|
Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat
Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat
Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat
Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat
Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat Bone Meat
 
|
I find your ideas kind of interesting but rather generic. Good post though, and some of the things you said made me think.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 13 2009 12:07 D4EMON wrote:
I was a Christian for the majority of my life, but I don't believe in God anymore. My parents do though, as well as a couple of my friends--they ask me why I don't go to church anymore.
I dont know why but this part makes you sound ~13.
|
My belief is that religion was created merely to explain the world around us. As mankind slowly evolved foresight and the concept of a "future", the developing languages enabled us to create abstract concepts. Humans, being inquisitive, wondered why natural phenonom around us happen. I believe that is why early religion focuses mostly on Sun Gods and that sort of thing.
Then as civilisation became more advanced people started to develop morales. At the same time scientific processes of investigation were starting to be used to explain the world. So overtime the explanatory aspects of religion were lessened while the issues regarding morales were more prominent. This leads to things like the 10 commandments and karma.
|
"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still believe in grammar".
|
I heard an idea once that God was just a concept created by society to facilitate our innate desire for a protector.
Yes...but the Christian God is also a Father, Friend not just a protector.
That is, as children we're looked after by beings that seem to have limitless power that can protect us from anything, at some point however, we learn that even they can't protect us from death.
Your point.
To paraphrase another dead person: religion is the opium of the people, and to deny it is to demand the truth.
Prove to me God doesn't and can't exist.
You can't disprove something that's not able to be proved.
This is why religion is 99.99% faith.
I'm still wondering why people even bother to make these topics.
On a side note, were you catholic?
|
konadora
Singapore66163 Posts
Question to think about as a Logics student: Is believing in God true belief?
|
On May 13 2009 12:38 b3h47pte wrote:Show nested quote +I heard an idea once that God was just a concept created by society to facilitate our innate desire for a protector. Yes...but the Christian God is also a Father, Friend not just a protector. Show nested quote +That is, as children we're looked after by beings that seem to have limitless power that can protect us from anything, at some point however, we learn that even they can't protect us from death. Your point. Show nested quote +To paraphrase another dead person: religion is the opium of the people, and to deny it is to demand the truth. Prove to me God doesn't and can't exist. You can't disprove something that's not able to be proved. This is why religion is 99.99% faith. I'm still wondering why people even bother to make these topics. On a side note, were you catholic? So, you can't prove what you think, and you're angry at him for not being able to prove what he thinks?
Look. You didn't even put a question mark after "your point". You don't want him to answer. You don't want to know what he thinks, you just want to yell at him.
Edit: What the heck is that a picture of?
|
You guys believe whatever you want to, as much as you want to, whenever you want to.
Nobody cares.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm not yelling at him. ;\
I'm sorry I can't sufficiently put feeling into an internet post. And I know I can't prove what I think. He's saying he doesn't believe in God anymore. In other words, i'm asking why and then he brings up the point of saying denying religion is to seek the truth, aka religion is a lie. Ok, then prove why my religion and my belief in God is wrong.
You didn't even put a question mark after "your point". You don't want him to answer.
I'm sorry. Do you want a question mark? Your point?
I do what him to expand because i'm curious why I should care if I realized that my God doesn't protect me from death? Is that all I want? To not die? That would be nice but acutally I think I would want to die after some 70-80 years.
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 +
qft ;\
|
On May 13 2009 12:38 b3h47pte wrote:Show nested quote +I heard an idea once that God was just a concept created by society to facilitate our innate desire for a protector. Yes...but the Christian God is also a Father, Friend not just a protector. Show nested quote +That is, as children we're looked after by beings that seem to have limitless power that can protect us from anything, at some point however, we learn that even they can't protect us from death. Your point. Show nested quote +To paraphrase another dead person: religion is the opium of the people, and to deny it is to demand the truth. Prove to me God doesn't and can't exist. You can't disprove something that's not able to be proved. This is why religion is 99.99% faith. I'm still wondering why people even bother to make these topics. On a side note, were you catholic?
You can't disprove something that's not able to be proved.
This is why religion is 99.99% faith.
I'm still wondering why people even bother to make these topics.
first of all your argument here is elementary because it really offers nothing interesting.
also, it seems you are assuming that i intended to convince somebody with the post when i was merely stating my thoughts like a journal. i'm wondering why you care so much? i'm assuming you believe in god so of course the topic is a sensitive point for you, in any case whether you do or you don't whining about seeing a topic you feel you've seen too much of is your own business. thanks for letting me know by the way.
Yes...but the Christian God is also a Father, Friend not just a protector.
You're just restating what i already wrote, a father by implication is a parent, and a parent is what i was referring to. from that i can tell that you didn't really read the post but you just skimmed it and were quick to judging it before thinking about it, which explains your cliche'd response.
|
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 yeah, so you can probably see then that Hinduism doesn't imply that existence is a curse and must be striven against. It's all about altering your existence within this cycle of reincarnation until you can break free of it.
|
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 yeah, so you can probably see then that Hinduism doesn't imply that existence is a curse and must be striven against. It's all about altering your existence within this cycle of reincarnation until you can break free of it.
i was referring to the idea of being taken out of the universe to never be born again as an isolated instance. perhaps i didn't explain it well enough, but it's something i studied a lot in my philosophy of religion class.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
|
Faith (or lack of) in a religion means something different for everyone. Whether you end up choosing some other religion because it better describes your beliefs or are just satisfied without any codified system is up to you.
I see you invoking Freud and Marx. Perhaps you should look into more projection theories of God, like Feuerbach. In a nutshell, we as humans are unable to come to terms with our own potential for ultimate good (and perhaps ultimate evil), so we project our own greatest qualities onto an imaginary being who then returns these qualities in the form of gifts/rewards.
I think that most of the talk about what to believe, though, is irrelevant. More important in this critical period is deciding how you're going to live your life with respect to your beliefs, and letting your family know. I mean, it would be a good thing if they supported your decision, but ultimately it's your life if they can't come to terms with it.
|
On May 13 2009 12:53 b3h47pte wrote:I'm not yelling at him. ;\ I'm sorry I can't sufficiently put feeling into an internet post. And I know I can't prove what I think. He's saying he doesn't believe in God anymore. In other words, i'm asking why and then he brings up the point of saying denying religion is to seek the truth, aka religion is a lie. Ok, then prove why my religion and my belief in God is wrong. Show nested quote +You didn't even put a question mark after "your point". You don't want him to answer. I'm sorry. Do you want a question mark? Your point? I do what him to expand because i'm curious why I should care if I realized that my God doesn't protect me from death? Is that all I want? To not die? That would be nice but acutally I think I would want to die after some 70-80 years. qft ;\ At least I get a question mark.
That's more like it.
I don't know if your religion is right or wrong, but what this dude is saying is that you have to think about these problems. You CAN just believe in the Bible unquestioningly, but that would be against the idea of seeking truth, which is that you consider your beliefs and do philosophy yourself.
|
Though I never believed in God, I have been questioning the things I believed in. I think in the long run it helps out (unless you over think it).
|
The whole idea of the catholic faith is "life everlasting" "eternal life with god the father" =\ It really is a security blanket to continue your human existence beyond death. And you did sound like a douchebag.
|
"Jesus Christ I'm not scared to die
But I'm a little bit scared of what comes after."
- Jesse Lacey
Exactly how I feel; I'm agnostic or some what atheist at times. A lot of my friends go to church and so do my parents and they also wonder why I don't go. It's been like six years since I have stepped foot into a church, but I don't let them know just yet. I feel like theres really no one there, and it makes me scared of what happens after I die. Which is the reason why my agnosticism comes in and allows me to believe that there is some other forms of life after death, E.G: reincarnation, heaven or hell, ghost?!... I'm not really scared of dying at all... I have wished it upon myself plenty of times, but it just frightens me of what really happens after.
|
I'm taking a class at my university right now...a mixed undergrad/graduate philosophy class on religion. Our professor is an atheist, but finds religion, and Christianity in particular, fascinating.
In any case, he said something the other day that totally blew my mind.
He brought up this recently deceased Cal Tech professor who helped develop the modern number theory being used right now (I can't remember his name). Anyway, his contributions to number theory helped to set the groundwork for modern mathematics and even philosophical logic as it is used today.
My professor talked about how philosophers love to write about what numbers are...what they are, really. Not just the numeral, the representation we use for them in written language, but the actual number itself. However, this deceased Cal Tech physicist (I think he was actually a physicist, not a mathematician) was once quoted saying something along the lines of, "I don't know what numbers are, but I live among them".
It's an interesting analogy that has given me quite a bit to think about. Existence of God or god or whatever is really not all that important of an issue in the end. There are many more and many more interesting things to talk about once you can get around that.
I dunno, I just glossed on it very briefly right now...what he actually said was a lot more insightful. lol.
|
On May 13 2009 14:07 PH wrote:
I'm taking a class at my university right now...a mixed undergrad/graduate philosophy class on religion. Our professor is an atheist, but finds religion, and Christianity in particular, fascinating.
In any case, he said something the other day that totally blew my mind.
He brought up this recently deceased Cal Tech professor who helped develop the modern number theory being used right now (I can't remember his name). Anyway, his contributions to number theory helped to set the groundwork for modern mathematics and even philosophical logic as it is used today.
My professor talked about how philosophers love to write about what numbers are...what they are, really. Not just the numeral, the representation we use for them in written language, but the actual number itself. However, this deceased Cal Tech physicist (I think he was actually a physicist, not a mathematician) was once quoted saying something along the lines of, "I don't know what numbers are, but I live among them".
It's an interesting analogy that has given me quite a bit to think about. Existence of God or god or whatever is really not all that important of an issue in the end. There are many more and many more interesting things to talk about once you can get around that.
I dunno, I just glossed on it very briefly right now...what he actually said was a lot more insightful. lol.
I would actually like to hear more about this! You left me drooling for more 
|
you can't prove or disprove god.
|
On May 13 2009 14:09 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 14:07 PH wrote:
I'm taking a class at my university right now...a mixed undergrad/graduate philosophy class on religion. Our professor is an atheist, but finds religion, and Christianity in particular, fascinating.
In any case, he said something the other day that totally blew my mind.
He brought up this recently deceased Cal Tech professor who helped develop the modern number theory being used right now (I can't remember his name). Anyway, his contributions to number theory helped to set the groundwork for modern mathematics and even philosophical logic as it is used today.
My professor talked about how philosophers love to write about what numbers are...what they are, really. Not just the numeral, the representation we use for them in written language, but the actual number itself. However, this deceased Cal Tech physicist (I think he was actually a physicist, not a mathematician) was once quoted saying something along the lines of, "I don't know what numbers are, but I live among them".
It's an interesting analogy that has given me quite a bit to think about. Existence of God or god or whatever is really not all that important of an issue in the end. There are many more and many more interesting things to talk about once you can get around that.
I dunno, I just glossed on it very briefly right now...what he actually said was a lot more insightful. lol. I would actually like to hear more about this! You left me drooling for more
My professor started posting up podcasts of his lectures...I'll try to link it to here once he posts it up.
On May 13 2009 14:10 DeathSpank wrote:
you can't prove or disprove god.
I agree with this...very strongly.
I don't get what the hoopla is on either side concerning this. The agnostics and atheists are overly concerned with their supposedly seamless empiricism. The theists get overly sensitive and try to prove it back at them and all that...it's annoying as hell.
I think I read a rather outspoken atheist on here write one time that most atheist thought revolves around trying to show what differences there would be if a supposed god existed or didn't exist...and that the supposed lack of differences would lead one to infer that god's existence is therefore both inconsequential and therefore by some loose application of Occam's razor, not probable.
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded.
|
hell we don't know what or who god is even if he does exist. All we know is that we exist to a degree.
Anyways it's more fun not knowing!
|
So like the most popular god to believe in is the desert god of death.
Now what does this god tell us? Yes that's right. There is something wrong with you, but if you follow his way you will be saved when you die.
Now doesn't that sound like the biggest scam to you? Something is wrong with you. Do this and you will be fine after you die. Sounds like some shit cults tell you to steal all your mon.Oh wait...
|
On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 14:09 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 13 2009 14:07 PH wrote:
I'm taking a class at my university right now...a mixed undergrad/graduate philosophy class on religion. Our professor is an atheist, but finds religion, and Christianity in particular, fascinating.
In any case, he said something the other day that totally blew my mind.
He brought up this recently deceased Cal Tech professor who helped develop the modern number theory being used right now (I can't remember his name). Anyway, his contributions to number theory helped to set the groundwork for modern mathematics and even philosophical logic as it is used today.
My professor talked about how philosophers love to write about what numbers are...what they are, really. Not just the numeral, the representation we use for them in written language, but the actual number itself. However, this deceased Cal Tech physicist (I think he was actually a physicist, not a mathematician) was once quoted saying something along the lines of, "I don't know what numbers are, but I live among them".
It's an interesting analogy that has given me quite a bit to think about. Existence of God or god or whatever is really not all that important of an issue in the end. There are many more and many more interesting things to talk about once you can get around that.
I dunno, I just glossed on it very briefly right now...what he actually said was a lot more insightful. lol. I would actually like to hear more about this! You left me drooling for more My professor started posting up podcasts of his lectures...I'll try to link it to here once he posts it up. I agree with this...very strongly. I don't get what the hoopla is on either side concerning this. The agnostics and atheists are overly concerned with their supposedly seamless empiricism. The theists get overly sensitive and try to prove it back at them and all that...it's annoying as hell. I think I read a rather outspoken atheist on here write one time that most atheist thought revolves around trying to show what differences there would be if a supposed god existed or didn't exist...and that the supposed lack of differences would lead one to infer that god's existence is therefore both inconsequential and therefore by some loose application of Occam's razor, not probable. Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded.
I think you misunderstand what an agnostic is, or I misunderstand that point.
|
Everyone hates atheists, because the only ones who speak up are trying to disprove God or whatever. But there are also jerks like Jack Chick out there, so don't give us all a bad name.
|
|
|
On May 13 2009 14:45 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:On May 13 2009 14:09 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 13 2009 14:07 PH wrote:
I'm taking a class at my university right now...a mixed undergrad/graduate philosophy class on religion. Our professor is an atheist, but finds religion, and Christianity in particular, fascinating.
In any case, he said something the other day that totally blew my mind.
He brought up this recently deceased Cal Tech professor who helped develop the modern number theory being used right now (I can't remember his name). Anyway, his contributions to number theory helped to set the groundwork for modern mathematics and even philosophical logic as it is used today.
My professor talked about how philosophers love to write about what numbers are...what they are, really. Not just the numeral, the representation we use for them in written language, but the actual number itself. However, this deceased Cal Tech physicist (I think he was actually a physicist, not a mathematician) was once quoted saying something along the lines of, "I don't know what numbers are, but I live among them".
It's an interesting analogy that has given me quite a bit to think about. Existence of God or god or whatever is really not all that important of an issue in the end. There are many more and many more interesting things to talk about once you can get around that.
I dunno, I just glossed on it very briefly right now...what he actually said was a lot more insightful. lol. I would actually like to hear more about this! You left me drooling for more My professor started posting up podcasts of his lectures...I'll try to link it to here once he posts it up. On May 13 2009 14:10 DeathSpank wrote:
you can't prove or disprove god. I agree with this...very strongly. I don't get what the hoopla is on either side concerning this. The agnostics and atheists are overly concerned with their supposedly seamless empiricism. The theists get overly sensitive and try to prove it back at them and all that...it's annoying as hell. I think I read a rather outspoken atheist on here write one time that most atheist thought revolves around trying to show what differences there would be if a supposed god existed or didn't exist...and that the supposed lack of differences would lead one to infer that god's existence is therefore both inconsequential and therefore by some loose application of Occam's razor, not probable. Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. I think you misunderstand what an agnostic is, or I misunderstand that point.
An agnostic, as I used the term above, is one who denies the possibility of proving or disproving the existence of a god or whatever. I use it very loosely.
Perhaps I did put that in wrongly...I'm not sure. I know a lot less about agnosticism (despite supposedly being one myself) than I do atheism...and I don't know how much your run-of-the-mill agnostic would rely on empiricism or logic.
|
FuDDx
United States5008 Posts
Come on people lets sit down watch some Barney and clap and sing like responsible adults.
|
there are a bunch of different flavors of agnosticism, just look at the wiki page
i hate the agnostics who insist on their own definition, there are multiple.
|
I define agnosticism as accepting that there is no proof or disproof of god and being comfortable not knowing....also yelling at atheists when they go out and try and prove to religious folk that they are wrong. Which I find more annoying than the occasional mormon at my door.
|
agnosticism is ignoring that the god story sounds like a scam
|
konadora
Singapore66163 Posts
|
On May 13 2009 14:07 PH wrote:
I'm taking a class at my university right now...a mixed undergrad/graduate philosophy class on religion. Our professor is an atheist, but finds religion, and Christianity in particular, fascinating.
In any case, he said something the other day that totally blew my mind.
He brought up this recently deceased Cal Tech professor who helped develop the modern number theory being used right now (I can't remember his name). Anyway, his contributions to number theory helped to set the groundwork for modern mathematics and even philosophical logic as it is used today.
My professor talked about how philosophers love to write about what numbers are...what they are, really. Not just the numeral, the representation we use for them in written language, but the actual number itself. However, this deceased Cal Tech physicist (I think he was actually a physicist, not a mathematician) was once quoted saying something along the lines of, "I don't know what numbers are, but I live among them".
It's an interesting analogy that has given me quite a bit to think about. Existence of God or god or whatever is really not all that important of an issue in the end. There are many more and many more interesting things to talk about once you can get around that.
I dunno, I just glossed on it very briefly right now...what he actually said was a lot more insightful. lol.
Is that Richard Feynman? Just bought his set of textbooks, greatest Physics teacher of all time.
|
It might be...I honestly have no clue. I only know (I THINK) that he was a physicist, taught at Cal Tech and died within the last few years.
On May 13 2009 14:56 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
there are a bunch of different flavors of agnosticism, just look at the wiki page
i hate the agnostics who insist on their own definition, there are multiple.
I know it's weird to quote someone like this for something like this...but the situation calls for it, and it's a good quote:
"Did I start calling myself an agnostic or an atheist? No, and I still don't. I avoid that because I don't want to provide a category for people to apply to me. I would not want my convictions reduced to a word." - Roger Ebert
Anyway, terms like "agnostic", "theist" and "atheist" are umbrella terms. It's unfair to force any individual into some arbitrary definition the latest person to edit the wiki page came up with. It's also unfair to assume that all who call themselves one of the three are the same.
|
yeah i agree, PH, though there are such stereotypable people who fit into molds, there are also many who have their own quite unique interpretations of existence
|
|
|
the real question is, do you think that people that believe in some Religion are more afraid of death, than those who doesn't?
|
ask suicide bombers that.
personally I find non existence scarier than a hell. At least in hell you can fuck around.
|
On May 13 2009 16:08 ThePhan2m wrote:
the real question is, do you think that people that believe in some Religion are more afraid of death, than those who doesn't?
It can go either way...I don't think you can generalize in either direction. When I was younger and was a devout Catholic, I actually found the thought of an eternal afterlife devastatingly frightening. It was when I first realized what "eternal" and "forever" truly entailed...and considering there really are no parallels in the universe we can directly observe and experience, it was something that scared the shit out of me.
On May 13 2009 16:13 DeathSpank wrote:
ask suicide bombers that.
personally I find non existence scarier than a hell. At least in hell you can fuck around.
or more likely...in hell you'd have very large men fucking around with you... :X
WOW FUCK THIS THREAD I HAVE AN ESSAY TO WRITE.
Funnily enough, it's my midterm paper for that religion class. -_____-;;...
|
On May 13 2009 16:00 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
yeah i agree, PH, though there are such stereotypable people who fit into molds, there are also many who have their own quite unique interpretations of existence
i read a quote somewhere but cant remember who it was from or the exact wording but it was something like
'if i were to address a common person i would say that i am an atheist, but if i were speaking to a group of philosophers i would have to say that i am an agnostic as i acknowledge the possibility of gods existence in the same way that i acknowledge the possibility of the homeric gods existence.'
always liked that description
oh nevermind i found it
"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
— Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
god is the future, literally
|
Considering how kids these days act, I really do not hope they're God.
|
i dont believe in religion but when asked by religious people, i say yes just to skip all the "OMG you're gonna go to hell for not believing God"
|
On May 13 2009 12:07 D4EMON wrote:
Hinduism in particular is a religion I find kind of interesting. Here is a religion which offers the concept of reincarnation—which is a kind of eternal life—but that a follower’s primary objective, and ultimate reward, is to ‘get out of the cycle’. The implication here is that they are okay with the idea of their being nothing after death--which is something that I can agree with. Where I disagree though is the further implication in there that seems to say: life is painful, and to not exist is preferable to existing—which I think is only partly true, where the intensity of its truth proportional to the “quality of life” that you experience—whatever form that might take.
These ideas are not unique to Hinduism, for they can be found in the Buddhist religion as well. The main thing to comprehend behind their mystical superficialities is that desire is the cause of all the world's suffering, to which every human being contributes in equal measure. In order for one to cease to be a cause of the world's suffering, and to permanently cure his own, he must become free of all desire - and in doing so, he must subject himself to suffering (however ironic this may seem at first glance). While this ideal is probably unattainable, after thinking about it enough, it makes perfect sense to me, and I even consider it to be quite true.
What I have just said is also prevalent in the doctrines of Christianity and Islam, though each religion has its own way of presenting it. While I don't entirely agree with him, I also find what Schopenhauer says in On Religion: A Dialogue to be particularly interesting:
But religion is not antithetical to truth; for it itself teaches truth; only, because its field of action is not a narrow lecture-room but the whole world and all mankind, it has to adapt itself to the needs and abilities of a large and assorted public, and cannot present the truth naked. Religion is truth expressed in allegory and myth and thus made accessible and digestible to mankind at large: for mankind at large could never endure it pure and unalloyed, just as we cannot live on pure oxygen. The lofty goal of life can be revealed to the people and kept before their eyes only in symbolical form, because the people are not capable of grasping it literally.
What is really quite annoying are all the atheists who consider religion to be just "a bunch of fairy tales" designed to make people feel content with their lives (I'm not referring to anyone in particular). Most of them haven't even touched a Bible or any other religious text in their lifetime. And if they have, then they made the mistake of reading everything literally. Religious texts should always be interpreted in a metaphorical sense. The stories in these texts are more than simple fairy tales, and one does not even need to be a God-believer or any sort of mystic for that matter to take their ideas seriously.
|
On May 13 2009 17:10 Forgottenfrog wrote:
i dont believe in religion but when asked by religious people, i say yes just to skip all the "OMG you're gonna go to hell for not believing God"
I did the same even when I was a practicing Catholic.
Trust me...no matter what branch of Christianity you're a part of, evangelists from every other branch are equally annoying.
I would say, "oh yeah, I'm a part of your organization too! How coincidental! Yeah, I'm just visiting my friends in this area. I actually go to the one in [insert random city here]! Yeah, so yeah god bless and all that and now leave me alone, kk? ^^"
I've written two pages of my essay now.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
What's so great about heaven anyway
|
free sex beer and candy! DUHHHH
|
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 +
+111111111111111111111
|
On May 13 2009 12:07 D4EMON wrote:
My parents do though, as well as a couple of my friends--they ask me why I don't go to church anymore. I think it's better I don't tell them--at least not yet.
Not believing in god doesn't mean you cant take a few of the teachings from Christianity. One being that you shouldn't deny what you believe in. I went through a stage before I declared myself atheist where at first I was scared of how people would take it, EVERYONE in my family are hardcore religious, all my friends are hardcore religious minus a few. Most of all, I didn't want people to see me as all the negative views of atheists, such as but not limited to: Lazy(too lazy to have faith/go to church), lacking in morals, heathen, something to be pitied.
One day I just figured fuck it, if people misunderstand me than that's their problem. My mum is probably the only one who knows I'm an atheist for good reasons, the rest of my family just looks down at me when the subject comes up and my friends don't give a shit either way lol.
Don't be a pussy, if your not a christian, don't hide because of it... if your family cant accept your way of life whether your Buddhist, Hindu or atheist then that's not very christian like of them at all.
|
|
|
congrats on breaking out and into the pursuit of truth! I was fortunate enough to never have to deal with this part:
My parents do though, as well as a couple of my friends--they ask me why I don't go to church anymore. I think it's better I don't tell them--at least not yet
Yikes! That must make a lot of tough/awkward situations. I have two good friends who are religious and it is odd enough that we sidestep this elephant all the time. I cant imagine doing that constantly.
|
Why does it have to be awkward? I have discussions about God with my agnostic and atheists friends all the time (im a christian). When you talk to the normal people of both sides you can have very nice conversations, just both sides need to realize that its stupid to just demean the other side. Some of my best friends are hardcore atheists and we get along great. People just take things personally in these debates. Both sides can come off as condescending and arrogant which is REALLY annoying. The only time I get upset with atheists is when they just spout off shit about blind faith then it turns out I know more about the science of evolution/origin of life then them. I mean seriously some atheists just spout off about science when they know shit about it. Which basically means they are placing blind faith in science, which is a man made concept. So to all you non believers out there please KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT before you try to attack ppl of faith.
|
You can't prove or disprove God.
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 was a Christian when younger; it can be hard to grow out of childhood indoctrination. Then I thought about it a bit and became an atheist. But if people try to get into a discussion I just adopt the "don't care" or "agnostic" approach, since I don't need religion despite what they think.
|
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.
|
On May 13 2009 12:07 D4EMON wrote:
II'm actually fine with the fact that after death I'll simply cease to exist--in a way it's even liberating to view it this way.
one of the major reasons that many people are atheists, imo
|
One of the things I find most fascinating is Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorems. Mathematics is one of those things that's completely logical and deductive. And yet, within a system powerful enough to have natural numbers, there will be truths in that system that we cannot prove, otherwise the system contradicts itself. Just an interesting thought; could there be truths in our natural universe that cannot ever be proven or even perhaps even observed?
|
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
|
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.
|
On May 15 2009 05:38 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote: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.
well I like you better than my post!
|
PH and travis summed up my reply.
|
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.
You don't understand what Epicurus was saying.
:|
|
On May 15 2009 06:30 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote: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. You don't understand what Epicurus was saying. :|
then explain it to me
I am very, very confident that I understand what he is saying. I think it's more likely you that don't understand what I was saying.
|
On May 15 2009 07:12 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 06:30 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote: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. You don't understand what Epicurus was saying. :| then explain it to me I am very, very confident that I understand what he is saying. I think it's more likely you that don't understand what I was saying.
to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly.
That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine.
In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world.
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm#SH3e
|
On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 07:12 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 06:30 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote: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. You don't understand what Epicurus was saying. :| then explain it to me I am very, very confident that I understand what he is saying. I think it's more likely you that don't understand what I was saying. Show nested quote +to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. Show nested quote +In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world.
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm#SH3e Seriously? People invoke theodicy all the time as an argument for the nonexistence of God. It isn't what he said or meant, it's how people are using it these days. Just because some dead Greek dude said something doesn't mean people can't take it in a completely different direction. I mean, clarification does help on the matter if we were looking at the original context, but in this one all it does it makes you look like a smartass trying to show off how intelligent you are.
|
On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. Show nested quote +In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine.... Show nested quote +
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification.
|
On May 13 2009 16:22 PH wrote:
WOW FUCK THIS THREAD I HAVE AN ESSAY TO WRITE.
ROFLMAO.
I could try and write a big explanation about why God isn't real. But they say a picture is worth a thousand words: + Show Spoiler +
|
On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification.
|
|
|
On May 15 2009 08:01 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification.
ok so what am I missing? please be patient with me.
I really can't conclude anything other than that epicurus was arguing against a god that had any sort of personal link to mankind.
what I am saying is that my reply to the quote remains the same.
|
On May 15 2009 08:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 08:01 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification. ok so what am I missing? please be patient with me. I really can't conclude anything other than that epicurus was arguing against a god that had any sort of personal link to mankind. what I am saying is that my reply to the quote remains the same.
Epicurus certainly did believe that the gods had no personal link to mankind. However, the problem of evil is an argument only against the existence of a god that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. On what basis do you still dismiss it as "silly"?
|
On May 15 2009 08:36 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 08:24 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 08:01 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification. ok so what am I missing? please be patient with me. I really can't conclude anything other than that epicurus was arguing against a god that had any sort of personal link to mankind. what I am saying is that my reply to the quote remains the same. Epicurus certainly did believe that the gods had no personal link to mankind. However, the problem of evil is an argument only against the existence of a god that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. On what basis do you still dismiss it as "silly"?
on the basis that it is "silly" for us to assume we know everything(let alone anything) about the absolute role of good and evil in the world, and it is "silly" for us to act like we know limitations of what is or is not possible. What if this is the best even an all-powerful god can do? How would any of us know?
Beyond that, what if suffering has a role to play that we don't understand? Without having experienced everything, we are absolutely not in a position to objectively judge what is or is not just in this life.
|
Once again you don't know shit about God. If he does exist we certainly don't know his designs and to say that he is evil because there is evil in the world is retarded. If you were to make a universe wouldn't you put evil in it? I think it would be boring as shit without a little tragedy. [german accent]VVWE KNOW NOTHING![/german accent] Just because humanity has created a depiction of God does not make that depiction accurate. you're all silly.
|
On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
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
I rather like this point of view. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, everything that happens to me has a logical explanation and reason. I do not pray, I do not worship, I simply live the life I was given. I haven't witnessed or been apart of any miracles or divine interactions, so even if there were, I feel no connection to God whatsoever.
I've never truly understood why some believe you must believe in God, or accept some form of religion to be admitted into heaven. I did not choose to be born, to be a living person, it simply happened, I had no choice in that. I don't really understand the rationale of a God who would create life and then demand that said life acts according to it's rules, or be eternally punished.
I was talking to a friend of mine, who is Christian, and I was curiously asking that if I didn't believe in a God, yet lived my life as a 'good' person by today's ethical standards, would I be going to hell or heaven; assuming those were the only options. He replied hell, because as he said, I didn't seek out religion and seek out truth about God, therefore I was deserving of eternal pain and sadness. I had to laugh because I found this ridiculous. I wasn't given a choice of being born, I was born and I've been living my life. As I said, personally I feel no connection to God if there is one, and why should I? Does that make me deserving of hell? If someone could explain this I would appreciate it.
|
On May 15 2009 11:54 DeathSpank wrote:
Once again you don't know shit about God. If he does exist we certainly don't know his designs and to say that he is evil because there is evil in the world is retarded. If you were to make a universe wouldn't you put evil in it? I think it would be boring as shit without a little tragedy. [german accent]VVWE KNOW NOTHING![/german accent] Just because humanity has created a depiction of God does not make that depiction accurate. you're all silly.
I hate this point of view...throwing words around about "god's plan"...that is a horrible circular argument that defeats itself.
On May 15 2009 13:46 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
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
I rather like this point of view. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, everything that happens to me has a logical explanation and reason. I do not pray, I do not worship, I simply live the life I was given. I haven't witnessed or been apart of any miracles or divine interactions, so even if there were, I feel no connection to God whatsoever. I've never truly understood why some believe you must believe in God, or accept some form of religion to be admitted into heaven. I did not choose to be born, to be a living person, it simply happened, I had no choice in that. I don't really understand the rationale of a God who would create life and then demand that said life acts according to it's rules, or be eternally punished. I was talking to a friend of mine, who is Christian, and I was curiously asking that if I didn't believe in a God, yet lived my life as a 'good' person by today's ethical standards, would I be going to hell or heaven; assuming those were the only options. He replied hell, because as he said, I didn't seek out religion and seek out truth about God, therefore I was deserving of eternal pain and sadness. I had to laugh because I found this ridiculous. I wasn't given a choice of being born, I was born and I've been living my life. As I said, personally I feel no connection to God if there is one, and why should I? Does that make me deserving of hell? If someone could explain this I would appreciate it.
I've repeated this like three times in this thread, but there's a reason why that view doesn't hold...and that is that the effects a god entity would have on the universe wouldn't necessarily be immediately apparent, or potentially even apparent at all.
It's impossible to conclude for sure until our knowledge of the natural world (or physicalism), is complete. That's quite a ways off.
Beyond that, for instance, something along the lines of the Big Bang is I think the most popular theory on the formation of the universe. Any credible scientist will immediately admit that what happened before the Big Bang is outside the realm of science. The sciences are all empirical disciplines. They cannot apply to something that cannot be somehow observed, immediately or otherwise.
A god entity, by definition, is a being above and/or beyond the physical. If you accept this definition of a god, then you have to work with that in disproving or proving one.
So...because because our picture of the natural world is incomplete and by premise, our understanding of the supernatural cannot be completed, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence or the effects of a god like being in such a way.
|
On May 14 2009 04:12 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
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
I think I've seen you post this before in religion threads. I would just like to clarify (if you didn't know already) that epicurus did believe in the existence of a god. In fact he thought the existence of a god was proven by the fact that everyone seems to have knowledge of this god. For Epicurus God, however, did not have any influence on the world. He was just drifting through outer space somewhere in complete autonomous happiness, so there was really no reason to fear him.
Of course you can still use his quote, although I do think a christian would pick number 3 and come up with an explanation for the origin of evil.
edit: oh this was already posted
|
On May 15 2009 18:44 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 11:54 DeathSpank wrote:
Once again you don't know shit about God. If he does exist we certainly don't know his designs and to say that he is evil because there is evil in the world is retarded. If you were to make a universe wouldn't you put evil in it? I think it would be boring as shit without a little tragedy. [german accent]VVWE KNOW NOTHING![/german accent] Just because humanity has created a depiction of God does not make that depiction accurate. you're all silly. I hate this point of view...throwing words around about "god's plan"...that is a horrible circular argument that defeats itself. Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 13:46 Salv wrote:On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
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
I rather like this point of view. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, everything that happens to me has a logical explanation and reason. I do not pray, I do not worship, I simply live the life I was given. I haven't witnessed or been apart of any miracles or divine interactions, so even if there were, I feel no connection to God whatsoever. I've never truly understood why some believe you must believe in God, or accept some form of religion to be admitted into heaven. I did not choose to be born, to be a living person, it simply happened, I had no choice in that. I don't really understand the rationale of a God who would create life and then demand that said life acts according to it's rules, or be eternally punished. I was talking to a friend of mine, who is Christian, and I was curiously asking that if I didn't believe in a God, yet lived my life as a 'good' person by today's ethical standards, would I be going to hell or heaven; assuming those were the only options. He replied hell, because as he said, I didn't seek out religion and seek out truth about God, therefore I was deserving of eternal pain and sadness. I had to laugh because I found this ridiculous. I wasn't given a choice of being born, I was born and I've been living my life. As I said, personally I feel no connection to God if there is one, and why should I? Does that make me deserving of hell? If someone could explain this I would appreciate it. I've repeated this like three times in this thread, but there's a reason why that view doesn't hold...and that is that the effects a god entity would have on the universe wouldn't necessarily be immediately apparent, or potentially even apparent at all. It's impossible to conclude for sure until our knowledge of the natural world (or physicalism), is complete. That's quite a ways off. Beyond that, for instance, something along the lines of the Big Bang is I think the most popular theory on the formation of the universe. Any credible scientist will immediately admit that what happened before the Big Bang is outside the realm of science. The sciences are all empirical disciplines. They cannot apply to something that cannot be somehow observed, immediately or otherwise. A god entity, by definition, is a being above and/or beyond the physical. If you accept this definition of a god, then you have to work with that in disproving or proving one. So...because because our picture of the natural world is incomplete and by premise, our understanding of the supernatural cannot be completed, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence or the effects of a god like being in such a way.
If you mean to say that one can make a sensible, clear-cut division between metaphysics and science I have to disagree. Science is filled with metaphysical assumptions. Saying that science is only concerned with the empirical and doesn't have anything to do theorizing at a higher level is quite naive.
Oh and I would just like to say that the 'you can't prove or disprove god's existence' argument is often used in a kind of ignorant way. Strictly speaking it is, of course, very true, but you can't just ignore the aspect of probability. You can say exactly the same thing about ANYTHING. Even if you can't disprove god's existence, you can still dismiss it because it does not compute with current scientific views of the universe and it does a worse job at explaining everything.
|
On May 15 2009 08:47 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 08:36 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 08:24 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 08:01 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification. ok so what am I missing? please be patient with me. I really can't conclude anything other than that epicurus was arguing against a god that had any sort of personal link to mankind. what I am saying is that my reply to the quote remains the same. Epicurus certainly did believe that the gods had no personal link to mankind. However, the problem of evil is an argument only against the existence of a god that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. On what basis do you still dismiss it as "silly"? on the basis that it is "silly" for us to assume we know everything(let alone anything) about the absolute role of good and evil in the world, and it is "silly" for us to act like we know limitations of what is or is not possible.
For an omnipotent god, anything would be possible.
What if this is the best even an all-powerful god can do?
Omnipotence is, by definition, unlimited power. If you place limits, any limits, on a god's power he ceases to be omnipotent.
Beyond that, what if suffering has a role to play that we don't understand? Without having experienced everything, we are absolutely not in a position to objectively judge what is or is not just in this life.
So evil and suffering exist so that the greater good can be achieved? An omnipotent god could achieve the greater good without suffering if he so chose and an omnibenevolent god would choose that option if he could.
|
On May 15 2009 22:16 ManBearPig wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 04:12 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
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 I think I've seen you post this before in religion threads. I would just like to clarify (if you didn't know already) that epicurus did believe in the existence of a god. In fact he thought the existence of a god was proven by the fact that everyone seems to have knowledge of this god. For Epicurus God, however, did not have any influence on the world. He was just drifting through outer space somewhere in complete autonomous happiness, so there was really no reason to fear him. Of course you can still use his quote, although I do think a christian would pick number 3 and come up with an explanation for the origin of evil. edit: oh this was already posted
The Bible says that god creates evil, so that casts some doubt his willingness to do away with evil. :/
Isaiah 45: 7 KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
|
On May 15 2009 22:29 ManBearPig wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 18:44 PH wrote:On May 15 2009 11:54 DeathSpank wrote:
Once again you don't know shit about God. If he does exist we certainly don't know his designs and to say that he is evil because there is evil in the world is retarded. If you were to make a universe wouldn't you put evil in it? I think it would be boring as shit without a little tragedy. [german accent]VVWE KNOW NOTHING![/german accent] Just because humanity has created a depiction of God does not make that depiction accurate. you're all silly. I hate this point of view...throwing words around about "god's plan"...that is a horrible circular argument that defeats itself. On May 15 2009 13:46 Salv wrote:On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
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
I rather like this point of view. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, everything that happens to me has a logical explanation and reason. I do not pray, I do not worship, I simply live the life I was given. I haven't witnessed or been apart of any miracles or divine interactions, so even if there were, I feel no connection to God whatsoever. I've never truly understood why some believe you must believe in God, or accept some form of religion to be admitted into heaven. I did not choose to be born, to be a living person, it simply happened, I had no choice in that. I don't really understand the rationale of a God who would create life and then demand that said life acts according to it's rules, or be eternally punished. I was talking to a friend of mine, who is Christian, and I was curiously asking that if I didn't believe in a God, yet lived my life as a 'good' person by today's ethical standards, would I be going to hell or heaven; assuming those were the only options. He replied hell, because as he said, I didn't seek out religion and seek out truth about God, therefore I was deserving of eternal pain and sadness. I had to laugh because I found this ridiculous. I wasn't given a choice of being born, I was born and I've been living my life. As I said, personally I feel no connection to God if there is one, and why should I? Does that make me deserving of hell? If someone could explain this I would appreciate it. I've repeated this like three times in this thread, but there's a reason why that view doesn't hold...and that is that the effects a god entity would have on the universe wouldn't necessarily be immediately apparent, or potentially even apparent at all. It's impossible to conclude for sure until our knowledge of the natural world (or physicalism), is complete. That's quite a ways off. Beyond that, for instance, something along the lines of the Big Bang is I think the most popular theory on the formation of the universe. Any credible scientist will immediately admit that what happened before the Big Bang is outside the realm of science. The sciences are all empirical disciplines. They cannot apply to something that cannot be somehow observed, immediately or otherwise. A god entity, by definition, is a being above and/or beyond the physical. If you accept this definition of a god, then you have to work with that in disproving or proving one. So...because because our picture of the natural world is incomplete and by premise, our understanding of the supernatural cannot be completed, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence or the effects of a god like being in such a way. If you mean to say that one can make a sensible, clear-cut division between metaphysics and science I have to disagree. Science is filled with metaphysical assumptions. Saying that science is only concerned with the empirical and doesn't have anything to do theorizing at a higher level is quite naive. Oh and I would just like to say that the 'you can't prove or disprove god's existence' argument is often used in a kind of ignorant way. Strictly speaking it is, of course, very true, but you can't just ignore the aspect of probability. You can say exactly the same thing about ANYTHING. Even if you can't disprove god's existence, you can still dismiss it because it does not compute with current scientific views of the universe and it does a worse job at explaining everything.
I didn't say that a clear cut division can be made between the phenomenal and physical right now. All I said was that our understanding of the "supernatural" is not capable of being explained empirically, and that our understanding of the "natural" is far from being complete.
There's a difference between phenomenalism and metaphysics, btw, though. They don't mean the same thing, and they don't entail each other necessarily. Phenomenalism is basically things that cannot be reduced physically. Metaphysics refers somewhat loosely to what is first, or origin. Of course science seeks to answer those questions, but again, they are bound by the physical universe...the realm of material objects.
The probability of a god existing or not existing is irrelevant when your understanding of the physical world is far from being complete. It's arrogant to assume that we're at a point where we can make such a call, I think. Furthermore, people who like to jump the gun and make such claims are also generally the full-on physicalist/reductionist types...whom I wholeheartedly disagree with.
Anyway, science is constantly reinventing itself, correcting itself, adding onto itself, pruning off dated hypotheses, etc. That is one thing that science is good at...it's always improving, and it's humble: it'll change when it comes across new data. Science, as it is now, cannot make any absolute claims on anything. All studies and papers and whatever never make a definitive claim...they only speak of the likelihood, the probability, the existence of or the lack of a strong correlation, etc.
However...even then, I think thinking about a god on those terms is getting waaay ahead of ourselves. Before that, one would have to put into question the phenomenal aspect of the universe to begin with...but once again, science won't answer that question. Look to philosophy for that.
|
It really all comes down to faith.
Believe him, don't believe him.
Actually "It", because its not human. 
|
discussion seems to have drifted away from original point. I believe that OP was talking more about the concept of a Christian God, rather than Intelligent Design?
Existence of the Christian God, as according to the Bible, is rather easy to disproof, since there are so many holes/contradictions in the bible already. And the whole world created in 7 days ect. is waaay to specific to have any proof to support it.
Intelligent Design is a different matter. And as PH said, you cant prove/disprove it with empirical evidence.
One thing is for sure though, if you are using the scientific method as an approach to the theory of God, you cannot claim that any god exists. And the scientific methodology is the most surefire way to reach the truth. It might take a long time to find new evidence ect, and is constantly changing based on new information, but for sure it gets you there.
|
I'm an agnostic, so I wouldn't argue directly for the existence of the Christian God...haha.
I do, however, do believe there is a phenomenal (or supernatural or whatever) aspect to our universe, and that it can't be reduced to the purely physical.
|
On May 16 2009 07:51 PH wrote:
I'm an agnostic, so I wouldn't argue directly for the existence of the Christian God...haha.
I do, however, do believe there is a phenomenal (or supernatural or whatever) aspect to our universe, and that it can't be reduced to the purely physical.
Please look up agnostic, The meaning. You classify yourself as one and yet believe in something unquantifiable(or supernatural, as you put it.)
|
On November 01 2010 02:52 Firereaver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 07:51 PH wrote:
I'm an agnostic, so I wouldn't argue directly for the existence of the Christian God...haha.
I do, however, do believe there is a phenomenal (or supernatural or whatever) aspect to our universe, and that it can't be reduced to the purely physical. Please look up agnostic, The meaning. You classify yourself as one and yet believe in something unquantifiable(or supernatural, as you put it.)
Dude, that comment you replied to was made a year and a half ago. Please look at the date a post / topic was made before replying. Pointless necros can get annoying. =(
Also, the edited OP confuses me, but I digress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://newmedia2.funnyjunk.com/pictures/633629611182527374-thistext.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Davehal9K/Morals.jpg)
