why do you worship Gods?

Brutus1964 said:
Where this cartoon goes wrong is that it assumes that God does not have a set of rules he must govern himself by. If God broke his own rules he would cease to be God.

What does an omnipotent, omnipresent being need with rules?

Other questions that bother me.... God knows the problems and mistakes of man that will occur in the future. Obviously God can't change the future since he/she/it knows it in absolute terms. If God cannot change the future, does this mean that God is fallible?

If god is fallible then he ceases to be god.
 
SkinWalker said:
What does an omnipotent, omnipresent being need with rules?

Other questions that bother me.... God knows the problems and mistakes of man that will occur in the future. Obviously God can't change the future since he/she/it knows it in absolute terms. If God cannot change the future, does this mean that God is fallible?

If god is fallible then he ceases to be god.

God chooses to be infallible. He will never cease to be God. But, that does not mean it is impossible. He also has free will himself. Everything he does is based on his own choices. He has given that same gift to us. Yes God knows the mistakes we will make, but he will not stop us from making them. To force us to do his bidding would be to make slaves out of us and that would be a sin. So God is omnipotent as far as his ability to do anything, but he too is subject to the consequences of his actions. Having the ability to do anything does not mean you do everything.
 
Brutus1964 said:
Yes God knows the mistakes we will make, but he will not stop us from making them.

This god knows we will make mistakes and what mistakes we will make and yet he creates us? Sounds like a set up to me. And this is a "loving" god? The same holds true for the myth of adam and eve with regard to the tree of knowlege. God knew they would eat from it... why even put the damn thing there to begin with? What purpose did it serve if not to set up adam and eve?

The answer, of course, isn't anything so mystical as "god placed temptation in the garden for man to develop free will, etc." The answer is that between 4000 and 6000 years ago, people were trading stories within their cultures about how they came into being... these stories were full of metaphor and mythology and the "tree of knowlege of good and evil" never actually existed.

Brutus1964 said:
So God is omnipotent as far as his ability to do anything, but he too is subject to the consequences of his actions.

Baloney. Who or what would hold him accountable? No one or nothing... this is why when god kills thousands of people its considered by the christian superstition to be "his will." When one of this alleged god's servants does the same (i.e. Moses, who also took women and children as slaves and raped them), its considered "holy."

If there exists a god or all-powerful deity in the universe, it certainly isn't the superstitious myth that humans have conjured in their brains.
 
I've posted this in two places as you did the same with the post I quoted. (also posted in mormon teachings)
brutus said:
Many people have asked why did God put us though all of this pain and suffering if he is a loving God.
I would appreciate your answer to this, and please dont say you've already answered.
brutus said:
Why didn't he just make us all good in the first place and guarantee our return to him? It is because by doing that he would be making slaves of us that could only do his bidding.
but you are slaves, because your life is preordained for you, and please dont say you have free will, that just rubbish, check this out.http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40065
brutus said:
To make us a slave would be a sin, and if God were to sin he would cease to be God.
but your god has sinned, repeatedly. I suggest you check this out also. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40731so why are you still worshiping it.
brutus said:
Therefore, He had to give us free will and allow us to be good or evil on our own. We must decide for ourselves. There is no other way. God will not force us to do anything against our own free will.
rubbish, again back to the free will crap.


brutus said:
It is not God that decides how much good or evil will exist. That is completely up to us. So the answer to the question this thread poses is that evil must be allowed to exist or God could not continue to be God.
you do come out with some crap, your god needs to do evil to make sure his sheep, thats you, cower in fear of his wrath, this being you loving god.
but evil does not need to exist, it only does because he wishes it, read the bible as it's written not between the lines.

brutus said:
In our pre-Earth life with God, he gave us all the choice whether to accept his plan or not. 1/3rd chose not to and they were sent to Earth without bodies. The other 2/3rds accepted and came to Earth with bodies and here we are now. God had to give Adam and Eve the choice to fall. Even Jesus Christ had the choice whether to go through with the atonemnent. He pleaded with God the father whether there was another way, and God told him there was not. Jesus did go through with it by his own free will. Nowhere on the way has anything been forced anyone.
Having free will does not mean we are not subject to the consequences of our choice.So the fact that our free will results in a consequence is not taking our will away from us.
you religious lot are truly delusional, twilight zone time, we now have a prelife, life, and an afterlife, the real ones the one in the middle. wow

your whole post is moronic, but you end it with this bit of true logic, why cant you think like that all the time.

brutus said:
It is a natural law that all actions have a reaction.
 
Last edited:
mis-t-highs said:
by directly and indirectly killing people. that's ever so loving.

Yea people die...great excuse. Get over it. All that proves is that the wages of sin is death. And the whole point is that this sinful flesh is not all that there is. Not everyone shares your limited views. You see what you want to see...I and many others see much more. We call it "the big picture".

Love,

Lori
 
The world would be such a better place if everyone would get over their silly fantasies about "afterlife" and "eternal life" in some heaven and live their lives like this is all they get. The belief that you can get a second chance, multiple chances, or continued existance causes people to think that this existance, this reality doesn't matter as long as they please some imagined deity.

I have news for you people.... there's no evidence of any continued existance beyond the consciousness you now possess. So start treating each other like this is it. We you die, you're gone. The matter and energy of your physical being will continue as matter and energy: calcium, phosphates and nitrates to the soil, protein to the worms and rodents, ATP for the plants... but you won't be aware of it.

So, yeah... we get to exist forever according to the Law of Conservation, but we just won't know it.
 
SkinWalker,

The world would be such a better place if everyone would get over their silly fantasies about "afterlife" and "eternal life" in some heaven and live their lives like this is all they get.

How do you know it is a fantasy, have you died and come back?

The belief that you can get a second chance, multiple chances, or continued existance causes people to think that this existance, this reality doesn't matter as long as they please some imagined deity.

Who believes we get second chances?

I have news for you people.... there's no evidence of any continued existance beyond the consciousness you now possess.

There is more evidence for continued existence than not.
In fact it would be interesting to hear what evidence you have that when we die, that's it.

So start treating each other like this is it.

You mean start thinking like you?
Why would we want to do that? I actually like my life the way its, and I treat people okay as far as I can tell. Why would you want me to change?

We you die, you're gone. The matter and energy of your physical being will continue as matter and energy: calcium, phosphates and nitrates to the soil, protein to the worms and rodents, ATP for the plants... but you won't be aware of it.

That's fair enough, if you see yourself purely as the body, and nothing more, but I don't see it like that.

Jan Ardena.
 
Jan Ardena said:
How do you know it is a fantasy, have you died and come back?

Have you?

Jan Ardena said:
There is more evidence for continued existence than not.
In fact it would be interesting to hear what evidence you have that when we die, that's it.

It would be just as interesting to hear what evidence ya have that we have an afterlife.
 
Jan Ardena said:
How do you know it is a fantasy, have you died and come back?

Without evidence to suggest otherwise, "fantasy" is all that remains.

Jan Ardena said:
Who believes we get second chances?

Or how ever many chances it'll take you to cleanse your karma.

Jan Ardena said:
There is more evidence for continued existence than not.
In fact it would be interesting to hear what evidence you have that when we die, that's it.

Why would I need to prove a negative? Lets see the evidence for "continued existance." Please cite the reference to that journal article in the New England Journal of Medicine for us.

Jan Ardena said:
That's fair enough, if you see yourself purely as the body, and nothing more, but I don't see it like that.

I'm not so bigoted to disbelieve that physical matter can have cognition and sentiance, if only for a brief period.
 
I think i started a thread asking if gods are all egotists. I think that if they existed at all then they probably are. " Come on! worship me, praise me , love me.'Coz if you don't i will smite you with a plague of boils, frogs, and locusts" If the masses don't buy the lie, then religion loses its power base. It just does'nt compute this religion thing, utter drivel sprouted by corrupt evil gits with their own adgendas.
 
Slotty

God is not egotistical; however I agree with you that most religions make him out to be. God did not create us for his sake. He does not demand to be worshiped to stroke his own insatiable ego. Our ultimate destiny is not to go to heaven and stare in awe at his greatness for eternity. If that was his intent then he could have just made us into automatons designed to do that in the first place. No need for us to come to this earth and suffer, or no need to send people to Hell. God's plan has always been to give us everything he has. He is not reserving Godhood for himself alone, and keeping all others out. He put us here for that exact purpose. Many religions take issue with this belief; however it is the only one that makes sense. If God is all powerful and all loving then why wouldn't he make us God's? You cannot say he cannot do it, if he can then why won’t he? The only way he would not is if he is egotistical and wants all the glory for himself. God is not egotistical so he will not hold us back from our ultimate destiny. It is the only logical conclusion. Either we can become God's ourselves or there is no God. There is no way around it. I believe in God, therefore I believe in the divine potential of man.
 
Last edited:
SkinWalker,

Without evidence to suggest otherwise, "fantasy" is all that remains.

I am not of that opinion.
What evidence would convince you that maybe there we may survive the death of our physical bodies in some subtle form?

Or how ever many chances it'll take you to cleanse your karma.

Do you know what karma is?
Or don't you care and just make it up as you go along?

In fact it would be interesting to hear what evidence you have that when we die, that's it.

Why would I need to prove a negative? Lets see the evidence for "continued existance." Please cite the reference to that journal article in the New England Journal of Medicine for us.

It's not a negative necessarily, it just cannot be observed by scientific method. Also your rant heavily implies that you know that when we die, that's it. Absense of evidence is not a good enough explanation to back up such heavy implications. So again I ask; How do you know there is no life after death?
Why would such evidence be found in an article entitled "New England Journal of Medicine?"

I'm not so bigoted to disbelieve that physical matter can have cognition and sentiance, if only for a brief period.

Could you re-phrase that

Jan Ardena.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I am not of that opinion.
What evidence would convince you that maybe there we may survive the death of our physical bodies in some subtle form?

Incontrovertable information from "beyond." Information that could only come from someone who "passed;" A measurement of a consciousness transitioning from this existance to the next; a measurement or empirical observation of the "next realm" of existance; etc.

Jan Ardena said:
Do you know what karma is?
Or don't you care and just make it up as you go along?

Strawman argument... I'll skip it.

Jan Ardena said:
It's not a negative necessarily, it just cannot be observed by scientific method.

The scientific method is all that there is to empirically observe or experience reality. Any speculations beyond that are simply fantasy: real only in the minds of those that speculate. If this is something you have little problem believing in and it helps you exist before death, so be it. I maintain, however, that the vast majority of believers in some "continued existance," including yourself, believe as much because they are unwilling to accept the probability that the observable universe is all that there is or will be for them.

So it was, indeed, a request to prove a negative... that "life after death" doesn't exist.

Jan Ardena said:
Also your rant heavily implies that you know that when we die, that's it. Absense of evidence is not a good enough explanation to back up such heavy implications. So again I ask; How do you know there is no life after death?

There is absence of evidence for many, many speculations that even you would consider ridiculas. That doesn't mean that any of them are probable in the least. I sincerely hope that there is some existance beyond what I can observe and measure, but I won't waste one minute of this life expecting that it be so, and I certainly won't live my days as if I get a better existance if I follow some basic rules that are obviously created by my own species in their attempts to explain the universe at around the time they just figured out how to write.

Jan Ardena said:
Why would such evidence be found in an article entitled "New England Journal of Medicine?"

Where else would such a revelation in human physiology be found? It is one of the premiere journals of its class? If it isn't in NEJM, then where?

But then we're talking about Near Death Experiences.

The phenomena of NDE and OBE were popularized in the 1970's by Raymond Moody, who wrote Life After Life, and, subsequently, many people came forward and "corroborated" his accounts. In the 1980's, one of the best corroborations came from a medical doctor named Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, who published this account, which I'll excerpt here:
Mrs Schwartz came into the hospital and told us how she had had a near death experience. She was a housewife from Indiana, a very simple and unsophisticated woman. She had advanced cancer, had hemorrhaged and was put into a private hospital, very close to death. The doctors attempted for 45 minutes to revive her, after which she had no vital signs and was declared dead. She told me later that while they were working on her, she had an experience of simply floating out of her physical body and hovering a few feet above the bed, watching the resuscitation team work very frantically. She described to me the designs of the doctors' ties, she repeated a joke one of the young doctors told, she remembered absolutely everything. And all she wanted to tell them was relax, take it easy, it is all right, don't struggle so hard. The more she tried to tell them, the more frantically they worked to revive her. Then, in her own language, she "gave up" on them and lost consciousness. Afdter they declared her dead, she made a comeback and lived for another year and a half. (Kübler-Ross, 1981, p. 86)

Kübler-Ross' account of the patient's NDE is typical and has several typical and expected characteristics:
  1. a floating OBE in which you look down and see your body.
  2. passing through a tunnel or spiral chamber toward a bright light that represents transcendence to the "other side."
  3. and, emerging on the other side and seeing loved ones who have already passed away or a godlike figure.
(Shermer, 1997)

Kübler-Ross goes into great detail in the article (which is in a 1981 issue of Playboy!), describing corroborating evidence from other NDE's from accident victims who can describe the scenes of rescue or of people who have been disfigured becoming whole again, etc.

But none of this creates any thing more than speculation about the nature of NDE or OBE as phenomena that are more than side effects of normal brain activity. Trauma and surgery patients are probably not totally unconscious or under anesthesia (there are different levels of anesthesia, since there are different responses the body is capable of during surgery at different levels that are needed) and it is a good bet that they are overhearing the entire process on some level of consciousness. Then the memories are supplanted by visualizations the brain creates... our brains are quite good at this after all.

Another early speculation about NDE and OBE comes from Stanislav Grof (1976; and 1977), who argued that every human being has already experienced the characteristics of NDE, the sensation of floating, the passage down a tunnel, the emergence into a bright light: birth. This memory, he suggested, could be imprinted in the infant's mind and triggered by later, equally traumatic events, such as death. Admittedly, there are a lot of holes in Grof's work, especially since babies are typically born with their eyes closed and don't see the birth cannal... and, Grof's subjects were experimenting with LSD, which creates its own hallucinations rather than drawing on memories.

Biochemical and neurophysiological causes are the most likely causes of NDE and OBE. Certain alkaloids like belladonna can trigger hallucinations of flying, and, indeed, this is where we get the legend of the "flying broom" of witches. Medieval witches coated their brooms with belladonna and "flew" them in the buff, allowing the belladonna to be absorbed into the vaginal lips (Sergeant, 1936, p. 41). Other drugs, like DMT can create the perception that the world is enlarging or shrinking, MDA stimulates a feeling of age-repression, LSD triggers visual and audio hallucinations, etc.

At first, one might argue that those who experience NDE haven't been demonstrated to have taken any of these drugs, but then one has to consider that these are man-made or introduced drugs, and yet there are receptors within the brain for them. Therefore, there must be natural equivalents that are produced by the body under certain circumstances. Perhaps NDE and OBE are as easily explained as natural trips induced by traumatic event (i.e. death).

Add to this the notion that most people in Western society have been exposed to the Judeo-Christian idea of heaven and god. The mind has a way of filling in the gaps when it goes into hallucination.

NDE cannot be cited as any sort of evidence for a "continuation of existance."


References:

Grof, Stanislav (1976). Realms of the Human Unconscious. New York: Dutton

Grof, Stanislav and Halifax, J. (1977) The Human Encounter with Death. New York: Dutton.

Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth (1981). Playboy Interview: Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. Playboy.

Sergeant, Philip (1936) Witches and Warlocks. London: Hutchinson & Co.

Shermer, Michael (1997).Why People Believe Weird Things. New York: MJF Books.
 
SkinWalker said:
The world would be such a better place if everyone would get over their silly fantasies about "afterlife" and "eternal life" in some heaven and live their lives like this is all they get.
While the importance of existence would be emphasized for some, there would also be people who would react by becoming more fearful and selfish than they already are. I am of the belief that most of humanity gives the highest importance to issues of personal gain, so therefore having no "fantasies" of afterlife could easily result in more anxiety and fear and hatred. If I have two apples and my brother steals one I will be less likely to attack him in order to retrieve the one he took. That is the majority of people's response to hope for eternal life, acting more compassionately, not less. Of course, there will always be some "evil" person who will use any excuse to gain from another's loss, but do you really think they need a religious excuse? Seriously, think about that one question.
If the religions go, another excuse to be inhumanely selfish will be found.
 
cole grey said:
If the religions go, another excuse to be inhumanely selfish will be found.

Business. Before the Mafia breaks your legs they say "Nothing personal, its just business".

Communism. Nothing is more anti-religious than Communism, but communism's abominable excesses far outnumber any indiscretions ever committed by the Religious, and that is placing just 100 Years of Communism against 2000 years of Religion -- the Communists would still be guilty of more atrocities against natural morality.

Conservatives. Opportunity means Greed. Freedom means Exploitation. Liberation means Conquest. I don't suppose there is any Evil anywhere that the Conservatives, if they could make a profit from it, could not find a Euphemism for. Likewise any Human Virtue that gets in the way of their aspirations to World Dimination are relegated to their category of Damnation called Liberalism.

Democracy. Woodrow Wilson was the first NAZI with his doctrine that Democracy would institutionalize Ethnic Self-Determination. Hitler was only a good Wilsonian as he tried his best to allow the German People to express their Ethnic Self Determination. Meanwhile nobody seems to notice that the Ethnic Civil Wars that are touched off by the introduction of Democracy are not getting any less widespread or any less bloody. Indeed, Totalitarian Regimes and Communist Regimes, despite their abominable excesses, were able to keep the Peace far more successfully than Democracies, when introduced. After all, when confronted with possiblity that your entire Society could be subjugated simply by being incorporated into a territory in which it is only a numerical minority, is there any choice but to fight? Is not Democracy the Tyranny of the Majority over the Minorities. How could that possibly be considered an Ideal? Winner Take All, which is how Democracy has been working is both threatening and dangerous. To have Peace in the World, everyone must feel as though their interests are being fairly considered, and that can't happen with Majorities beating minorities over the head and leaving them virtually disenfranchised.
 
Athelwulf said:
I'm an Atheist, but I believe I have a word to contribute.

It's human nature to hope for something more. We look around us, and think to ourselves, "Is this it?". Some aren't comfortable with the possibility that this is it, so they conclude, "This can't be it!".

Another factor plays in with this. A lot of people think, or like to think, or wish, that something is true kuz they think it's true. They keep telling themselves that what they think is true really is true. It's kinda like denial.

So, wanting something to be a certain way, and convincing yerself that that certain way is the way it really is, is how ya make a religion.



!!!!!! no comments.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Athelwulf,
Have you?

No.
But i'm not the one making claims.

Haha! Yes you are.

Jan Ardena said:
It would be just as interesting to hear what evidence ya have that we have an afterlife.

NDE's are the closest thing we can call evidence.

Near-death experiences don't make very good evidence for an afterlife.

NDE is an acronym for "near-death experience", right? Please spell things out if the abbreviation can't be easily and immediately understood.
 
Back
Top