Athiests
- Thread starter Enigma'07
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
But how do you get to know someone that cannot be seen, heard or felt in any matter, manner or form? I have heard so many people make that same comment and my response has always been the same, how? The replies to my question have usually involved the 'God is everywhere' and therefore that is how you get to know him/her/it. But that does not make sense to me as it still fails to answer my question. How do you get to know someone if they aren't there or available in any shape or form to answer any questions about themselves? Sure we have access to the religious books where man tell us their interpretation of what they deem God to be and so forth, but that is yet another interpretation of another. Because God is not available in any way for me or any other to get to know, all that is left is the imagination and broad individualistic interpretations of what we think God might be like. Hardly easy to get to know as an actual entity or individual if he is not there, to meet or just simply get to know, now huh?Jenyar said:
The difference between understanding God and understanding mathematics is that mathematics is something that is tangible. God is something that is intangible.Jenyar said:
Jenyar said:
There is a book out there that people read in order to better comprehend and manipulate a vast, unseen system of do's and do not's predicated on the supposed existence of an impossible being, a god that sticks his gigantic, all-powerful nose into all his creations' business.
In the end, it's just a silly book, but it does tend to provoke in it's most oblivious, or "faithful," readers a sense of comfort that they, in fact, understand and are prepared for it all.
Those who flock to 'the book,' which is in this case symbolic of all religion, do not do so whilst trying to understand anything. They do it for habit or for fear of unknown territory.
Trying to know God is foolish, but that's one thing.
Religion is NOT trying to know God. It's arbitrarily taking and flaunting somebody else's word on the subject, basing one's most important decisions on set-up, an imaginary menagerie of spirits and forces with poorly defined roles in the concrete theatre of events.
Religion, God, is the opiate of the people. It has no intelligent or practical foundation but that.
If we could figure out a way to tap into the power of self-satisfaction, then christianity would in fact save the world. Of course, we'd have to lock you all up as a valuable resource.
Oh, yes, let's all thank religions for a basic human emotion. How about we thank them for all the other emotions as well. Hate, greed, horniness? Any other basic human physiological traits that religion wants to claim as being responsible for?
If you believe that the god of religion AAA is only good, and that he could do nothing wrong, then it leaves the thing it created as being hateful, greedy, and horny. That would only stand true IF you believe that this god is all powerful. this would mean that the diety choose to make a creation that had the power to make choises, not just robots that follow logic.
True, though i wont mind if nobody agrees with me, it would feel like i need backup, and it may be better to feel that everyone can just bring it on.
True, the majority teach love(though sometimes amung other things and confused messages), though should it not simply be taught without the need for it to have a religious base?
Last edited:
If it is god's will then we will believe. Is that shortwinded enough for you.
And please, don't link us up with the characters in your little play book. We are not part of your religion.
And please, don't link us up with the characters in your little play book. We are not part of your religion.
By the way, how could one describe the methods by which proof could be established in any less than a long-winded diatribe? The fallacy inherent in your statement is almost as great as the fallacy you try to impose upon your creator by confining it's glory into a simple book of man. Shame, shame, shame. And who's calling who self-righteous? I don't remember saying that you'll go to hell unless you believe as I do.
Oh, come now. So what, I have to prove there's no santa claus? I have to prove that there's no easter bunny? I have to prove all the fictional characters ever devised don't exist? Why? The burden of proof is on those who wish to believe in an unprovable entity. Not the other way around.
And which god to disprove? YHWH (several flavors and varieties)? Allah (at least a couple of flavors)? Ganesh (part of a pantheon of gods)? Jupiter? Aphrodite? Gaia? All of them? Will disproving one disprove the other?
And which god to disprove? YHWH (several flavors and varieties)? Allah (at least a couple of flavors)? Ganesh (part of a pantheon of gods)? Jupiter? Aphrodite? Gaia? All of them? Will disproving one disprove the other?
I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that because every civilzation from past to present has gods of some sort raise them above animals? I will continue as though that is what you mean.
It is my belief that religion was first made a long time ago. It probably rose about the same time as language. It was a way of explaining the world. It was a way of unifying a community. It was a way of allowing some in the community to gain power over others in the community. It was a reason to kill those who are different from yourselves, who have different beliefs. It was a rationalization of why we feel the desire to spread and conquer. That the lands are ours and nobody else's. It explained why the animals would allow themselves to be hunted. It explained how children were born. It explained where we came from. It explained a lot of things. Unfortunately, it explained them from premises that were simplistic at best.
It likely did have something to do with the rise of human culture. It inspired us to create things that had never before been created. It eased our fear of death in that it spoke of life beyond life. This early seed of religion was carried with the early humans to all the areas to which they spread. It most likely gave them an advantage over the beasts and other humanoids that lived at that time.
But now, we have other needs that are not fulfilled by religion. We have the need to really understand the world, not just a rationalization of it. The early humans did not have the scientific methods which we have accumulated. They did not have the knowledge of how the water cycle works causing rain. They did not have the knowledge of physics which explains fundamental issues. They did not have the knowledge of biology which explains how we as organic creatures function. All they had was dreams and fancy. Thus were religions born.
I'd suggest that you read "The Masks of God" by Joseph Campbell. It is a 4 part series of books that details different myth structures and show how the early myths transformed into the myths that we have today. I've heard that Jung spoke of these things and Campbell is basically rehashing his work, but I've never read Jung so I can't say. It is a most informative read though. Of course, a lot of his work is based on speculation, here and there, so it's best to take it with a grain of salt. But that is not a recommendation a christian would give you about the bible, is it? That says a lot.
It is my belief that religion was first made a long time ago. It probably rose about the same time as language. It was a way of explaining the world. It was a way of unifying a community. It was a way of allowing some in the community to gain power over others in the community. It was a reason to kill those who are different from yourselves, who have different beliefs. It was a rationalization of why we feel the desire to spread and conquer. That the lands are ours and nobody else's. It explained why the animals would allow themselves to be hunted. It explained how children were born. It explained where we came from. It explained a lot of things. Unfortunately, it explained them from premises that were simplistic at best.
It likely did have something to do with the rise of human culture. It inspired us to create things that had never before been created. It eased our fear of death in that it spoke of life beyond life. This early seed of religion was carried with the early humans to all the areas to which they spread. It most likely gave them an advantage over the beasts and other humanoids that lived at that time.
But now, we have other needs that are not fulfilled by religion. We have the need to really understand the world, not just a rationalization of it. The early humans did not have the scientific methods which we have accumulated. They did not have the knowledge of how the water cycle works causing rain. They did not have the knowledge of physics which explains fundamental issues. They did not have the knowledge of biology which explains how we as organic creatures function. All they had was dreams and fancy. Thus were religions born.
I'd suggest that you read "The Masks of God" by Joseph Campbell. It is a 4 part series of books that details different myth structures and show how the early myths transformed into the myths that we have today. I've heard that Jung spoke of these things and Campbell is basically rehashing his work, but I've never read Jung so I can't say. It is a most informative read though. Of course, a lot of his work is based on speculation, here and there, so it's best to take it with a grain of salt. But that is not a recommendation a christian would give you about the bible, is it? That says a lot.
And is the main point that makes you wish to believe in god? That we are different from animals? That's a pretty petty reason, if it's so. It's true that we are different from other animals. But animals we are nonetheless.
That we are differant from animals has noting to do with why I believe in God. Why are there so many "key players of science" that seem to believe in a god. I mean, they obviously must know alot, and yet, they believed in a god. People such as Pasteur, Einstein, Newton, Mendel, DaVinci, Copernicus,etc.