God

[sammwalk]

Re: God

God is One, no father no son, only one creator could create this universe, if ther were more than one, it would have been over long ago, Jesus is just a prophet sent by his/our creator, to tell us about him and deliver the message so we'll know, the test is to believe or not to belive and bear the consequences...

I mean no offense in what I say here, but I must ask: if you had been told a different story when you grew up (like a parallel you), would you have believed that instead of Christianity? Or should I say, wouldn't you have?

Whereas, at least with science, people from the far ends of the world eventually are forced to agree with each other having no common experience other than their interactions with the world, which do not change with who they are.

If you answered yes to my question above, what if the parallel religion also held you in consequence for not having faith, as Christianity or Islam does? Would you not instead say that the parallel religion is the true faith, and others are imitators?

If you say no, there is no justification for your response. [editing for spelling]

[trick12]

Re: God

God is One, no father no son, only one creator could create this universe, if ther were more than one, it would have been over long ago, Jesus is just a prophet sent by his/our creator, to tell us about him and deliver the message so we'll know, the test is to believe or not to belive and bear the consequences...

[Garrick]

Re: God

reading d'souza is like reading coulter. i'll pass, thanks.

Beenzncheez: i think you're mistaken...perhaps you meant catholic girls? christian girls are rather prudish and awkward. these are generalizations however....

as far as i know catholic girls get drunk and put out. at least that has been my experience.

[Miroslav]

Re: God

Unfortunately, if only skeptical conclusions lie before us, we have no choice but to admit some faith is involved with our judgments. However, this definition of faith is not something we elect to have- this faith is forced on us by the rejection of all justifications within our own frame of reference. Any intelligent physical beings may eventually discover this about themselves. Therefore, it is a more scientific type of faith. It's a question with no answer, so we continue without addressing it instead of postulating something additional to account for it.

This differs completely from the "faith" that someone has in imaginary beings (or forces). This sort of faith is a choice one makes based on some experiences in their life. It will change for every person, and there is no consistency between such faiths.

Well said! I agree with you. To be clear, my comments were never intended as a defense of organized religion. I guess to me it comes down to this: I can't envision that science ever would or could provide answers to this topic. And so if science can't do it, then is the notion of some sort of an overarching force that originated the universe and everything in it such a ridiculous concept?

[88Mariner]

Re: God

ok, just found out that d'souza and coulter dated.

[88Mariner]

Re: God

reading d'souza is like reading coulter. i'll pass, thanks.

Beenzncheez: i think you're mistaken...perhaps you meant catholic girls? christian girls are rather prudish and awkward. these are generalizations however....

[sammwalk]

Re: God

Ok this will be lengthy, I apologize in advance... I don't mean to deny the experiences that each of you are having every day, I just mean that things get extremely tricky when you examine free will and emotion within the context of atheism. What I say will basically be through the perspective of free will, because the same issues and conclusions therein are inextricably linked with emotions and thoughts.

(anyone who had to suffer through those old threads is gonna wanna beat me now )

What is the basis for your free will, for your emotions, for your thoughts in a science-driven world? Well...science; that is all that you have. I will fully admit that I'm not an expert scientist, but everything I have learned of science so far that would lend itself to explanations of free will and emotions ends up boiling down to cause and effect or probability/randomness (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Brownian motion, etc.)

This leads to an interesting set of questions:

Where does this intricate web of cause and effect, randomness, probability end and your autonomy/freedom begin? Or does it? If it doesn't, then what does that mean in terms of your experience of "free will" and everything that comes with it?

If you go down this rabbit hole, you quickly get entangled in an impenetrable paradox. Mathematically speaking, you're grappling with the concept of infinity here. You feel that you have free will and some control over your destiny; clearly, you're helpless to stop experiencing the world through some sort of an autonomous perspective (unless perhaps you go insane). But here's the thing: you can't step outside of yourself and your own experience to objectively look at the picture! Within this system, everything - including your perceptions of free will and and the entire debate - is all part of the web, and you can't escape it. There was a movie that touched upon this: The Matrix.

So...where does this leave us? Do you have free will? Two options:

1. Yes, you do have it.
2. No, you don't and even the feeling that you do - even the questioning thoughts I'm expressing now - are all part of a grand illusion of your free will.

You have no way of determining which one is in fact correct. So guess what? The best case is that you get to take your free will on faith!...unless #2 is true, in which case even your experience of faith is an illusion. You could also try to deny that you have free will and say that science explains it all...but good luck with the hopeless paradox inherent in that statement.

So now tell me: Given that you can't even really even rationally establish your own autonomy in this world, what do your emotional experiences and value-based attributions thereof to the world around you actually mean? And how can you invoke them in any argument about religion, given that the best case for you as an atheist still fully rests on faith?

Unfortunately, if only skeptical conclusions lie before us, we have no choice but to admit some faith is involved with our judgments. However, this definition of faith is not something we elect to have- this faith is forced on us by the rejection of all justifications within our own frame of reference. Any intelligent physical beings may eventually discover this about themselves. Therefore, it is a more scientific type of faith. It's a question with no answer, so we continue without addressing it instead of postulating something additional to account for it.

This differs completely from the "faith" that someone has in imaginary beings (or forces). This sort of faith is a choice one makes based on some experiences in their life. It will change for every person, and there is no consistency between such faiths.

[beanzncheez]

Re: God

The great thing about christianity is the closet sex freaks. Those women will do anything. In public, even.

[superdave]

Re: God

An interesting interview about this subject by the author of "What’s So Great About Christianity," Dinesh D’Souza.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Dinesh_D%92Souza/2007/10/16/41343.html

[Miroslav]

Re: God

Hey Miroslav,

why do you think emotionally based judgment is contradictory to an atheist world-view? Not believing in a god may be the result of a rationale, but that doesn't mean every single thing in life has to be rationalized, right? Even then, what you feel and experience is still so much more real than an entity that no-one has ever seen/heard before or even felt. Maybe god is just euphoria for example, just another motion. I don't know.

Isn't comparing emotion to belief a bit like placing emotion in the realm of things beyond ourselver? I may not fully understand my emotions, but as I experience them they're very real to me...;-)

hmn. I guess I'd be one of the people you're talking about here. And now you've lost me, because if you're saying that emotionally based values aren't possible without somehow being linked to the notion of some sort of religious spirituality, then I think you're maybe confused about things. If it's not that you meant, then I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

Ok this will be lengthy, I apologize in advance... I don't mean to deny the experiences that each of you are having every day, I just mean that things get extremely tricky when you examine free will and emotion within the context of atheism. What I say will basically be through the perspective of free will, because the same issues and conclusions therein are inextricably linked with emotions and thoughts.

(anyone who had to suffer through those old threads is gonna wanna beat me now )

What is the basis for your free will, for your emotions, for your thoughts in a science-driven world? Well...science; that is all that you have. I will fully admit that I'm not an expert scientist, but everything I have learned of science so far that would lend itself to explanations of free will and emotions ends up boiling down to cause and effect or probability/randomness (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Brownian motion, etc.)

This leads to an interesting set of questions: Where does this intricate web of cause and effect, randomness, probability end and your autonomy/freedom begin? Or does it? If it doesn't, then what does that mean in terms of your experience of "free will" and everything that comes with it?

If you go down this rabbit hole, you quickly get entangled in an impenetrable paradox. Mathematically speaking, you're grappling with the concept of infinity here. You feel that you have free will and some control over your destiny; clearly, you're helpless to stop experiencing the world through some sort of an autonomous perspective (unless perhaps you go insane). But here's the thing: you can't step outside of yourself and your own experience to objectively look at the picture! Within this system, everything - including your perceptions of free will and and the entire debate - is all part of the web, and you can't escape it. There was a movie that touched upon this: The Matrix.

So...where does this leave us? You either have free will or you don't - and even the feelings that you do are all part of a grand illusion of free will. The fun part is that there is no way of determining which one is in fact correct. And guess what: The best case here requires you to take free will on faith!...unless #2 is true, in which case even your experience of faith is an illusion. You could also try to deny that you have free will and say that science explains it all...but good luck with the hopeless paradox inherent in that statement.

So now tell me: Given that you can't even really even rationally establish your own autonomy in this world, what do your emotional experiences and value-based attributions thereof to the world around you actually mean? And how can you invoke them in any argument about religion, given that the best case for you as an atheist still fully rests on faith?

[NBHproduction]

Re: God

you have to create or better said, get to know your God, that's all!
all this cristian shit is just nonsense, it's a way of manipulating people.
God is nature and we are part of nature and God!
God is kind of perfect man in all angles, because we all relate him to our view of life, what is very egoistic, so that's why we also need a God that will lead us and be our idol!
Back in a days there were no Michael Jackson lol, Madonna....so they created a ideal idol, the God.
And why is church the most wealthy and rich community, because 80% of people need to be lead, because they are to stupid to lead their own life.

Peace!

[faithless]

Re: God

I am not sure what I believe...I don't really believe that there is one "being" that created everything so to speak, but I would like to believe there is a place we go after we pass on...the thought of death being the end of everything sucks.

Might I suggest believe in yourself (if you don't already, of course). I think that's the first and most important belief one should have. Then the belief in the person next to and around you.

As for going somewhere better after we die. The fact is we don't know. We would all like to believe that we do go someplace better because who wants to believe that when we die, that's it? The story ends. Period.

Religion's angle is that we go to paradise where we live in bliss for all eternity. If we believe in their god and follow his rules. Otherwise we burn in fiery hell for all eternity.

That's a no-brainer isn't it?
On the flip side (sort of), killing infidels, just because they don't believe what you believe is the surest way of gaining entry to paradise into the waiting arms of countless virgins.
A pretty good deal if I do say so myself.

As for God. Music is my God and Martin Garcia his son, spreading his gospels of progressive house. I'm sometimes unfaithful and cheat a little with progressive trance or other forms of electronic music. Martin doesn't needs to know that though.
It's a crude example but I'm sure there's a few of you will think I'm nuts. Will you still believe something is wrong with me if several hundred million people believe the same thing though? Right!

A child can have an imaginary friend but if an adult does, something maybe wrong upstairs. If that's the case then the earth is just one huge insane asylum with some sane people trapped with them.

Religion has been around for thousands of years and it's the same as it has been for the same amount of time. Everything else in the world has been evolving except that. Why? Just because it can't. It doesn't have anywhere to go. There's no facts to begin with to base their beliefs on. No new evidence to justify believing in it still. Only a book that was written by MEN in power. Others, supposedly by god himself wrote.
Preaching the same thing over and over and over and er...over. It'll eventually get old or stay stuck in the past as it is with the Muslims religion.

As for my nick, it has nothing to do with my belief or lack there of and all to do with the group.

[beanzncheez]

Re: God

why would you think everything is alright with a person if they had depression?

Because being depressed is all in your head. If you don't want to be depressed, then don't think it.

[kittymarmalade]

Re: God

. My main premise has always been that even the atheist's views amount to about as much belief/faith as the Christian's; a world strictly defined by science installs a lot of assumptions about some very important questions.

hmn. I've held that view at some point too. But now I see it more as science not making assumptions. It understands it doesn't know the answer, and acknowledges this, and subscribes to keep looking and looking. Whereas the belief in god makes one assumption and it ends there. People like Dawkns [who I'm not particularly fond of but enjoy reading] also point out that, as neither camp can actually KNOW, one would logically start looking at the most likely options to investigate, and if you place those options side by side, the notion of a god seems pretty ludicrous [without employing faith, that is]. Any option that preferes subscribers not to ask questions about its integrity is hard for me to take seriously.

And most people I personally know who call themselves atheists continuously use a lot of expressions that demonstrate alegiance to free will, love, beauty, and other emotionally-based value judgements about the nature of the world around them...all of which, in my opinion, are frankly inconsistent with the actual conclusions of atheism.

hmn. I guess I'd be one of the people you're talking about here. And now you've lost me, because if you're saying that emotionally based values aren't possible without somehow being linked to the notion of some sort of religious spirituality, then I think you're maybe confused about things. If it's not that you meant, then I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

[kittymarmalade]

Re: God

Why would you need an eye opener if everything is all right?

why would you think everything is alright with a person if they had depression?