|
On May 13 2009 21:28 georgir wrote:So many people keep saying that... but hey, why is it so? Some religious theories are easy to disprove or dismiss.
On what grounds? Moral? Rational? Scientific? Why should we choose to subject the matter to any particular criteria? You can come up with a rational explanation as to why a placebo healing effect occurs when people pray for their cancer to go away, but quite frankly we cannot *prove* anything about it until we have a better understanding of how the world works, and even then it may still elude us.
On May 13 2009 21:28 georgir wrote:
There are some people that believe God does not meddle in the physical world at all. He is still out there somewhere, and he is still omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but at the same time he does squat. They still believe in some divine justice or whatever, but it is all reserved for the afterlife.
It is really the perfect religious theory, because it is absolutely non-observable and hence non-fallible. But it has a huge drawback. Praying to God for anything in our current world, anything physical, anything while you are alive... it is just pointless. We don't need such a God. It does provide the comfort of an afterlife, so there are some people that actually go with it, but for most this isn't enough.
So even most non-scientific, religious people would usually dismiss this theory.
Scientifically, Occam's razor lets me dismiss such a theory as just redundant entities.
Be careful, because Occam's razor is double-edged.
Belief in religion is not purely focused on the consolation of an afterlife. There is the whole part about God creating the universe, the whole idea of redemption of sin, etc. You make it sound like a belief in God means you're an immature child still clinging to a baby blanket, but real suffering exists, and people choose to believe in God to make sense of their suffering.
Yes, there is an inherent comfort provided by religion, because facing the existential dilemma is terrifying to even face, let alone accept. Why do you think it is so challenging to be a strong atheist (as opposed to agnostic or a weak atheist)? Most people would probably dismiss any traditional ideas about God if the ideas sounded too ridiculous, but most people are not fearless enough to positively affirm the fact that their lives are shallow, insignificant and meaningless, so they just prefer not to think about it.
On May 13 2009 21:28 georgir wrote:
Then there is another option - God does actively meddle in our universe. He changes things occasionally, in response to prayers or for testing our faith or for whatever other divine reasons. He does not let things to always run according to the universe's natural laws. I see a few problems with this theory however.
First off, if God created the universe and its governing physical laws just to later go and violate them, isn't that a contradiction? Why would he even bother setting those laws in the first place then... or why would those laws not be good enough to be left untouched, without the need to meddle in them and change things?
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that God is incomprehensible, and only makes him/her/itself known through revelation. If God is omnipotent, then quite frankly he can do whatever he wants - intervene in the causal order to do something, recreate the universe and accelerate its evolution in an instant until we're back to this very moment in time.
On May 13 2009 21:28 georgir wrote:
Second, there are a couple of moral and ethical questions. For example, the question of free will and changing people's decisions. I don't know if you realize, but a lot of things that people pray for, a lot of changes that they want, are in fact a violation of the free will of other people. Wether you want to pass that school exam next week, or to get a job promotion, or to have the girl you keep stalking fall in love with you... those are all things that depend on the other people, and I doubt a fair God should/would meddle.
Another thing is that generally, whenever one person benefits it is on account of someone else. Harsh as it sounds, but it is a fact of life. Take money as an example - it is limited, and the richer you get, the poorer someone else has to be. If all people get richer simultaneously, money just loses its value so we are back to where we started. So how can you expect God to answer your prayers for winning the lottery instead of the guy that would've won normally? Or to get a promotion instead of your co-worker? Or to get a brilliant idea instead of the competing researchers? Or many many such examples.
Granted, there are also some really pure and good types of wishes, like curing someone from a disease they have or preventing some natural disaster or simply having a nice sunny day, which I can't find a bad side about. And even the ones that I find questionable, may be just OK in someone else's moral view. Maybe you believe it is ok for God to reward the "better" people on account of the "worse" people, or even to brainwash some very "bad" people to change their decisions, etc... I can't argue with that.
My whole second point here does not rule out God's interventions, but it does make you think about them and what kind of them are likely or possible and what aren't.
An omnibenevolent God would something that eludes a human perception of morality. The statement is that "God is good" - not "God acts for the benefit of all," or "God does good," but that God is good. How do you go about defining perfect goodness?
My second point here is that you're taking a very shallow view of what faith and prayer is. Do people pray for getting good grades and a new car and the like every now and then? Of course, but that's not the *reason* they believe in God. The reason for belief is that it makes life meaningful - faith provides guidance on how to live and act in the best way possible, and it affirms that our individual lives are unique and significant.
On May 13 2009 21:28 georgir wrote:Third, such "meddling" by God should be scientifically detectable. With advanced enough science, we should eventually be able to make predictions about some sitiations, and they would not match the observations if God changes something. Granted, our science is still very far from the point where it would be able to understand, let alone predict complex systems such as a human brain, so we can't yet hope to detect wether God actually meddles in people's decisions... but why can't we detect some simpler things? Even just a statistical analysis of a (non-sexually-transmitted  ) virus's death rate difference among virgins versus drugdealers or something similar... No. You are understating the significance of an omnipotent God, and reducing divine action to a competitive cause on the natural order. Secondly, you are presupposing some kind of moral values onto God in your example (i.e. virgins are more worthy of living than drug dealers).
TL;DR - you're trying to explain something with human logic/morality that can't be explained or contained within human logic/morality.
|
admit i just scanned through but i think you mentioned reincarnation.
Well "reincarnation" would logically be the only true "life after death". What i mean is that when you cease to exist you do not know that you are dead therefore the only change from ceasing to exist would be to exist again in a lifeform which is able to acknowledge your own existance.
Of course, you will never know about your past existances, so you will not know if it is a RE-incarnation or if your existance is the first-incarnation.
Anyway to all those religious people out there who are into religion because they fear death, think of it this way... you wont be able to know that you are dead so why fear it. One minute you are dead, the next you are in existance again because in between all that, knowledge of space and time do not exist for you.
|
On May 13 2009 12:53 EsX_Raptor wrote:You guys believe whatever you want to, as much as you want to, whenever you want to. Nobody cares. + Show Spoiler +
Normally I would state my opinion about how bullshit religion is and try to get it through people's thick skulls but I will just agree with you, no one can change anyone's mind soI just do not care any more..
|
-sigh-
i cant believe i got caught up in yet ANOTHER internet religion thread
anyways..cangrats to the OP on his ephipany~ -cheers-
But what he wrote was correct. God is a figmant of man's imagination, created to satisfy man's innate nature to be protected. All the societies around the world used religion as a way to both 1) placate the peoples, and 2) create a stable system of rules and customs that a larger culture or civilization could grow out of. Going into my theses : I think religion was created ..or imagined by the masses in order to create a basis or foundation for a stronger or more unified group.
Ancient civilizations must have learned that there were strenght in numbers. I mean fucking animals know that. Basic fundamentals of starcraft as well. 10 cows > 2 cows. What these people did not have was a way to keep the peoples together and unifed. Enter religion. With the masses believing in the same "god", all the people would conform to the same rules and regulations and voila~ you have a tame, civilized society. And as that civilization grows larger, the religion/culture spreads with. Witness Alexander the Great's march eastward. He pushed Greek custums upon many cultures in the middle east, where there are many ties between their "gods" and the Greek "gods". (The theme of "dying and reborn" gods is prevalent, as is the idea of an "Adonis" figure) A few millenia later, the world is civilized and formed under a few large banners (Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam)
Now why people dont grow up I dont know. It is human nature to question what isnt there. The Church provides an answer for those searching, but that answer is grossly blown up and FUCKED UP. Isn't that what religion fundamentally is? An answer to the people's questions? The truth is not fixed, and in our case, the truth has not been found. Why the Church and various religions have the AUDACITY to believe that they have the answer is beyond me.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
~Epicurus
|
On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded  I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you.
We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured.
|
On May 14 2009 04:12 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
-sigh-
i cant believe i got caught up in yet ANOTHER internet religion thread
anyways..cangrats to the OP on his ephipany~ -cheers-
But what he wrote was correct. God is a figmant of man's imagination, created to satisfy man's innate nature to be protected. All the societies around the world used religion as a way to both 1) placate the peoples, and 2) create a stable system of rules and customs that a larger culture or civilization could grow out of. Going into my theses : I think religion was created ..or imagined by the masses in order to create a basis or foundation for a stronger or more unified group.
Ancient civilizations must have learned that there were strenght in numbers. I mean fucking animals know that. Basic fundamentals of starcraft as well. 10 cows > 2 cows. What these people did not have was a way to keep the peoples together and unifed. Enter religion. With the masses believing in the same "god", all the people would conform to the same rules and regulations and voila~ you have a tame, civilized society. And as that civilization grows larger, the religion/culture spreads with. Witness Alexander the Great's march eastward. He pushed Greek custums upon many cultures in the middle east, where there are many ties between their "gods" and the Greek "gods". (The theme of "dying and reborn" gods is prevalent, as is the idea of an "Adonis" figure) A few millenia later, the world is civilized and formed under a few large banners (Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam)
Now why people dont grow up I dont know. It is human nature to question what isnt there. The Church provides an answer for those searching, but that answer is grossly blown up and FUCKED UP. Isn't that what religion fundamentally is? An answer to the people's questions? The truth is not fixed, and in our case, the truth has not been found. Why the Church and various religions have the AUDACITY to believe that they have the answer is beyond me.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
~Epicurus
Xera addressed this earlier:
Why everyone believing or not in god has to relate to a religion? We can't believe in a superior entity without choosing a religion?
Though I disagree with the term "entity" and pretty much the rest of his/her post.
|
On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured.
dieT_T
why? because you say so? because everyone who believes in "God" conveniently defines it as something beyond explanation or measurement?
defining god as being "beyond" something while having no evidence for anything remotely close to the commonly defined God doesn't give any reason to even entertain the idea that God exsists.
If there is a God it most likely isn't anything like the common religions...but rather merely a first cause intelligent or not. (i would be inclined to think not) Most of the common God's drown themselves in logical impossibilities anyway
|
On May 13 2009 23:32 Xela wrote:
Why everyone believing or not in god has to relate to a religion? We can't believe in a superior entity without choosing a religion?
Everybody knows all the religions are at least 99% bullshit. I believe in a god but I don't consider myself christian or muslim or jew etc.
If you disregard religions and just look at it logically, there is more chance that there is a god then there is not.
I mean, the Bible, the coran, near death experiences....
"There is no smoke without fire" The existence of a god is very unlikely but the possibilty that billions of people over thousands of years were all wrong? Even more unlikely.
P.S. I hate blogs
That's a pretty bold (haha jokes:D) statement. Have you noticed that anything supernatural has been explained away slowly by natural science. Anything people attribute to super natural are only things we can't explain 'yet' or we don't have all the facts. It's that simple....
Your last statement about it being impossible that everyone is wrong is just Appeal to Popularity reworded to sound nicer.
|
On May 13 2009 21:28 georgir wrote:So many people keep saying that... but hey, why is it so? Some religious theories are easy to disprove or dismiss. There are some people that believe God does not meddle in the physical world at all. He is still out there somewhere, and he is still omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but at the same time he does squat. They still believe in some divine justice or whatever, but it is all reserved for the afterlife. It is really the perfect religious theory, because it is absolutely non-observable and hence non-fallible. But it has a huge drawback. Praying to God for anything in our current world, anything physical, anything while you are alive... it is just pointless. We don't need such a God. It does provide the comfort of an afterlife, so there are some people that actually go with it, but for most this isn't enough. So even most non-scientific, religious people would usually dismiss this theory. Scientifically, Occam's razor lets me dismiss such a theory as just redundant entities. Then there is another option - God does actively meddle in our universe. He changes things occasionally, in response to prayers or for testing our faith or for whatever other divine reasons. He does not let things to always run according to the universe's natural laws. I see a few problems with this theory however. First off, if God created the universe and its governing physical laws just to later go and violate them, isn't that a contradiction? Why would he even bother setting those laws in the first place then... or why would those laws not be good enough to be left untouched, without the need to meddle in them and change things? Second, there are a couple of moral and ethical questions. For example, the question of free will and changing people's decisions. I don't know if you realize, but a lot of things that people pray for, a lot of changes that they want, are in fact a violation of the free will of other people. Wether you want to pass that school exam next week, or to get a job promotion, or to have the girl you keep stalking fall in love with you... those are all things that depend on the other people, and I doubt a fair God should/would meddle. Another thing is that generally, whenever one person benefits it is on account of someone else. Harsh as it sounds, but it is a fact of life. Take money as an example - it is limited, and the richer you get, the poorer someone else has to be. If all people get richer simultaneously, money just loses its value so we are back to where we started. So how can you expect God to answer your prayers for winning the lottery instead of the guy that would've won normally? Or to get a promotion instead of your co-worker? Or to get a brilliant idea instead of the competing researchers? Or many many such examples. Granted, there are also some really pure and good types of wishes, like curing someone from a disease they have or preventing some natural disaster or simply having a nice sunny day, which I can't find a bad side about. And even the ones that I find questionable, may be just OK in someone else's moral view. Maybe you believe it is ok for God to reward the "better" people on account of the "worse" people, or even to brainwash some very "bad" people to change their decisions, etc... I can't argue with that. My whole second point here does not rule out God's interventions, but it does make you think about them and what kind of them are likely or possible and what aren't. Third, such "meddling" by God should be scientifically detectable. With advanced enough science, we should eventually be able to make predictions about some sitiations, and they would not match the observations if God changes something. Granted, our science is still very far from the point where it would be able to understand, let alone predict complex systems such as a human brain, so we can't yet hope to detect wether God actually meddles in people's decisions... but why can't we detect some simpler things? Even just a statistical analysis of a (non-sexually-transmitted ) virus's death rate difference among virgins versus drugdealers or something similar...
I'll reply to this when I'm not running late for class...haha.
On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you.
What I was trying to say is pretty apparent and clear. I don't think we can understand the ramifications of the existence of non-existence of a god entity from a viewpoint bound by "natural law", whatever that may be, or by any kind of empirically-based observation.
I don't think it's possible for "natural law" (I quote it now because I'm not even sure what that is myself) to end up explaining anything "above natural law and rationality in its premise" as I said before. At that point, you cross over into the realm of philosophy if you want to stick to the academic disciplines, and religion if you don't.
It then becomes a debate of whether or not there is anything beyond "natural law" or not.
In any case, I think that trying to observe the affects some god entity has on the physical world denies one of the key premises to there being a god entity: that he is somehow supernatural.
|
On May 14 2009 05:15 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 23:32 Xela wrote:
Why everyone believing or not in god has to relate to a religion? We can't believe in a superior entity without choosing a religion?
Everybody knows all the religions are at least 99% bullshit. I believe in a god but I don't consider myself christian or muslim or jew etc.
If you disregard religions and just look at it logically, there is more chance that there is a god then there is not.
I mean, the Bible, the coran, near death experiences....
"There is no smoke without fire" The existence of a god is very unlikely but the possibilty that billions of people over thousands of years were all wrong? Even more unlikely.
P.S. I hate blogs That's a pretty bold (haha jokes:D) statement. Have you noticed that anything supernatural has been explained away slowly by natural science. Anything people attribute to super natural are only things we can't explain 'yet' or we don't have all the facts. It's that simple.... Your last statement about it being impossible that everyone is wrong is just Appeal to Popularity reworded to sound nicer.
The science of today will readily admit that it is not in their interest or ability to explain anything that happened before the big bang occurred. They openly leave that to the realm of philosophy and religion.
In any case, I don't think a god needs to exist, but I don't think that your argument (that supposedly supernatural phenomenon continually become reduced to perfectly natural phenomenon over time as science progresses) really puts forth a solid case against a god.
Again...don't look for god in the natural world...you're not gonna find him. Our understanding of the natural world is incredibly incomplete. Until it is complete, there is no way to know whether it is tied at all to something other than itself...something supernatural or that in any case isn't immediately physical or empirical. Do you get my meaning?
On May 14 2009 05:06 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. dieT_T why? because you say so? because everyone who believes in "God" conveniently defines it as something beyond explanation or measurement? defining god as being "beyond" something while having no evidence for anything remotely close to the commonly defined God doesn't give any reason to even entertain the idea that God exsists. If there is a God it most likely isn't anything like the common religions...but rather merely a first cause intelligent or not. (i would be inclined to think not) Most of the common God's drown themselves in logical impossibilities anyway
I'm sure if you were to ask a Christian, s/he'd give you plenty of evidence and/or reasons...just none you could write down in a science paper.
|
On May 14 2009 05:06 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. dieT_T why? because you say so? because everyone who believes in "God" conveniently defines it as something beyond explanation or measurement? defining god as being "beyond" something while having no evidence for anything remotely close to the commonly defined God doesn't give any reason to even entertain the idea that God exsists. If there is a God it most likely isn't anything like the common religions...but rather merely a first cause intelligent or not. (i would be inclined to think not) Most of the common God's drown themselves in logical impossibilities anyway
I wasn't implying that "God" is the common God, it could easily be a 5th dimensional creature, a tenth dimensional creature. "God" more as an idea then an old man in the sky, a flying spaghetti monster etc. Maybe "God" isn't the right word for it. But if such a "thing" were to exist then limiting it to these 3 (4) dimensions is short-sighted.
|
On May 13 2009 12:55 Insane Lane wrote:
I've read the Bhagavad Gita and I'm pretty sure that your interpretation of Hinduism is incorrect. The goal of "getting out of the cycle" isn't to cease to exist, but to achieve Atman, which is unifying one's soul with the greater omniscent being. Thus, the soul transcends above the mortal realm and becomes one with the gods, receiving great enlightment and happiness. You in essence return your soul to the world and become a part of everybody and everything. This is actually the reverse of ceasing to exist. So Hinduism isn't that far off from Christianity in that they both offer an eternal reward of happiness if you are good enough.
And I'm pretty sure your interpretation of Christianity is incorrect. Being good doesn't reward you with eternal life/happiness. It is only by choice to believe in Jesus and accept his salvation.
And like Xera(?) said earlier, belief without religion is still belief. There are Christians pushing to remove religion altogether from Christianity because at its core it is more belief and relationship than structured religion.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
People shouldn't argue whether god exists or not. People should argue that if there were indeed a god, then it would be a terrible place to live in.
Antitheism anyone?
|
On May 14 2009 06:42 Kentor wrote:
People shouldn't argue whether god exists or not. People should argue that if there were indeed a god, then it would be a terrible place to live in.
Antitheism anyone?
I'm up for that one. Is this strictly against all the gods from the get-go, or are we doing a conflict against one god a week.
EDIT: A shame no-one sported up a quote from Twain.
|
On May 14 2009 05:06 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. dieT_T why? because you say so? because everyone who believes in "God" conveniently defines it as something beyond explanation or measurement? defining god as being "beyond" something while having no evidence for anything remotely close to the commonly defined God doesn't give any reason to even entertain the idea that God exsists. If there is a God it most likely isn't anything like the common religions...but rather merely a first cause intelligent or not. (i would be inclined to think not) Most of the common God's drown themselves in logical impossibilities anyway
well I thought it was obvious, but the entire deal with religion is that it surpasses merely physical phenomena. it's very silly to think that limitations like that exist, imo. not that I believe in "god".
take enough mind expanding drugs and it will become easy to see that what is physically there doesn't define your reality nearly as much as currently unmeasurable mental constructs do.
meditation can take you there too.
it's very intellectually juvenile to think our senses pick up on everything.
|
On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured.
omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured".
Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God".
FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life.
God doesn't help nor does he hurt me.
Therefore :
1) There is no God
2) God does not take part in my daily life
therefore i find no reason to worship said god.
If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
~Epicurus
|
On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured". Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God". FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life. God doesn't help nor does he hurt me. Therefore : 1) There is no God 2) God does not take part in my daily life therefore i find no reason to worship said god. If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus
lol...you're one of them angry atheists...and also an idiot.
If you don't accept the premise that a god entity is above physical phenomenon, then that can't be helped. However, that's a really boring way to argue with a theist.
Isn't it awfully convenient that you absolutely deny there can be anything phenomenal or epiphenomenal?
Get over yourself. I'm not even a theist and your post annoyed the hell out of me. Getting worked up and angry like that isn't constructive and also destroys your credibility/respect.
|
On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured". Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God". FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life. God doesn't help nor does he hurt me. Therefore : 1) There is no God 2) God does not take part in my daily life therefore i find no reason to worship said god. If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus
if you see no reason to worship or believe in god that is fine. if you think it is stupid to believe in him fine. but to claim that if such an entity existed, something outside of the scope of our awareness, that it would be playing by the same rules that we do is absurd.
to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. who the fuck are we to judge how things operate in the grand scheme of things. do you judge a contest before it is over? no, because that would be silly and ignorant.
so fine, not believing in god because you see no evidence makes sense. but not believing in god because he doesn't fit into the scheme that for whatever reason you and countless others have deemed to be the rules he should operate by is ridiculous.
|
On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured". Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God". FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life. God doesn't help nor does he hurt me. Therefore : 1) There is no God 2) God does not take part in my daily life therefore i find no reason to worship said god. If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus if you see no reason to worship or believe in god that is fine. if you think it is stupid to believe in him fine. but to claim that if such an entity existed, something outside of the scope of our awareness, that it would be playing by the same rules that we do is absurd. to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. who the fuck are we to judge how things operate in the grand scheme of things. do you judge a contest before it is over? no, because that would be silly and ignorant. so fine, not believing in god because you see no evidence makes sense. but not believing in god because he doesn't fit into the scheme that for whatever reason you and countless others have deemed to be the rules he should operate by is ridiculous.
I actually like your reply better than mine...lol.
|
On May 14 2009 06:21 Chromyne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 12:55 Insane Lane wrote:
I've read the Bhagavad Gita and I'm pretty sure that your interpretation of Hinduism is incorrect. The goal of "getting out of the cycle" isn't to cease to exist, but to achieve Atman, which is unifying one's soul with the greater omniscent being. Thus, the soul transcends above the mortal realm and becomes one with the gods, receiving great enlightment and happiness. You in essence return your soul to the world and become a part of everybody and everything. This is actually the reverse of ceasing to exist. So Hinduism isn't that far off from Christianity in that they both offer an eternal reward of happiness if you are good enough.
And I'm pretty sure your interpretation of Christianity is incorrect. Being good doesn't reward you with eternal life/happiness. It is only by choice to believe in Jesus and accept his salvation.
Tell that to the Calvinists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
