe in some diety.

Grass is always greener on the other side, huh? You have no idea what the world would be like without religion, yet in your great knowledge you would claim to know that it would be better without it. Perhaps the world would actually be better without non-religious people instead? Who knows? I don't think so, but that's just me.

Case in point, you don't know, so to make such an assumption only makes you look bad. I don't hold it against you, for it is your right to have such an opinion, but you might not want to so openly proclaim it.

 

[eilute]

I am Atheist. On occasion I've done Buddhist type mediation, but I don't see it as a religious thing. There are two reasons for this.

1) I see no reason to suspect that my body has a "soul" sutured to it somewhere.

2) I don't know where the universe came from, and I don't believe that anyone else does either.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: bamacre

I think the resurrection spoken of in religion refers to another kind of death and rebirth, one that opens the realization that this right here is heaven.

You may have confused me here.

That the second coming myths that exist the world over are metaphors for mass personal/social advancement in consciousness.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: bamacre

I think the resurrection spoken of in religion refers to another kind of death and rebirth, one that opens the realization that this right here is heaven.

You may have confused me here.

That the second coming myths that exist the world over are metaphors for mass personal/social advancement in consciousness.

I see. Although I would think it would take some kind of miraculous miracle for that to happen.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ntdz
I'm not religious because I've been provided with exactly no evidence of any God, among other reasons.

And for me I'm religious because I have been provided positive evidence of God. And I'm one of the most realist/show-me-to-prove-it kinda guy you'll ever meet.

What evidence is this.

Sorry if I dont get sucked into this argument. Was just answering the OP's question. I'll just say this about proof: There are basicically 3 types of people. First imagine a large table with a book on it. The first person cannot see it because he is blind, therefore claims it may or may not be there, and has no proof. The second man is also blind, but he uses his hands and outstretched arms to feel all around him, but because the book is out of his reach, he doesnt feel it. He therefore says no book exists because he searched and didnt find it. The third man is not blind, and sees the book. He says I beleive there is a book because I see the evidence.

Now. For the first man, he simply needs more information, because he didnt make any effort to see the book. The second cannot be conviced there is a book there, because he tried to find it, did not, therefore claimed no book existed. Does the second man's failure to find the book deny it's existance? No. Only in his mind.

On a messageboard, I pretty much refuse to get caught up in the Is there or Is there not a God argument, because I end up arguing with people who resemble the second man in my illustration. If someone really and truly wants to find proof, it's there. It's not my job to find it for you.

Whatever evidence you see of God might be evidence to you, but real evidence is something you can show to someone else and prove it to them as well. I'm not going to argue your beliefs, but you have done nothing to convince me that there is a God. Quite frankly, the burdon of proof is up to the theists to show there is a God, not Athiests or Agnostics who only believe what they see and what they've been show, and the theists have failed miserably.

 

[raildogg]

There are lots of things that we can't see, but that doesn't mean they are not there. But why bother with this debate? There have been thousands of posts and hundreds of threads and none of them accomplished much.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you not believe in God if you say you don't believe in Him. By picturing in your mind what you don't believe in, you create that thing. What you really don't believe in is what you have never named or thought about, no?

When you say you don't believe in God you know what you mean by God and that is your creation. To not believe in God is to create Him.

I don't believe this God you create with your disbelief exists.

If I imagine a beast with 17 heads, each of a different animal, I've obviously "created" a "concept" of that beast in my mind. But does that beast actually exist?

I'm not trying to engage in semantics here. You used the word "create" and I used the word "exist." But when someone says they don't believe in God, they're actually saying that they don't believe God exists.

I understand that "God" is a special case. A philospher once defined God as the greatest thing you can conceive of as existing. It sounds like your own definition is that God is what you imagine God to be (though there is a problem with that definition: suppose someone imagines God to be a 5,000-foot tall purple elephant, easily detectable in the physical world, edible [tasting like tapioca], and providing complete nourishment?) By either of those definitions, God exists for everyone (although for each person, God would be at least slightly different).

I also recognize that the word "existence" is a tricky one when it comes to the metaphysical. What does it mean to "exist" outside the realm of the physical? If I "imagine" existence to mean "detectable by physical or electromagnetic measurement," isn't that what existence actually is? For me? So by that standard, merely imagining God doesn't give that imagined God existence.

Could I say that I do not believe in the God you imagine doesn't exist? After all if imagining a God, as you say, doesn't make him real then not imagining him shouldn't mean he doesn't exist. Perhaps, then, I believe in a God you do not imagine.

If you say you don't believe in the God I imagine doesn't exist, then (assuming both that you are being truthful and are aware of what I imagine [that second part is a pretty big assumption]) neither of us believes in that God. So it's not only possible, but very likely you could say that. In fact, I can think of VAST numbers of Gods I imagine don't exist, and I'll bet you don't believe in any of them either (for example, that 5,000-pound, green, elephant-like entity).

And I completely agree that not imagining a God does not mean he/she/it doesn't exist. In fact, if a God does exist, I believe it's almost certain that NONE of us is imagining exactly that God. I mean, what are the odds any of us have got the description completely pegged?

Finally, since I believe it's almost impossible for any two people to hold EXACTLY the same concept - not just of what God is, but of anything - I am (almost) certain that EVERYONE (including you) who believes in God, believes in a God that neither I nor anyone else (precisely) imagines.

So you see, we completely agree (except that complete agreement is probably impossible).

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: DVK916

I didn't say that removing all theist would remove all of our problems. I said it would make the world a better place, not a perfect place. Of course there are bad atheists as well, but the proportion of athiest who do harm to the world is far less than theist .

No. People who follow the Bible are less likely to harm others than those who don't. I'm not sure at all where you are pulling all this from. Obviously, someone misinformed you to the point of outright lying. Many times, atheists believe that since there is no higher standard, that they are not accountable to anybody, that there are no rules in life, they can do whatever. Have you ever heard the humanists/atheists that say, "what is right for you may not be right for me?" This is the kind of thinking that gets people like Stalin started. If you can gain support, you can do whatever you want to to the world. If you got the support of half the world to kill all theists, would that make it right to do so? If so, you should think hard about the consequences of that. If not, there is some absolute standard. And a standard that applies to humanity cannot be made up by humanity, and still be a true and absolute standard.

EDIT: To homercles337 Simply put, entropy is chaos. The universe is moving toward entropy, or chaos, because tomorrow there will be more unusable energy than today. God does not destroy things on a whim, as I have said. He created the universe to live forever, and gave man dominion and responsibility over it. He also gave us the choice to obey Him or not. Since we messed up, everything now has an end. It is not His fault.

Also, to say that God exists if you imagine Him is wrong. Here, we are talking about a universal God, and there is none such in everyone's individual representation of Him. God is immutable, and anything we say cannot do Him justice; therefore, nobody is ever totally accurate in their description.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: DVK916

I didn't say that removing all theist would remove all of our problems. I said it would make the world a better place, not a perfect place. Of course there are bad atheists as well, but the proportion of athiest who do harm to the world is far less than theist .

No. People who follow the Bible are less likely to harm others than those who don't. I'm not sure at all where you are pulling all this from. Obviously, someone misinformed you to the point of outright lying. Many times, atheists believe that since there is no higher standard, that they are not accountable to anybody, that there are no rules in life, they can do whatever. Have you ever heard the humanists/atheists that say, "what is right for you may not be right for me?" This is the kind of thinking that gets people like Stalin started. If you can gain support, you can do whatever you want to to the world. If you got the support of half the world to kill all theists, would that make it right to do so? If so, you should think hard about the consequences of that. If not, there is some absolute standard. And a standard that applies to humanity cannot be made up by humanity, and still be a true and absolute standard.

Actually their is a simple standard we can all live by, don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Actually their is a simple standard we can all live by, don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.

Where did that come from? I know that it is in the Bible, but where else?

EDIT: Also, many Muslims would gladly die if they were to blaspheme their god. So does that make it right to do it to you? So obviously, this is not an end all rule for everyone.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Whatever evidence you see of God might be evidence to you, but real evidence is something you can show to someone else and prove it to them as well. I'm not going to argue your beliefs, but you have done nothing to convince me that there is a God. Quite frankly, the burdon of proof is up to the theists to show there is a God, not Athiests or Agnostics who only believe what they see and what they've been show, and the theists have failed miserably.

If theist are wrong, there is no consequence. If atheist are wrong, there is a consequence for them. Either way, there is no burdon on theist. If you don't accept the idea of a God, that's your deal. I'm not responsible to change your mind. Therefore, I see absolutely no burdon on theist to prove anything. We have nothing to lose. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: ntdz

Whatever evidence you see of God might be evidence to you, but real evidence is something you can show to someone else and prove it to them as well. I'm not going to argue your beliefs, but you have done nothing to convince me that there is a God. Quite frankly, the burdon of proof is up to the theists to show there is a God, not Athiests or Agnostics who only believe what they see and what they've been show, and the theists have failed miserably.

If theist are wrong, there is no consequence. If atheist are wrong, there is a consequence for them. Either way, there is no burdon on theist. If you don't accept the idea of a God, that's your deal. I'm not responsible to change your mind. Therefore, I see absolutely no burdon on theist to prove anything. We have nothing to lose. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you believe in God, you are right in your assessment. But what if the Christian God isn't the true God? What if Buddhism is the real religion? What if some African religion is the true religion? How do you KNOW your religion is the one true religion? The mere fact that there are hundreds of religions is proof enough that religion is a falsity.

If you're going to sit here and tell me a God exists, you're gonna have to show me or tell me something that somehow proves that. I have yet to meet anyone that even comes close to that. BTW, the unexplainable IS NOT evidence of God.

 

[Ferocious]

I believe in God. It's just a good hunch of mine that he exists.

No way do I think any human can know or prove anything about God. I do not follow nor believe any of the 'man-made' religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: ntdz

If you believe in God, you are right in your assessment. But what if the Christian God isn't the true God? What if Buddhism is the real religion? What if some African religion is the true religion? How do you KNOW your religion is the one true religion? The mere fact that there are hundreds of religions is proof enough that religion is a falsity.

No, that just shows that men interpret things differently. The validity of religion is not based upon peoples interpretation. Same with any other ideal. As for other religions possibly being the correct religion, anything is possible. That's why I asked God.

If you're going to sit here and tell me a God exists, you're gonna have to show me or tell me something that somehow proves that. I have yet to meet anyone that even comes close to that. BTW, the unexplainable IS NOT evidence of God.

You're wrong. I don't have to show you anything. Like I said, it's not my job to convince you of anything. I will share with you my feelings on the matter. If you accept them as your own, great. If not, such is your right and I would never dream of attempting to take it from you. But again, my "salvation" does not depend on whether or not you believe me, only yours. So there is not burdon of proof on my shoulders. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: ntdz

Whatever evidence you see of God might be evidence to you, but real evidence is something you can show to someone else and prove it to them as well. I'm not going to argue your beliefs, but you have done nothing to convince me that there is a God. Quite frankly, the burdon of proof is up to the theists to show there is a God, not Athiests or Agnostics who only believe what they see and what they've been show, and the theists have failed miserably.

If theist are wrong, there is no consequence. If atheist are wrong, there is a consequence for them. Either way, there is no burdon on theist. If you don't accept the idea of a God, that's your deal. I'm not responsible to change your mind. Therefore, I see absolutely no burdon on theist to prove anything. We have nothing to lose. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ok, I'll correct you:

If you're wrong, and God does not exist, then you've wasted your finite existence living a fantasy. Perhaps that means you didn't achieve all that you could have. Perhaps that means you chose a mate with religious beliefs similar to yours, but who was only marginally compatible, over a differnt woman with different beliefs, but who was far more suitable. Perhaps your group of friends would have been far different had you not based some of your choices on religious convictions. In short, there are innumerable ways your life might have been different if in fact God does not exist and you lived your life as though he didn't.

And if your life might have been far different, it might have been far better.

Thus, in a universe in which all there is is the physical, you may suffer huge physical and emotional losses by living your life as a theist.