Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but I thought you claimed all that was done/arranged by god. Let me ask you a question: in what way (besides the pure “conciousness” part, which doesn’t imply any behaviour, reason or plan) does your concept of god-as-the-universe differ from a godless, “mechanical” universe? What does the god do?
It may be, but considering on the same page as an ad for that movie is one that says:
If this isn’t the same company that claimed to find amd have a piece of wood from the other Ark (the one with the animals), which was revealed to be a big hoax, it sure has all the earmarks of it. Not valid research, just flick peddling, my friend.
It really doesn’t differ much, they are both indicative of the same thing, just one implies a sense of purpose, and the other implies a lack of purpose. I simply believe that the entire universe experiences itself. That’s the main difference. I believe that based upon the fact that I exist, that the sentience took the formless void, and with an act of will shaped it in a manner that was pleasing to it. Every time I find myself capable of shaping the universe in a way that is pleasing to me, that this is evidence enough for the will of God.
There is also a lot of limitations placed upon what a human can and cannot do that oftentimes goes hand and hand with this debate, that I do not agree with. In my opinion technology is training wheels, everything that we do with technology can be done without it, from transmitting thoughts over great distances, to flying into space.
Erek
I just want to interject that in Jewish, Catholic, and Islamic theology, God is most definitely distinct from the universe. I can’t think of any mainstream monotheistic religion that shares mswas’s opinion on this.
I don’t think someone as outspoken about atheists as you would think just following your own will would be sufficient, so I’m assuming the sense of purpose is relevant.
If, for practical applications, the question of belief in your god comes down to “just” a purpose, a philosophy if you will, how do can we tell there is a purpose and what that purpose is? Should we act according to the purpose, or doesn’t it matter? And given that we know the purpose, does it matter if that god exists and that we believe in him, or is knowing that purpose sufficient? Does it matter if you’re an atheist or not?
By the way, what do you think the purpose is?
It’s called chemistry. The “cooperation” happens from a sequence of chemical exchanges. I’ll have to ask my wife for details - she’s the biologist, not me. But I think you have a real bad case of the Pathetic Fallacy - cells and bees don’t think, but still cooperate.
How about a cyclic universe, where the universe ends and then begins again? We certainly don’t understand time very well, so it is possible that indeed everything is happening at once.
Omnipotence typically does not include being able to do logically impossible things. I was asking about purely physical things, which are certainly not impossible. Physical laws provide very tight constraints on what is possible - a god who cannot go beyond these constraints is hardly all powerful, which was your claim. Omnipotence is a definition of god - otherwise lots of things could qualify. If this is not a property of your god, you should call it something else to avoid confusion - a glurg say, or, maybe, the universe.
Saying 2 + 2 is not = 5 just because that is how the universe is tells us nothing. I gave you the reason that is true - not just an assertion, a proof. And yet you don’t seem to see the difference between claiming something and showing it - which is at the root of your problem.
Ever heard of a proof by contradiction? You posit something, and demonstrate that this leads to a contradiction. This proves that the thing cannot be. So assuming the existence of god of certain characteristics, and demonstrating the contradiction that ensues is a perfectly reasonable thing for an atheist to do.
And the reason for this is?
Children and primitive societies see consciousness in everything, which is why cartoons and books with talking animals are so popular. However most of us figure out that cats, mice, rocks and the earth don’t talk and are not consciousness by the time we’re 10.
Getting a PhD is not just about knowledge, it is about research, problem solving, and laying out a logical argument. Understanding the field is just the first, easiest part.
Now, I said technical PhD. I would be willing to admit that someone getting a PhD writing about the deconstruction of some book or movie might be less rational than you.
And a PhD does not require social skills or even management skills. A technical one does require high levels of rationality - arguments like yours would not get you through orals, let alone a defense.
I haven’t seen any atheist here saying all theists are stupid. I doubt that any of us believe it. Some “guests” certainly appear to be, at least they have stupid arguments . Many more have arguments we disagree with, but which are certainly not stupid. That is true throughout the years of theology. However, that you hold a belief dear doesn’t mean that I can think it unjustified.
If you define knowledge as information about the universe, than to a certain extent I agree, that it can all be found. But Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle proves that there is some knowledge we cannot have. Turing proved that you cannot in general prove that a Turing Machine halts.
This doesn’t even have a passing resemblence to what people mean by free will.
It is good then that atheists practice non-belief, not disbelief. (and disbelief in the dictionary includes non-belief.) Certainly you don’t get to maintain valid non-belief by avoiding evidence. But if I go to see the unicorn, and you say it isn’t there because it only shows up on Tuesdays, then the third Tuesday of the month, then only when the moon is full, why should I switch from my default non-belief. Believing anything as the default leads to contradictions. Why not believe the moon is rocky, is made of green cheese, and is made of sour cream all at the same time? The only reasonable approach is to withhold all belief until there is evidence.
See, no one calls abductees idiots. You accept their account of their experiences, and then find out what really happened. In this case it seems to be night panics, the same thing that caused accounts of succubi in the Middle Ages. That is an interesting discovery. I wish there were aliens visiting also, but that doesn’t make me park my brain at the door.
And that is exactly when we started making progress.
This illustrates my point, actually. We have evidence and reasons for non-causality. Creationists hate this, because if there was pure causality then the universe would either have to be eternal or have a creator, since there are no uncaused causes. But since there are, there is no requirement for a creator.
Though the second quote is commonly accepted in science, relativity got accepted very rapidly because it made a very clear prediction which was validated. Quantum physics, which is twice as spooky as anything predicted by mysticism, is accepted because it makes verifiable predictions. If any sort of mysticism did similar, it would be accepted.
I see that you are back to associating the universe with god. Fine, but you need to demonstrate that this god/universe is sentient. all I see so far are assertions.
Einstein’s god was neither personal nor conscious. That’s why.
What the hell kind of lame arguement is this? If you have the evidence you seem to crave that this is true let’s see it.
Actually **Voyager ** asked me to explain my concept of God. Are you asking for evidence that this is indeed my concept? I was kind of hoping you’s just take word for that.
Really? I don’t agree. Got any *evidence * that this statement is true?
Yeah that’s what I said.
Really? So you don’t share love? When you give love do you recieve? When you you recieve love from someone else do they recieve when you accept what they are giving? Have you ever been warmed by just witnessing sincere love between others? You may disagree with the my choice of words but don’t tell me you know how it works. Greater people than you and I have failed to explain and define it.
I understand my statement has no real meaning to atheists. If I had answered “Is God the source of all good?” with a simple “yes” would it have been any more clear?
What if God doesn’t create rocks or lift anything? Could he be omnipotent then?
I kid a little. You may be correct. Perhaps omnipotent is not a good word choice. I’ll work on it.
I am a big advocate of people being true to themselves and what they believe. I think it’s fairly obvious that our understanding is limited and it is wisdom to recognize this fact. As individuals we all have to live according to what we percieve to be true and valuable. That is how we progress and grow. I value personnal honesty and integirty. I understand that what we feel strongly isn’t nessecarily a universal truth. The process of personal growth means a refining and clarifying of our understanding. In my experience what often seems like extreme irreconcilable differences is sometimes just a choice in semantics.
I think the interconnection of things can be seen in a philosophical way without mystical or spiritual beliefs. We see that in our modern world more than ever before.
Not sure. I accept as obvious that certain things are still unknown and/or unproven. Experience tells me my own belief and understanding is changing and evolving with experience. I assume that to be true for most people.
But it is also obvious that as humans we all make choices every day based on faith and belief in stuff we have no hard evidence for. Talking about just the physical world is one thing. Belief in God or spirituality goes into areas of ethics, morality and philosophy as well. I think spiriitual truth is completely logical. Have you ever played Mastermind? An interesting game of logic. We make a guess based on the limited information we have so far about what is true. We have to discern the difference between the white pegs, {partially true} and black pegs {foundational truth} It isn’t easy.
That’s good. I hope you noticed that I didn’t include all members of organized religion or even all congregations of a particular denomination. It varies. The attitude I described exists in some and is pretty distasteful.
Respect as in, honoring the path others choose, is a big part of what I believe was taught by teachers like Jesus and Buddha. In the past I have held on to beliefs that were not rooted in fact. Partly for emotional reasons and largely because when imbedded in a certain religious culture we are often not exposed to certain information and recieve a very one sided view of “facts” Experience changed my views and I came away with a new resoect for and commitment to “truth” That includes understanding there are things I don’t know.
Interesting. Perhaps you could explain this to me further. I’m not sure I understand. What we believe is expressed in what we choose which does have a direct effect on the world. Wouldn’t you agree?
Does the Inquisitition ring a bell ? How about “Kill them all, and let God sort them out” ? How about the suicide bombers who have no concern for their own lives, because they believe in an afterlife ?
No, I’m saying it makes no sense. If we were part of something larger, we’d all notice; it would be like being ignorant of air to not know.
If you don’t think it’s better to be right, then I can’t imagine what I could say to convince you. For that matter, it makes any argument with you kind of odd, since you appear to be claiming you don’t care if you’re wrong.
That’s not an answer; even if a god exists, how do you know it’s good ?
Either you are confusing a figure of speech ( like being warmed by someone else’s love ) with reality, or you are claiming atheists are incapable of love. One is stupid, the other is insulting. “God is the source of all good” is not only insulting, but threatening. It effectively states that atheists are pure evil.
Of course there are many things that are not known. But there are two ways of knowing. My way does not rule out intuition or guessing, but when I do guess I am careful to be open to my being wrong, and the way I judge being wrong is by continuing to check how well my guess matches with reality. I do lots of crossword and other word puzzles. Sometimes you just have to jump into the abyss, and hope you catch a branch on the way down.
So how do you check that your faith makes sense?
Say you believe that if you are a good person an angel will come down and carry you off before you die. You live out life as a good person, helping others and feeling fine about it. You might be much happier this way than you would have been if you didn’t have that belief. It doesn’t really matter if the angel shows up or not, does it?
I believe that my work has had a beneficial impact on the world. It’s nice when I run into someone I have influenced to confirm this, but I’m happier believing it. If religious people live longer than non-religious ones, it doesn’t matter if god exists or not to them, right? If I tried to be religious, however, I’d be torn up inside, so for me I’m much happier as I am.
I don’t think it’s nessecary that these are God’s laws.
That sounds like a christian fundamentalist talk to me. Seriously, I’ve been reading about and considering another possibility. “God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” Perhaps God did not create the physical world.
Please don’t choose this qoute within a quote within a quote style again. It’s not helpful.
I agree that some horrible things have been done in the name of religion but you’d have a hard time establishing that it is primarily belief in an afterlife that promotes these things simply because these crimes were committed by those who claimed to believe. You’d also have to explain the millions and millions of believers who exhibit no such behavior. Get it?
Another conclusion I don’t understand. If you decide that such a belief is irrelevent because of a lack of evidence I understand, but this statement is clearly wrong. Are infants ignorent of air?
NaH! I’m just playing with you. My point is that there is much unknown and the terms atheist, theist, and gods are not so narrowly defined that one or the other can only be the “right” answer. As our understanding and knowledge grows we may discover that there are elements of truth in both and neither was completely right or wrong.
Well, I’ll tell you but only if you promise* not* to ask for evidence.
Sigh! :rolleyes:
I’m trying to point out that your own{IMO} narrow view , is hardly the only valid one. You claimed emotions are not pumped around like oil and you are welcome to believe that. I seriously doubt that you have solved love’s mysteries that have escaped mankind for centuries. “God is the well” is a metaphor about the nature of love. Aside form all the things we mistakenly call love, the nature of true love can be described as a joining or union. The boundaries of seperatness fade. Is it possible to seek out that emotion and cultivate it within ourselves? To understand the barriers within our own hearts and minds that seperate us as people? I believe it is. That is the point of of the metaphor.
Futhermore; My statement is in no way drawing any derogetory conclusions or inferences about atheist.
It sounds similar to my own method. I believe I mentioned the logic game Mastermind. That’s a good analogy of my method. Some beliefs are foundational. Others a hopeful guess or conclusion based on evidence and my experience so far. We must go forward based on those guesses and see what happens next to clarify our beliefs. For me it all boils down to love and truth and trying to understand the essence of what these things are. For me god or God {either works} is an expression of those things yet unknown. This God is not a jealous god nor does this god have ego, as I understand those words. This god does not require worship or service although worship and service are a natural response.
And so, I check my faith by comparing it to my understanding of love and truth. If a new concept comes along how does it fit in, if at all? As my understanding of love and truth grow certain concepts fall by the wayside. Does that explaination make sense?
I’d say we’re in agreement. I’d call this honoring somone else’s path and their right to choose it. Sharing what we think and feel with others cultivates growth for us and mankind. Trying to impose what we think and feel on others does not. It reflects an inner weakness. Inner development and when we embrace certain ideas and emotions and surrender others is deeply personal. I hope to have a positive influence on others by sharing whatever I have to offer and honoring {as much as my own ego permits} their right to grow {or not} in the manner of their choosing.
A reverence for love and truth asks that we be truthful with ourselves first. Dishonesty is not an act of love or respect. I could not honor love and truth without respecting someone who is being true to themselves.
I use my body as a barometer. The healthier my spirit is the healthier my body is and vice versa. I find that I only get sick when I am resolving some issue that I got snagged on that I was ignoring due to temporal commitments, and that getting sick slows me down so I can focus on that. I become more aware, my senses are more attuned, I hear, I see, I listen better. I’m more centered and focused when my faith is aligned. That’s how I verify it for myself.
Erek
I believe God created everything. Everything emanates from God. If a spirit created the world, then that spirit is an aspect of God. I actually have a sort of polytheistic hierarchical god structure. There is “God” which is the overarching everything model. Then there are more personifiable Gods called “Aspects” or “Angels” or whatever you’d like to call them, demigods etc… They have more limited functions. I like to give the aspects names, but it’s only the names really that are Christian in origin. Christ and Krishna could be the same entity for all practical purposes. Personally I have more affinity for Death Gods like Shiva and Osiris. Gods that harvest the lost souls and protect and care for them in the meantime while they are waiting to be reincarnated, such as Osiris, or Gods of destruction that free up energy to be recycled into a new creation, such as Shiva. I’ve always viewed Lucifer as the Christos. Lucifer is the heavenly angelic manifestation, and the Christos is the version that has fallen to Earth. But at the same time this is a manifestation of Prometheus, Horus, Hermes Trismegistus, Mithras, Enki etc… For me I have far more questions about the aspects than I do about the whole, I can reach out and touch and feel the whole at any time I want, and I can see the emanations of everything I can touch/taste/hear/smell/see coming from one singular source.
My faith is very syncretic in nature, so you can easily label me as “Fundamentalist Christian” if you like, but my views are taken from many sources, and I have done quite a bit of study into many different aspects of the great mysteries. I am a freemason. I go to a gathering called the Rainbow Gathering which is a very ecumenical spiritual gathering. I am involved in the Burning Man festival which doesn’t have a strict ethos behind it, it’s mostly dedicated to ‘burning’ attachments. There are a lot of Role Playing Games, Comic Books, Movies that I have taken views from. Sometimes I look at advertisements on the subway and a flash of inspiration hits me. I’ve studied Qabbalah a bit. I am beginning to study more of the Imperial Native American traditions Toltec/Mayan/Aztec. I agree with Aleister Crowley when he says “Love is the Law Love under Will” “Do as Thou Wilt shall be the Whole of the Law”. I’ve dabbled with Tarot. My father always referred to himself as a “Zen Baptist” because he studied Buddhism but had a Baptist upbringing. I’ve studied Kung Fu, Tae Kwan Do and Budo. Einstein and Newton figure fairly large in my beliefs. I belong to multiple spiritual/social organizations. I’ve spent a fair amount of time at psy-trance parties, which is a religion that not too many people know about though it spans the entire globe, and I could go anywhere in the world, and get immediately accepted into a peer group simply by going to a psy-trance party. I’ve experimented with many psychedelic substances from Pot and LSD, to DMT and Ayahuasca. Basically, my views are taken from a lot of different places. It can be very easy to pigeonhole me in any one ethos, but the truth is, that I couldn’t go to a Christian church and easily be accepted if I started telling people what I actually believe. Though, I am at the forefront of a pretty big religious movement in the world, I have met a lot of people who are like-minded and can somewhat see where I am coming from. I don’t need an obsolete organization to tell me what I should and should not believe, though I’d love to go and talk to a Cardinal deep in the Catholic church, as I’d probably enjoy meeting a high level Imam, Geneticist, Sufi, or Yakuza assassin.
While I do believe in Christ, I think that the mainstream of Christianity is completely fucking it up, that if where they are coming from is not from a basis of Love, then they are not true christians. If your foundation is love, you will not be led astray, if it is not, then you are merely twisting in the wind. So from that point of view, I am quite fundamentalist christian. I suppose I am probably as fundamentalist as you can get, but I’m not going to buy a private jet with the social security money of little old ladies. I’ll buy my private jet with the money I get from my other fundamentalist religion Satanism (Capitalism).
Erek
Flick peddling? I’m sorry, is that what I’m doing? Are we not allowed to recommend movies and materials on this site? Or are you saying that that is what they are doing? I don’t understand the term; I’m a noob.
Anyway, I notice that you didn’t actually watch the movie, so you discount it’s validity based on… what, then? What, did the filmers doctor the tape to make it look like the tall peak was scorched granite? Did they counterfeit the uncut stone altar with cow pictographs on it? Did they cause the immense erosion of the granite stones beneath the split rock of Horeb? Did they bribe the nomadic people to say their tradition holds that those caves are the caves of Moses? If I show you physical evidence that one of the events recorded in the Bible did in fact happen, will you be so open-minded to at least check it out? Look, I didn’t even bring it up to try and prove God’s existence, but because someone asked about Israelites in the desert for forty years.
Also, Voyager, I noticed you were questioning about hell. You asked why would God send people to eternal torment and not just snuff them out? What follows is a sort of point-by-point explanation and if you read thoroughly I think you’ll find that Biblical hell is a bit different than what you’ve heard. Remember that Christ’s teachings are supposed to be the basis of Christian belief, not the popular opinion of Christians worldwide or, for that matter, ancient Greek religious beliefs handed down through centuries, as in this case:
Most people, when they say hell, mean… hell, as in, if you died without atonement and without being reconcilled to God, your immortal soul immediately pops down into an underground lake of fire to be tormented by the devil and his minions for all eternity. But this is not Biblical… in the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), there were different words that we now translate (all of them) to be hell, but they were never meant to represent the same place.
One of these words is Hades. This is a Greek transliteration (as opposed to a translation… the phonetic properties were respelled in English, but it wasn’t translated for meaning) which is used in the New Testament to signify the temporary abode of the wicked (and no, this is not the same as Catholic purgatory). Hades means, “The Unseen”. The Greeks believed that the wicked went here upon their deaths, that it was the final resting place of the wicked, and it was every bit as much the picture of a modern concept of hell (much fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth). But the Bible teaches that while this place exists, it is not permanent. In Revelation 20:13-14, at the Great White Throne Judgement (when all mankind, righteous and otherwise will be judged by Jesus), Hades is said to give up the dead, and it (Hades itself) will be thrown into “the lake of fire.” Therefore, Hades is more akin to a prison… an uncomfortable, fiery prison (see for reference Luke 16:19-31). But it is not eternal.
So Hades is a separate entity from “The Lake of Fire”, which is also described by a Greek word: gehenna. The first residents of gehenna, according to Revelation 19:20, are the beast and his false prophet. After this, Satan is to be bound up into the Abyss (yet another place) for 1,000. After his 1,000 year term is up, he’ll be set free to wreak havoc “for a short time” (Rev. 20:3b). Then the he will be thrown into gehenna, to meet his buddies the beast and the false prophet, and THEY will be tormented forever.
Then comes the Great White Thrown Judgement, where the books are opened and the dead are judged according to what they have done (at least we’ll all get a trial!). And in Rev. 20:15 it says that anyone whose name is not found written in the book of life will then be thrown into the lake of fire, too. BUT, it does not say that their souls will be in eternal torment. In fact, it does not seem to elaborate from there.
However, here are three arguments that gehenna is also not a place of eternal torment for simple unbelievers.
- In Matthew 10:28, Jesus warns people not to fear other people, who can only kill the body but cannot harm the soul, but that they should fear God, who can DESTROY BOTH BODY AND SOUL in hell (gehenna). This word destroy is the total irrevocable destruction and annhilation of a thing, which would imply that the human soul of the unreconcilled sinner would cease to exist.
- The punishment of Satan, the Beast, and the False Prophet (a triune spirit like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost??? I have no clue) will be eternal banishment to hell. Logically, why would the fate of mortal, clueless sinners be the same as that of Satan?
- It is told that in heaven, God will wipe every tear from the eyes of those who have been saved. This is the same God who said that we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves. How could the saved NOT continue to weep eternally, knowing that their fellow man were suffering immortally? No, I think that would ruin the whole experience of heaven for anyone, not to mention it would be a real bitch for those actually doing the suffering in hell.
The above three points are up for speculation, I think ordinary unbelieving people do not suffer for all eternity, but that they do suffer for a time, followed by oblivion. Hooray, good news, right? (tongue in cheek) “All right, oblivion! At least I don’t have to live here on earth anymore!” Honestly, I couldn’t blame you a bit if you would rather just disappear than suffer anymore. Earth is almost hell as it is.
Let the protests and name-calling begin! 
Being brought up Jewish, I never got stuck with learning about hell - which at least some Christian holy men believe in. Without the early conditioning, Christianity makes to me seems like a cargo cult to you. I understand, though, because deep down inside people like Abraham, Moses and David have real existence, despite what I now know from archeological and historical evidence.
Why don’t you start a flood thread? We haven’t had one of those in ages, and it would be amusing.