And there’s no religion,
And rabbits rub your feet
My baby is eating flowers
That kill off all disease
Putting the arrogant comments aside - of how we as humans can began to conceive how ‘God’ may think…
How is this not in IMHO?
Really, you’re one of those? Saving the internet from injustices, how …altruistic of you.
I wasn’t being altruistic. He’s not going to keep trying to get the last word in and then tell me I have to not post a rebuttal or I’m the one continuing a hijack.
(Posted without looking at the rest of the thread).
I don’t think a large-scale miracle would do it. It certainly didn’t for the Israelites. Even the Bible says that despite the proof they received (in the form of the plagues upon Egypt, the parting of the Dead Sea and so on) they became so distraught during the Exodus that they started worshiping a golden calf when Moses took too long coming down from Mount Sinai.
Humanity’s a rather fickle bunch, really.
To quote Cardinal Spellman talking to the Pope when Christ and Moses show up at the back of St. Pats in the Lenny Bruce bit:
“What are we paying protection for, anyway?”
Yes you would think that the Prussians would have been convinced of Napoleon’s divinity after he handsomely caught that coin Washington tossed over the river.
The purpose of that story - and the purpose of C.S. Lewis having atheists look at Aslan without seeing him in “The Last Battle” is to divert attention from the lack of reasons to believe. Instead of acknowledging that nonbelievers lack belief due to lack of evidence, they claim that nonbelievers just don’t believe and wouldn’t even if evidence were presented. In other words, believers have no obligation to present good evidence since it would be rejected anyway.
Maybe God isn’t telling us because he is embarrassed.
So, God, why did you create the universe?
I was bored. It was a Saturday afternoon, it was raining, there was nothing on TV and none of my friends were home, so I figured, what the heck? And now you people expect me to do maintenance. What’s up with that?
Perhaps we’re on VM running on a Dev box. This is not in the production environment.
I really can’t fathom why simple English seems to escape you in this thread, or why you’re so adamant in defending and arguing about it. We won’t be discussing it in this thread. If there’s time we can discuss it in another forum.
My grasp of English is just fine and Human Action tried to explain the same thing to you in post 158 that I did. Maybe you should have an open mind that both of us are not wrong and maybe it’s you. Take another look at what it is we’re saying and take your time with it. The definitions of agnosticism and atheism that you use are not mutually exclusive and it makes no sense to say you went from being a believer to an agnostic since your definition of agnosticism deals with knowledge and not belief. According to the definition of atheism you wrote, you’re an atheist and an agnostic.
But I did suggest that in the OP
but it’s in the OP.
."
compared to what, the ideal? I understand it certainly seems that way sometimes. Perhaps we can take heart in the progress we have made and are still pushing for.
I’m suggesting the end isn’t the goal, but the experience itself is.
If I have a transporter and can go anywhere in just a blink, that great, if my goal is to be at point X, Y, or Z. If my goal is the journey itself and the experiences that go with itm then the transporter defeats the goal.
Human Action and I have manged to have fairly long exchanges about the OP
Well yah! We’re talking about God appearing in the society we live in I think.
And he looks really pissed of.
I was and occasionally still am very frustrated with the how people treat each other, but I’ve found that as I deal with my own stuff and am better able to be more positive more often, to let go of anger and resentment , I am more likley to make a positive contribution
God or no God, that works for me.
You’re right, it is. I apologize. These threads get so long sometimes, I often loose track of all the established points.
I am equally optimistic, at times.
I’ve stated earlier and elsewhere that if there is a god responsible for the human condition, then we are hard pressed to devine his motives. But I understand the temptation to do so and I often catch myself doing just that. So maybe it’s a journey and maybe it’s the destination. The god that we imagine seems intent on both.
I understand that’s your view. I think there may be unversal truth we are striving toward. It is essentially the striving itself that makes me continue to believe in the possibility.
That’s certainly the way it appears. There are still things to discover.
Ultimately I don’t think it’s mystical either. Reality is what it is. If there is a creator sustainor then that’s reality. We just don’t know and make our personal judgements accordingly.
Here’s the evidence for my view: over recorded history, the number of religions and philosophies in practice has increased, not decreased. If there were a universal truth, and progress was being made, there would be an observable winnowing effect, as belief systems were discarded in favor of fewer and fewer ones that hewed closer and closer to whatever the universal truth was. In practice, though, we see exactly the opposite occuring: more and more factionalism, schisms, and wholly new creeds being developed.
If, on the other hand, truth was an entirely individual matter, with no reference point outside of the individual, then what we observe is exactly what should happen: as advances in technology permit wider and wider dissemination of ideas, there is increasingly a marketplace for those ideas, and the “supply” of religions and creeds naturally increases to match this “demand”.
Yes, but people shouldn’t base their life around an idea on the off chance that it might someday be discovered to be true. That way lies madness; the abrogration of reason to magical thinking.
By mystical, I meant “impossible to measure or rationally explain”. If it’s a natural process, this shouldn’t be true.
I understand your thinking but I thnk there’s a few things to consider.
The significant increase in population. More people beginning their search can account for some new religions and philiosophies.
MAny religions and philosophies are varients of another, or built upon the foundation of another. The foundational truths are very similar.
The fakes, the ones who do it just for profit , or ego, or power. They wouldn’t count as a search for universal truth.
After looking at world religions and seeing the similarities , especially ancient ones that were much harder to share or teach because of distance, it occured to me that perhaps different men in different cultures were getting glimpses and insights into a universal truth that were being affected by their culture and education limits. Then we have the demonstratable fact that each major religion has been altered variable degrees by those that followed. The message may have been more consistent and pure in the begining and then distorted as other men interfered and interpreted.
I would also argue that progress has indeed been made. Look at the overall state of mankind now and the begining of recorded history. More human rights, Less Slavery, an elevation of women’s rights etc, progress. It seems clear to me that mankind is contiinuoulsy striving not only in knowledge of the physical world , but in the quest to advance the human condition through compassion, shared resources, advancing education, healthcare, etc. There’s no way to absolutely link that to any universal truth , but there doesn’t seem to be a way to completely dismiss it either.
I’ve come to understand that we really don’t know what’s right or best for others, or where they should be and what they should do and when, on their particular personal journey. I wasn’t raised in a religious family, but after high school I became a believer. Later I began to reject certain beliefs, until I became IMHO 
an agnostic. I’ve seen people go from agnostic or atheist to believer or believer to atheist. That’s their personal journey of self discovery and dealing with thier own inner selves. I have an opinion, and there will be moments of sharing and even confrontation but ultimately each person has to make their own journey and decide when they are mentally and emotionally prepared to let go of whatever is holding them back.
That being said, IMO, fear of death, a pretty normal human trait, is not a positive, and has a lot to do with religion and the promise of a happy afterlife.
There’s the physical measureable world. It’s not hard to believe that science has plenty left to discover and measure. I think another poster made a good point by saying any entity that created and sustains the universe is likley not able to be measured from within it’s creation but aside from that there are also important aspects of life we cannot measure.
It seems to me that if God created the universe he created it physically, but also created consciousness and emotions as well. How do we measure the qualities of love, compassion, charity, mercy, and their opposites?
The idea that it’s the journey is the only thing that makes sense to me when I ask, if God , or something we call God, exists, then what’s going on here and why?
I’m not sure how you conclude that. Lots of people today feel they know God exists , understand that the command is to love one another, and still fail to seriously try and fulfil that commandment.
Again, I disagree. Lot’s of religions now share the message of brotherly love and fail to truly implement it
IMO, progress has been made. There is no standard to judge that progress would or should be easier and faster if God existed.
It’s not just receiving a message. It’s having the will to follow through, and some idea of how to do so. That requires continued effort.
IMO, it would have to be continued proof and probably clear punishment for disobedience. Again, people believe now and the commands are not obeyed.
Because proplr brlieve now and still can’t manage it. I don’t think it would be casually brushed off. I agree it would be a major event and there would be changes. I’m saying without sustained regular proof, mankind would drift back. And how good would sustained proof be if people realized God didn’t punish or there was no reward for obedience. IN the long run, I think it’s not even about obedience, but choosing a path of sustained continued growth.
I guess that depends. Incentives would be things like punishment or reward that were fairly obvious. And how does one obey the command to love anyway?
it’s not as if this message hasn’t been repeated.
okay. But assuming the goal isn’t just to win games but to also enjoy the experience and maybe learn some principles about teamwork etc that will improve their lives, what happens when you give them the basics and some of them are willing to seriously work at it while others understand your words, but can’t find the motivation to take it seriously and truly apply themselves? No matter how good a coach you are and how clear and moticational your words are , they must have the will, and make the choice to apply themselves.
You’ve adopted them. They’re yours. You can’t walk away from being their coach, and regardless of how bad they are , they are yours. Now,if the goal was simply to win games and you could reach in their minds and make them better players, you would. If the goal is the experience itself then doing that defeats the purpose.
You’re making the assertion that there is no communication or it is so weak to not matter. I’m saying that if the experience of choice and having somethings to choose from is the purpose , then how do we gauge and judge that “if God really existed , life would already be easier and better” I’m suggesting that if the experience itself is the purpose of creation then the world we have is not a contradiction to that God.
Love God and love your neighbor as yourself isn’t unclear language. It’s the doing that presents the challenge and the discovery through effort.
I’m aware of the nuances. We’ve been able to address the OP without arguing the semantics and details of my personal belief. It didn’t seem relevant. What initially bugged me was the way he asserted something with so very little to go on, rather than ask a question for clarity. I saw a red flagg and thought that addressing it would lead to quibbling over details and nitpicking that amounted to a hijack. From the posts that followed , I think I was correct.