Why worship an imperfect God?

[Quantum Quack]

I declare God to be non-existent because of the absence of objective evidence to support the notion of his existence. End of story.

Please define what your definition of God is....the one that you feel does not exist?
And I bet we agree...

 

[ronan]

I declare God to be non-existent because of the absence of objective evidence to support the notion of his existence. End of story.

god has to exist, that's an evidence.

If you do not see that, I think you will still be able to live but you will miss one beautiful aspect of life.

Explain me how you can be conscious of this world. (please look for "qualia" on the net if you do not know much about consciousness)

Science cannot answer this question because the answer lies in god

 

[Myles]

Please define what your definition of God is....the one that you feel does not exist?
And I bet we agree...

How do YOU define nothing ,other than the absence of something ?

 

[Myles]

god has to exist, that's an evidence.

If you do not see that, I think you will still be able to live but you will miss one beautiful aspect of life.

Explain me how you can be conscious of this world. (please look for "qualia" on the net if you do not know much about consciousness)

Science cannot answer this question because the answer lies in god

There are all sorts of questions science cannot answer....yet. But that is no reason to make something up to fill the gap in our knowledge.

 

[ronan]

There are all sorts of questions science cannot answer....yet. But that is no reason to make something up to fill the gap in our knowledge.

it is not simply a gap in knowledge but a gap in POSSIBLE scientific (at least how science is defined today) knowledge, and we are free to define God as this lack.

proving then the existence of god or whatever you call it, at least somehting that is beyond the possible knowledge of science!

 

[Myles]

it is not simply a gap in knowledge but a gap in POSSIBLE scientific (at least how science is defined today) knowledge, and we are free to define God as this lack.

proving then the existence of god or whatever you call it, at least somehting that is beyond the possible knowledge of science!

You are doing no more than making an assumption. That is the speciality of religion; to offer explanations which cannot be objectively supported. Look at the history of science and you will see abundant proof of superstitious explanations being rubbished by science. As time passes, religion is running out of gaps to fill.

 

[ronan]

I am not talking about religion (science is one of them)

I am talking about god

Also, I was not giving any explanation, just a fact: consciousness exist and is not explainable by science (by principle)

I was talking not of any lack but a special one, consciousness itself
The argument about qualia(PLEASE, check out on the net) is different because we all know that consciousness is fundamental and science could not be able to explain it.

And please also look at the history of science: science has always been wrong
As Popper said, science is only about falsity, not truth
It follows that if there infinite wrong theory (which is evident) we cannot even be sure that science is going even a iota towards truth . Others authors such as Lakatos or Khun also said that even falsification is not really possible in practice.

Please note: consciousness is there, the evidence is always there, it is in fact the only evidence that exist, all others, including all scientific belief are pure conceptualization from inductive reasonning that cannot be absolutely proven

 

[Myles]

I am not talking about religion (science is one of them)

I am talking about god

Also, I was not giving any explanation, just a fact: consciousness exist and is not explainable by science (by principle)

I was talking not of any lack but a special one, consciousness itself
The argument about qualia(PLEASE, check out on the net) is different because we all know that consciousness is fundamental and science could not be able to explain it.

And please also look at the history of science: science has always been wrong
As Popper said, science is only about falsity, not truth
It follows that if there infinite wrong theory (which is evident) we cannot even be sure that science is going even a iota towards truth . Others authors such as Lakatos or Khun also said that even falsification is not really possible in practice.

Please note: consciousness is there, the evidence is always there, it is in fact the only evidence that exist, all others, including all scientific belief are pure conceptualization from inductive reasonning that cannot be absolutely proven

You are totally confused. You have no idea what Popper said; your " quotation" makes it clear. You need to attemd a class for beginners,

 

[(Q)]

And please also look at the history of science: science has always been wrong

The only wrong science can be attributed is providing the technological medium where fundies can bleat their delusions.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

god has to exist, that's an evidence.

*************
M*W: No. There's no god and there is no evidence for a god. That is what you've been programmed to believe. Who programmed you to believe this lie?

If you do not see that, I think you will still be able to live but you will miss one beautiful aspect of life.

*************
M*W: See, you don't understand what you're talking about. The truth is that no one can truly see anything. It's a figment of your brainwashing. A beautiful life is not contingent on anyone nor anything but one's own self-esteem (ego).

Explain me how you can be conscious of this world. (please look for "qualia" on the net if you do not know much about consciousness)

*************
M*W: Consciousness is a characteristic of being alive instead of being brain dead. It has nada to do with one's beliefs such as there is/is not a god. Consciousness is awareness, and that doesn't mean because you're conscious you know the absolute truth of anything. You are calling consciousness the existence of a god, and that's a fallacy.

Science cannot answer this question because the answer lies in god

*************
M*W: The purpose of science is to prove not what is true but to prove what isn't true. It's the process of ruling out facts. Science cannot prove what a god is, because if there were a god, he should be able to prove that he exists, but this has never been done. However, science can prove that you are not reasoning from a state of sanity.

 

[Lori_7]

You are caught in the trap of accepting that you are sinful. Don't accept that you are. I imagine, that like most the rest of us, you are a mixture of good and bad. In other words you are human.

Accusing people of being sinful is a strategy used by those with a religious agenda to sell their wares. It goes like this,

1. You are a wretched sinner......usually dressed up in sophisticated language

2. The punishment for sin is .... the Fiery Lake and any other frighrening stuff you can dream up.

3.But you can be rescued from your predicament by following my instructions because I have a relationship with God ( don't ask me to prove it because all I can do is quote the Bible which I uncritically take to be the word of God )

So, they now have another fish in the net.

Stand up for yourself and be dignified. Tell yourself you are not a sinner bur a human being who has good parts and bad parts. Then join the human club and learn to laugh at the idiots who want to manipulate you, as I imagine they have already done. It requires a bit of effort but IT CAN BE DONE.

nobody's manipulating me myles, you don't understand. it's just a label. you call it "bad parts", i call it sin. it's the same thing. and as hard as you try, it is impossible in this state of existence to eliminate the "bad parts" without an intervention. and i'm not talking about some spiritual rebirth or some religious exercise or committment either, i'm talking about a genetic alteration. i think that's what the fall of man was back in the garden. i think that humans were somehow genetically altered to become sinful, or to have "bad parts", as you like to refer to them. that's why sin is like a birth defect. it is a birth defect and one that i believe will be rectified through christ's blood. any genetic fix would be propagated through the blood, and that's how his blood redeems us.

 

[(Q)]

i think that humans were somehow genetically altered to become sinful, or to have "bad parts", as you like to refer to them. that's why sin is like a birth defect. it is a birth defect and one that i believe will be rectified through christ's blood. any genetic fix would be propagated through the blood, and that's how his blood redeems us.

Lori, your fundie fantasies are cute and entertaining, that is, if you were 8 years old. As an adult though, you must be incredibly embarrassed to contrive such puerile nonsense.

 

[Lori_7]

*************
M*W: How defensive you are! I must have hit a nerve. Oh well...[

Lori, you don't know me, so there is no way you can assume that I am blind just because I don't agree with your beliefs. That doesn't make one blind at all. It just makes them the opposition. There's nothing wrong with opposition. Sometimes it can be very challenging and thought provoking. Sometimes it leads the self-righteous ones down the path of truth and enlightenment.

it's not defensive mw, it's just the truth. i'm not trying to be hurtful to you, but i must admit that you are one of the most stupid people i've ever spoken with. you're codependence embarrasses me. i'm sorry but you lost me at "i was indoctrinated". i think people who allow themselves to be indoctrinated are stupid and codependent. and as you may not subscribe to the ideology that you used to, for all intensive purposes here, you haven't changed a bit.


*************

M*W: Lori, you and others who hold the same erroneous religious beliefs as you do, think everybody else is blind but them. There is no way you could possibly know these people of opposition well enough to accuse them of being blind. That makes you and those like you blind.

trust me, you're blind. just kidding, don't trust me. find out for yourself like i did.


*************

M*W: I never was on your's or anybody's "hook." That's just wishful thinking on your part.

Being an atheist doesn't make me feel that I am better than anybody else. That's your delusion because of your beliefs.

Again, you don't know me, so you don't know what my "sins" are. You assume that since I don't believe what you believe, that makes me think that I'm somehow superior to others. You are using false judgments on others. That's not very christian-like!

Further, I have never denied that I was sinful. I just don't have the same understanding of "sin" that you do. I told you what the literal meaning of "sin" was, but this is something you have never learned through your religion. Being "sinful" is relative. I know what the true meaning of "sin" is, and I am no more or less sinful than anyone else, especially the self-righteous ones who think they know the truth. Therefore, you are the blind-sighted one.


*************
M*W: Your idea of "sin" is delusional. I think it's a sad thing that you and Adstar believe you are so unworthy because you are so sinful. That's totally ridiculous! We all come into this world innocent. It's sick that's what religion teaches you.

Also, you think this world is so imperfect, have you ever tried to see all the good things and people who are in it? They really are out there, and many of them don't have a hard heart like you do. The evil lies only in your heart and mind ... and you put it there. That's what's wrong with this world.

unworthy of what?! god, you're so full of crap. listen, if you allowed yourself to be indoctrinated, then you were on somebody's hook alright. i'm "judging" you based on what YOU have testified to and nothing else. and all of this bs romanticism regarding sin is just that...bs. it's not romantic or subjective it's law. the universe operates according to law. it is the law that keeps it in a perfect balance. the transgression of that law is sin and it causes death. it isn't relative. it isn't a fairy tale. it is science pure and simple. too bad huh?

*************

M*W: Lori, you're a day late and a dollar short. I've read every book I could find on this "bloodline," and yes, I believed it to be true at one time. Now I know that this "bloodline" you speak of, the Merovingians (the vine of Mary), does still exist, but JC and MM were NOT part of it. Everyone living today is of this bloodline. As a matter of fact, everyone living today is a descendant of Charlemagne, so it's quite easy to see where the Merovingians came from. It's no biggie. I suggest you read a few books on the symbolism of the constellations in ancient religions, but let me give you a few right now:

The Sign of Virgo represents Mary. The Sign of Pisces represents Jesus. There is a constellation of a "cup," i.e. the holy grail. I'm sure you've heard about the Knights of the Roundtable (the zodiac). Judas represents the Sign of Scorpio (the betrayer). There is a constellation of an ark (argo). There is a constellation of an altar. Good old satan is represented by the Constellation Serpens who is formed by the heel of Bootes (Adam) and again, Virgo. The dragon that King Arthur (Arcturus) slayed is called Draco. Orion's Belt has three bright stars that represent the good old Magi. It's all mythology, and Lori, it's time to grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.

I can give you a list of books that aims to prove the myths were really true, but that would be a waste of time. The only truth is that all religions were created from watching the night skies where darkness prevailed and was known as "sin."

Know one or nothing like an entity will make you perfect. Only you can do that. You might want to give it a try.

it is written in the stars. all the more reason to believe, but alas you're blind.

one day i'll be perfect, and you will still be here blind and running your mouth.

 

[(Q)]

one day i'll be perfect, and you will still be here blind and running your mouth.

There's that holier-than-thou, self-serving, kindergarten gibberish that theist's spout when their intellectual capabilities fail them.

Use this instead, Lori ---> :blbl:

 

[Myles]

nobody's manipulating me myles, you don't understand. it's just a label. you call it "bad parts", i call it sin. it's the same thing. and as hard as you try, it is impossible in this state of existence to eliminate the "bad parts" without an intervention. and i'm not talking about some spiritual rebirth or some religious exercise or committment either, i'm talking about a genetic alteration. i think that's what the fall of man was back in the garden. i think that humans were somehow genetically altered to become sinful, or to have "bad parts", as you like to refer to them. that's why sin is like a birth defect. it is a birth defect and one that i believe will be rectified through christ's blood. any genetic fix would be propagated through the blood, and that's how his blood redeems us.

There is no sensible answer to that.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How do YOU define nothing ,other than the absence of something ?

Well...according to my definition God is:
the stars,
The earth,
The moon
the universe and all life within it.
God is not sentient and has no freedom to will anything.
God is pure instinct. and demonstrated by instinctive behavious and "cause and effect" as described by science.
God is proven to exist by science all the time and by others regardless of human belief simply by the act of breathing, birthing and dying.
So to me God exists with out a problem of evidence as he, she or it is self evident.

Just because your definition of God is constrained by the conditioning of other people does not disqualify you from forming your own definition. as per your own depth of understanding.

If you want to fight the Christian belief then go for it but please do not presume to know my definition of God until you ask for it and are given it.
The God I worship is perfect and has not a lot to do with Christianity or other human orientated religions.
Prove non-existance of the universe first and then I will agree to the non-existance of the God I define as existing.
You can not prove your own non-existance thus my case rests.

Why worship an imperfect God when it may be simply that it is the definition of God thus understanding of [God] in general use is what is imperfect and not the God persee.

Perfect your definition [understanding] and you have a perfect God. [ which I might add is exactly what science and most reasonable persons are attempting to do]

 

[Lori_7]

And also MW, I'm not necessarily talking about 2000 year old blood. I don't believe what I do because it was written about in some book. I believe what I do because something has happened to me in relation to it. I'm talking about my blood, and the blood of a man and/or men who are alive and walking the earth right now. Listen, I don't know how this will happen. All I know is that it will happen. And when it does, maybe you'll read books about it and tell us all what you're opinion is. Your opinion, which is based upon nothing.

 

[Lori_7]

There is no sensible answer to that.

ha, ha. i think the problem is that there's no non-sensible answer to that, so you can't argue with it. aw, boo hoo. so sorry i don't believe in jesus magic, i believe in science and law, and practical solutions to real verifiable problems.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

it's not defensive mw, it's just the truth. i'm not trying to be hurtful to you, but i must admit that you are one of the most stupid people i've ever spoken with. you're codependence embarrasses me. i'm sorry but you lost me at "i was indoctrinated". i think people who allow themselves to be indoctrinated are stupid and codependent. and as you may not subscribe to the ideology that you used to, for all intensive purposes here, you haven't changed a bit.

*************
M*W: Lori, you didn't know me then, and you don't me now. You make some pretty lame excuses for your beliefs. However, it is obvious you are the co-dependent one.

trust me, you're blind. just kidding, don't trust me. find out for yourself like i did.
*************
M*W: Your immaturity is showing.

unworthy of what?! god, you're so full of crap. listen, if you allowed yourself to be indoctrinated, then you were on somebody's hook alright. i'm "judging" you based on what YOU have testified to and nothing else. and all of this bs romanticism regarding sin is just that...bs. it's not romantic or subjective it's law. the universe operates according to law. it is the law that keeps it in a perfect balance. the transgression of that law is sin and it causes death. it isn't relative. it isn't a fairy tale. it is science pure and simple. too bad huh?

*************
M*W: Lori, I could say things I know about you from what you've written in the past, too, that you are a former (yeah, right) drug addict and you're now a stinking low-life waitress. So who is blind?

it is written in the stars. all the more reason to believe, but alas you're blind. one day i'll be perfect, and you will still be here blind and running your mouth.

*************
M*W: I don't care what you believe, because you're a nobody, not even behind your username and avatar. You've made an ass and an idiot out of yourself. Now go read a book. Maybe you'll learn something. [/QUOTE]

 

[Medicine*Woman]

ha, ha. i think the problem is that there's no non-sensible answer to that, so you can't argue with it. aw, boo hoo. so sorry i don't believe in jesus magic, i believe in science and law, and practical solutions to real verifiable problems.

*************
M*W: Grow up, Lori.