The only problem i have with your arguments is that if they where on any other topic they would be considered a cop out and in fact lack of proof rather than the seat of an argument.
I am not reformed, i have never believed in God, i have on numerous occasions asked on this site for proof of the exsistance of Christ (Something not considered a leap of faith for a person to be a christian just a "fact") and yet so far not one person has been able to produce anything that would be remotely enough to conclusivly prove it.
Most of the "evidance" is on the same level as the proof of santa claus's exsistance.
In my eyes the bible is meerly a tool used by the church to keep there own power of a bunch of people despirate to be comforted with the hope that when they do die there is somewhere to go, and that hope thier life has meaning.
I no more believe in the exsistance of Intellegant life on Mars than i do in Jesus to give a indication of my distain for the quality of evidance about his exsistance.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Religion (because I already did a thread on homosexuality)
Religion (because I already did a thread on homosexuality)Follow
I'm not setting out to prove the existance of a divine being though. I haven't offered the slightest bit of evidence nor even attempted to. Faith versus proof and all that, etc etc I've yet to see anyone ever switch sides as a result of one of these little chats so, aside from a fun bit of theological mind-bending, it's not really a good expense of effort even if it was my intent.
I do not, for example, believe in the existance of the Egyptian pantheon. But if someone was to come up to me and tell me they believed in Ra, Thoth, Isis and the rest of them I could probably manage to smile, listen with some interest and get through the conversation without calling them a fool, an idiot, a relic of the past or whatever else. I would certainly note that I didn't share their beliefs but I'd understand that they were their beliefs and they weren't going to drop them just because I hassled them on it and acted all superior in my advanced monotheism
Likewise, as I've demonstrated many, many times on the forum, if someone came to me and said "You know, I don't believe but I've always wondered how someone who does can reconcile this and that" I'll happily chatter on about it knowing they're not going to start believing at the end of the conversation. But if they come up saying "I don't believe and you're a moron for doing so. Prove to me you're not a moron, you moron", what's the point in continuing from there?
I do not, for example, believe in the existance of the Egyptian pantheon. But if someone was to come up to me and tell me they believed in Ra, Thoth, Isis and the rest of them I could probably manage to smile, listen with some interest and get through the conversation without calling them a fool, an idiot, a relic of the past or whatever else. I would certainly note that I didn't share their beliefs but I'd understand that they were their beliefs and they weren't going to drop them just because I hassled them on it and acted all superior in my advanced monotheism
Likewise, as I've demonstrated many, many times on the forum, if someone came to me and said "You know, I don't believe but I've always wondered how someone who does can reconcile this and that" I'll happily chatter on about it knowing they're not going to start believing at the end of the conversation. But if they come up saying "I don't believe and you're a moron for doing so. Prove to me you're not a moron, you moron", what's the point in continuing from there?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Summa Theologia, Saint Thomas Aquinas 1270AD
Article II. Whether the existence of God is demonstrable:
Let us proceed to the second point. It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable. Again, (2) that the subject matter of demonstration is that something exists, but in the case of God we cannot know what exists, but only what does not, as Damascenus says (Of the Orthodox Faith, I., 4.) Hence that we cannot demonstrate God's existence. Again, (3) that if God's existence is to be proved it must be from what He causes, and that what He effects is not sufficient for His supposed nature, since He is infinite, but the effects finite, and the finite is not proportional to the infinite. Since, therefore, a cause cannot be proved through an effect not proportional to itself, it is said that God's exisence cannot be proved.
But against this argument the apostle says (Rom. I., 20), "The unseen things of God are visible through His manifest works." But this would not be so unless it were possible to demonstrate God's existence through His works. What ought to be understood concerning anything, is first of all, whether it exists. Conclusion. It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, atthough not a priori (by pure reason), yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.
In answer I must say that the proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.
To the first objection above, I reply, therefore, that God's existence, and those other things of this nature that can be known through natural reason concerning God, as is said in Rom. I., are not articles of faith, but preambles to these articles. So faith presupposes natural knowledge, so grace nature, and perfection a perfectible thing. Nothing prevents a thing that is in itself demonstratable and knowable, from being accepted as an article of faith by someone that does not accept the proof of it.
To the second objection, I reply that, since the cause is proven from the effect, one must use the effect in the place of a definition of the cause in demonstrating that the cause exists; and that this applies especially in the case of God, because for proving that anything exists, it is necessary to accept in this method what the name signifies, not however that anything exists, because the question what it is is secondary to the question whether it exists at all. The characteristics of God are drawn from His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works, we are able by this very method to see what the name God signifies.
To the third objection, I reply that, although a perfect knowledge of the cause cannot be had from inadequate effects, yet that from any effect manifest to us it can be shown that a cause does exist, as has been said. And thus from the works of God His existence can be proved, although we cannot in this way know Him perfectly in accordance with His own essence.
Article III. Whether God exists.
Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.
The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.
The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.
The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.
The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.
In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.
My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.
Article II. Whether the existence of God is demonstrable:
Let us proceed to the second point. It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable. Again, (2) that the subject matter of demonstration is that something exists, but in the case of God we cannot know what exists, but only what does not, as Damascenus says (Of the Orthodox Faith, I., 4.) Hence that we cannot demonstrate God's existence. Again, (3) that if God's existence is to be proved it must be from what He causes, and that what He effects is not sufficient for His supposed nature, since He is infinite, but the effects finite, and the finite is not proportional to the infinite. Since, therefore, a cause cannot be proved through an effect not proportional to itself, it is said that God's exisence cannot be proved.
But against this argument the apostle says (Rom. I., 20), "The unseen things of God are visible through His manifest works." But this would not be so unless it were possible to demonstrate God's existence through His works. What ought to be understood concerning anything, is first of all, whether it exists. Conclusion. It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, atthough not a priori (by pure reason), yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.
In answer I must say that the proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.
To the first objection above, I reply, therefore, that God's existence, and those other things of this nature that can be known through natural reason concerning God, as is said in Rom. I., are not articles of faith, but preambles to these articles. So faith presupposes natural knowledge, so grace nature, and perfection a perfectible thing. Nothing prevents a thing that is in itself demonstratable and knowable, from being accepted as an article of faith by someone that does not accept the proof of it.
To the second objection, I reply that, since the cause is proven from the effect, one must use the effect in the place of a definition of the cause in demonstrating that the cause exists; and that this applies especially in the case of God, because for proving that anything exists, it is necessary to accept in this method what the name signifies, not however that anything exists, because the question what it is is secondary to the question whether it exists at all. The characteristics of God are drawn from His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works, we are able by this very method to see what the name God signifies.
To the third objection, I reply that, although a perfect knowledge of the cause cannot be had from inadequate effects, yet that from any effect manifest to us it can be shown that a cause does exist, as has been said. And thus from the works of God His existence can be proved, although we cannot in this way know Him perfectly in accordance with His own essence.
Article III. Whether God exists.
Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.
The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.
The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.
The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.
The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.
In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.
My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.
Waffle waffle. Give me the elevator speech!
Quote:
It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist.
The first four proofs of article 3 are similar in principle, and all fail to aknowledge the possibility that what ends as infinite also began as infinite, and that there was no point in time where only God and void existed. Overlooking that assumption, where is the correlation between this origination of motion, cause, possibility, and heat to an omnipotent conciousness that controls all concurrent tranferences of these forces with it's intent?
The new age crazies have developed this field of thought known as Sacred Geometry, drawing on classic philosophy and mathemetics of all sorts, portraying God as a single point of consiousness, swimming in the void, with no more knowledge than how to create another single point from itself; a reflection if you will. When it discovers this knowledge of replication it begins to grow exponentially in a specific manner, the big bang ensues, and eventually here we are: a collection of facets in the holographic projection of some sort of universal kaleidoscope. My personal philosophy falls somewhat in line with their presentation that God was just the first point of consiousness floating across the face of the water (the void), and still exists at the center of the universe, but has no hand to put into our daily lives.
6 posts
I am an agnostic atheist. I have made a reasonable decision to not believe in dieties. For a while I was not very solid in my beliefs because I had not put in enough thought into it. Only after my closest friend became interested in Christian mythology did I, myself, seriously research it. I searched for any credibility. I could not find any. After many hard questions I then found myself at a dead end. It came to me gradually that there are two options; you can invest faith in supernatural ideas because they make you feel good or satisfy you somehow, or you can accept that humanity does not know enough to make that type of investment rationally and continue pursuing knowledge through scientific reasoning. I obviously chose the latter. That is a very nutshelled account of how I reached my beliefs.
I am a very moral person, loves his family, and works for the better of all human beings but many religious people criticise me for my non-belief. Many Christians think they are better off with a personal god they are being intellectually dishonest. If there are any gods, I imagine they would make themselves obvious through unquestionable scientific findings.
I am a very moral person, loves his family, and works for the better of all human beings but many religious people criticise me for my non-belief. Many Christians think they are better off with a personal god they are being intellectually dishonest. If there are any gods, I imagine they would make themselves obvious through unquestionable scientific findings.
Kainmorthos wrote:
If there are any gods, I imagine they would make themselves obvious through unquestionable scientific findings.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Kainmorthos wrote:
If there are any gods, I imagine they would make themselves obvious through unquestionable scientific findings.
A bit presumptous of you, yes?
If there are any gods, I imagine they would make themselves obvious through unquestionable scientific findings.
A bit presumptous of you, yes?
Indeed...although if you look at the grand design of life and the earth it does take a lot more faith to believe that this all happened by chance
Quote:
I am an agnostic atheist.
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God.
that makes your statement an contradiction
definitions gotten from:
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm
I have to say theres no god, because you can't use an unknown entity or source for the theories I've been constantly bickering with.
#1 Chaos Theory
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
If you read the entire article it says the weather is unpredictable and changes, we try to predict whats causing this but who/what/how is this happening?
I myself can't say god since I can't talk to him and make a theory that says god is doing it!
#2 Wormhole (no not linking ****)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
In physics, a wormhole, also known as an Einstein-Rosen bridge (and less commonly as an Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridge or Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen bridge), is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is essentially a "shortcut" through space and time. A wormhole has at least two mouths which are connected to a single throat. Matter can 'travel' from one mouth to the other by passing through the throat.
This stuff makes my brain hurt like hell ><.
I would beleive in a god if my mind didnt try solving the impossible.
EDIT: I don't encourage people not to beleive in a religion/god.
Actually I encourage people to because people need something/someone to look up to for hope.
Edited, Thu Jul 7 14:17:02 2005 by Ivanu
#1 Chaos Theory
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
If you read the entire article it says the weather is unpredictable and changes, we try to predict whats causing this but who/what/how is this happening?
I myself can't say god since I can't talk to him and make a theory that says god is doing it!
#2 Wormhole (no not linking ****)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
In physics, a wormhole, also known as an Einstein-Rosen bridge (and less commonly as an Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridge or Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen bridge), is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is essentially a "shortcut" through space and time. A wormhole has at least two mouths which are connected to a single throat. Matter can 'travel' from one mouth to the other by passing through the throat.
This stuff makes my brain hurt like hell ><.
I would beleive in a god if my mind didnt try solving the impossible.
EDIT: I don't encourage people not to beleive in a religion/god.
Actually I encourage people to because people need something/someone to look up to for hope.
Edited, Thu Jul 7 14:17:02 2005 by Ivanu
Quote:
Actually I encourage people to because people need something/someone to look up to for hope.
or something/someone to scare the sh[b][/b]it out of them.
I knew a guy once who claimed he was God and supported his argument by assuming that if someone else was already God, he would've received a letter informing him of the invalidity of his claim. I wish I knew his address.
highRfrequenC wrote:
I knew a guy once who claimed he was God and supported his argument by assuming that if someone else was already God, he would've received a letter informing him of the invalidity of his claim. I wish I knew his address.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I encourage people to because people need something/someone to look up to for hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or something/someone to scare the **** out of them.
I knew a guy once who claimed he was God and supported his argument by assuming that if someone else was already God, he would've received a letter informing him of the invalidity of his claim. I wish I knew his address.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I encourage people to because people need something/someone to look up to for hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or something/someone to scare the **** out of them.
I knew a guy once who claimed he was God and supported his argument by assuming that if someone else was already God, he would've received a letter informing him of the invalidity of his claim. I wish I knew his address.
Or that, but I dont exactly say that...
Let me start by saying that for 18 years i was raised in the very stric religous upbrining, and as part of my studies i had to examine and research the various religons of the world. so, in truth, this is one subject that i have a vast knowladge of.
Yes, i can prove it if you wish, i will not back down from any challange, this isnt something I brag about, just a fact, PM me if you wish and test me.
Let me just say this, the problem that most ppl have, is that they cannot seperate religon and faith. Church leaders will point to Pauls words in Romans about Faith being dead without works, as a basis for needing to be a part of a church group, needing someone of a higher spiritual postion to lead you to God. the fact is christianity was forever compramized when Rome adopted it as its "official religion", why, because the romans would not accept it wholey, they integrated their pagan beliefs into christianity. all so called christian holidays have a pagan origin that can be traced back to Rome, or a civilazation assimilted by rome.
What has happened over the thousands of years since then is that Religion mixed with politics, and both religous leaders and politicians discovered that the quickest way to control the hearts and minds of the populace was to ascribe a "divine" origin to the views, values and belifs that they, not God put forward. a belif in God has in truth been long abadoned by the church, now it is seen as a means to exercise control over its church members, keeping the money flowing in. Goverments married thir political agendas to a divine origin as well, as you may hear many in goverment refer to america as Gods country, or the United nations as Gods expression of his kingdom on earth.
at the same time, the theroy of eveolution started taking hold, and those who were disgusted by the hipocracy found in the churches quickly took hold of this belief. I lost my religous affilation at 20, and sought more of a personal relationship with my creator. yes, I have faith, my very existance is a testament to his existance, as is everything in, on, around, and above this earth and universe.
the belief in evolution freed the hearts and minds of those who were smart enough to relaize that the church was taking advantage of them, praying on their fears of hell or eternal damnation. iN eveolution,, or being athiest, they found a freedom from being oppressed by those whom they were intelligent enough to see were trying to control thier minds.
oh i can write volums more but its time to go home.
Yes, i can prove it if you wish, i will not back down from any challange, this isnt something I brag about, just a fact, PM me if you wish and test me.
Let me just say this, the problem that most ppl have, is that they cannot seperate religon and faith. Church leaders will point to Pauls words in Romans about Faith being dead without works, as a basis for needing to be a part of a church group, needing someone of a higher spiritual postion to lead you to God. the fact is christianity was forever compramized when Rome adopted it as its "official religion", why, because the romans would not accept it wholey, they integrated their pagan beliefs into christianity. all so called christian holidays have a pagan origin that can be traced back to Rome, or a civilazation assimilted by rome.
What has happened over the thousands of years since then is that Religion mixed with politics, and both religous leaders and politicians discovered that the quickest way to control the hearts and minds of the populace was to ascribe a "divine" origin to the views, values and belifs that they, not God put forward. a belif in God has in truth been long abadoned by the church, now it is seen as a means to exercise control over its church members, keeping the money flowing in. Goverments married thir political agendas to a divine origin as well, as you may hear many in goverment refer to america as Gods country, or the United nations as Gods expression of his kingdom on earth.
at the same time, the theroy of eveolution started taking hold, and those who were disgusted by the hipocracy found in the churches quickly took hold of this belief. I lost my religous affilation at 20, and sought more of a personal relationship with my creator. yes, I have faith, my very existance is a testament to his existance, as is everything in, on, around, and above this earth and universe.
the belief in evolution freed the hearts and minds of those who were smart enough to relaize that the church was taking advantage of them, praying on their fears of hell or eternal damnation. iN eveolution,, or being athiest, they found a freedom from being oppressed by those whom they were intelligent enough to see were trying to control thier minds.
oh i can write volums more but its time to go home.
Quote:
christianity was forever compramized when Rome adopted it as its "official religion", why, because the romans would not accept it wholey, they integrated their pagan beliefs into christianity. all so called christian holidays have a pagan origin that can be traced back to Rome, or a civilazation assimilted by rome.
What has happened over the thousands of years since then is that Religion mixed with politics, and both religous leaders and politicians discovered that the quickest way to control the hearts and minds of the populace was to ascribe a "divine" origin to the views, values and belifs that they, not God put forward. a belif in God has in truth been long abadoned by the church, now it is seen as a means to exercise control over its church members, keeping the money flowing in. Goverments married thir political agendas to a divine origin as well, as you may hear many in goverment refer to america as Gods country, or the United nations as Gods expression of his kingdom on earth.
What has happened over the thousands of years since then is that Religion mixed with politics, and both religous leaders and politicians discovered that the quickest way to control the hearts and minds of the populace was to ascribe a "divine" origin to the views, values and belifs that they, not God put forward. a belif in God has in truth been long abadoned by the church, now it is seen as a means to exercise control over its church members, keeping the money flowing in. Goverments married thir political agendas to a divine origin as well, as you may hear many in goverment refer to america as Gods country, or the United nations as Gods expression of his kingdom on earth.
and THAT!
is why I won't do two shows a night anymore babe, I won't!
I won't do 'em.God is an adjective to me, and a lot of things are godly.
I'm not saying that does or doesn't exist there either. I think it is beyond me to make any claims about that either way. To me, anything that gives me a good feeling can be God. It ranges anywhere from seeing a beautiful baby to having a nice bowel movement.
Some big guy in the sky? Who knows, and who cares? I am more concerned with living right by my morals and values than having to live up to someone/something elses as well.
If my values and morals aren't good enough to get me into heaven if there is one then I don't wanna go there anyway. If it turns out that God exists, has decision making abilities, and doesn't like me... well fu[b][/b]ck him/her/them/it!
I'm not saying that does or doesn't exist there either. I think it is beyond me to make any claims about that either way. To me, anything that gives me a good feeling can be God. It ranges anywhere from seeing a beautiful baby to having a nice bowel movement.
Some big guy in the sky? Who knows, and who cares? I am more concerned with living right by my morals and values than having to live up to someone/something elses as well.
If my values and morals aren't good enough to get me into heaven if there is one then I don't wanna go there anyway. If it turns out that God exists, has decision making abilities, and doesn't like me... well fu[b][/b]ck him/her/them/it!
i believe in God.
but God did not create religion. man did.
the roman catholic church is responsible for some of the most henous crimes against humanity in the history of man kind. the jewish religious leaders orderd the death of Jesus. Islamic clerics have led muslim people into committing crimes their own religion calls sinfull.
religion is mans creation. created to gain power over the masses who do believe in God.
God said "if your brother is hungry, feed him." and yet, millions all over the planet are starving while the wealthiest institution on the planet is the Catholic Church.
God has always been and will always be. God was here long before religion. religion, however, was not here before man.
religions teach us about God. it is up to each and every one of us to filter out the teachings of God from the brainwashign of whatever particular religion you subscribe to.
church serves a purpose, but man is constantly trying to wrestle power for himself out of that purpose.
for instance the "creed" in the catholic religion. we believe in one....catholic church...." in other words, bow to us and no other. heres a thought, bow to noone but God. yet, they have you on your knees for half the service.
i enjoy learning about God in church. but i undrerstand religion is mans work, not Gods. a symbiotic relationship. Gods word gets spread to more people, but men gain power from the spreading of his word.
its like an apple tree. a natural food to feed hungry people. yet, soon or later, some man will fence it off and make you pay for them to gain personel welth adn power. then they will try to brainwash you into believing THEIR tree is the TRUE apple tree and the others are somehow less.
i believe in God. i enjoy what i learn in church. but i understand religion is mans creation and not Gods.
but God did not create religion. man did.
the roman catholic church is responsible for some of the most henous crimes against humanity in the history of man kind. the jewish religious leaders orderd the death of Jesus. Islamic clerics have led muslim people into committing crimes their own religion calls sinfull.
religion is mans creation. created to gain power over the masses who do believe in God.
God said "if your brother is hungry, feed him." and yet, millions all over the planet are starving while the wealthiest institution on the planet is the Catholic Church.
God has always been and will always be. God was here long before religion. religion, however, was not here before man.
religions teach us about God. it is up to each and every one of us to filter out the teachings of God from the brainwashign of whatever particular religion you subscribe to.
church serves a purpose, but man is constantly trying to wrestle power for himself out of that purpose.
for instance the "creed" in the catholic religion. we believe in one....catholic church...." in other words, bow to us and no other. heres a thought, bow to noone but God. yet, they have you on your knees for half the service.
i enjoy learning about God in church. but i undrerstand religion is mans work, not Gods. a symbiotic relationship. Gods word gets spread to more people, but men gain power from the spreading of his word.
its like an apple tree. a natural food to feed hungry people. yet, soon or later, some man will fence it off and make you pay for them to gain personel welth adn power. then they will try to brainwash you into believing THEIR tree is the TRUE apple tree and the others are somehow less.
i believe in God. i enjoy what i learn in church. but i understand religion is mans creation and not Gods.
6 posts
Quote:
A bit presumptous of you, yes?
Not at all. NOT appealing to every human sense or scientific fact o purpose would be what one would to to AVOID discovery or, in the case of gods, likely not exist at all.
6 posts
Quote:
Indeed...although if you look at the grand design of life and the earth it does take a lot more faith to believe that this all happened by chance
Nice straw man. I don't hold any such position. I'm not so bold as to assume how this universe became...if there is even a process behind it. Intelligent design is not theory it is religious cojecture.
Quote:
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God.
that makes your statement an contradiction
definitions gotten from:
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-t...gnostic.htm
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God.
that makes your statement an contradiction
definitions gotten from:
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-t...gnostic.htm
Don't tell me what agnosticism is. Bertrand Russell, though I have a lot of respect for him, is what is known as a gnostic atheist. He makes a special, intellectual claim to knowledge of spiritual matters. That is... "There absolutely is no god(s)(ess)(es)" Obviously, an agnostic atheist doubts the special, intellectual claims to knowledge on spiritual matters BUT makes a rational decision not to believe in gods. This is something Russell and I have in common. Even though Russell and I differ; he has shown up the moral conflicts within Christianity in particular and done it very well.
My statement is a contradiction to Bert Russell...not to the definitions.
Who knows...maybe our universe is the waste matter of a multi-universe sized beast. Maybe it was a calculating intelligent being. Maybe there was no creator. Who knows? We certainly don't. We are a speck in this universe...A single grain in an impossibly large beach and we can only see the few grains neighboring us.
People pound their religious texts vehemently and claim to know the secrets of our universe yet they are proven wrong over and over the more our scientific minds scrutinize it all.
If I am going to be punished by someone's god or gods for using reasoning and logic, something most religious people claim their gods gave to them, then so be it...I don't regret it at all and I am not a bad person because of it.
6 posts
Quote:
Actually I encourage people to because people need something/someone to look up to for hope.
If you mean you encourage people to believe in gods for this reason than you are encouraging people to be intellectually dishonest.
All Gods, people, and insects are subordinate to their source, which will only be understood by us through wahtever metephorical or mathematical "parable" that we can give it.
It's all fuzzy math. Everything else, known and unknown are pieces of that pie. Humans think in one frequency, ducks think in another, there are lower frequencies and higher frequencies....
WAhtever you THINK that "IT" is is automatically a tainted version of the truth, tainted by your utter human-ness.
make sense?
I won't claim to know the answers, but I'll claim that the answers exist and like a bright light, we cannot see the bulb, just squint at the radiance.
Wow, we got 4 or 5 of these nutball threads going don't we.
It's all fuzzy math. Everything else, known and unknown are pieces of that pie. Humans think in one frequency, ducks think in another, there are lower frequencies and higher frequencies....
WAhtever you THINK that "IT" is is automatically a tainted version of the truth, tainted by your utter human-ness.
make sense?
I won't claim to know the answers, but I'll claim that the answers exist and like a bright light, we cannot see the bulb, just squint at the radiance.
Wow, we got 4 or 5 of these nutball threads going don't we.
6 posts
Quote:
but God did not create religion. man did.
If man created religion, and religion is how we understand the will of the divine, then isn't the whole thing suspect? Religion has been one of the best mind-control tools ever used. You probably wouldn't get better results unless you had an electronic device to manually control people.
If you do not grant that and still believe there are gods responsible for it how can you not then believe evil (like the devil in Christianity) is responsible for it. What it all boils down to is picking and choosing what is right and what is wrong according to how it would best suit the society's rulers. If the ruler is a dictator then it will not suit the people. If the rulers are the people, in a democracy, then the people will choose what is best for everyone. It is actually a good example of how human morality and societies evolved. What evolves isn't any accident...when we preserve each others safety it, in turn, helps us feel secure.
Quote:
If man created religion, and religion is how we understand the will of the divine, then isn't the whole thing suspect? Religion has been one of the best mind-control tools ever used. You probably wouldn't get better results unless you had an electronic device to manually control people.
You speak as if you have experience with religions, emphasis on the “Sâ€. Don’t equate all religions with Christianity(no offense meant). We(the Jews) have no desire to “Save Souls†as the Muslims and the Christians do, we do not see or want converts.
Edited, Tue Jul 19 14:40:59 2005 by Tallbrownjew
Recent Visitors: 190
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (190)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Religion (because I already did a thread on homosexuality)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC