Well... they DO say that God works in mysterious ways!

[Powerhouse]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4910325/.html?subid=22100484&qs=1;bp=t

Good Samaritan, Motorcyclist Killed By Church Van
Charges May Be Pending Against Driver, State Patrol Says

POSTED: 11:32 am MDT August 29, 2005

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- A Good Samaritan and a motorcyclist were killed when they were hit by a church van north of Cheyenne, Wyo., Sunday evening.

According to the Wyoming Highway Patrol, Jeffrey A. Lingwall, 40, was driving a Yamaha motorcycle on U.S. Highway 85 at about 8:15 p.m., when it hit a deer in the road about 29 miles north of Cheyenne. The impact killed the deer and knocked Lingwall from his motorcycle.

A number of people stopped to help Lingwall as he was lying in the northbound lane of the highway, including Stephen M. Thompson, 48.

The state patrol said that a church van from Scottsbluff, Neb., was heading northbound when the driver apparently did not see people in the roadway and struck Lingwall and Thompson, killing them.

None of the five juvenile passengers in the van were injured, but the state patrol said charges may be pending against the driver of the van. The van was one of three carrying a youth group from a church in Scottsbluff.

The weather was clear and the road was dry at the time of the accident. The highway was closed for almost four hours while the accident was investigated.

Lingwall was a resident of Scottsbluff and Thompson lived in Cheyenne, according to the state patrol.



:1evil3:

[gmsys]

That’s one hell of a way to give somebody their last rights! SPLAT!

[Heartland]

Speaking of god ... I've seen at least three reports from the hurricane area, in which the reporters are expressing awe that a few religious statues survived the hurricane. They were trying to give the impression that it was some kind of miracle.

Sorry, but I refuse to bow down before any god who would save a few cheap, plaster statues while killing thousands in a horrendous manner.

To any moron who would believe such a thing, get a grip. A real miracle would have been destroying the hurricane before it hit land.

[Kiheicat]

God is a myth. Always has been.

[Powerhouse]

God is a myth. Always has been.

Of course you are free to believe as you wish, but I do hope you feel differently before your 'time' comes.

[tekobari]

Mike, you would have to say that. You're the first rossite priest, after all.

[Powerhouse]

Mike, you would have to say that. You're the first rossite priest, after all.


:1chirol_r Yea, I guess I am at that.

[Kiheicat]

I used to believe differently, like a good little sheep. Then I began to awaken.

No need to worry for me. :)

[foptiludrop]

God is a myth. Always has been.
That's how Voltaire felt -- right up to the day he was on his deathbed, heh...

[Kiheicat]

Yah those 'just in case' grasps are really sad. :(

[Powerhouse]

Yah those 'just in case' grasps are really sad. :(


Unfortuantly I suspect that is also the reason many go to chruch or give to televanglists. :(

[sadie999]

Does God exist because a former atheist peeing his pants in fear at his own demise suddenly believes?

I've recently found religion and become a Pastafarian. For more information on this, please see: here (http://www.venganza.org/) and here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

Thank you for letting me spam you with my newly acquired faith.

Peace in Spaghetti,
Sadie (faithful deciple of His Noodly Appendage)

[foptiludrop]

I don't believe in ziti...

[TerrorEd]

From the 1st link:

"Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano"

Wow, I believe..... :)

Ed.

[sadie999]

I don't believe in ziti...

Them's fightin' words! :D

In finding religion, I find that I must also believe in the negative. I introduce the devil:

http://server1.inlandnet.com/~jilittle/bushmonster8sv.gif

Peace,
Sadie

[foptiludrop]

What's cool (and also what moots this and any discussion like it) is that we'll all have our turn at discovering What's Next no matter *what* we believe or don't believe.


btw, Sadie, it totally works for me if you're headed for a big spaghetti pot in the sky! LMAO!!

[sadie999]

Maybe not - because if there's nothing, we won't "know" it because we won't know anything.

And to be honest, I was kind of disappointed after a lifetime of searching for the meaning of life that it all boiled down to a big old spaghetti monster. Ok, maybe not a lifetime - but this week anyway.

Peace,
Sadie

[foptiludrop]

Oh! I forgot all about Nothing, hahaha!

Yeah, I suppose that *would* be preferable to a limp noodle...


:1shiva2:

[Kiheicat]

Does God exist because a former atheist peeing his pants in fear at his own demise suddenly believes?

I've recently found religion and become a Pastafarian. For more information on this, please see: here (http://www.venganza.org/) and here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

Thank you for letting me spam you with my newly acquired faith.

Peace in Spaghetti,
Sadie (faithful deciple of His Noodly Appendage)
:1clap: OMG ROTFLMAO

Unfortuantly I suspect that is also the reason many go to chruch or give to televanglists.
Yes, PH, that is prob very true.

[bluekazoo]

I didn't open this thread until now - because of the title ...

OMG, I soooo love you guys ....

Pastafarian, lmao ...

Just a Druish Princess here, but only because when they come to arrest me for running naked around my backyard in the full moon, I can say it was for 'religious reasons' ...

:wolf1:

[Kiheicat]

Here's some interesting statistical reading:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
... which contains, among other things, this quote: These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious.
I've often thought that there was a correlation between high IQ and agnosticism/atheism.

[tekobari]

Here's some interesting statistical reading:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
... which contains, among other things, this quote:
I've often thought that there was a correlation between high IQ and agnosticism/atheism.The correlation between education and atheism is even stronger.

This site is funny: http://www.infidelguy.com/

I don't do the supernatural, be it astrology, ouija boards or born-again Christians.

[foptiludrop]

Interesting ...

Believing in God (and btw, I'm not a Christian, born again or otherwise) makes one a "sheep" or somewhat stupid or an occult dabbler.


:::::::: shakes head ::::::::

[sadie999]

Well, I could shake my head at the fact that you seem to be ignoring the word correlation to put your own negative spin on what's been said (and even studied).

Correlation: (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&oi=defmore&q=define:Correlation)

-A synonym for association or the relationship between variables.

-The strength of relationship between two (or more) variables. Positive correlation means that one variable tends to increase together with another variable. Negative correlation means that one variable decreases as the other one increases.

-Is the statistical relationship between two variables. It indicates how they move together and not necessarily casual relationship.

I see nothing about certainty in those definitions, and I would guess that if I found thousands of definitions, I still wouldn't.

But let's look at how people come to believe in God.

We're little bitty babies. We trust (actually we have to trust) those big people we call parents to keep us safe and teach us about the world.

If we've been born into any one of about 90% of the households on the planet, our parents/teachers/life coaches believe in some kind of deity. Not because they've actually experienced that deity, but because their parents taught them that there was one. And our protectors/parents/teachers will teach us the same thing.

And they'll teach us with the same certainty that people must have in order to believe in something that has no basis in logic.

I used to say that the only difference between Santa Claus and God was that eventually your parents told you the truth about Santa Claus' existence. I haven't changed that opionion at all.

There are all levels of education across the population. These varying levels don't have much to do with innate intelligence, but they do have something to do with the way many people approach life. For the most part, from kindergarten through twelfth grade, society has a stake in socializing and getting minimal skills into the citizen. Depending on the luck of the draw for your birth, at this level of education, you may be taught a little about research or you may be taught nothing.

Somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the population go on to college. I didn't see much difference in the whole research thing at the undergraduate level, but there is more open discussion - the bouncing around of ideas. And, depending on one's discipline, going out and researching to find out "truths" does come into play.

Post graduate is where people learn to think outside the box if they're lucky. Now I'm going to take a moment here to do a big ass disclaimer. I fully believe that a person with no education can be just as questioning and seeking of truth as someone with a higher level of education. There are always special above average people in any segment of the population which is why one size rarely fits all.

My point here is that for a very large majority of the population, the concept of God has come the way learning about condensation and rain came. Someone trusted told them and taught them and they believed.

Sheep is a little harsh, because really, if we had to research every piece of knowlege that we learn in a lifetime, we'd never be able to do anything else. So the whole teaching set-up is a fairly good one and saves all that wasting of time to learn already learned stuff the hard way.

If a small part of population learns their truths a different way, and that leads them away from the popularly held "truth" that God exists, that's all it does.

No one's belief or disbelief changes whether God exists or not.

And hell, if you're offended by the fact that the higher up you go educationally, the more atheists you find, I believe that the more you to towards the hard sciences - those awful fact junkies - the incidence of atheism goes even higher.

The majority of the population accepts what they are taught without question. Maybe that's sheepism and maybe it's just trusting the wrong people. Maybe in with all those facts and figures, we should teach people how to learn by investigation instead of by faith.

Peace,
Sadie

[Heartland]

I have 12 years of Catholic school under my belt. When I began school, we were taught that only Catholics would go to heaven. No one could go to heaven unless they were baptized in the Catholic Church. That changed after a while, with very little fanfare or admission that they were wrong. Attitudes took a very long time to change, in that respect.

I tried. I went to church all the time, wore the chapel veil, sang the songs, tried to be pious, went to confession, prayed my head off. Nothing. I felt nothing. I thought something was wrong with me, that all of these people around me had this great thing called "faith" and all I had were questions and disbelief. I thought I was going to hell for not having this "faith."

By the time I hit high school, I was agnostic. Still, from time to time, I gave it another go. Still nothing. After doing a lot of research into the history of the Church, a lot of reading, and a lot of thinking, I could only come to the conclusion that organized religion was created by man in order to control the masses. The history of Christianity is a horrible, bloody, and "sinful" history. It is also laced with lie after lie.

I could not fathom a god who supposedly "loved man" but allowed the most horrendous acts of cruelty and torture to continue unabated. I could not accept a god who watched children die in horrible pain (because he sees and knows everything, you know). I could not accept a god who toys with mankind, and demands obedience, fear, and adoration, while gleefully watching our suffering.

Now I am an atheist. I have never in my life been more comfortable with my "soul" than I am now. I realized I was making myself miserable by trying to feel something that wasn't in me to feel. Once I came to this realization, I could be at peace with myself.

I'm not highly educated (I'm one of those "some college" people), and I'm not a brainiac. I'm far from being a scientist. I'm more emotional than intellectual. But no matter how much I tried to force the concept to fit into my brain, it just refused to do so.

Anyone who thinks religion is not how the masses are controlled need only look to the fanatical imams in the Mideast promising heaven in exchange for cold-blooded murder, or the cracker preachers in the U.S. telling their ignorant congregations who they have to vote for. And those are just two examples. There are thousands of years of history with untold examples of the same.

[tekobari]

Sadie wrote: "I fully believe that a person with no education can be just as questioning and seeking of truth as someone with a higher level of education. There are always special above average people in any segment of the population which is why one size rarely fits all."

Absolutely. Just as the charts showed that there are highly-educated, often brilliant scientists who do believe in a god, generally the christian one or jewish one, there are also people with fourth-grade educations, such as my grandparents, who think the whole thing is superstition.

God is supernatural. If he were natural, he would follow the rules of the natural sciences and be measurable by physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Just because something is acceptable to the majority of people doesn't make it any less supernatural than "occult" beliefs such as astrology--which, btw, is also believed by the majority of people. Incredible as it seems.

I don't believe in any of the supernatural, acceptable to the majority or not. The difference between mainstream god beliefs and so-called occult beliefs is that great minds have written extensively about our western gods (as well as others, but they're discriminated against here) and are absolutely required reading for anyone who considers him/herself to be educated. That means formally educated or informally (self-taught). Maimonides, Aquinas...if you haven't read them, you aren't educated. Anyone who professes faith in a god and hasn't read the great writers of his/her religious tradition is running on empty. It may not make you a "sheep" (I thought being as a lamb was a christian virtue, as was being part of christ's flock), but I do hear tender bleating.

I just don't understand why christians, in particular, can't leave us atheists alone. We don't run around beating people about the head and neck with our beliefs, nor write letters to the editor to dump the astrology column and religion pages from the paper. We just want to be left in peace. Now evangelical christians want to run the government, and make Republicans kiss their asses to get elected. We just want to be free from government intervention and McCarthy-era tampering with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Is that too much to ask?

[Kiheicat]

Nor do we kill by orders of a God because there is no such being, IMHO.

Believing in God (and btw, I'm not a Christian, born again or otherwise) makes one a "sheep" or somewhat stupid or an occult dabbler.
I'm not sure that was ever said in this thread. I know that I said I once believe like a good little sheep. I didn't call anyone else a sheep but myself. And I pointed to studies that say that while believers and non-believers appear in every intellectual level, the FACT is that the higher one's IQ, the less likely he/she is to believe in a god because that's what the numbers clearly indicate time and time again.

I personally was born and raised a Mennonite. I am 100% Pennsylvania Dutch. My grandparents were Mennonite missionaries in Argentina, where my father was raised among the Gaucho Indians and no English-speaking contact except those who preached. My entire life I took notice of a sadness in my father's eyes and I truly believe that he himself was agnostic but was afraid to let go of that which had been drummed into him, particularly when it would mean complete family upheaval. He was a genius. Spoke 5 languages fluently, worked with the OAS under Kissinger, was a secondary education foreign language university professor literally until the day he died. And he never had the chance to talk to anyone about what was deep within his heart underneath that which he had been conditioned to be.
My mother is MENSA level. She was invited to join MENSA but turned them down. She is a believer, or at least she so professes. We don't talk about religion. Not since the day a couple of years ago she was yapping in email about some Jesus stuff and I told her that her beliefs and my beliefs were different and she replied "That makes me sad". Again, my heritage is that religion is taught as fact and no challenges thereof are even thinkable.
So when I as a child questioned to myself "How do we really know there is a God" I had to keep it to myself. Such discussion was not permitted. You believed, and if you didn't believe you acted as if you did. There was no other option. I was the latter. I acted as if I believed to the very point where for a number of years I had almost convinced myself that I did. I wanted to believe. Because it was easier.
Not believing meant so much more mental anguish because rather than swallowing and living what had been hammered into me, all tidied up with a nice pretty bow where there is forever a rationalization for questions that defy logic. Not believing meant thinking for oneself.
My thinking for myself came less out of "not believing" and more out of letting myself accept myself with all of my questions and allowing myself to listen to my own questions, give them validity, and ponder the answers.
Peace and awakening finally came the day I was able to wipe everything clean and begin with a blank slate... and then begin, without influence or prejudice, to tune myself into my world in a spiritual sense. Its a journey that began years ago and continues continuously. And I have become a much more spiritual person since I became non-religious.
When one thinks for themselves one tends to tune into their own spirit more.

Do you honestly think that it is possible for BILLIONS of people worldwide to believe identically what their parents and their parents before them believe. What an amazing coincidence indeed! All of these religious people just happen to personally believe exactly what everyone else in their family personally believes, each as individuals. Bullshit. People PRACTICE religious traditions that they are taught but it does not necessarily mean that, if given an absolute blank slate and left to figure out their own beliefs without influence that they would all come to the exact same conclusions and beliefs. It is, without question, an impossibility.

So who are those who can honestly say that they reached their own conclusions and beliefs without influence and that nobody else's beliefs can be "right"?

I have given my children the gift of blank slates, and they ponder for themselves all of those mind-numbing questions that are natural to ask and natural to wonder. It doesn't make them bad to ask or wonder or want to think for themselves. It makes them awakening. My older son is currently fascinated with Judaism although he professes himself to be agnostic. Agnostic, different than atheist, means 'don't or cannot know' when literally translated. My younger son weighs the possibility of the existence of a God as in the possibility of an energy that caused the creation of everything - although not a God in the sense of the mythical being that humans created and molded the concept of, judge and punisher. Its fascinating what he has thought of, really, and I am open to rolling it around my own head to think about it.

I am continually growing and listening and awakening which means always being open to new thoughts, and weighing them with my own logic.

To quote Buddha: "Do not believe anything anyone says, even if I am saying it, unless it agrees with your own logic."

[foptiludrop]

I don't think intelligence (or a lack of it) has anything to do with faith. Belief does not arise from the Mind.

I do 'get' where you're coming from, K-cat and Sadie; and Heart, I know more lapsed and ex-Catholics than one could shake a tree at!

This topic only intrigues me on a personal experiences level... I enjoy hearing about how people arrived at whichever stage of the spectrum they're on.

[Kiheicat]

I enjoy hearing about how people arrived at whichever stage of the spectrum they're on.
I do too. :)

[Heartland]

So when I as a child questioned to myself "How do we really know there is a God" I had to keep it to myself. Such discussion was not permitted. You believed, and if you didn't believe you acted as if you did. There was no other option. I was the latter. I acted as if I believed to the very point where for a number of years I had almost convinced myself that I did. I wanted to believe. Because it was easier. That's exactly what I went through. I still keep it to myself for the most part, for the sake of peace with my friends, most of whom are still faithful Catholics, Christians, and Jews. It would shock them to hear the truth from me. When religion is discussed, I stay quiet. It's too bad some of the "faithful" can't keep it to themselves and stop trying to force us to live according to something written thousands of years ago.

Fop, I'm not just a lapsed or ex-Catholic. I'm an atheist. Big difference.

If belief does not arise from the mind, then from where does it arise? From a muscle that pumps blood? From the "soul?" Where is the soul?

[Kiheicat]

Belief is intangible, and also unlearnable. You can't teach someone to believe something. That's like trying to teach someone to like blue more than green. You cannot help what you believe. It is an internal gnawing register that clicks when the right signal is absorbed.
And it is, by definition, individual.

You can teach someone what a group of people each believe or claim to, and you can teach someone why someone believes something, and you can teach someone the history of assorted religions, but you CANNOT teach someone to believe anything that doesn't agree with their own logic.

The following is not directed at anyone in particular, just saying that because the use of 'you' in lieu of 'one' has gotten me into trouble before, heh
If your own logic tells you that there is an invisible man in the sky well hell's bells good for you. Mine doesn't.
Tell your children how you came to such a conclusion if you want, have a party, but don't you dare teach your children that that invisible man is fact. Because that would be a lie.

[foptiludrop]

Heh, Heart, for an atheist, you sure ask a lot of questions! ;)

I only have 'answers' that apply to me, and my own unique journey on the path.

[kim]

i don't want to talk about god - all it means to me is - same root - be good...

- good god people - it's about doing - some do good - some don't...

[Powerhouse]

...but don't you dare teach your children that that invisible man is fact. Because that would be a lie.


Unless you knew it to be true.

:1evil2:

[bluekazoo]

Most things about religion didn't make sense to me, even as a kid .. then I started reading and listening to the work of Joseph Campbell ... THAT made sense to me ... the similarities between the myths and heroes and religions over centuries made sense to me ... I could accept it the way he presented it ...

There are also things about Buddhism that make sense to me ...

I think that whatever one believes it really IS about doing good and learning all along the way ... it's about the journey, more than the destination ... one doesn't necessarily need a figurehead to be able to do that, although it seems to help some people ...

I believe that 'whatever gets you through the night is alright' ... but I expect the same treatment from others ... it is so easy to accept the conclusions that others have reached for themselves, even if they are different than our own if we remember that we are all traveling different paths to the same destination ... one of the primary things about religion that leaves me cold is the refusal to accept other belief systems ... none of the great teachers ever taught that ... the messages were always the same ... love one another, take care of each other, respect one another, don't hurt one another ... I suppose that's what made them great teachers ... unfortunately their message doesn't always reach great students, nor is it always passed down through great interpreters ...

[Kiheicat]

Unless you knew it to be true.

:1evil2:
True in your belief, it could be. True factually, not physiologically possible. Telling someone something that is not possible to substantiate as fact and telling them that it is indeed fact, is lying.

[Kiheicat]

Let's take this Heaven's Gate jackoff as an example:
http://www.rickross.com/groups/heavensgate.html
What if I were part of his cult. What if I believed everything he preached and believed it deep in my heart to where it felt like absolute truth to me. What if I then taught the Heaven's Gate concepts to my children as fact and tried to teach it to your children as fact (what a multitude of Christian zealots do) - and told them that no other belief was right, not Christian, not Shinto, not Judaism, not Muslim, not Hindu, not Animism (the literal mother of all theistic religions), not any other belief. That if they, in fact, believed in the Christian god and believed that Christ was the Messiah, etc etc that they would suffer for all eternity in pain. That this was fact because I believed it to be true whether it could be factually backed up or not. Would this be right or wrong? Would you allow me to talk to your children?

[Powerhouse]

True in your belief, it could be. True factually, not physiologically possible.

Sure it is - you've just got to think outside the box.


Telling someone something that is not possible to substantiate as fact and telling them that it is indeed fact, is lying.

So since you cannot go to Mars to verify it, and cannot see it through a telescope, it must be a lie that we have robots on Mars? Or were you willing to accept circumstancial evidence? :D

[Kiheicat]

If you have pictures of a god being like NASA has pictures of our robots on Mars, pass them on, I'd LOVE to see them!

Question: Why do you believe that there is a god? "Because someone told me" is not acceptable, nor is "How else do you explain (insert any phenomenon)?" or "Because the Bible says so" or any other hearsay bullshit. Tell me how you came to your own personal conclusion with no other influence other than your own logic that a god being exists and that (insert your personal beliefs) are true because (insert your conclusive reasoning).
That may sound smartass but you are a reasonable person, PH, and I'd really like to hear from a reasonable person as opposed to a zealot nut how you came to believe what you believe to be truth AND if that truth is open to change and/or evolution.

[Powerhouse]

If you have pictures of a god being like NASA has pictures of our robots on Mars, pass them on, I'd LOVE to see them!

Question: Why do you believe that there is a god? "Because someone told me" is not acceptable, nor is "How else do you explain (insert any phenomenon)?" or "Because the Bible says so" or any other hearsay bullshit. Tell me how you came to your own personal conclusion with no other influence other than your own logic that a god being exists and that (insert your personal beliefs) are true because (insert your conclusive reasoning).
That may sound smartass but you are a reasonable person, PH, and I'd really like to hear from a reasonable person as opposed to a zealot nut how you came to believe what you believe to be truth AND if that truth is open to change and/or evolution.

Maybe you've missed it - I've only mentioned it a couple of times in my many years online in the OAI - and I'm no bible thumper, don't even go to church, or really care to - and, No, I do not care to tell it again at this time, - and I appreciate your belief that I am 'reasonable' on this subject - but the fact is that - I do not "believe" in God. I cannot "believe" in God.

I'll give you a couple of examples...

You drive into a town you've never been to before and stop for gas. During discussion with the local attendant he tells you that Main Street crosses Maple Street. As you drive off you 'believe' that Main Street crosses Maple Street because you were told that by someone you expect to know the way things are there. To me, that would be a belief.

Now again, you drive into a town you've never been to before, but this time you do not stop for gas, and down the road you come across an intersection where Main Street crosses Maple Street. You've just discovered a 'fact'.

So, to bring us to the moral of my story, Kcat - I am of the second example.
I never had a chance to 'believe' or learn what it is to 'believe' in God because I met him before I'd ever heard of him. ('met' in a sense that I also cannot really explain in words - sorry)

I will tell you that I spent many years interrogating many 'christians' about their belief, and trying to achieve an understanding of how anyone could actually believe something so preposterous and illogical.
I still don't get it, and I guess I never will.
I'm no longer worried about it.
My life goes on, and I'm not out to change anyone elses 'religious choice', but I do still have a hope, on some personal level, that they not be surprised or scared of what they find on 'the other side'.

Hope this helped you at least understand where I am coming from on this subject, and why my response would not be what you may have predicted or expected - so perhaps I am not so 'reasonable' on this topic, in your opinion, as you originally believed.

Anyway, Peace. :)

Mike.

[Kiheicat]

Of course you are free to believe as you wish, but I do hope you feel differently before your 'time' comes.
See that is an insult to me. You are telling me that what I believe is wrong. "You are free to believe as you wish but I do hope you feel differently before your 'time' comes because you are wrong and you will suffer for all eternity in a place called hell because that's what I believe to be the truth and therefore what you believe to be the truth doesn't mean shit.

:(

However, in reality, my reality, the only pain caused by religion is on this side of death, not including religion-caused/religion-ordered/religion-justified/religion-rationalized death.
You are free to believe as you wish and it doesn't matter if you believe as I believe because no punishment will come of it. Quite the contrary. Since I walked away from decades of caked on religious bullshit my heart and spirit are lighter and I don't walk in fear of pissing off a god who demonstrates his love with threats. The god myth is ludicrous, borne of primitive fear when the cavemen first sought to explain lightning and stars and rainbows and other amazing (at the time because facts were not yet discovered) unexplainables, and that is truth to me.

[Kiheicat]

I was posting while you were posting so I haven't read your newest post. Will go read it now.... hang on :)

[Powerhouse]

See that is an insult to me. You are telling me that what I believe is wrong. "You are free to believe as you wish but I do hope you feel differently before your 'time' comes because you are wrong and you will suffer for all eternity in a place called hell because that's what I believe to be the truth and therefore what you believe to be the truth doesn't mean shit.

:(


Now, Kcat, truthfully - you did just now put words into my mouth, didn't you? :o

Did I ever say anything at ALL about 'hell'? Honestly?

I NEVER claimed to know or even expressed a belief about what comes after the meeting!

I don't know - have no idea - never got that far.

I think you are making the mistake of reflecting into my words what others that do 'believe' have told you. Aren't you?

I don't think that was very fair to me after the effort I went to respond to you as honestly as possible even if it does open me up to redicule in the eyes of some.

[Kiheicat]

Thank you.

And sorry for the misreading. I hate when that happens. :lol

[Powerhouse]

Oooo-Kay - it looks like we are cross posting - please ignore my above post, and I will ignore yours since they are out of sequence. No appology necessary - just a matter of unfortunate timing.

[Kiheicat]

Dam, see I made that post while you made your other post and while I was reading yours you read mine which was in response to your earlier one which pissed me off, lol.

I'll check back in later - its my son's birthday today and I don't want to spend his whole day talking about that which has been hashed and rehashed to death.

;)

No worries m'dear. :)

[Kiheicat]

Still cross posting, holy shit!

[Kiheicat]

Here ya go: :1hug3:
LOL, gtg now...

[Powerhouse]

Still cross posting, holy shit!

LOL. Don't worry about it - go and enjoy your son's birthday. We can both go off and do other things and maybe revisit this topic later if we feel up to it. :)

Happy Birthday to you son!!! :1clap8:

[Kiheicat]

Checking back in briefly. You know, PH, I've never had an issue with you. I've always read your posts with interest and believed you to be on the more intellectual side of the hill than *some* posters ;)
So when I read your words with misconstrued receipt I was puzzled in addition to being irked. For the response, I apologize.

I do stand by my example scenarios but point the arrow away from you. :)

Carry on....
:1kiss1:

[Powerhouse]

Thank you.

Arrows are pointy and ruffle my fur. :D

[Kiheicat]

heh :1kitty2:

[dcj]

Greetings!

Don't have time to debate, but in response to the request for reason-based proofs of God's existence -

This can be argued on an a priori basis (deductive); a posteriori (inductive) or revelatory (through direct experience, as Mike alludes to) basis.

Here's a few examples of famous logical arguments for the existence of a creator:

Cosmological: This argument goes back as far as Plato and is used by Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. Its basis is that everything that moves has to be moved by another thing. But this chain of movers cannot go on to infinity, a key assumption, because there would then be no first mover and thus no other mover. We must arrive, therefore, at a first mover.

"Something obviously exists now, and something never sprang from nothing." Epicurus


You could argue that the universe itself is this Prime Mover, but the universe is moving, changing, decaying. You cannot logically have a Prime Mover that is contingent, it must be a force that is non-contingent.

******

An example of a posteriori theological reasoning is the Design (or Telelogical) Argument:

"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool." Voltaire

This argument rests on the case that the intricacies of the universe are so profound and obviously ordered that it is not logically possible to deny the existence of an intelligent creator.

From here:

http://www.fact-index.com/t/te/teleological_argument.html

The argument goes something like this:


Premise 1: X was intelligently designed.
Premise 2: X was not designed by humans.
Premise 3: The only conceivable beings capable of intelligent design are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).
From (3): The only conceivable beings capable of designing X in particular are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).
Recall (2): that X was not designed by humans.
If God doesn't exist, then X was also not designed by God.
Thus if God doesn't exist, then none of the conceivable beings capable of designing X designed X, in which case X was not designed at all.
Since God not existing therefore results in a contradiction of (1), God must exist.
In less mathematical terms:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/argument.htm

No one can deny the universe seems to be designed; instances of purposive ordering are all around us. Almost anywhere can be found features of being that show the universe to be basically friendly to life, mind, personality, and values. Life itself is a cosmic function, that is, a very complex arrangement of things both terrestrial and extraterrestrial must obtain before life can subsist. The earth must be just the right size, its rotation must be within certain limits, its tilt must be correct to cause the seasons, its land - water ratio must be a delicate balance. Our biological structure is very fragile. A little too much heat or cold and we die. We need light, but not too much ultraviolet. We need heat, but not too much infrared. We live just beneath an airscreen shielding us from millions of missiles every day. We live just ten miles above a rock screen that shields us from the terrible heat under our feet. Who created all these screens and shields that make our earthly existence possible?

Suppose you were standing facing a target and you saw an arrow fired from behind you hit the bull's eye. Then you saw nine more arrows fired in rapid succession all hitting the same bull's eye. The aim is so accurate that each arrow splits the previous arrow as it hits. Now an arrow shot into the air is subject to many contrary and discordant processes, gravity, air pressure, and wind. When ten arrows reach the bull's eye, does this not rule out the possibility of mere chance? Would you not say that this was the result of an expert archer? Is this parable not analogous to our universe?

*******************

Note that these arguments are not yet about the nature of this Creator, nor the purpose of the Creation, and any moral or other obligations owed by the created to the creator. Likely, those issues are what's in contention in this thread, but I think you need the first logical premise to be agreed upon before progressing to the next steps.

D.

[Powerhouse]

:irollers4 What WAS that? Something just went right over my head!

Oh, It was Lady Di again. She's always doing that to me. :)

:1kitty4:

[tekobari]

dcj, when I was a theology/philosophy major (each full of atheist, btw), I read those and other arguments for and against the existence of a monotheistic god. You have simplified them so elegantly, my hat's off to you. Thank you.

[sadie999]

No one can deny the universe seems to be designed;

(Italics mine.)

I deny it. It seems to be no more designed than any sludge one looks at under a microscope.

Diana, that's a great post. Always interesting you are. :)

Peace,
Sadie

[dcj]

LOL, Mikey! As I recall, very little actually goes over your head... :)

Hi, tek! My mom teaches philosophy, heh, so any credit goes to her if after 40 years, the arguments seem familiar to me. However, I'm not sure these are the proofs for a monotheistic deity, per se, although I agree the thinkers I was quoting usually go there. I think you have to start with whether or not there's any creator AT ALL, which is where these arguments are useful. Once you have that, you can venture into shakier territory.

D. (who's gotta run, as said Mom is here for a visit til tomorrow, but will drop back in then and see where the discussion has headed.)

[Kiheicat]

:irollers4 What WAS that? Something just went right over my head!

Oh, It was Lady Di again. She's always doing that to me. :)

:1kitty4:
:1rotfl1: LOL

Its basis is that everything that moves has to be moved by another thing. But this chain of movers cannot go on to infinity, a key assumption, because there would then be no first mover and thus no other mover. We must arrive, therefore, at a first mover.
This is one of the conceptualizations that has driven me (and a myriad of ponderers since the dawn of the intelligent thinker) absolutely bonkers. ;)
What was before and what was before that and before that and at the very beginning... and before that?
Yes we must arrive at a first mover but it would be (and has been) a great shame to conclude from the above that there must be a creator god "because how else can one explain it?" How else's are comfort food when one's brain is tired of being racked and can be sated with a theory in lieu of fact when fact is forever out of reach.
But "how else" cannot be fact for me.

IMHO the beginning of the universe and all that has evolved thereof began with energy. That's as far back as my brain can go because I do not have a hypothesis or theory regarding where that energy derived from.
However, for those who believe in a creator god, the same quandry exists: What created your creator, and what was before?

BUGSHIT! BUGSHIT! :)

Btw, thanks, Diana, for the awesome post - I'd love to hear more from you in this thread.

[dcj]

Hey, hey, Sadie! Cross-posted. Interesting, sludge? Say more about that!

D. (really having to go, but loving these sorts of conversations)

[dcj]

Hahaha, now cross-posted with the kat.


I think you're saying that you concede a Primal Mover, but deny that this necessarily has to be a Creator God? I wonder if we're at a semantical level here, for the purpose of the premise. At this point, the main thing is that:

a)the universe had a beginning
b)something or someone caused the universe to exist

If we agree on those two, there's more to discuss, elsewise we'll get so lost in competing premises we'll be spinning our wheels.

Hell, I wanna stay now, but really can't. :( See y'all tomorrow.

[kim]

question:

premise number one:

what is / are - the criteria for determining whether something is "intelligently designed"...?

[peeep]

Diana says: Note that these arguments are not yet about the nature of this Creator, nor the purpose of the Creation, and any moral or other obligations owed by the created to the creator. Likely, those issues are what's in contention in this thread, but I think you need the first logical premise to be agreed upon before progressing to the next steps.

I agree.


Ramona, a few things I can think regarding the criteria for intelligent design would be function, purpose & longevity.

[kim]

peeep...

purpose...?

pupose - is a human measure...

function - is a human measure...

longevity - compared to what - ? - (again a human measure)...

example concerning function: you're walking down a road and you pick up a stick to use as a walking stick - it feels good - fits your hand well - it may even last a very long time - it does not mean that the stick was designed - to be your walking stick - it just means - that out of all the branches which were out there - you picked the one which you found most useful to you...

[dcj]

LOL, I can't stay away. Mom's doing laundry for a sec, so:

Peeeep (I'm sure I'm over or under e-ing you, heh)! Nice to see ya, sweetie. :)

Dusalee -

It's a brilliant question, and the crux of the thing. It's kind of subjective, I think. What if we use art, since that is something you're extremely good at? Is there a way to tell in art what the difference is between say, a child who fingerpaints on a wall and say, a Rembrandt masterpiece? Maybe that's a different quality than intelligence, (I think it is), but what I'm getting at is that you can look at a work of art and see if there is something beyond the random splash of paint or clay.

As to criteria, I need to think about that, and will do so.

[dcj]

Also, with respect to intelligent design in nature, I think the Fibonnaci and Golden Ratio stuff is fascinating:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/04/033104.asp

[Kiheicat]

Hahaha, now cross-posted with the kat.


I think you're saying that you concede a Primal Mover, but deny that this necessarily has to be a Creator God?
I'm more saying we must discover or perhaps rather uncover primal movement - how and why the origin of all came to be.
Side note: Its incredibly difficult for me to post seriously right now because Ross' booby smily is undulating to the right of my screen, hahaha... but I'll try to focus...
Anyway, the point of origin if you will - once that is identified the answers will be made within grasp. Point of origin. First action. Primal movement. Bigass question marks.

Adding as a sub-topic what frustrates me is those that choose not to hash it through their own minds at all but rather accept without question that which their parents and parents before them tell them the answers are .... when the answers currently are unknowable. These religious parrots piss me off the most. I have one thousand fold more respect for the people who believe as they do based on really rolling the unknown over in their own minds and theorizing with their own logic than those who say "Well the Bible says so, so it must be right" or any number of other de-individualizations. (new word? ;) )

Entering disclaimer of 'you' versus 'one' again here for the following statement which is aimed at no one in particular:
Have thoughts of your own? Awesome! I'd love to hear them! Repeating someone else's thoughts? Come back when you have your own to share.

[kim]

diana - concerning art - i think that - perhaps - it might be more interesting - if we ask - what is the difference between - a child's fingerpainting and jackson pollak's fingerpainting - or - his spashes of paint...

although - arguing about the definition of art is a very tedious pastime...

[tekobari]

The title of this thead keeps reminding me of a line from Maxine Hong Kingston's The Woman Warrior. In it, her mother hears that god works in mysterious ways. She replies something like: His ways are too mysterious for me to put up with anymore.

I can understand that.

[kim]

edit typo - pollack...

[dcj]

LOL, dusa, immediately I walked away from typing to you, Pollack came to mind. I knew you'd say that, heh. You're right, it's herribly subjective, and tedious as hell. Let's just go basic - paint by numbers? At first glance, it's a mess of blobs with numbers in them, once finished, obviously there was some intelligence behind the mess of blobs. Eh?

*****

Kcat - I'm afraid that although I deeply enjoy theological debate, the root of my own faith is not at all cerebral. It's not a leap of faith, either, it's quite direct and personal. In the dark nights of my soul, God has been a (sometimes tiny) candle, but a real one. When I question myself and life and so forth, I feel Him as a giant hug, a sheltering and comfort that I phrase as (after St. Gillian) "All is well, and all is well and all manner and shape of things are well".

The love I feel is overwhelming, my ability to put that into words is altogether lacking. For me, it is like the usual spectrum of colors has another dimension, and the world when seen through that prism is a hopeful and glorious place. :)
If I love you, naturally I want you to share in that. BUT, and it's a huge but, I'm never gonna judge or talk or logic you into believing in that you cannot see. What you see and believe is as real to you (and as beautiful, I'm sure) as this faith is to me.

The best I can do is to try to live in a way that inspires others, and say what I believe to those who are interested and ask. The worst I can do is turn myself into a God and think that I can properly judge anybody's choices.

Every choice is part of the enormous tapestry of each person's unique journey, and none but He who can see the whole arrow of time that makes up the entirety of a life can hope to know what a single decision means.

****

Heh, back to the cerebral, if ya like, I'm perfectly comfortable there, and I like you, Kat, because it's clear to me that you think and care. (Plus the pictures you sometimes post of your boyz are angelic!)

D.

[Powerhouse]

If I love you, naturally I want you to share in that. BUT, and it's a huge but, I'm never gonna judge or talk or logic you into believing in that you cannot see. What you see and believe is as real to you (and as beautiful, I'm sure) as this faith is to me.

The best I can do is to try to live in a way that inspires others, and say what I believe to those who are interested and ask. The worst I can do is turn myself into a God and think that I can properly judge anybody's choices.

My feelings exactly, Di. Thank you for expressing them for me.

[Kiheicat]

When I question myself and life and so forth, I feel Him as a giant hug
That hug, which I believe is something that we all feel from time to time but I obviously can't speak for everyone, is what I feel as my own internal spirituality and the still small voice within. When I look to the stars and talk to my father, I feel. When I stand, stunned, watching a sunset in all of its explosive glory, I feel. When I sit on the lanai and close my eyes and let myself be one with the breeze and the rustling of palm fronds, I feel. This and so much more is spirituality. And that feeling originates from within and from without ... energy ... spirit ... enveloping beauty and allowing it to lift and renew me. This, I BELIEVE, is the same intangible that others chalk up to the voice and spirit of "God". To me, it is my own energy which drinks in and pours out like gentle rippling waves lapping the shore.

Heh, back to the cerebral, if ya like, I'm perfectly comfortable there, and I like you, Kat, because it's clear to me that you think and care. (Plus the pictures you sometimes post of your boyz are angelic!)
Thank you... and back atcha ;)

[dcj]

I sorta thought it was a matter of semantics, possibly just a difference in name. You use whatever language you like to describe the same feeling, and we meet in the place that understands the experience as ecstatic and worth gold. We are standing on the same beach, and both of us are looking at the stars. :)

D. (off again, off again, jiggety jig)

[Kiheicat]

We are standing on the same beach, and both of us are looking at the stars.
Nice :)

[dcj]

(Levendis sidestep for Sadielicious)

Rain
Newman Levy


On the isle of Pago Pago,
land of palm trees, rice and sago,
Where the Chinaman and Dago
dwell with natives dusky hued,
Lived a dissolute and shady,
bold adventuress named Sadie,
Sadie Thompson was the lady,
and the life she lived was lewd.

She had practised her profession
in our insular possession,
Which, to make a frank confession,
people call the Philippines.
There she'd made a tidy profit
till the clergy, hearing of it,
Made her life as hot as Tophet,
driving her to other scenes.

So this impudent virago
hied herself to Pago Pago
Where the Chinaman and Dago
to her cottage often came.
Trade was lucrative and merry,
till one day the local ferry
Brought a noble missionary,
Rev'rend Davidson by name.

Stern, austere and apostolic,
life was no amusing frolic.
Braving fevers, colds and colic,
he had come with prayers and hymns,
Most intolerant of wowsers,
to those primitive carousers
Bearing chaste and moral trousers
to encase their nether limbs.

In her quaint exotic bower,
'mid a never-ending shower,
Sadie Thompson, by the hour,
entertained the local trade.
Every night brought more and more men,
soldiers, natives, clerks and store-men,
Sailors, gallant man-of-war men,
while her gay victrola played.

"Ha!" exclaimed the irate pastor,
"straight you're headed for disaster.
I'll convince you who's the master,
shameless woman of the street
"Listen, Rev.," said Sadie tartly,
pardon me for punning smartly
"Though I get your meaning-partly -
still, alas, a girl must eat."

"Girl," he cried in indignation,
"choose at once between salvation
And immediate deportation
from this charming tropic glade.
Like a devastating plague,
0 Scarlet Dame of Pago Pago,
You're as welcome as lumbago,
plying here your brazen trade."

Sadie said, "Though I'm no scoffer,
that's a lousy choice you proffer,
Still I must accept your offer
though my pride has been attacked.
Come on, Rev., and let us kill
a flask or two of sarsaparilla
Here in my delightful villa
while I watch you do your act."

Let us veil the tragic sequel,
for a pious man but weak will
Find, alas, that he's unequal
to a lady's potent charms.
So his long suppressed libido,
sharp as steel of famed Toledo,
Spurning prayers and hymns and credo,
found surcease in Sadie's arms. There beside the waters tidal,
urged by impulse suicidal,
Lay, next day, the shattered idol,
cleansed at last of sin and taint.
Here's the moral: Though a preacher
fail to make a fallen creature
Pure and saintly as her teacher,
she, perhaps, can make a saint

:)

[KatieP]

Personally, I think it's turtles all the way down.

[dcj]

KatiePie! Or 42.

(According to the story, a bigname scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"
To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down.")

[tekobari]

I've really seen nothing here that's incompatible with atheism. The wonder, the questioning, the dramatic beauty and feelings for the natural world...all of it is part of an atheist's life and mind. The only difference seems to be cause--prime cause, or currently unknown cause, or no cause at all? What do you think is so profoundly different about the way an atheist lives, thinks, feels, etc. with what a believer does? I really don't see any, unless you're one of those who thinks without god there can be no ethics nor morals.

I'm quite serious about this.

[dcj]

Tek, in all seriousness, I think it has to do with your take on the consciousness or lack of that, of the Creator we agreed must exist.

If the creative force is unconscious (meaning purely a force), in my opinion, you are placing that which created us on a lower plane than we, who are conscious. A logical inconsistency.

If you say, instead, that this creative force is conscious AND is capable of creation, than you are admitting to a force that is greater than we.

In short, the next logical step from saying there is a creator is to contemplate the nature of this creator. Benevolent? Benign? What do you think?

D.

[peeep]

peeep...

purpose...?

pupose - is a human measure...

function - is a human measure...

longevity - compared to what - ? - (again a human measure)...

Ramona, I am only a human. Who decided these things are human measures?

I have to admit I only started reading this thread from yesterday's posts. I'm fascinated. Now, I'll begin reading from the top.

[Kiheicat]

If the creative force is unconscious (meaning purely a force), in my opinion, you are placing that which created us on a lower plane than we, who are conscious. A logical inconsistency.

I have to disagree with that with buckets of examples. For instance my son, who is taller, smarter, stronger, and oh so much more wise than his father. A higher plane so to speak. ;)
Chemical formulas demonstrate more of the same.
Evolution itself demonstrates time and time and time again how the 'next level' is consistently more advanced than the one before, the one that lent to its very existence.
The 'lower plane' forces leading up to and indeed causing creation are quite often, dare I say usually lesser than the end result that their composition or energy contributes to.

[kim]

peeep...

humans did...!

- smile lol...

[Kiheicat]

Here's some interesting reading: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101life.html

[Heartland]

Tek, in all seriousness, I think it has to do with your take on the consciousness or lack of that, of the Creator we agreed must exist. Tek agreed that a creator must exist? Now how did I miss that? *Going back to read with peeep*

[Powerhouse]

Just thinking out loud here - I don't have the benefit of any formal religious education as such - ... Life shows us that cells divide. They create copies of themselves, neither inferior nor superior to themselves, but when taken as an accumulation does it create something more than the original by itself?

[kim]

what sandy asked - i never saw that either - i just rechecked - can't find anything like that...

[Powerhouse]

Another thought from the other side of the topic - catapillars do turn into butterflys. Why?

[Heartland]

I like this quote from the movie "Constantine":

God is just a kid with an ant farm.

I'm not totally opposed to the concept of intelligent design. I haven't had time to really get into it, though. My stance is that if there was a creator, it is long gone now, most likely dead, since everything ultimately dies.

[Heartland]

Mike, for the same reason embryos turn into babies. :)

[tekobari]

LOL! No, no, no. I never agreed that a creator exists, existed, will exist. Never in my life, as a matter of fact. I've searched, and like Sandy, wanted to find such a thing, but never did. It's completely incompatible with the natural world, and thus with what/who I am. Sorry, but I'm a scientist at heart and by training. I can put faith in people, sometimes without reason--just to do it. I'd rather trust and be wrong than live a life without trust, hiding away in my fear of other people.

But god? Creators? Prime causes? No.

[dcj]

Yikes! Sorry, tek (and others scrambling to decipher my error)! (My hubby's a scientist/programmer type, deCIDEDly atheistic, so I understand the POV quite well, and appreciate it. He's one of the best men I know. :) )

D. (off for tonight, will catch up tomorrow)

[tekobari]

Yikes! Sorry, tek (and others scrambling to decipher my error)! (My hubby's a scientist/programmer type, deCIDEDly atheistic, so I understand the POV quite well, and appreciate it. He's one of the best men I know. :) )

D. (off for tonight, will catch up tomorrow)No, prob, d. Actually, it was pretty funny. Sometimes, I still wish it were true.

That's great about your husband. I'd love to listen in on the two of you during a serious talk. Two brainiacs, calmly and yet passionately devoted to their beliefs and each other. Cool.

[Kiheicat]

Quickie interjection: I enjoy your thoughts, tek. :)

[tekobari]

Oh, my, Kiheicat. Thank you. I'm impressed by your writing. Now stop being nice to me. That's two people in one day, and I'll have a nervous breakdown.

[Kiheicat]

LOL can't have that ;)

[bluekazoo]

So even IF it can be 'proven' in logical debate that things were 'created' by a unique 'creator' or 'creative force' ... if we were to accept that ... where is the logical leap to out-and-out worship of that creative force (other than what appears to be a human need to deify something)?

[Kiheicat]

Awesome, kazoo. I've rolled that one over many times myself. :)

[Heartland]

Watching all the news and devastation this past week, I was struck by something. On at least three occasions, I saw survivors say, "God saved me."

I'd like to ask those people: What the fuck makes you so special that your god would save YOU while creating misery and death for untold thousands, many of whom believe in the exact same god you do?

If you believe that your invisible eye in the sky intentionally saved you, then you also have to believe that it intentionally caused the horrible suffering of thousands of innocents for no logical reason other than it could.

If you believe that George Bush is "God's president" then you also have to believe that your god is pretty pissed off with Bush, since it has exposed to the world that the man is an incompetent fool who wouldn't know his ass from a whole in the ground, unless one of his aids told him where it was.

I'm seriously starting to believe that religious equates to mentally ill.

[Heartland]

whole in the ground ---> HOLE in the ground

Preview, preview, preview.

[Kiheicat]

I'm seriously starting to believe that religious equates to mentally ill.
Heartland, I happened upon the Celebrity Question thread once when the question I was to pose to be for "God". I asked "Were the people you allegedly talked to back in the day schizophrenic like the ones you talk to today are?"
I may have paraphrased myself but the gist is there.
Something to think about on many levels...

[Powerhouse]

Everyone of a religious variety seems to have their own ideas about God, particularily as to the 'why' questions, yet they all often seem to point to the same answer - the 'master plan'. Apparently the consensous is that even if it doesn't make sense to us, it is all a part of God's 'master plan'.

Died at birth? Master Plan

Evil triumphing over good? Master Plan

Tornado hits a chruch? Master Plan

I'm kind of doubting that their is any plan that has accounted for every event or every individuals action or reaction over all of time. Not really sure that God has much of an attention span for us at all sometimes.

I know if I were God things would be a lot different. This whole hands-off approach doesn't seem to be working to well. We seem destined more to destroy ourselves by our own hand than to ever rise above our differences and form a cohesive society.

Throughout the eons man has created or seen a God in all sorts of things - fire, stars, water, wood, wine, etc, etc. For awhile there it seemed that we couldn't create gods fast enough for all of our inexplicable discoveries, celebrations, and condemnations.

These 'gods' have sent people to war against each other over sometimes nothing more than one 'god' not liking another 'god'. The stronger religions prevailed and thus their 'god' got to advance in the next epoch of civilization, until here we are today, with about as many gods as we have countries still, but at least we are no longer worshipping the sun and the moon.

There are those that point to this religious evolution as proof that eventually science will be able to disprove all gods - just give them time. But as much damage as has been done to mankind in the name of 'God' I suspect we are and will remain better off with some appreciation and respect for the possibility of a 'higher power'.
Lord knowns that if we are 'it' , the universe is screwed.

:1evil2:

[Heartland]

Lord knowns that if we are 'it' , the universe is screwed. I don't know, Mike. I think the world is already pretty screwed up because of religion. As you said, the religious wars have been going on since the beginning of time. Horrendous atrocities have been committed in the name of one god or another.

If there was no religion ... who knows what we could become? It doesn't mean there would be no laws, so an orderly society is still possible, but without the rage and ego involved in the "my religion is better than your religion" crap.

[Powerhouse]

If there was no religion ... who knows what we could become? It doesn't mean there would be no laws, so an orderly society is still possible, but without the rage and ego involved in the "my religion is better than your religion" crap.


HA, in the context of world events, 'power' truely has been the root of all evil. Religion has been and remains a tool of those that have and those that want 'power'. You can witness it in almost any popular televanglist.
Religion has receive the black eye it has (and deserves) for allowing itself to be used as a tool in the power struggles that have been and will be, and as the sheep follow the shepard they will continue to be lead off to slaughter.
It really is a pity, IMHO, since power is not the intent of religion.

:(

[sadie999]

Lots of interesting stuff in this thread, and I sort of feel like I bailed w/out explanation.

My first premise that most people believe w/out logic or personal journey/introspection is something that I still believe. Diana (and all the people in this thread) is (are) certainly not average by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there a god/God? I doubt it - I'm as sure there isn't as I can be sure of anything. But mostly, I don't care whether god/God exists or not. It wouldn't change how I live my life. The idea of an afterlife might change how I live my current life, but I don't think it would be a positive change.

If I did believe in god/God, I surely couldn't believe in the spoiled, petty god that most people believe in. That God is surely in man's image.

I believe that the journey to true enlightenment, godliness, whatever, is a solitary one. Short version: you live life, you hear words and ideas, you read, you experience miracles and mundane, but ultimately the processing of it all into a cohesive belief or disbelief system happens when you sit quietly, answering only to yourself. Anyone (and I don't think that this applies to anyone in this thread so far) who simply swallows teachings and rules has made no journey at all and is as spiritually lost as any person who has received no teachings, etc.

That said, I will state unequivocally that I think organized religion is a crock. I also think most groups from congress to cheerleading squads are a crock. While I guess the shrinks have 'proven' that humans need community, I find that too many humans have a very troubling need to join and belong. There are legitimate reasons for "groups," but to me they are mostly to balance power; eg. labor unions.

I think Good exists on its own and needs no action from humans to be. Nature, life, death, etc. are all 'good' and need nothing from us. Good is whole. Evil is incomplete and needs human action. So Good will always win out over Evil. If humans should be wiped off the planet due to their own weakness, evil, stupidity, whatever, and the planet should be reduced to a warm rock, it will be good. Good will have triumphed.

I also think weakness is more dangerous than evil, but that's a-whole-nother discussion. :)

So if I seemed to bail on this discussion it is only because I'm not really about proving or disproving anything in this area. I only believe what I believe and I respect anything anyone wants to believe as long as them damn krazykristians keep their hands off my government and my sex life. ;)

Peace,
Sadie

[foptiludrop]

So if I seemed to bail on this discussion it is only because I'm not really about proving or disproving anything in this area. I only believe what I believe and I respect anything anyone wants to believe ...
Same here.

[Kiheicat]

Sadie, a lot of good stuff I'd like to capture:
Diana (and all the people in this thread) is (are) certainly not average by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes I meant to double back and acknowledge that at the time but never got back to it. Diana is certainly one of the more well-thought-out and well-thought-of posters in this whacky board community. I think I made it fairly clear that while my earlier example studies indicate a tendency toward the higher IQ/atheistic correlations it by no means is an absolute. I hope nobody took it that I was calling people stupid because they believe, although there are plenty of those, LOL - that's why that Christian palm out channel exists :p


If I did believe in god/God, I surely couldn't believe in the spoiled, petty god that most people believe in.
:)


I believe that the journey to true enlightenment, godliness, whatever, is a solitary one. Short version: you live life, you hear words and ideas, you read, you experience miracles and mundane, but ultimately the processing of it all into a cohesive belief or disbelief system happens when you sit quietly, answering only to yourself. Anyone (and I don't think that this applies to anyone in this thread so far) who simply swallows teachings and rules has made no journey at all and is as spiritually lost as any person who has received no teachings, etc.
Every word spot on. I heartily agree.

too many humans have a very troubling need to join and belong.
This has been, for quite some time, my theory of why there are SO many numbers of folks who follow one group or another. My sister, for example, always had issues with wanting to belong ... and her world consists largely of her church group with whom she bonds and makes certain that the perfections in her world are seen by and approved of while the imperfections such as her children being either taken from her or running from her due to the incredibly bad choices like her current emotionally abusive husband (who she married for the comfort of not having to be alone and of having someone call her "Princess") and her own alcohol abuse which helps quiet the demons and (in her opinion) any need to take the meds she has prescribed for bi-polarism... all of this gets swept under the rug and hidden with shame while she paints on her perfect rose-colored world, Jesus loves me smile though deep down inside her soul cries out like my father's did. I escaped the cult drumming of a religious upbringing. She took the allegedly easier road. Well which of us find it easier to reach within and look at what/who we see?
And that's just one example of one church member who sits in a pew every Sunday being there but not being there.
Wouldn't that be a mind-numbing statistical project to turn the light on the billions of pew-warmers to put a numerical value on how many are just there? IMHO the numbers would be STAGGERING.

I also think weakness is more dangerous than evil, but that's a-whole-nother discussion.
:)

As an additional 'ponderment' (speaking of whole-nother discussions, heh), I find it fascinating that at the time and place of Jesus' birth, middle Eastern women were (and still are) nothing more than property who can be legally killed for any number of infractions such as being pregnant without a husband. During her time the death sentences were carried out by stoning and often so ordered by their own fathers. Given these circumstances if you found yourself pregnant would you admit to having sex which meant certain death, or would you make up a fantastic story that is impossible to verify?
Food for thought there..............

[Kiheicat]

Oh btw, I want to take a moment to thank each and every one of you that has participated thus far in this thread. It is quite a thought-provoking and very enjoyable discussion. :)

[Powerhouse]

And that's just one example of one church member who sits in a pew every Sunday being there but not being there.


Beautifully put. I've been a member of a church before, and it's had it's up times, but mostly I've gotten little else from it. Guess I don't have that flock attitude. I don't hold it against them for going though, even if it's just for socializing that's fine.

Sometimes, as Di points out, the definition of "God" may be just a matter of semantics. The term 'energy' has been used, which we all known is the one and only thing that can be changed in form but never depleted, so I think it is a very good example too.

Man presents his own unique perspective to events as recorded, such as when five people are put into the same room and later asked to descibe it, and of course come up with differing descriptions, so this would be true too of things such as the Bible, so there is always that aspect of it to maintain when trying to find the answers they seek.

We all have our own perspective of God as well, even the perspective that such an entity does not exist, or that if one does exist it's actions are not that of 'my' God.
Our beliefs of whether this 'God' exists or not will have no outcome on the truth, but it does give us a starting point for exploring our own perspectives and comparing them to that of others we respect and looking to see if we are actually those 5 people in the same room but seeing the same things differently.

Whatever has happened in the past, we can at least take pleasure from the fact that we are here, today and now, to have this discussion with each other.... Sometimes the participants are more important than the activity they are participating in. God/No God is not as important to me as you all are.
Thank you for indulging me in this philsophical exercise. :)

Mike.

[Heartland]

I only believe what I believe and I respect anything anyone wants to believe as long as them damn krazykristians keep their hands off my government and my sex life. Amen, sistah!

Seriously, I will respect anyone's beliefs, if they would just keep those beliefs to themselves and not try to foist them on me or anyone else.

[Kiheicat]

:1clap3:

[Kiheicat]

I was cleaning out some word files and noticed that I had paraphrased the Buddha quote before. Here it is, correctly:
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-Buddha
:)