Maybe people could discuss a subject instead of just spilling out what they "know". I don't understand why people get so protective when the subject is God...
God
- Thread starter ThatJerk
- Start date
HA! LOL, I'm sorry TS, but I had to laugh out loud when I read this. This is comming from the same guy who posted....
Followed by....
Now, really, TS... I'm assuming now your acually going to "discuss this subject, rather than spilling out what you know", aren't you?
And in reguards to your last comment.....define "God". Now, if we were to define God as the above two statements...in that case, I'm just as perplexed as you are.
...Then my thesis would be:
Love is Life.
...and...
Life is Love.
Want to discuss?
Love is Life.
...and...
Life is Love.
Want to discuss?
Thank you for your consideration.
By 'there' I mean that it is somehow meant to act as a counter to the barbaric O.T. I fail to see how it allows any reinterpretation of the N.T. that reduces or negates the carnage that God left in his Holy wake.
You know, for the religion that's dominant in the majority of the developed world, Christianity sure has a strong persecution complex; try and speak out against it publicly in the States, then sit back and watch the antics. Sure they were slaughtered and persecuted, back in the days when the Romans threw them to the lions, but since the Roman Empire assumed the 'Holy' prefix they were on a one-way climb to the top of the heap.
May I ask as to what, exactly, the point of that point was? That, since Christians were persecuted in the distant past, they were justified in the atrocities they've commited over the past 2000 years? I find it interesting how they can claim to be 'discriminated' against when they, in fact, are the ones doing most of the discrimination.
I don't pretend to know her; I suppose it's possible she was an actual atheist and they managed to convert her, but that seems far less likely to me.
Thanks for defining 'apologetics' to me; I thought it was entirely about telling everybody that Christianity isn't as bad as it's made out to be. Then again, when I think about it, that's basically what they do; they defend Christian doctrine and 'prove' the truth of it. Definition is more realistic/cynical than the other.
You're partially right on the definition; I'm an atheist. I'm not sure how one is a 'strong atheist', since that would imply the possibility of uncertainty in ones convictions that religion is a sham, but if by strong you mean vocal then yes, I am one of those.
That's a very nice story; unfortunately, there are a few problems with it.
First. If humans needed God's help to develop any kind of culture, then how do you explain the Egyptian, Sumarian, Greek, Hatti, Roman, Etruscan, Phoenecian, Babylonian etc etc civilisations? Many of these were highly civilised; most (to my knowledge) knew of things such as math, science, and hygiene. How did humans achieve anything BEFORE these high civilisations? Remember that we didn't magically go from tribal savages chasing deer to tribal saveges waving swords at each other in one fell swoop; the idea of metal-working, for example, REQUIRES culture and civilisation to come about. A weapon-smithy isn't exactly a portable operation.
Second. God 'allows' us to have a relationship with him. You say this as though it's a huge privilege and honour. I ask, what's the big deal?
Third. You say the Israelites had no culture when they left Egypt. This is clearly false, since they all are part of the Nation of Israel; even if they didn't go by that name at that point, the point is that they were still a group and considered themselves to be a distinct people. That in itself is culture, the common roots that bind all the people in a group. They clearly knew these roots, so it's preposterous to claim they had no culture. Not an ADANCED culture (like that of Egypt), true, but one nonetheless.
Fourth. It's a well-known fact that the more wealth and comfort people have, the less important religion and spirituality is to them. If anything, the Israelites would have become LESS spiritual as they built towns and began to have some wealth of their own (if that's what you mean by their civilisation becoming more 'complex'; there's only so complex a civilisation can become when it's wandering the open desert).
Ergh... I'd go on, but I really have to sleep. I hear you on the late nights thing. I have to wake up at 6:30!
More to follow.
I think people can become civilized on their own - they don't need religion (it's a hard way to become civilized anyway, because it's such a culture shock - the crusades and colonization showed us that).
No, people have "the law written in their hearts" - they have the capability to be civilized and "good" if they wanted to. The problem is that "uncivilized" people normally don't have a motive or guidelines for civilized behaviour.
The Israelites were a warring tribe like all their neighbours. They had to fight for survival and for existence just like everybody else. God didn't really take them out of their circumstances, but provided them with all they needed to get where they wanted to be (and where He wanted them to go).
Religion and civilization aren't mutually exclusive, but I don't think the coincidence is coincidence, if you know what I mean. It probably has more to do with 'civilized thinking', along with responsible action (i.e. having some sense of how your actions inluence your future - a completely savage tribe would not take much time to think of the consequences of their actions). Issues that don't present immediate gratification or benefit, such as eco-friendliness, hasn't always been a priority, but it certainly agrees with God's directives.
Religion isn't supposed to replace anything, it might transcend some things, might be incompatible certain things, but it's never irrelevant simply because if religion is practised (and I can only cite Christianity out of my experience) we are not supposed to be "taken out of the world", but to follow for God's will in everything. God doesn't replace his creation, he rules it - and by choosing to be ruled by God, people can learn to appreciate how He takes care of his creation, and live accordingly.
No, people have "the law written in their hearts" - they have the capability to be civilized and "good" if they wanted to. The problem is that "uncivilized" people normally don't have a motive or guidelines for civilized behaviour.
The Israelites were a warring tribe like all their neighbours. They had to fight for survival and for existence just like everybody else. God didn't really take them out of their circumstances, but provided them with all they needed to get where they wanted to be (and where He wanted them to go).
Religion and civilization aren't mutually exclusive, but I don't think the coincidence is coincidence, if you know what I mean. It probably has more to do with 'civilized thinking', along with responsible action (i.e. having some sense of how your actions inluence your future - a completely savage tribe would not take much time to think of the consequences of their actions). Issues that don't present immediate gratification or benefit, such as eco-friendliness, hasn't always been a priority, but it certainly agrees with God's directives.
Religion isn't supposed to replace anything, it might transcend some things, might be incompatible certain things, but it's never irrelevant simply because if religion is practised (and I can only cite Christianity out of my experience) we are not supposed to be "taken out of the world", but to follow for God's will in everything. God doesn't replace his creation, he rules it - and by choosing to be ruled by God, people can learn to appreciate how He takes care of his creation, and live accordingly.
secretasianman
Registered Senior Member
Hey Cris, thanks for replying.
As for apologetics, what it "does" doesn't make it wrong or right - I'll be looking into it in the wrong/right part in the near future, I suspect.
I've got a midterm tomorrow morning that I haven't studied for, so I'll get back to you all later.
Jenyar, I'll have to chew on that one... when I'm not cramming.
It's very difficult to preach Christianity in China, the Middle East, etc., where Christianity isn't the majority belief, and of course the majority will always persecute the minority - that was basically what I meant. I guess I didn't want Christianity to get confused with America, or what you see the right-wing conservatives doing, etc.
Well, strong atheism (the definition I got from this forum) is the belief that God does not exist, which is a tough intellectual stance to defend.
As for apologetics, what it "does" doesn't make it wrong or right - I'll be looking into it in the wrong/right part in the near future, I suspect.
I wasn't implying that it held true for all civilizations; just, according to the Bible, in the case of the Israelis (newly freed). This isn't MY belief yet, I just thought it was interesting/had some truth to it when I heard it.
When or if I understand emotionally and intellectually what the big deal is, I'll try to answer.
You're probably right. I shoulda rephrased: I don't know what 400 years of slavery would do to my humanity.
Definitely. I shoulda left out the part of civilization, because I don't know why it happened like it did - but from reading the Bible we can see their understanding "evolve" (or "mature", in the relationship context), from simple rules to a more meaningful relationship. Again, I need to see this played out for myself, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
I've got a midterm tomorrow morning that I haven't studied for, so I'll get back to you all later.
Jenyar, I'll have to chew on that one... when I'm not cramming.
Jenyar,
Do you have any religion?
Do you have any religion?
Perhaps people in non-Christian countries don't want to be pestered? How do you feel when Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons come knocking on your door? True, Christians can be (and sometimes are) persecuted in Muslim (I recall hearing about a few missionaries that were executed by a mob in northern Indonesia a while ago for proselytising in a Muslim area) and communist countries. However, extreme cases such as this are uncommon and for the most part people just don't want to be bothered by annoying missionaries.
So then what, exactly, is 'moderate atheism'? Sitting on the fence on the God issue? I've said it before, I'll say it again: atheism is the belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Period. That is the only belief atheists of any kind are guaranteed to share. Someone who sits on the fence is either agnostic, utterly confused by the whole issue, or open to the idea of a deity but unsure of how to go about it.
You call atheism a hard stance to defend. So prove to me that God exists without saying "I believe..." or "Well the bible says..." or "I just know." or "Well he simply must exist; look at how complex everything is.". If you can provide one scrap of empirical evidence that a higher power exists then you can tell me that my stance is tough to defend.
Ah. So the Israelites were SO backward and savage that divine intervention was the only thing that could civilise them? From the way you write about it you make this seem like a GOOD thing... I wonder if God will decide to get off His ass and float on down to teach the Irish protestants and Catholics to play nice, or the Israelis and Palestinians to stop killing each other. Maybe they aren't raping and pillaging enough to get His attention yet.
If you were a good, obediant slave with a strong back, you'd experience maybe 30 or 35 years of that 400. During your childhood you'd be taught the oral traditions of your tribal CULTURE (language, myths, morals, etc), and you'd be fathering children during your adulthood and passing on that same tradition to them. If that oral tradition was weak enough to die out in a mere 400 years, then you'd be right to say that they had no culture. But the fact that they left Egypt together, as a group with a DISTINCT identity, bespeaks the opposite.
Don't kid yourself; intellect has nothing to do with it. If you accept whole-heartedly the idea of Christianity, you are intentionally placing yourself on the great Hamster Wheel of Faith and strangling your ability to think outside of the box.
No, I think it's good that you included that, because ALL of the ideas you're considering are layed out on the table for some hard, unflinching scrutiny. If you have ANY sort of intellectual capability, at all, you will be able to see the glaring problems with pretty well all of the points you made to me. I sincerely hope you are able to make the right decision.
Squid:
Perhaps my point was on the extreme side (to the point, perhaps, of inaccuracy), but you fail to address the basic point: the fact that God requires ALL of his male followers to have mutilated genitals. Why does he hate penises so much? The fact that you can make up for the shortcomings brought on by circumcision with practise is irrelevant; the spirit in which the required deed was done is still there.
What sort of happiness? The happiness one gets from being untroubled by the world's woes and being self-assured in the idea that you are one of God's favourites? Sounds more like moral masturbation to me than actual happiness.
I never claimed that analytical questioning is going to make me or anybody else happy; rather (through numerous statements which I will sum up) it allows one to seek the way to contentedness (which you state, quite accurately), a state from which one can seek happiness in such mundane things as loving a good woman, or eating a hearty meal and then taking a huge dump afterwards. Blissful ignorance is hollow when compared to that kind of contented happiness.
My motive? Truth. I seek it, and desire to share it with others. I feel it is my responsibility to try and bring a bit more sense to the world while I'm a resident. Religion is non-sensical; ergo, I do my best to prove that point. The real world is rarely kind and I often don't have the patience to be nice when imparting that fact.
I was conditioned with two things. The first was decency toward my fellows (which has only partially taken), and the second was to think for myself. My father's scoldings, when I did something stupidly wrong, could be summed up as "Think about it!" rather than "It's wrong because I say so!" Though my household was about as atheist as you can get, I was allowed to make my own decisions on such matters and, in fact, did. I believed in a God of sorts until fairly recently, perhaps two or three years ago at which point I finally realised that even that vague belief was still an unfounded assumption on my part and I simply let it go. I was seriously interested in Wicca for most of my teenage years, but only got as far as dabbling in it. I eventually realised that it was just one more set of superstitions, every bit as hokey as the Christianity I had so long ago rejected.
So you could say, in a manner of speaking, that my upbringing shaped my judgements; my parents were indeed the catalyst for my current mindset. You'll find, in most any dictionary, that the term catalysis (the verb) means the increase in the rate of a chemical reaction through the introduction of a material (the catalyst noun) that remains unchanged throughout the reaction. If I had been brought up Catholic, I would probably be in the process of rejecting my religion (if I hadn't already) and starting down the path to drawing a similar set of conclusions to the ones you have read. Lucky for me, I was spared the heartache of that (or a similar) path because my parents brought me up without the God/univsersal structure programming; they were the catalyst for the 'atheist/realist' reaction that allowed it to happen far more quickly than it would have otherwise. I didn't have to wrap my head around the idea that God doesn't exist because it was never an issue for me. I'm inquisitive and critical by nature. I simply don't accept faith as way of explaining things; I either know or don't know. The rest is supposition.
Does that at all answer your question?
If brevity is the soul of wit, posting the lyrics to one of one's favorite Industrial band is the soul of...something or other.....likely boredom....
Bullshit. There is a certain sort of person who cannot understand how it is possible to find happiness in slavery, who knows that such a state would destroy him.
And do we understand what sort of person could find happiness as a slave? I doubt it. Jerk, you and I relish our freedom. We know that giving it up would kill us...but perhaps freedom is as much of a burden to these people as slavery would be a burden to us?
Although I'd generally say that athiesm is more a state of being without belief in God...
Yes. To claim that "well, maybe God exists but he likely doesn't" is about the same as claiming "well, maybe Santa will buy me a Alfa Romeo for Christmas, but he likely won't".
God doesn't exist.
Bullshit. There is a certain sort of person who cannot understand how it is possible to find happiness in slavery, who knows that such a state would destroy him.
And do we understand what sort of person could find happiness as a slave? I doubt it. Jerk, you and I relish our freedom. We know that giving it up would kill us...but perhaps freedom is as much of a burden to these people as slavery would be a burden to us?
Although I'd generally say that athiesm is more a state of being without belief in God...
Yes. To claim that "well, maybe God exists but he likely doesn't" is about the same as claiming "well, maybe Santa will buy me a Alfa Romeo for Christmas, but he likely won't".
God doesn't exist.
secretasianman
Registered Senior Member
ThatJerk - Basically, since there isn't any indisputable evidence for or against the existence of God, I don't find it irrational to entertain the possibility of God, investigate the Christian perspective, and choose to believe in what seems most likely to me... do you?
Someone put it this way - when you fall in love with someone and begin a relationship, you'll have your doubts - "does she/he really love me?" You may never completely know, may not be able to "prove" it, but if her actions and the relationship stand the test of time - you'll have good reason to believe she does, to make that "leap of faith".
As for the rest, it somehow doesn't concern me anymore - as I said, I haven't really seen it played out for me yet. A half-baked idea, if you will. Hope you don't care.
Someone put it this way - when you fall in love with someone and begin a relationship, you'll have your doubts - "does she/he really love me?" You may never completely know, may not be able to "prove" it, but if her actions and the relationship stand the test of time - you'll have good reason to believe she does, to make that "leap of faith".
As for the rest, it somehow doesn't concern me anymore - as I said, I haven't really seen it played out for me yet. A half-baked idea, if you will. Hope you don't care.
You're right. It's perfectly rational to entertain the possibility of God, and it's just as rational (using your logic) to entertain the notion that there is NO God, period, given the lack of evidence that he exists. Which leads me to wonder why you made the following statement...
Am I the only one who sees a contradiction?
Anyhow, the way I see it, the fact that there is no evidence for God, period, indicates to me that the possibility he does NOT exist is the more likely of the two. There's no evidence that Santa Claus exists, so why should I even entertain the notion that a jolly old elf lives at the north pole?
I really hate to say this, but your (or this person's) example is entirely flawed, because it makes the assumption that God is a real entity. If I meet a girl and fall in love with her, that is real and tangible. Of course it's never a sure thing, but it's hardly a 'leap of faith' in the same way a relationship with God is; I'm taking my chances with the fact that she will return my feelings in the way I desire, not with the very fact she exists. To believe in God (which is necessary to enter a relationship with him), one has to believe in that notion on faith alone, which is to say one must whole-heartedly believe it even if there is no rational evidence to prove it exists.
This sounds like a typical Christian conversion mind-trap to me, in which the doubter is told "Don't worry, finding God is just like loving someone. Give it time and all your doubts will be resolved." They fail to mention that for the two situations to be parallel, one is acting on the assumption that God is real (which, if the statement has it's desired effect, works it's way into the doubter's mind).
Sounds to me like you desperately want to believe it, or already do believe it even if you have nagging doubts in the back of your mind. Else, why would you be trying so hard to justify it?
secretasianman
Registered Senior Member
Argh... this forum is taking up too much of my time
That one I heard over burgers on a Thursday night... and I'm overloaded with info as it is. Good thing that one didn't get by me.
Also, it was rude of me to just shrug off "the rest" as I put it, you've obviously shown me more respect than that...
Having grown up in Christian communities (one of my good childhood friends I met at my first church - associating warm, fuzzy memories with church??? Gotta love pop psychology), it may be that I was imparted with a subconscious, basic emotional belief in Christianity, even when I left my second church (as high school kids, many of us didn't have enough maturity) - in some of my posts, I guess it seems that I take for granted that God exists... so damn hard to be objective. Anyways, I felt like I owed you an attempt at an explanation - keep on pointing out my foibles
I was referring to the "spiritual evolution of Israelites" idea as half-baked, and I don't have any need to believe in that. Whether this statement holds true of my *inclination* towards Christianity is... a damn good question.
Just so it's possible that God does exist. No biggie.
Hope I'm not asking too much (I also hope this question doesn't come off as retarded) but can you give me some/the good evidence that God does not exist, i.e. the results from searching for "evidence God does not exist" on Google (internet research... :rollseyes: )? I'd appreciate it greatly, even though you may suspect otherwise.
Thanks
That one I heard over burgers on a Thursday night... and I'm overloaded with info as it is. Good thing that one didn't get by me.Also, it was rude of me to just shrug off "the rest" as I put it, you've obviously shown me more respect than that...
I don't think you nor I have any real business talking about this unless you've lived in an Islamic region (I sure haven't)... I've heard that the level of oppression a Christian missionary would face over there, in a Communist (*stepping lightly over PC minefield*) country, etc. is often worse than the treatment that an American in a bad mood might dish out to a Jehovah's Witness or telemarketer. But then, that's just what I've heard.
Not the only thing that could, but maybe that's what it was that eventually did. I regret bringing up such a half-baked idea; at the time it lent some consistency between the Old Testament/New Testament... I'll go find out more about that. As for God coming down to end human conflicts, I'm not going to comment - but I somehow am inclined to believe that there is a good "reason" that He won't.
Having grown up in Christian communities (one of my good childhood friends I met at my first church - associating warm, fuzzy memories with church??? Gotta love pop psychology), it may be that I was imparted with a subconscious, basic emotional belief in Christianity, even when I left my second church (as high school kids, many of us didn't have enough maturity) - in some of my posts, I guess it seems that I take for granted that God exists... so damn hard to be objective. Anyways, I felt like I owed you an attempt at an explanation - keep on pointing out my foibles
Truthseeker: Yes, I'm a Christian (protestant). And I don't believe just in case, or superficially... I have a real thirst for knowledge. Belief itself is a gift from God, and the more I realise that, the more it makes a difference to my life. God's grace is there for everybody to accept, and the Bible starts to come alive only after you have accepted its message. Otherwise it's just a book...
By the way Xev: Happy birthday! It was on the 10th, right? I hope you had a wonderful day.
By the way Xev: Happy birthday! It was on the 10th, right? I hope you had a wonderful day.
secretasianman:
Holy shit do I ever hear you on that one... I swear, it's responsible for all of my tardy assignments. But on to business.
Ah yes, it wasn't clear just what, specifically, you were referring to. You essentially got what I meant in my statement in your second sentence, about your 'inclination' (as you put it) towards Christianity.
Of course it's 'possible', the same way it's 'possible' for me to win the lottery tomorrow and live on easy street for the rest of my life (if the universe has a sense of humour I will win the lottery tomorrow... not like I'll complain). I was asking why you said that the Atheist stance is 'difficult' to defend, when you as much as said there's as much chance there's no God as there being one later on. The contradiction irks me.
I'll answer that by myself and then, only after that, will I search and provide hyperlinks.
Simple. There is no empirical evidence.
We can also use Occam's Razor. Sadly, Occam is horrendously over- and mis-used by Christians and atheists alike, so I'll define exactly what his Razor is. Essentially, when one is presented with two theories that describe the same thing, the best of the two is the one that is simpler. If I have an equation that predicts the nature of shoelaces in 20 pages, and one that does the same (with identical results) in a single line, which is superior? The one with almost 20 pages of redundant math, or the single line? Simply put, it is a common-sense arguement against redundancy.
Similarly, Life, the Universe and Everything. It has an infinite number of factors in it, and Christianity would throw in a futher clause: the fact that God set the whole thing in motion. Which theory has more terms? Which has the redundant, extra factor?
Conclusion: God is a redundant factor when explaining the universe.
This is the same conclusion that William of Occam himself, a 14th century theologian came to. He argued (650 years ago no less!) that it is impossible to deduce God's existence through reason, and that any belief in him had to be on faith alone.
Now for the search...
*five minutes later*
Interesting... the only thing I can find using Google is Christian propoganda which I won't bother to address. If you're interested in some paper reading, I suggest you find a book called "Why Atheism?" by George H. Smith.
No problem and apology accepted, in that order.
I presume you were having burgers with the nice group of Christians that is trying so hard to make their club seem attractive to you. (We are the Chosen of God; resistence is futile).
Oh I'm sure you're correct in what you hear, but you forget one thing... it is the missionary who is going to the Middle East or China and breaking local laws, both religious and secular. If the locals don't want you to preach your religion in their area, then simple decency would tell you to leave them the hell alone (ESPECIALLY if the locals are Muslim and you value your skin). I wonder how far an Islamic missionary would get in Georgia, or North Carolina.
Not only is it rude to openly push your own beliefs as superior to someone elses, it's really fucking stupid to try and do so when local law REQUIRES the execution of heathen missionaries (or, if the locals are gun-toting red-neck fundamentalist maniacs).
Oh, and don't cite me for pushing my 'beliefs' (or lack thereof)... that's the whole POINT of these forums.
The thing is, all of the things you put forward in that whole God-relationship thingy sound quite convincing until one actually THINKS about them in a critical, empirical fashion. I won't go into detail here, since you can read back to see your point and my arguements against it. The trick, really, is to forget some basic indoctrinated assumptions like the fact that God is a given and that the bible is his revealed Word.
It's extremely difficult to get over early-childhood indoctrination. When you're bombarded with the idea of an old man sitting on a cloud who'll fry you for being bad for years of your development, it becomes very deeply ingrained as a part of your perspective.
It's because of this that there are so many 'born-again' Christians, namely those who strayed from the flock (usually during their teenage years) only to rejoin it at some point in the future (usually middish to late 20s). While they may intellectually reject the teachings of the church, a more primal layer still craves the structure and purpose it gave them and they eventually give in to the siren call of conformity and blissful thoughtlessness; they are simply unable to think and act independantly of the structure they've known for most of their formative years.
Your explanation sums up what could be gleaned from your previous posts; namely, that you grew up in the church and then broke away during high school. However, I do appreciate the summary. It confirms that I haven't made any false assumptions about you.
As for your foibles: "Never fear, for when presented to me the Lamp of Logic shall be shone upon them and they shall be as mist on the lake in the morning sun." (Book of S, 3:16)
Sorry... couldn't help myself there.
Holy shit do I ever hear you on that one... I swear, it's responsible for all of my tardy assignments. But on to business.
Ah yes, it wasn't clear just what, specifically, you were referring to. You essentially got what I meant in my statement in your second sentence, about your 'inclination' (as you put it) towards Christianity.
Of course it's 'possible', the same way it's 'possible' for me to win the lottery tomorrow and live on easy street for the rest of my life (if the universe has a sense of humour I will win the lottery tomorrow... not like I'll complain
). I was asking why you said that the Atheist stance is 'difficult' to defend, when you as much as said there's as much chance there's no God as there being one later on. The contradiction irks me.I'll answer that by myself and then, only after that, will I search and provide hyperlinks.
Simple. There is no empirical evidence.
We can also use Occam's Razor. Sadly, Occam is horrendously over- and mis-used by Christians and atheists alike, so I'll define exactly what his Razor is. Essentially, when one is presented with two theories that describe the same thing, the best of the two is the one that is simpler. If I have an equation that predicts the nature of shoelaces in 20 pages, and one that does the same (with identical results) in a single line, which is superior? The one with almost 20 pages of redundant math, or the single line? Simply put, it is a common-sense arguement against redundancy.
Similarly, Life, the Universe and Everything. It has an infinite number of factors in it, and Christianity would throw in a futher clause: the fact that God set the whole thing in motion. Which theory has more terms? Which has the redundant, extra factor?
Conclusion: God is a redundant factor when explaining the universe.
This is the same conclusion that William of Occam himself, a 14th century theologian came to. He argued (650 years ago no less!) that it is impossible to deduce God's existence through reason, and that any belief in him had to be on faith alone.
Now for the search...
*five minutes later*
Interesting... the only thing I can find using Google is Christian propoganda which I won't bother to address. If you're interested in some paper reading, I suggest you find a book called "Why Atheism?" by George H. Smith.
No problem and apology accepted, in that order.
I presume you were having burgers with the nice group of Christians that is trying so hard to make their club seem attractive to you. (We are the Chosen of God; resistence is futile).
Oh I'm sure you're correct in what you hear, but you forget one thing... it is the missionary who is going to the Middle East or China and breaking local laws, both religious and secular. If the locals don't want you to preach your religion in their area, then simple decency would tell you to leave them the hell alone (ESPECIALLY if the locals are Muslim and you value your skin). I wonder how far an Islamic missionary would get in Georgia, or North Carolina.
Not only is it rude to openly push your own beliefs as superior to someone elses, it's really fucking stupid to try and do so when local law REQUIRES the execution of heathen missionaries (or, if the locals are gun-toting red-neck fundamentalist maniacs).
Oh, and don't cite me for pushing my 'beliefs' (or lack thereof)... that's the whole POINT of these forums.
The thing is, all of the things you put forward in that whole God-relationship thingy sound quite convincing until one actually THINKS about them in a critical, empirical fashion. I won't go into detail here, since you can read back to see your point and my arguements against it. The trick, really, is to forget some basic indoctrinated assumptions like the fact that God is a given and that the bible is his revealed Word.
It's extremely difficult to get over early-childhood indoctrination. When you're bombarded with the idea of an old man sitting on a cloud who'll fry you for being bad for years of your development, it becomes very deeply ingrained as a part of your perspective.
It's because of this that there are so many 'born-again' Christians, namely those who strayed from the flock (usually during their teenage years) only to rejoin it at some point in the future (usually middish to late 20s). While they may intellectually reject the teachings of the church, a more primal layer still craves the structure and purpose it gave them and they eventually give in to the siren call of conformity and blissful thoughtlessness; they are simply unable to think and act independantly of the structure they've known for most of their formative years.
Your explanation sums up what could be gleaned from your previous posts; namely, that you grew up in the church and then broke away during high school. However, I do appreciate the summary. It confirms that I haven't made any false assumptions about you.
As for your foibles: "Never fear, for when presented to me the Lamp of Logic shall be shone upon them and they shall be as mist on the lake in the morning sun." (Book of S, 3:16)
Sorry... couldn't help myself there.
ThatJerk - I understand where you're coming from, although my experience is that most, if not all, people selectively reject "early childhood indoctrination". Eg. why do we accept that fire burns just because someone warned us? Does every generation relearn everything from scratch? I don't think so - we learn from the past AND from experience, neither is a "better" or "more accurate" way to learn. "Believing" is not the same as "taking for granted", we must always test the application of what we learn from experience or from other sources.
Occam's razor is a nice principle, but sometimes people prefer the whole thesis instead of just e=mc^2. There is usually a nice balance between a classically simple explanation and a simplistic explanation. It's like a "peak" of knowledge: anything that is more or less is unneccessary (and often useless). By Occam's razor, which is more simple: one person being right, or thousands of people being right?
The same goes for logic. You can explain anything 'logically', but braingymnastics only bring you so far. You say life, the universe and everything has an infite number of factors in it - that hardly sounds 'simple', and adding 'God' makes it no more complex than adding milk. God is unseen - the unseen universe is just as much reality as the visible universe, but can't be tested and probed in the same way. That's why we have "theories" in science, and "religion" in people. If all theories fail, though, the simplest explanation is the one you believe in the most.
You don't accept the premise that God exists, and therefore no observation will have sufficient momentum to overcome that 'truth'. On the other hand, I see Jesus' death as the truth, and I believe what he and his followers teached: that He came to life again because death had no hold on Him, and by impication not on us either. And that includes non-believers. Belief in God isn't redundant if it is the same as believing that you are alive.
It's much simpler to think of everything as created with autonomy, just like we see it in nature - just like we see beings born every day, experiencing life and dying. Studying life and nature in more detail, we become aware that it is an oversimplification to say everything just is or always was, because we have observed cause and effect and seen it in action. We are also aware that human understanding is limited (otherwise we wouldn't have been able to learn all the time).
The only factor that is really incomprehensible and unnecessary is the terrible things people do, not "God". If you only trust what you can see, you are blind to what you can't see.
Occam's razor is a nice principle, but sometimes people prefer the whole thesis instead of just e=mc^2. There is usually a nice balance between a classically simple explanation and a simplistic explanation. It's like a "peak" of knowledge: anything that is more or less is unneccessary (and often useless). By Occam's razor, which is more simple: one person being right, or thousands of people being right?
The same goes for logic. You can explain anything 'logically', but braingymnastics only bring you so far. You say life, the universe and everything has an infite number of factors in it - that hardly sounds 'simple', and adding 'God' makes it no more complex than adding milk. God is unseen - the unseen universe is just as much reality as the visible universe, but can't be tested and probed in the same way. That's why we have "theories" in science, and "religion" in people. If all theories fail, though, the simplest explanation is the one you believe in the most.
You don't accept the premise that God exists, and therefore no observation will have sufficient momentum to overcome that 'truth'. On the other hand, I see Jesus' death as the truth, and I believe what he and his followers teached: that He came to life again because death had no hold on Him, and by impication not on us either. And that includes non-believers. Belief in God isn't redundant if it is the same as believing that you are alive.
It's much simpler to think of everything as created with autonomy, just like we see it in nature - just like we see beings born every day, experiencing life and dying. Studying life and nature in more detail, we become aware that it is an oversimplification to say everything just is or always was, because we have observed cause and effect and seen it in action. We are also aware that human understanding is limited (otherwise we wouldn't have been able to learn all the time).
The only factor that is really incomprehensible and unnecessary is the terrible things people do, not "God". If you only trust what you can see, you are blind to what you can't see.
Last edited: