I'm sorry, but there is no god.

[jayleew]

If you truly loved your neighbour you would never say "they deserved to die".

You are correct. Seems hypocritical if you don't understand the fig tree concept... Aside from that, in today's context, we are supposedly under the protection of Jesus's death.

Keep reading my post, the Bible addresses this when it introduces Jesus as the savior, the one to take the place so that no one else has to die...nor should they be killed by anyone if you love God and your neighbor. Yes, it's all very mystic that God has himself killed so that God does not have to kill....but, I didn't write it...hmmm, for that matter, neither did God. Which in itself is further reason not to believe in God because the Bible says its so.

What does God expect from a thinking man?? We need proof...and yet, he says to the pharisees that they will have no sign, but the one of Jonah. Where's our sign of this generation??? No sign? What are we to think?

And the Bible says you have to believe in Jesus to be saved....uggg i'm getting a hernia. *puke*

 

[shichimenshyo]

Arent children innocent in the eyes of the lord? So why did he order the Iraelites to exterminate everyone including women and children? I think the bible "can" be a good source for teaching people morals heling establish a belief system, but I dont believe in god the way the bible describes and I highly doubt gods existence at all.

 

[SnakeLord]

the Bible addresses this when it introduces Jesus as the savior, the one to take the place so that no one else has to die

Aye, theists like to ramble on about this nonsense, seemingly unaware that everyone still dies. They then assert that they don't mean 'death' and neither does jesus. What they actually mean is eternal life of burning - which is as opposite to death as one can ever get, but such is the intellect of theists. Of course they never recognise that in this instance you're only being saved from a life, (not death), created by this very same being. I heard about this slave master once that used to "save" slaves from being set on fire by simply demanding that they kiss his nuts. Was it really "saving"? It's debateable.

After you with the puke bucket.

 

[superluminal]

Supe


let's take it here buddy - you're famous

Not sure where "here" is.

Anyway, you seem to know very little about the physical world or how engineers, scientists or even interested laymen go about understanding it or ascertaining information about it. And especially how rational people judge the veracity of what they "learn".

You seem to think that because a person doesn't have a Phd in physics that they can't have an appreciation for the wealth of verified ways science has to learn about the universe.

You claim that "experts" in the field of theology are somehow on par with those who study the natural world, with respect to actual reality?

The physical world is all there is as far as anyone has ever demonstrated.

I will accept your claim that only those trained in theology can correctly percieve the "spiritual" world. And given that, the result of such a situation is that theology and god are utterly useless and completely irrelevant subjective ruminations.

In other words, no matter what you say about the subject, there is zero to be gained from it.

Aren't you embarrased to subscribe to an idea that no one can ever verify? That the only ones who will believe the "idea" are those with a predisposition to blind following?

Sheesh.

 

[grover]

Not sure where "here" is.

Anyway, you seem to know very little about the physical world or how engineers, scientists or even interested laymen go about understanding it or ascertaining information about it. And especially how rational people judge the veracity of what they "learn".

You seem to think that because a person doesn't have a Phd in physics that they can't have an appreciation for the wealth of verified ways science has to learn about the universe.

So you think that people that don't have PHds in physics are capable of understanding of quantum physics or understanding how and why physicicsts have come to the coclusions they've come to. Isn't the person that has not devoted their life to physics not in a position to judge whether or not what the physicist says is true. Aren't many of the claims of quantum physics just as paradoxical as anything that comes out of religion?

You claim that "experts" in the field of theology are somehow on par with those who study the natural world, with respect to actual reality?

The physical world is all there is as far as anyone has ever demonstrated.

Is it not at least possible that this may have to do with the fact that the physical world can be demonstrated and the spiritual world can't be? Just theoretically possible?

I will accept your claim that only those trained in theology can correctly percieve the "spiritual" world. And given that, the result of such a situation is that theology and god are utterly useless and completely irrelevant subjective ruminations.

In other words, no matter what you say about the subject, there is zero to be gained from it.

Is the purpose of science to only gain something? Or is knowing the way things are a good in itself?

Aren't you embarrased to subscribe to an idea that no one can ever verify? That the only ones who will believe the "idea" are those with a predisposition to blind following?

You can verify the it for yourself the same wya you could verify the truth of physics if you invest the time. If you don't invest the time you have no way of knowing for yourself whether or not it is true.

 

[superluminal]

So you think that people that don't have PHds in physics are capable of understanding of quantum physics or understanding how and why physicicsts have come to the coclusions they've come to.

Of course. I even understand the concepts behind quantum electrodynamics. Don't you?

Isn't the person that has not devoted their life to physics not in a position to judge whether or not what the physicist says is true. Aren't many of the claims of quantum physics just as paradoxical as anything that comes out of religion?

No and no.

Clearly you have been indoctrinated into the cult of authority. I can assign a high degree of certainty to what physicists say based on:

1) Peer review.
2) Historical context.
3) Practical results of physical discoveries.
4) A basic understanding of the physical world that any highschool student can attain.

Is it not at least possible that this may have to do with the fact that the physical world can be demonstrated and the spiritual world can't be? Just theoretically possible?

Of course! How can anyone lend any credence whatsoever to something that can never even be remotely demonstrated? Is that not absolutely crazy???

Is the purpose of science to only gain something? Or is knowing the way things are a good in itself?

No, and certainly. But in the long run, most science yields, directly or indirectly, some practical benefit.

You can verify the it for yourself the same wya you could verify the truth of physics if you invest the time.

No. This is complete self delusion on your part. If you can never demonstrate it, how can you ever hope to verify it for yourself. Unless you are so egomaniacal that you are 100% convinced of the absolute truth of your own subjective conclusions. I think that fairly describes many theists.

If you don't invest the time you have no way of knowing for yourself whether or not it is true.

I have, and I do. I have read and debated and ruminated on theism for quite some time now. And my simple conclusion is that there is not one shred of anything but anthropomorphized natural symbolism and mythological misdirection.

Not one bit of your philosophy can be demonstrated satisfactorily to any honest person.

A simple question that no one can answer honestly - What evidence proves beyond a doubt that your holy book is the word of your god, whichever one you believe in.

No doubts? Pure faith? Based on the word of some priest as far removed from the origin of that book as I am from my ancient Norwegian forebears?

Bah. Complete sillyness.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is that just conjecture, or can you give an example?

what were you after an example of exactly? The theory, the testing or the valuation?

Even if there was a God, I wouldn't believe in it.

do you mean to say that even if there was a god you would remain antagonistic towards it?

So either way, wether there is or isn't a God, I won't go along with the story because I want to ne free to do what I like and think the way I want. You don't need a God to do that.

people also wind up in a range of miserable conditions, such as prison or contracting STD's, due to the expression of free will - in other words its our very nature to be dominated by external phenomena so its not clear how being without an awareness of god lends one to a greater expression of freedom

 

[lightgigantic]

Q

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
certainly - but the degree of intelligence does not say anything about the degree of consciousness

.... that said a dead person has quite a low IQ
”
That is nonsense.

that is science

there are three things you can not be " a little" of in science.

1. dead
2. pregnant
3. wrong

 

[lightgigantic]

Not sure where "here" is.

I created another a thread to deal with this - seems like our resident upper echelons thought it wiser to save space on this site for other burning issues

Anyway, you seem to know very little about the physical world or how engineers, scientists or even interested laymen go about understanding it or ascertaining information about it.

yes, and how does this relate to anything we have been discussing?

And especially how rational people judge the veracity of what they "learn".

You seem to think that because a person doesn't have a Phd in physics that they can't have an appreciation for the wealth of verified ways science has to learn about the universe.

sure a person can have an "appreciation" for such things, but you should understand that there is a gulf of difference between such "appreciation" and "verification" - the evidence is that qualified physicists are called into "verify" claims of physics and not house painters, no matter how "appreciative" they are of physics

You claim that "experts" in the field of theology are somehow on par with those who study the natural world, with respect to actual reality?

I don't think I have ever said that what falls under the banner of classical empiricism is totally out for lunch - classical empiricism is okay when both the cause and effect are within the purview of our gross perception - so that means classical empiricism can be called upon for building computers, electric motors and even crossing the road, but it has absolutely no entrance into things such as universal creation, consciousness studies or the nature of god

The physical world is all there is as far as anyone has ever demonstrated.

there are also other aspects of existence that are beyond our ability to "control" and thus "demonstrate" - consciousness is one such example (consciousness is not "demonstrated as a "physical" phenomena ... yet to deny it is absurd)

I will accept your claim that only those trained in theology can correctly percieve the "spiritual" world. And given that, the result of such a situation is that theology and god are utterly useless and completely irrelevant subjective ruminations.

depends how much value you place on your consciousness

In other words, no matter what you say about the subject, there is zero to be gained from it.

actually there is zero to be gained from a life of material pursuits since you are born with nothing (and are usually screaming) and you die with nothing (and are usually screaming) ..... and the standard enjoyments between these two are money, sex and false prestige.... all of which are usually accompanied by screaming

Aren't you embarrased to subscribe to an idea that no one can ever verify?

If the notion of god was not able to be verified, I guess I would be ... that aside, what usually embarrasses me are situations that involve unnecessary screaming

That the only ones who will believe the "idea" are those with a predisposition to blind following?

... just like the only one's who "believe" in the "idea" of physics are those with a predisposition to blind following, eh?

Sheesh.

:yawn:

 

[Adstar]

Originally Posted by SnakeLord
If you truly loved your neighbour you would never say "they deserved to die".

Yes you would. If your neighbour deserved to die and you loved them you would tell them. Once a person knows they have a fault they can then seek actions to remedy the situation. A loving friend will tell someone the truth no matter how bitter it is for the good of their friend.

The truth sometimes hurts but it is better to be hurt now and avoid death later.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

If god is all knowing, all loving and all powerful, and had his son preach peace and love then why did god order the israelites to kill thousands in order to have a homeland>? How can he violate his own commandment? Isnt the hypocricy here apparent?

God created the Laws with us in mind. God has never been subject to the laws that he gives us to follow because they where designed to assist imperfect beings in this world.

Lets use the example of a pre-school. The person who cares for the kids makes a rule that the kids must hold hands with an adult as they cross the road when they are coming to the care centre. One of the kids notices that the person who gave them this rule turns up late one day and crosses the road without holding on to another adults hand. Now would the kid be right in protesting that the teacher was a hypocrite?… No. Because the rule was not designed for the teacher it was made for the kids.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[(Q)]

If you're actually interested you can read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_experience

So, theists are all Mystics? Is this agreed upon by all theists?

 

[grover]

So, theists are all Mystics? Is this agreed upon by all theists?

Far from it.

 

[(Q)]

Far from it.

Then, once again, what credibility has your claim if not all theists are mystics? Are there other methods besides mysticism where theists observe gods?

 

[grover]

Of course. I even understand the concepts behind quantum electrodynamics. Don't you?

I seriously doubt I have anything but the most superficial understanding of quantum electrodynamics. And I seriouslt doubt that anyone with the average IQ is capable of understanding it.

No and no.

Clearly you have been indoctrinated into the cult of authority. I can assign a high degree of certainty to what physicists say based on:

1) Peer review.
2) Historical context.
3) Practical results of physical discoveries.
4) A basic understanding of the physical world that any highschool student can attain.

-Yes, you may be able to understand the conclusions that physicists have come to be cause you have the necessary intelligence and have invested the time. The point I'm making is that in science is that ultimately one can demonstrate for themself that it is true. People lacking the intelligence or whow have not invested the time are not in a postition to say whether or not the proclamations of physicists are true.
-As for quantum physics not being paradoxical: light being both a wave and a particle would be considered an impossibility in Newtonian physics, right?

Of course! How can anyone lend any credence whatsoever to something that can never even be remotely demonstrated? Is that not absolutely crazy???

It can be demonstrated to oneself. (Note: The religion I'm talking about is Buddhism). The Buddha even specifically said that one should believe anything anyone says that they cannot verify for themselves. He apparently seemed to think there was at least some way for a person to verify what he was saying instead of taking his word for it. The method used was meditation, which is actually just a technique of first stabilizing the mind and then observing it dispassionately (one could even use the word objectively). I don't see any difference between Buddhism and Science except in one what is observed is the mind and the other what is observed is the physical world. Clearly ones mind can not be demonstrated to other people but does that mean that certain truths couldnt be discovered by observing ones mind closely and objectively?

No, and certainly. But in the long run, most science yields, directly or indirectly, some practical benefit.

Buddhism clearly results in some practical benefit as well.

No. This is complete self delusion on your part. If you can never demonstrate it, how can you ever hope to verify it for yourself. Unless you are so egomaniacal that you are 100% convinced of the absolute truth of your own subjective conclusions. I think that fairly describes many theists.

I'm not talking about faith-based religion (which I am in 100% agreement upon is pure delusion and destructive).

Not one bit of your philosophy can be demonstrated satisfactorily to any honest person.

The claim I am making is that by meditating (a techniques of stabilizing the mind and then observing dispassionatley) one will discover certain truths. Now, you can see how can't demonstrate this for you right? YOu can also see how you could demonstrate it for yourself (if you invest the time - which is where the parallel I was drawing to physoics comes in).

A simple question that no one can answer honestly - What evidence proves beyond a doubt that your holy book is the word of your god, whichever one you believe in.

I agree.

No doubts? Pure faith? Based on the word of some priest as far removed from the origin of that book as I am from my ancient Norwegian forebears?

Agree.

Bah. Complete sillyness.

Agree.

 

[grover]

Then, once again, what credibility has your claim if not all theists are mystics? Are there other methods besides mysticism where theists observe gods?

You and I aren't in disagreement that the average theist whose belief is based upon faith is a deluded being. I am merely pointing out that not all religion is based upon faith (which we both agree is a bad method for truth). Some relgion is actually based upon direct experience. Whether you believe the claims that are made is another story - (but there is a high degree of consistency across time and culture to these claims which at least suggest some type of objectively obeserved phenomenon).

 

[nova900]

Some relgion is actually based upon direct experience. Whether you believe the claims that are made is another story - (but there is a high degree of consistency across time and culture to these claims which at least suggest some type of objectively obeserved phenomenon).

Near Death Experiences.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research06.html

 

[Grantywanty]

You and I aren't in disagreement that the average theist whose belief is based upon faith is a deluded being. I am merely pointing out that not all religion is based upon faith (which we both agree is a bad method for truth). Some relgion is actually based upon direct experience. Whether you believe the claims that are made is another story - (but there is a high degree of consistency across time and culture to these claims which at least suggest some type of objectively obeserved phenomenon).

I am so glad you are making this point. Most athiests seem fixated on fundamentalists who believe in God because someone told them too and who claim to base their belief on faith. This despite the wealth of religious people who base their beliefs on experience: meditators, shamans, mystics, etc.

 

[Sarkus]

I am so glad you are making this point. Most athiests seem fixated on fundamentalists who believe in God because someone told them too and who claim to base their belief on faith. This despite the wealth of religious people who base their beliefs on experience: meditators, shamans, mystics, etc.

And in these cases it is not the fact that they have had / continue to have experiences, but on their interpretation of those experiences.

For example, someone who sees a light shining in the dark certainly has an experience, but to interpret it as a ghost would be irrational.

Also, if one is brought up with a set of beliefs without such an experience, were one to then have an experience they would be more likely to subjectively interpret it to fit their existing set of beliefs.

For example, if you had never heard of a ghost, but had been taught to believe in Blimblams (floating balls of light from another planet) and then saw the light shining in the dark, one might irrationally interpret it as a Blimblam rather than as a ghost - yet it would still be irrational.


Many people are convinced their interpretation of experiences are correct. Unless they can provide objective evidence to support their interpretation, however, they must accept that others will find them irrational in this regard. That is not to say their interpretation is wrong, though. Just irrational to everyone else.

 

[shichimenshyo]

God created the Laws with us in mind. God has never been subject to the laws that he gives us to follow because they where designed to assist imperfect beings in this world.

Lets use the example of a pre-school. The person who cares for the kids makes a rule that the kids must hold hands with an adult as they cross the road when they are coming to the care centre. One of the kids notices that the person who gave them this rule turns up late one day and crosses the road without holding on to another adults hand. Now would the kid be right in protesting that the teacher was a hypocrite?… No. Because the rule was not designed for the teacher it was made for the kids.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Justifying genocide with a handholding analogy seems a bit far fetched to me. The basis for this is that if you make the rules you dont have to follow them. Is that a philosophy that you believe in? I believe that is the very definition of hypocricy. But if you think god can be a murderer because hes more powerful than us more power to you. Might as well let the wealthy murder the poor while we are at it.