What is your belief regarding the existence of "God"?

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
Actually, that is who you really would have an issue with, a religious fundamentalist.

I agree with you that you shouldn't just stick your head in the sand. Especially since you believe. You should question your belief, there is nothing wrong with that. It's wise.

Agreed!

Whether they fit or not is not the question, since you can make anything fit just by interpreting it differently.

Which is why atheists shouldn't think someone is an idiot just because they believe in God. Clearly, it is possible to follow a religious text without sacrificing logic and scientific knowledge.

I don't see any modern physicist saying that we don't have freewill and that our choices now don't affect our future.

Read Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos," and read up on the other subjects I have outlined in this thread. I didn't make that stuff up.

True, but based on your position, there is no reason for it now, since everything is already in place.

Again, the very idea of "everything is already in its place" is something that only makes sense in the context of the passage of time, something that is highly relative and only has its specific meaning to us. The "everything that's in its place" applies to God as well. I don't believe in God out of some hope that he is going to change my future in some way, so why does your statement even have relevance?

To those who believe in a soul, not sure why it matters anyway though, remember that all is already in place. So if your going to heaven and I am going to hell, nothing I do today is going to change that according to your position.

Ahhh - first of all, those who believe in a soul are the same ones that believe in God - the two go together. So if you are going to make an argument regarding the relevance of God, you have to acknowledge the existence of a soul in that argument. And the ideas regarding heaven and hell are that they exist outside our universe (in some sort of spiritual realm), so THOSE futures are very much open to change.

You and I were not talking about this, got this confused with another poster. But no worries.

Based on your position of freewill and the future and that god has already put everything in place. Then yes unless you agree that there is no longer a need for god then it is a contradiction.

No, there IS a need for God in regards to your soul, which is not constrained to the staticity of the future.

If you want to thrown in the soul then I ask, if everything is already in place then it's taken care of as well. So what is the point.

No, everything that is part of spacetime is already in its place. Our souls are not part of that reality. (Or so goes my belief.)

Physics doesn't tell us we don't have freewill, not at all.

See above. It does. You won't see the phrase "free will" because that is a philosophical concept, but physics does INDEED indicate that the future is already written.

Right your position is that god already knows and god makes no mistakes. So no need for god to ever interact with us including regarding ones soul. That is the condradiciton because even if we have a perceived notion of freewill and choice, your position is that we don't really make them, god makes them.

Nope. Again, see above. Our souls can mature or not. God has left that in our hands.

My position is that regardless of whether we were god created, we must have freewill for a god to be of any value to us.

My position is also that we do have freewill and we do affect the future. Our actions lead us in one direction or the other. In the end what is, is what is but our choices brought us to that place.

I agree that we have free will, but it doesn't affect the outcome of physical reality. It's kind of like those movies where someone sees the future, and they try their damndest to change it, but no matter what they do the future doesn't change...

 

[SolusCado]

So you don't believe in the Bible?

Dude. I'm not going to respond to your questions if you aren't going to read my posts. I've answered this question in depth already.

 

[Trooper]

I think God would HAVE to be a separate entity that "lives" outside the universe. It is illogical to think that he created something he is part of.

Science has contributed immensely to solving world problems and to reduce suffering. I feel it’s necessary to defend atheism. Focusing on an afterlife can take away from the life itself.

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men."- Al-Ma'arri

That still brings us back to a SINGLE locale for the 'invention' of God, and I still don't believe man was creative enough to come up with the idea on his own.

Agnosticism, Apatheism, Atheism, Cosmicism, Deism, Henotheism, Ignosticism, Maltheism, Misotheism, Monism, Monolatrism, Monotheism, Nontheism, Pandeism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Polydeism, Polytheism, Post-theism, Theism, Theopanism, Transtheism, and Mythology.

These are memes, all memes, with a dash of group thinking. You’ve been accusing everyone of not providing anything to counter your delusional meme, and yet, you have not provided anything of substance. You have this crazy notion that just because people have used the idea of gods, to explain to the unknown. That this supernatural deity does, in fact, exist.

YouTube: Dan Dennett Lecture
Dan Dennett on Dangerous Memes

What about all of the people who didn’t have this God delusion or who rejected this idea? There are ancient cultures of such. Atheism is as old as religion.
Shall I then say that this is evidence that God does not exist?

Atheism: Jonathan Miller - A Brief History of Disbelief

 

[SolusCado]

We have all these different approaches. Agnosticism, Apatheism, Atheism, Cosmicism, Deism, Henotheism, Ignosticism, Maltheism, Misotheism, Monism, Monolatrism, Monotheism, Nontheism, Pandeism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Polydeism, Polytheism, Post-theism, Theism, Theopanism, Transtheism, and Mythology.

What best describes your belief? You obviously don't believe in the bible. So, do you fall into another category?

Assuming you are talking to me, I DO believe in the Bible, which has been made abundantly clear on this thread. I am going to have to say the same thing to you I just said to spidergoat - if you aren't going to read my posts, I'm not going to reply to yours.

 

[Trooper]

What you are saying does not follow the bible. If you believe in the bible, and it is your proof that there is a God, then you need to follow it. You can't pick and choose.

 

[SolusCado]

Science has contributed immensely to solving world problems and to reduce suffering. I feel it’s necessary to defend atheism. Focusing on an afterlife can take away from the life itself.

In my experience, atheists focus on an afterlife far more than theists. Christians at least are confident in their place in the afterlife, so little time is spent dwelling on it. Instead, they focus their lives on being "good Christians", which at its core simply means to love everyone. Surely you don't think that is a bad thing.

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men."- Al-Ma'arri

I agree completely, which is why I am such a fundamental believer in freedom of religion. Governments should have nothing to say about religions at all, which is supposed to be the case for the US, based on the constitution.

These are memes, all memes, with a dash of group thinking. You’ve been accusing everyone of not providing anything to counter your delusional meme, and yet, you have not provided anything of substance. You have this crazy notion that just because people have used the idea of gods, to explain to the unknown. That this supernatural deity does, in fact, exist.

Not true at all. First, I haven't "been accusing" anyone of anything. This all got started with a couple inflammatory comments regarding MY beliefs, and I have been defending the fact that there is nothing inherently contradictory to my beliefs. If you think that my position has provided nothing of substance, you are free to point out where and how. For you to suggest that I believe in God simply because people have used the idea of God to explain the unknown makes it clear that you have either not been reading my posts, or don't understand them. This is the last response I will give you until you read them.

 

[Trooper]

Give me a break. It’s difficult for someone to focus on crank ideas. I don’t enjoy fiction. You cannot mix the Theory of Evolution with the bible.
They do not complement each other. They contrast each other.

Not only do our organs evolve due to natural selection but our brains, as well. Our brains can solve complex problems and most of the time we are not even aware of them. We have done a great job at conquering our physical environment, and we are able to do this to some extent because we are a social species, and we work together. It is extremely important to our survival to be successful in a social environment. We have developed a complex social adaptation and just like language, writing, or music is a byproduct, religion is also a byproduct due to this adaptation.

We have to try to judge what others are thinking, and what their goals and intentions are, even when they are not present. We have the ability to remember the past and plan for the future. All of these mechanisms make us vulnerable to the idea of a god. When someone we love dies, we still think about them. This makes us vulnerable to the idea of the separation of body and soul. It is counterintuitive and so we try to rationalize. We have this tendency to over analyze and fill in the blanks.

"A category of stimuli of great importance for primates, humans in particular, is that formed by actions done by other individuals, if we want to survive, we must understand the actions of others. Furthermore, without action understanding, social organization is impossible. In the case of humans, there is another faculty that depends on the observation of others’ actions: imitation learning. Unlike most species, we are able to learn by imitation, and this faculty is at the basis of human culture."-THE MIRROR-NEURON SYSTEM
Giacomo Rizzolatti and Laila Craighero


Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief

Cognitive Science and what does it have to do with religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion

 

[M00se1989]

I like all of those strange ideas in a purely metaphorical sense. I believe in the bible as well as many other religious books, I just dislike the psychology we currently employ on the subject from a philosophical perspective. It has adverse effects all across the globe. Starting with every individuals beliefs. Such as the big bang. The question is not does he exist, the question is how can we be more like him. As intelligent as him so we can too bring up life to the highest standard of life possible. Put it on another planet in an instant. respect is always given and respect is always earned in any cycle of ideas. Some people just like to hide "it" from themselves with words.Conceit

 

[SolusCado]

Give me a break. It’s difficult for someone to focus on crank ideas. I don’t enjoy fiction. You cannot mix the Theory of Evolution with the bible.
They do not complement each other. They contrast each other.

Not only do our organs evolve due to natural selection but our brains, as well. Our brains can solve complex problems and most of the time we are not even aware of them. We have done a great job at conquering our physical environment, and we are able to do this to some extent because we are a social species, and we work together. It is extremely important to our survival to be successful in a social environment. We have developed a complex social adaptation and just like language, writing, or music is a byproduct, religion is also a byproduct due to this adaptation.

We have to try to judge what others are thinking, and what their goals and intentions are, even when they are not present. We have the ability to remember the past and plan for the future. All of these mechanisms make us vulnerable to the idea of a god. When someone we love dies, we still think about them. This makes us vulnerable to the idea of the separation of body and soul. It is counterintuitive and so we try to rationalize. We have this tendency to over analyze and fill in the blanks.

"A category of stimuli of great importance for primates, humans in particular, is that formed by actions done by other individuals, if we want to survive, we must understand the actions of others. Furthermore, without action understanding, social organization is impossible. In the case of humans, there is another faculty that depends on the observation of others’ actions: imitation learning. Unlike most species, we are able to learn by imitation, and this faculty is at the basis of human culture."-THE MIRROR-NEURON SYSTEM
Giacomo Rizzolatti and Laila Craighero


Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief

Cognitive Science and what does it have to do with religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion

If you believe they contrast each other, you are limiting yourself to a very narrow interpretation of what the Bible says, and if you cannot open your mind to accept that it may actually mean something other than that for which you have an argument, then you argument is pretty weak. In any case, you haven't presented anything that disputes what I have presented, so I have nothing more to say.

 

[SolusCado]

I like all of those strange ideas in a purely metaphorical sense. I believe in the bible as well as many other religious books, I just dislike the psychology we currently employ on the subject from a philosophical perspective. It has adverse effects all across the globe. Starting with every individuals beliefs. Such as the big bang. The question is not does he exist, the question is how can we be more like him. As intelligent as him so we can too bring up life to the highest standard of life possible. Put it on another planet in an instant. respect is always given and respect is always earned in any cycle of ideas. Some people just like to hide "it" from themselves with words.Conceit

M00se; why were you banned?

 

[gmilam]

Here's what I see as the primary problem with Christianity, take it or leave it:

1. If God has a plan for man's salvation, then I am going to assume he made sure it was written down properly - otherwise, what's the point?

2. So, why does man need salvation? If you read your bible you will find out that it all goes back to a literal "fall from grace" in the Garden of Eden.

3. The Garden of Eden story is not true, therefore the plan of salvation as recorded in the Bible is based on BS.

4. Conclusion, god had no hand in writing the bible and there is no plan for our salvation. In fact, there is no need for salvation - hallelujah!

 

[SolusCado]

Trooper,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Notice, it is a logical fallacy. I have no interest arguing logical fallacies. Find a new position, or a new place to write.

 

[Trooper]

Do you know why atheists know more about religion than zealous religious nuts, because we study it.
If you want to argue against atheism then you must first study it. I’m done, as well. You’re full of shit...:mufc:

 

[SolusCado]

Here's what I see as the primary problem with Christianity, take it or leave it:

1. If God has a plan for man's salvation, then I am going to assume he made sure it was written down properly - otherwise, what's the point?

Many Christians would argue that His plan for salvation is pretty damned clear. You just refuse to accept it.

2. So, why does man need salvation? If you read your bible you will find out that it all goes back to a literal "fall from grace" in the Garden of Eden.

It is the nature of who we are. It is part of our creation. Again, few Christians would debate this one.

3. The Garden of Eden story is not true, therefore the plan of salvation as recorded in the Bible is based on BS.

Not true in what sense? If the story is stepped in metaphor and allegory, and you aren't even clear on what it says, how can you even remotely begin to make the claim that it isn't true.

4. Conclusion, god had no hand in writing the bible and there is no plan for our salvation. In fact, there is no need for salvation - hallelujah!

Your conclusion is based on suppositions you haven't proved.

 

[M00se1989]

M00se; why were you banned?

physics hates me... it shows this emotion... but you put a meta in front of it and it all works out... put Schrodinger's cat on a nuclear warhead is about a certain as what would happen if I put my hand in the LHC and philosophized with a hammer...

 

[jpappl]

Many Christians would argue that His plan for salvation is pretty damned clear. You just refuse to accept it.



It is the nature of who we are. It is part of our creation. Again, few Christians would debate this one.



Not true in what sense? If the story is stepped in metaphor and allegory, and you aren't even clear on what it says, how can you even remotely begin to make the claim that it isn't true.



Your conclusion is based on suppositions you haven't proved.

Nor can you prove any of it is truth.

As you have said you can only believe.

 

[Trooper]

One last response because you are so charming…:crazy:

gmilamThe Garden of Eden story is not true, therefore the plan of salvation as recorded in the Bible is based on BS.

If the story is stepped in metaphor and allegory, and you aren't even clear on what it says, how can you even remotely begin to make the claim that it isn't true?

Michael Shermer, Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story

In my experience, atheists focus on an afterlife far more than theists. Christians at least are confident in their place in the afterlife, so little time is spent dwelling on it.

Atheists focus on the afterlife? Not true.
We are extremely confident in our place in the afterlife...:mufc:

What happens after I Die?

Spoiler

Yep! That's right.You're an Idiot

 

[gmilam]

Not true in what sense? If the story is stepped in metaphor and allegory, and you aren't even clear on what it says, how can you even remotely begin to make the claim that it isn't true.

You may not believe this, but over 25 years ago, when I was a younger man, I went through a period of very sincere and serious bible study. I am very clear on what it says. (In my case, it is true, studying the bible is what convinced me that it's not the word of god.)

At the time I was content with Genesis being allegorical. Jesus loved us and life was good. However, the more I studied, the more it became apparent that without a literal fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, the Jesus story falls apart.

The rocks in the Earth (written by the hand of Mother Nature herself) confirm that the story is not factual. Sorry if that blows your world view.

 

[M00se1989]

Then god came back and invented the internet and said, "figure it out for yourselves!!!" but that just added to repetitive amounts of confusion. So he put some "pricks" on the internet to explain it better.

Ahh. I can't scroll all the way down after I die!!! but I can get right back up to the top easily...

 

[SolusCado]

You may not believe this, but over 25 years ago, when I was a younger man, I went through a period of very sincere and serious bible study. I am very clear on what it says. (In my case, it is true, studying the bible is what convinced me that it's not the word of god.)

At the time I was content with Genesis being allegorical. Jesus loved us and life was good. However, the more I studied, the more it became apparent that without a literal fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, the Jesus story falls apart.

The rocks in the Earth (written by the hand of Mother Nature herself) confirm that the story is not factual. Sorry if that blows your world view.

Well, given the interpretation I presented earlier, it all still makes perfect sense to me. The literal fall from grace wasn't so much something that happened to us, but something we became aware of that was in us already. IOW, we evolved guilt.