The joys of life without God

[lightgigantic]

falcon22

I'll give you a counter example. South Korea's education system puts more importance on English and Chinese characters than Korean. But meet any Korean today, and they still know Korean perfectly fluently. I am one of those.

and after 60 years of such teachings you will find the language corrupted - heaps of examples in asia like that

If every kid is taught about religions objectively, it can enhance their understanding of their own religion, how it has historically impacted other religions and other peoples.

Only provided that they are actually operating out of a religion in the first place

REligion should only be taught in school as objective and only if it is inclusive all major world religions. Intelligent design is not science; it should not be taught in science class.


a "Higher power" is involved in intelligent design and that already makes it non-science.

On the contrary it helps for the scientific unless you want to propose that purpose and structure are not interelated

 

[Fire]

Fire


hence "meaningless"

Maybe, why so insecure about that? It's just as it was before you were born.

And that's not your world view?

I'm just saying there is no afterlife. Every cell in your brain dissipates like a rain cloud.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

Maybe, why so insecure about that? It's just as it was before you were born.

If you are actually comfortable with meaninglessness you wouldn't be hanging out of a religious forum - or for that matter any forum - as for what happens before birth and after death, that is the specific point of discussion in theism so you would have to do more than just present tentative claims based on your own fallible perception if you want to take this line of thought anywhere

I'm just saying there is no afterlife. Every cell in your brain dissipates like a rain cloud.]

And this still is just your world view

 

[Fire]

Fire


If you are actually comfortable with meaninglessness you wouldn't be hanging out of a religious forum - or for that matter any forum - as for what happens before birth and after death, that is the specific point of discussion in theism so you would have to do more than just present tentative claims based on your own fallible perception if you want to take this line of thought anywhere

On the subject of meaninglessness, I don't see where fantasy or delusion fills that void. As the man said whose name I have forgotten "I look forward to a good lunch this afternoon" - that's meaning. Meaning generated from every day activities which fulfill all of our passions and desires. As far as religion and god go, since there is no evidence to give it any credability at all, I think that is the true definition of meaninglessness. Worship of falsehoods is what is meaningless, not being without belief in them. What this has to do with your assumption as to why I post on these forums, I don't know.

And this still is just your world view

By far the most likely one. Unless of course someone comes forward with any proof at all that the individual is immortal. I don't think anyone is going to come forward with proof of the celestial teapot either...

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

On the subject of meaninglessness, I don't see where fantasy or delusion fills that void. As the man said whose name I have forgotten "I look forward to a good lunch this afternoon" - that's meaning. Meaning generated from every day activities which fulfill all of our passions and desires. As far as religion and god go, since there is no evidence to give it any credability at all, I think that is the true definition of meaninglessness. Worship of falsehoods is what is meaningless, not being without belief in them. What this has to do with your assumption as to why I post on these forums, I don't know.

I can just as tentatively suggest that as an example of fallibility and delusion you say there is no god - in other words if you want to actually present an argument, and not merely flexible evidence that can be swung this way and that way, you have to present premises or the general principles you apply to arrive at your opinions - at the moment you are not doing this

By far the most likely one. Unless of course someone comes forward with any proof at all that the individual is immortal. I don't think anyone is going to come forward with proof of the celestial teapot either...

Another tentative claim with flexible terms - words such as "most likely" can mean different things in places where over 95% of the population believe in god - so far your premise appears to be "If I don't see it doesn't exist" - to examine this further we would have to analysize your qualification in "seeing" - before we do this however do you want to clarify or expand on your premise?

 

[superluminal]

Fire



I can just as tentatively suggest that as an example of fallibility and delusion you say there is no god - in other words if you want to actually present an argument, and not merely flexible evidence that can be swung this way and that way, you have to present premises or the general principles you apply to arrive at your opinions - at the moment you are not doing this


Another tentative claim with flexible terms - words such as "most likely" can mean different things in places where over 95% of the population believe in god - so far your premise appears to be "If I don't see it doesn't exist" - to examine this further we would have to analysize your qualification in "seeing" - before we do this however do you want to clarify or expand on your premise?

You truly are an arrogant prick. And a blowhard. Your whole premise of belief in god is based on what? You have no evidence. No proof. And you turn that very fact into some kind of advantage. Warped. Prove to us a god exists or shut up. All we are saying is that theres no independent evidence or proof to support a god. Is there now? Didn't think so.

 

[lightgigantic]

You truly are an arrogant prick. And a blowhard. Your whole premise of belief in god is based on what? You have no evidence. No proof. And you turn that very fact into some kind of advantage. Warped. Prove to us a god exists or shut up. All we are saying is that theres no independent evidence or proof to support a god. Is there now? Didn't think so.

Are you saying that you have no argument for why god doesn't exist? When a person gets hot headed it becomes difficult to unravel their statements ....

 

[superluminal]

Are you saying that you have no argument for why god doesn't exist? When a person gets hot headed it becomes difficult to unravel their statements ....

Yes I do. In this case, the absence of evidence of any divine mechanism in the universe over millenia of human searching constitutes overwhelming evidence of absence. Does a lack of evidence for a "luminiferous ether" mean it doesn't exist? Yes. That's exactly what it means. Does a lack of evidence for bigfoot mean it dosen't exist? Yes. That's exactly what it means.

After an exaustive investigation and support for explanations with far more evidence and predictive power, we declare an absence of evidence sufficient for claiming the non-existence of the searched-for entity.

Simple really.

 

[(Q)]

Are you saying that you have no argument for why god doesn't exist? When a person gets hot headed it becomes difficult to unravel their statements ....

In the same way you have no argument that the Flying Spagetti Monster doesn't exist... the trick is to actually have an argument as to why you think your god does exist, and up to now, you have none.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes I do. In this case, the absence of evidence of any divine mechanism in the universe over millenia of human searching constitutes overwhelming evidence of absence. Does a lack of evidence for a "luminiferous ether" mean it doesn't exist? Yes. That's exactly what it means. Does a lack of evidence for bigfoot mean it dosen't exist? Yes. That's exactly what it means.

After an exaustive investigation and support for explanations with far more evidence and predictive power, we declare an absence of evidence sufficient for claiming the non-existence of the searched-for entity.

Simple really.

Searching requires that you search in the right place - which falls back on epstemology, methodology, process of knowledge or whatever you want to call it - the fact that there are some persons who have perceived the nature of god (as well as others who have not) along with narrations of the processes they utilised (descriptions of character etcetc ) seems to suggest otherwise - like for instance if you insist on seeing god with a microscope it would be just as absurd as trying to discover gold in cans of spaghetti

 

[superluminal]

Searching requires that you search in the right place - which falls back on epstemology, methodology, process of knowledge or whatever you want to call it - the fact that there are some persons who have perceived the nature of god (as well as others who have not) along with narrations of the processes they utilised (descriptions of character etcetc ) seems to suggest otherwise - like for instance if you insist on seeing god with a microscope it would be just as absurd as trying to discover gold in cans of spaghetti

This is, of course, rediculous. A creator of the universe that had a real existence and had a real effect on the universe would be evident given the current level of detail in which we can examine the universe. If you insist that you can perceive god but the best minds of science cannot, then you must be considered delusional. Either your god is real, and has a real effect on the cosmos that can be measured, or you are claiming that you can percieve the invisible non-effect of a non-effective entity. This would be delusion, would it not?

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

This is, of course, rediculous. A creator of the universe that had a real existence and had a real effect on the universe would be evident given the current level of detail in which we can examine the universe.

To make this statement with confidence (that our current level of materialistic knowledge is sufficient to determine whether god exists or not) you would have to have a correct premise for understanding what is god - like for instance the fact that the cosmic manifestation is not even close to known by us and the fact that the cosmic manifestation is declared as being a minor expansion of god's energetic capacity .....

BG 10.42: But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.

..... seems to suggest otherwise

If you insist that you can perceive god but the best minds of science cannot, then you must be considered delusional.

What of the best minds in science that have advocated some type of theistic view, that there is a god, that the universe is designed by intelligence etc etc? Are they also delusional? Or is your claims simply warranted because you disagree with them (I think it would be hard for you to establish that you are more intelligent than erudite scientists who advocate the existence of god)

Either your god is real, and has a real effect on the cosmos that can be measured, or you are claiming that you can percieve the invisible non-effect of a non-effective entity. This would be delusion, would it not?

Of course god has a very real effect - the problem comes when you assume that god can be measured since we only have the ability to measure dull matter - like we cannot measure our own consciousness, what to speak of the consciousness of entities that are superior to us

 

[Enterprise-D]

Of course god has a very real effect - the problem comes when you assume that god can be measured since we only have the ability to measure dull matter - like we cannot measure our own consciousness, what to speak of the consciousness of entities that are superior to us

The problem here is that you blindly ascribe a "god cause" to an observable effect that has yet to be explained by science. The lack of discovery of causes of "unexplainable" or "miraculous" events by the scientific community simply means that they need more time, rather than this being a justification for your assumption that there is a "god cause".

 

[superluminal]

superluminal



To make this statement with confidence (that our current level of materialistic knowledge is sufficient to determine whether god exists or not) you would have to have a correct premise for understanding what is god - like for instance the fact that the cosmic manifestation is not even close to known by us and the fact that the cosmic manifestation is declared as being a minor expansion of god's energetic capacity .....

BG 10.42: But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.

..... seems to suggest otherwise




What of the best minds in science that have advocated some type of theistic view, that there is a god, that the universe is designed by intelligence etc etc? Are they also delusional? Or is your claims simply warranted because you disagree with them (I think it would be hard for you to establish that you are more intelligent than erudite scientists who advocate the existence of god)

Of course god has a very real effect - the problem comes when you assume that god can be measured since we only have the ability to measure dull matter - like we cannot measure our own consciousness, what to speak of the consciousness of entities that are superior to us

Interesting circular argument. Don't you get dizzy doing that?

All I will say is that it's a good thing that the presence or absence of a god is not the basis for any human endeavor of substance that requires an actual result.

I'm glad the truth of god is not required to:
-Build bridges
-Save human lives
-Advance toward a more equitable and just society
-Develop the technology that makes your internet experience possible

What use is god anyway? What predictions can you make that either help or hinder humanity?

Can you use god to warn of a hurricanes approach?
Can reliably save lives by praying?
New thread time.

 

[lightgigantic]

The problem here is that you blindly ascribe a "god cause" to an observable effect that has yet to be explained by science. The lack of discovery of causes of "unexplainable" or "miraculous" events by the scientific community simply means that they need more time, rather than this being a justification for your assumption that there is a "god cause".

Its very difficult to advocate that god doesn't exist on the strength of erudite scientific pursuits since such paradigms cannot even tell us anything about the nature of our own consciousness - whats the need to talk of miracles .... science cannot explan why we have a sense of self.

the confirmation of god's existence comes through participating in actual religion

BG 9.2: This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed.

Guessing god may exist by material observation is merely a means to enable one to take to the process of religion with confidence

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

Interesting circular argument. Don't you get dizzy doing that?

If scientific knowledge is grossly incomplete for even apparent manifestations on this earth how do you make your statements with confidence?

 

[superluminal]

superluminal


If scientific knowledge is grossly incomplete for even apparent manifestations on this earth how do you make your statements with confidence?

Exemplify please.

 

[falcon22]

and after 60 years of such teachings you will find the language corrupted - heaps of examples in asia like that

Give me one example. Korea has mixed importance with Japanese and Chinese laugnage emphasis for over 500 years. Korean language is still not corrupted. My grandma knows Japanese and Korean both fluently. I gave you one example. Where is yours?

Only provided that they are actually operating out of a religion in the first place

Yes, they are operating out of religion. Education is supposed to be secular. Or you don't remember the principle of separation of church and state? Unless it's a private education system, schools should not be operating IN religion.

On the contrary it helps for the scientific unless you want to propose that purpose and structure are not interelated

It does in no way help the scientific world. I can simply say that this computer is too complex to have been created by random chance and thus it must have been created by higher beings, us humans and that's intelligent design right there. That's not science; that's simple deductive reasoning. Science is questioning evoluion and questioning the world around us, not taking ANY side but instead trying to explore different levels of the environment. For example, why did some fossils which are older than other fossils end up in a higher layer of the ground? What is the meaning of short evolutionary bursts and then a long period of slow adaptation? These are the flaws of evolutionary theory that is being questioned. It's PURELY science, no god involved, no higher power involved. This is science. Questioning the world around us and trying to figure it out, this is science. How is claiming that a Creator is behind everything helpful to scientific? Would/Could you explain that to me?

 

[lightgigantic]

Exemplify please.

any branch of science you care to mention is punctuated by an incompleteness of knowledge - in microbiology they still can't determine whats going on in a cell and how everything is synchronized

 

[falcon22]

Anyone who believes in God is pretty conceited. And probably loves himself too much to actually believe that some invisible being would care enough to listen to prayers and form His will over others. A little like Hitler.

responding to a purely emmotional response with another purely emmotional response is purely emmotional

Where's the emotion in my response? Are you using that as a defense against my response? Isn't that a bit of a cop-out? Besides, don't you realize by now, everything has a point of view, and every text in the world has some form of emotion? Bible has the emotion of being morraly superior, authoritarianism, subserviency, anger.... Government reports have the emotion of Patriotism, Nationalism, revenge, anger, pride... Romantic novels have emotions. News papers have emotions, no matter how objective they try to be. Poems have emotions.

Does emotion make a text any less credible? Emotion is not what diminishes the credibility of a text; lack of evidence and lack of logic is what makesit less credible.

Your logic that because my response is emotional, it is not to be taken seriously, is a falliable logic because everything has emotions and if we go according to your logic, then everything should not be taken seriously and you damn well know that that's not the case in reality.