PDA

View Full Version : I Flat Out Doubt



Caledonian
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 02:37 AM
I'm a atheist.

Prove to me the existence of a god.

Prove to me a creative design to the universe and show me how it all isn't just random.

I'll await a answer or reply.

FranzFed
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 02:53 AM
An atheist

An answer

Religion is something that can't be imposed on someone, you either believe it or not. Nobody can prove the existence of a god or gods atleast in the physical sense. Just as you can't prove to me that life is all a random fart from nature.

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 03:01 AM
An atheist

An answer

Religion is something that can't be imposed on someone, you either believe it or not. Nobody can prove the existence of a god or gods atleast in the physical sense. Just as you can't prove to me that life is all a random fart from nature.


Religion is something that can't be imposed on someone,

Only upon theocratic fanaticism. ;)


Nobody can prove the existence of a god or gods atleast in the physical sense.

And yet that doesn't stop millions from around the world believing anyways.....


Just as you can't prove to me that life is all a random fart from nature.

Actually I can prove that more versus someone the presupposes that there is a creative intelligent design to the universe or earth while although there are some elements of the universe that will always go unknown my position is a little bit more believable.

FranzFed
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 03:14 AM
And yet that doesn't stop millions from around the world believing anyways.....

Yes, because the belief in a deity is much more comforting than not believing in one(s). Not only that, but it isn't as outlandish a thought as many atheists believe.


Actually I can prove that more versus someone the presupposes that there is a creative intelligent design to the universe or earth while although there are some elements of the universe that will always go unknown my position is a little bit more believable.

I'd love to read some scientific study that shows how the universe was created and what created and or caused that. For me it's an endless paper trail.

Þoreiðar
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 03:47 AM
This is going to prove a completely fruitless affair by all involved.

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 04:11 AM
This is going to prove a completely fruitless affair by all involved.

I woudn't necessarily call it fruitless.

At the very least it might be entertaining. ;)


Yes, because the belief in a deity is much more comforting than not believing in one(s). Not only that, but it isn't as outlandish a thought as many atheists believe.



I'd love to read some scientific study that shows how the universe was created and what created and or caused that. For me it's an endless paper trail.


Yes, because the belief in a deity is much more comforting than not believing in one(s). Well comfort isn't fact.


Not only that, but it isn't as outlandish a thought as many atheists believe.No? What is it that I don't know already?


I'd love to read some scientific study that shows how the universe was created and what created and or caused that. For me it's an endless paper trail.I actually prefer the model describing the universe as a constant flow where there is no beginning or end but instead just endless transfigurations that are created and destroyed repeatively within a constant state of flow.

What's your suscribed view point of the universe at large?

FranzFed
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 04:51 AM
Well comfort isn't fact.

Ofcourse it isn't that's why it's called faith. The idea that life and the universe as a constant physical phonomena isn't proven either, so your outlook is as good as mine.


What's your suscribed view point of the universe at large?

Well I used to be a Catholic till I reached a point where it conflicted with my personal values (it not being a very folkish religion). But I still don't abandon my belief that there is a creator(s).

My point was that religion, and the aquisition of faith should be a personal experience where you use your own judgement. I've seen it many times where someone asks another to prove the validity of their religion to them and it never ends well.

That's why I share the sentiments of Andi in that this is not going to make you any more open to the thought over back and forth debate; then it becomes forced.

Wulfram
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 05:46 AM
Atheism
Chistianity
Agnosticism
The Big Bang
Creationism
Evolution...

Blah, blah, blah

These THEORIES all serve one intended purpose: to keep people sane.
To give them some scrap of hope that the mystery of life can possibly be explained. If not now then later.
All of these interchangeable words can serve the purpose of a "God", or other form of tidy explanation.
But if we were not there from the beginning to witness "creation", or the "emergence of life from nothing" then there is no possible way to exclaim certainty...ever.

This is why I have come to feel that humans are supposed to be kept in the dark about certain things.
That we are supposed to fool ourselves about 'ultimate purpose" and get away with it.
That we are supposed to be ignorant...to a point.


You know what works for me? My people.

Germanics are real enough.
They are God-like enough.
They are an indisputable and wonderful fact.
When it comes to them there is no need to waste an eternity on theoretical debate.

My purpose is to serve them, to honor my ancestors as a kind of worship, and prayer.
This is what I live for. This is what I will die for. This is what I will kill for.

It is my duty to help sustain them as they have sustained me.
To give back what my ancestors have given.
My people have given me purpose in life, and if this does not count as a God then I don't want to know what does, or doesn't.

Thorolf
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 06:52 AM
Actually I can prove that more versus someone the presupposes that there is a creative intelligent design to the universe or earth while although there are some elements of the universe that will always go unknown my position is a little bit more believable.

Actually you can prove nothing. The fact is you have absolutely no clue what the entire universe looks like. For all we know all the galaxies could be put in a pattern that reads, hey retard you should've believed. You could die, be shown the universe see that and end up screwed in an afterlife.

The fact is none of us know and none of us can ever know while alive. You say your idea is more believable, some of us see it as, well with all this stuff here its a bit unbelievable for it to be random. Anyways thats how i view it, none of us really know anything . I find religious debate interesting in how pointless it is. Its like a never ending cycle, both sides have their reasons to believe what they believe and truthfully both sides make plenty of sense.

Hesse
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 02:40 PM
There are several arguments for the existence of God, many of which can be found in the Bible itself, but for an athiest of unbeliever, it can be difficult to grasp what is written in the Bible, since they don't believe in the Holy God in the first place.


we will explain the basic "big four", " logical" statements that prove that there really is a God and that the universe didn't just spring out of randomness, but had a creator, intelligient design behind it. Quoting the article "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?" at http://www.gotquestions.org, here are the four main logical, scientific arguments proving the existence of God, which would also prove that everything found in the Bible is in fact, true.





Quoting: http://www.gotquestions.org, article
Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?

"In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?"


I have always been a believer, but wasn't really shure about how God can be proven besides the fact that the Bible tells us that he is real.


However, after reading these arguments, especially the teleological argument, I was certain there was a God, and that the absence of God just couldn't be possible. It really shows how even science proves the existence of God.

Fyrgenholt
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 03:23 PM
Why must we prove anything to you, when you can instead think and explore? Atheism, more often than not, is a very shallow façade.

Wulfram
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 04:49 PM
...everything found in the Bible is in fact, true.

Why should belief in God have anything to do with the kosher bible?
I don't care how logical-seeming these arguments are.
There is no way that one can read the four rules you have posted and then say "Well, that is proof that everything in bible happened!"
I don't think so. The four arguments do not prove any alleged fact in the bibles history.
In the end you are still putting all of your faith into a jewish-written book that has been edited over the centuries to such a point that it is maybe a fourth of its original size.
If this is the case then how can one state that everything in it is true if much of it is only fragments of the original, at best?
Even if it were complete it would still be highly difficult to prove those stories ever happened, much less accept its word that jesus-the-jew is the son of God and should be worshipped by Germanics.


It really shows how even science proves the existence of God.

Hardly. Has god itself ever descended from the heavens and confirmed to us pithy humans that these four arguments are in fact logical enough to explain God? They are clever, I will give them that, but in the end it is still only human manufactured logic that can never be an infallible method for comprehending the "infallible".
Germanics are your "God", or God, whichever you prefer.
Belief in the jewish bible, or preaching the bible, is treason.

Hamar Fox
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 04:55 PM
"In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.


Unconvincing. First, it contains an erroneous premise: that to exist is greater than not to exist. From a cosmic perspective, neither is greater than the other. To exist only seems greater to a being whose position is biased somewhat by the fact that it itself exists.

The non-sequitur is the assumption that conceivability is equivalent to existence. But even if it were, the greatest conceivable thing is so abstract and so utterly dependent on the powers of imagination of an individual man, that God must have an infinitude of forms, each relative to the individual, but contradictorily remain an 'absolute'.

But if we disregard relativity, and maintain that the multiplicity of conceived forms results from the flaws of human intellect (which God supposedly endowed us with, btw) and not inherent to God, then we're left with the tautology that God is the sum of everything and the sum of everything is God. God's existence is then reduced merely to semantic sophistry and nothing literal.


A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

This argument is also fallacious. Creation DIDN'T happen for an infinite number of hypothetical species. However, they don't exist to bear witness to the fact that they represent the 999999999999 out of a trillion (yes, I didn't count the 9's :D ) chance of not coming into existence. Also, take into account the fallacy of the following argument: "there's 10 billion houses in the world, yet I'm in just one. Therefore, there's only a 1 in 10 billion chance that I could be in this house. So the odds of my being in this house are too low. Therefore, I can't be in this house." Wrong. There's a 100% chance that you're in the house, just as there's a 100% chance that all of Earth's features exist as they do, regardless of the chances of them existing before they existed. There's only one in a trillion chance that life/the Earth/the universe turned out the way they did, but there's a 100% chance that it had to turn out SOME way, and whatever way that was, it would always be a 1 in a trillion chance. It's like sticking your hand in a bag full of a trillion tiles and saying, "There was only a one in a trillion chance I'd pull out this tile, therefore I didn't pull out this tile, God put it in my hand". (This argument only applies to how things turn out once they already exist, however. Obviously there's not a 100% chance Earth or life had to exist).


A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

Again, not true. Take time. Time can't have come into existence. For time to have come into creation, there must have been a time before time; i.e. something that existed BEFORE time and therefore independent of it, yet whose existence was conditioned by the temporal concept "before", which is logically absurd. Also note that to 'create' or to 'cause' time are verbs, temporal, and therefore time was a necessary condition for the creation of time.


A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?"

This is the weakest argument. Even within a society there are differences in the moral convictions of men, let alone between societies and epochs. Morality is so fragile that an 18 year old can copulate with a 14 year old without legal or cultural reproach, yet hop a metre over a state or national border, copulate with a 17 year old and be an evil paedophilic sex offender branded for life. Romans were perfectly fine with the full blown torture and rape of virgins (sometimes by trained animals) in the colosseum, Vikings raped and pillaged, and these things were seen as 100% acceptable. Mores are unstable things. only through the spread of a religion or culture do we see anything like a normalisation of morality on a global scale, but even then it's far from fully stable.

ohrdruf
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010, 03:51 PM
Adolf Hitler stated during one of his table talks: "Whoever sees God only in a tabernacle or an oak can never call himself truly religious. It must be the case that God is in everything there is." This is logical. If "God" is omnipotent, He sees with the murderer's eyes, is within the murderer's victim to see his death coming, and He is also within the gun and bullet with which the murderer perpetrates the deed.

"God" is also in your excrement. and this is the meaning of the term "To the pure, all things are pure": i.e. to those who see God or Brahman in everything, God actually is in everything, and not just in what is nice.

Hermetic science has provided the basis for understanding this concept of God. It has parallels in many esoteric traditions:

"In his experiments with sand, Sir William Crooks supplied the key to the structure of crystals by taking some very fine sand and scattering it over the head of a drum. Then he used a tuning fork to sound different notes just above trhe drumhead. The sand shifted and always assumed a unique geometrical figure corresponding to the particular key sounded. This demonstrated that the keys of a musical scale naturally produce a form corresponding to the keys in any substance sufficiently mobile to assume a form. This proves that Vibration is the origin of form.

"No two crystals of the same element are exactly similar. This is because each vibration has individuality. The Cosmos is organized by the action of energies vibrating in accordance with certain rates which express themselves in definite forms and cannot possibly appear in another form. It would seem to follow that there has been a fixed purpose guiding the vibration of these energies, otherwise the result would have been chaotic.

"The Universe is nothing more nor less than the organized expression of the activity of Mind in matter, and inasmuch as the universal form is perpetuated year after year without any great deviation, it follows that the vibration is practically the same.

"Everything in the material universe is simply the result of vibration, a fortuitious concourse of atoms. The whole secret of the constitution of matter is that all form is merely a mode of motion of force, and force is but a mode of motion of the original cosmic energy.

"This is the secret behind the philosophy of Schopenhauer (Hitler's favourite philosopher), Kant and Berkeley, which teaches that the material world is only an illusion. It is also the secret underlying the Vedanta philosophy and the various philosophies of India which deny the reality of the material world, teaching it to be an illusion of the senses.

"A block of marble which appears solid is merely millions of molecules, relatively as far apart as the Earth is from the sun, which are revolving around each other, vibrating about one another, and only held together by reason of the keynote which binds and unifies all the various tones, chords, notes, rhythms and vibrations.

"Were it not for the intense rapidity of this vibration, we would be able to see the unreality of the object. The only reason why it seems to be solid is because its molecules are vibrating so rapidly that we cannot see them. Were a force to be introduced sufficient to break the binding power, immedaitely the block of marble would dissolve into its constituent molecules, and the object would disappear.

"Consequently any physcial object has no permanent reality. The Vibration is the only reality: it is the Cause, the object is the effect. The Hindu philospher who went farthest with his assertions on this subject was Shankaracharya, who stated that even spirit is but vibration, a mode of motion from Parabrahman, and therefore there is nothing but Brahman, (i.e. God). All else is an illusion of the senses.

"For this reason, Oriental teachers deny the personality, all expressions and appearances in the effort to make their pupils realize the nothingness of the world and so comprehend the Reality. It is not that they deny that a thing exists in the Relative. What they deny is that it exists in God as a thing in itself."

Therefore it is both true to say that God exists, and also does not exist, or at least does not exist in the way orthodox monotheist religion proposes He exists.

We must also admit the existence of hierarchies of, shall we say, gods and goddesses and angels in other realms who administer affairs and occasionally make themselves known to us, or intervene, when the situation demands it.

It is to these deities and angels that our prayers must be directed. Eventually over the course of time they will make themselves known to those who make clear their belief in them by prayer. This has been made crystal clear over the centuries, but how few those who have noticed that fact!

Joe McCarthy
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010, 09:46 PM
Perhaps William James said it best: whether God exists or not, the good things facilitated by believing in him make religious experience beneficial. In other words, it has good temporal effects.

My own view is that God is an intuitive reality, not really verifiable in more 'respectable' ways. But I do think James was onto something.

NorWest
Wednesday, September 29th, 2010, 11:37 PM
I asked my teacher at the Christian School, 'What if someone reads the bible everyday, prays, goes to church and all that, but they cannot feel his presence back, never once has God talked to them?'
Teachers response, "Well that would just mean that they are not a chosen person."

That cleared up a lot for me, who cares if god is real, even if he is, he doesn't want anything to do with me... cause I'm not a jew.

Hope that helps you!

NorWest
Thursday, September 30th, 2010, 12:51 AM
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-do-we-believe-in-god-ii

:thumbup

Caledonian
Thursday, September 30th, 2010, 04:38 AM
Why must we prove anything to you, when you can instead think and explore? Atheism, more often than not, is a very shallow façade.

Theists of all types make claims. I merely want substantiations of such claims as do all atheists.

A shallow facade? Now, how can that be? :)


Joe McCarthy

Perhaps William James said it best: whether God exists or not, the good things facilitated by believing in him make religious experience beneficial.

What good things are you speaking of?

Perhaps in a evolutional sense religion helped our specie evolve for awhile temporarily by it's deep core of questing and seeking to understand the very bounds of existence historically when at the time in history we were incapable of doing so by any other means but why it is still needed now in our present time when our knowledge has transcended mysticism where the mystical is no longer needed in explaining existence is beyond me.


In other words, it has good temporal effects.

So do many other things.


My own view is that God is an intuitive reality, not really verifiable in more 'respectable' ways. But I do think James was onto something.

There are other ways to satisfaction where religion is not needed.

This why I don't understand people who are religious.

What do you mean by saying 'god' is a intuitive reality?

Caledonian
Thursday, September 30th, 2010, 04:49 AM
Ofcourse it isn't that's why it's called faith. The idea that life and the universe as a constant physical phonomena isn't proven either, so your outlook is as good as mine.



Well I used to be a Catholic till I reached a point where it conflicted with my personal values (it not being a very folkish religion). But I still don't abandon my belief that there is a creator(s).

My point was that religion, and the aquisition of faith should be a personal experience where you use your own judgement. I've seen it many times where someone asks another to prove the validity of their religion to them and it never ends well.

That's why I share the sentiments of Andi in that this is not going to make you any more open to the thought over back and forth debate; then it becomes forced.

For me I only believe in that which is verifiable and that which I can see.

Faith to me sounds too risky and I don't like staking my life on risks too much unless I have to especially if it is blind because the very meaning of faith is blindness in that you are literally walking a path blindly taking the chance not knowing the outcome of that particular chance that where you walk there will be another ground for you to step on instead of a downward cliff.


The idea that life and the universe as a constant physical phonomena isn't proven either, so your outlook is as good as mine.
How so?


Well I used to be a Catholic till I reached a point where it conflicted with my personal values (it not being a very folkish religion). But I still don't abandon my belief that there is a creator(s).

I didn't become atheist over night. I became a atheist over a series of events and expiriences that led me towards this perspective.

As for a creator(s) , what created the creator?


My point was that religion, and the aquisition of faith should be a personal experience where you use your own judgement.

People will believe what they want to believe even to the point of absurdity.

I know I'm not going to convince anybody here but I do like challenging the religious standpoint time from time.

I'm not trying to change anybody. Individuals will only change themselves as nobody else can install change within them.

People have to want to change.



I've seen it many times where someone asks another to prove the validity of their religion to them and it never ends well.

It is a ancient arguement.


That's why I share the sentiments of Andi in that this is not going to make you any more open to the thought over back and forth debate; then it becomes forced.

Nobody is forcing anybody here.

Whether people participate in this thread is only upon their own volatility and decision to do so.

Wynterwade
Thursday, September 30th, 2010, 04:59 AM
This is going to sound crazy.

But when you look at the Universe on the most microscopic level possible it behaves like a computer- packing information in smiple manageable chunks called probability waves.

This is the same way that computers pixelate a screen because they cannot have infinate information- they need to package information because it cannot handle infinite or vast amounts of information.

When you look at light it cannot go past a certain speed. The universe tends to compartmentalize itself over vast distances (ex. you cannot see what is happening right now on the other side of the universe).

Why were you born as yourself and not somebody else? Why do you feel like you have control over yourself?

Reality could very well be an illusion. We could be a program and programs typically have a creator.

Caledonian
Thursday, September 30th, 2010, 05:05 AM
Atheism
Chistianity
Agnosticism
The Big Bang
Creationism
Evolution...

Blah, blah, blah

These THEORIES all serve one intended purpose: to keep people sane.
To give them some scrap of hope that the mystery of life can possibly be explained. If not now then later.
All of these interchangeable words can serve the purpose of a "God", or other form of tidy explanation.
But if we were not there from the beginning to witness "creation", or the "emergence of life from nothing" then there is no possible way to exclaim certainty...ever.

This is why I have come to feel that humans are supposed to be kept in the dark about certain things.
That we are supposed to fool ourselves about 'ultimate purpose" and get away with it.
That we are supposed to be ignorant...to a point.


You know what works for me? My people.

Germanics are real enough.
They are God-like enough.
They are an indisputable and wonderful fact.
When it comes to them there is no need to waste an eternity on theoretical debate.

My purpose is to serve them, to honor my ancestors as a kind of worship, and prayer.
This is what I live for. This is what I will die for. This is what I will kill for.

It is my duty to help sustain them as they have sustained me.
To give back what my ancestors have given.
My people have given me purpose in life, and if this does not count as a God then I don't want to know what does, or doesn't.

I don't understand why most of the world feels that they need religion in order to keep some sort of mental satisfaction.

This sort of thinking has always escaped me and I just don't understand it.


To give them some scrap of hope that the mystery of life can possibly be explained. If not now then later.

Even I who believe in materialist explanations of the universe know that not everything will become explained.




All of these interchangeable words can serve the purpose of a "God", or other form of tidy explanation.
But if we were not there from the beginning to witness "creation", or the "emergence of life from nothing" then there is no possible way to exclaim certainty...ever.

There has always been a existence. There is no beginning or end.

Can you imagine nothingness? What is nothingness?


This is why I have come to feel that humans are supposed to be kept in the dark about certain things.
That we are supposed to fool ourselves about 'ultimate purpose" and get away with it.
That we are supposed to be ignorant...to a point.

I agree that humans are not meant to know everything.



You know what works for me? My people.

Germanics are real enough.
They are God-like enough.
They are an indisputable and wonderful fact.

That is not being questioned here. :)



When it comes to them there is no need to waste an eternity on theoretical debate.

I'm just trying to make conversation.


My purpose is to serve them, to honor my ancestors as a kind of worship, and prayer.
This is what I live for. This is what I will die for. This is what I will kill for.

Again that's not being questioned here.

Caledonian
Thursday, September 30th, 2010, 05:13 AM
Actually you can prove nothing. The fact is you have absolutely no clue what the entire universe looks like. For all we know all the galaxies could be put in a pattern that reads, hey retard you should've believed. You could die, be shown the universe see that and end up screwed in an afterlife.

The fact is none of us know and none of us can ever know while alive. You say your idea is more believable, some of us see it as, well with all this stuff here its a bit unbelievable for it to be random. Anyways thats how i view it, none of us really know anything . I find religious debate interesting in how pointless it is. Its like a never ending cycle, both sides have their reasons to believe what they believe and truthfully both sides make plenty of sense.

The unknown principle is the same for the religious person therefore equally they would not know either meaning their posited existence of a 'god' would have no reference and by having no reference a 'god' could not exist.


I find religious debate interesting in how pointless it is. Its like a never ending cycle, both sides have their reasons to believe what they believe and truthfully both sides make plenty of sense.

I personally abhor agnosticism.

It strikes me as mental cowardice in that people afraid to have a opinion are more than likely to be a agnostic.

This is one of the reasons I've chosen atheism even amongst the understanding that not even I can know everything where even I leave some room for the unknown.

I however will not describe the unknown as 'god'.

Caledonian
Thursday, September 30th, 2010, 05:18 AM
I'll reply to the rest of the posts in full tomorrow.

Joe McCarthy
Thursday, September 30th, 2010, 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan
What good things are you speaking of?


In truth, it is much too involved and detailed to give it justice here. You should read James' book. It is a classic in the psychology of religion and James is quite possibly the greatest philosopher America has produced:

http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JamVari.html

It's well worth your while.


So do many other things.


And those things too can be indulged in if one finds that they are life enriching and they don't harm others.


This why I don't understand people who are religious.


It'd be better to say one finds difficulty understanding atheists. I find that they have a tendency to be forlorn, hopeless, depressed, lacking purpose or hope in the future, and are generally miserable. Religious people are generally better off in these areas. This is the general theme James was driving at.


What do you mean by saying 'god' is a intuitive reality?

He is an intuitive reality to me, not you or most others. I know he exists because I have esoteric knowledge of him, or Gnosis. That you lack similar knowledge is due in part to your not having sought it, and being on a lower spiritual plane.

Caledonian
Saturday, October 2nd, 2010, 07:51 PM
In truth, it is much too involved and detailed to give it justice here. You should read James' book. It is a classic in the psychology of religion and James is quite possibly the greatest philosopher America has produced:

http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JamVari.html

It's well worth your while.



And those things too can be indulged in if one finds that they are life enriching and they don't harm others.



It'd be better to say one finds difficulty understanding atheists. I find that they have a tendency to be forlorn, hopeless, depressed, lacking purpose or hope in the future, and are generally miserable. Religious people are generally better off in these areas. This is the general theme James was driving at.



He is an intuitive reality to me, not you or most others. I know he exists because I have esoteric knowledge of him, or Gnosis. That you lack similar knowledge is due in part to your not having sought it, and being on a lower spiritual plane.



In truth, it is much too involved and detailed to give it justice here. You should read James' book. It is a classic in the psychology of religion and James is quite possibly the greatest philosopher America has produced:

http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JamVari.html

It's well worth your while.

I've read a bit of James.

He didn't really say much I don't think compared to what other relgious philosophers have been saying also.


And those things too can be indulged in if one finds that they are life enriching and they don't harm others.

I find our individual existence harms each other one way or another in that one person's existence displaces another since conflict and competition is a way of everyday life.


It'd be better to say one finds difficulty understanding atheists. I find that they have a tendency to be forlorn, hopeless, depressed, lacking purpose or hope in the future, and are generally miserable. Religious people are generally better off in these areas. This is the general theme James was driving at.

Actually that is a bit of a stereotype used by religious people to justify their beliefs versus the lack of belief on the part of atheists.

My own unhappiness stems from my low income bracket.

[I can only speak for myself of course.]

Give me a existence of $40,000.00 dollars a year or more and I'll show you what a happy go merry giddy atheist looks like.


He is an intuitive reality to me, not you or most others. I know he exists because I have esoteric knowledge of him, or Gnosis. That you lack similar knowledge is due in part to your not having sought it, and being on a lower spiritual plane.

Intuitive, like how?

What is esoteric knowledge? What is gnosis?


That you lack similar knowledge is due in part to your not having sought it, and being on a lower spiritual plane.

Actually I studied world religion for six years before becoming atheist.

I've studied many various world religions both those that exist in our present and those that are largely extincted beyond reconstructionists from our ancient past.

Joe McCarthy
Saturday, October 2nd, 2010, 09:15 PM
I've read a bit of James.

He didn't really say much I don't think compared to what other relgious philosophers have been saying also.


This will require elaboration. James, as a pragmatist, saw in religion a benefit because it had useful temporal effects for individuals. I'm unaware of another philosopher before him that argued for religion solely on that basis.

Caledonian
Saturday, October 2nd, 2010, 11:07 PM
This will require elaboration. James, as a pragmatist, saw in religion a benefit because it had useful temporal effects for individuals. I'm unaware of another philosopher before him that argued for religion solely on that basis.

Yeah sorry about the lack of elaboration.

I had to abruptly leave my computer before I was allowed to complete my post.

[I'm such a busy individual always being called away to do things where I have very little free- time to myself.]

Anyhow I completed my former post which you can view in full now.

Also I do not think temporal effect is exactly a efficient arguement or explanation all things considered.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, October 3rd, 2010, 12:50 PM
He is an intuitive reality to me, not you or most others. I know he exists because I have esoteric knowledge of him, or Gnosis. That you lack similar knowledge is due in part to your not having sought it, and being on a lower spiritual plane.

I have intuitive knowledge knowledge that David Hasselhoff is the creator of all things. Anyone who doesn't know this is clearly on a lower spiritual plane.

Caledonian
Monday, October 4th, 2010, 12:14 AM
I have intuitive knowledge knowledge that David Hasselhoff is the creator of all things. Anyone who doesn't know this is clearly on a lower spiritual plane.

That is hilarious. :)

http://www.topnews.in/files/David-Hasselhoff101.jpg

wittwer
Monday, October 4th, 2010, 12:49 AM
Hasselhoff as the creator? Really! You do know he's Jewish and one of the Elders of Zion. Perhaps there is mind control at work here... ;)

Magni
Monday, October 4th, 2010, 12:52 AM
Atheism
Chistianity
Agnosticism
The Big Bang
Creationism
Evolution...

Blah, blah, blah

These THEORIES all serve one intended purpose: to keep people sane.



You don't know what a theory is, do you?

Joe McCarthy
Monday, October 4th, 2010, 10:24 PM
Some interesting insights on God and his existence from two of the West's most eminent philosophers:

First, from Pascal's Pensées:


If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.
Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, I Cor. 1. 21. ["For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."]; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.

For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.

"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose?

But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

The end of this discourse.-- Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.




And from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling:


If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of all there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all–what then would life be but despair? If such were the case, if there were no sacred bond which united mankind, if one generation arose after another like the leafage in the forest, if the one generation replaced the other like the song of birds in the forest, if the human race passed through the world as the ship goes through the sea, like the wind through the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless activity, if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw–how empty then and comfortless life would be!

Caledonian
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 03:32 AM
Pascal:If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us.

Pascal, what a twit. :thumbdown

How can one know anything about that which is deemed incomprehensible?


We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is.

And thus incapable of assuming such a being even exists therefore unable to even assume the possibility of such a being as that would be equally a incapability and a fruitless affair especially that which cannot be known for knowing is the only basis of discernment or knowledge.


Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least.

There is nothing to wage for the wager is based upon the incomprehensible.


The rest of what he said is only left to the mind of pure superstition and fairy tales of mythological metaphors along with fanciful imagery.


Kierkegaard-


If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of all there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all–what then would life be but despair? If such were the case, if there were no sacred bond which united mankind, if one generation arose after another like the leafage in the forest, if the one generation replaced the other like the song of birds in the forest, if the human race passed through the world as the ship goes through the sea, like the wind through the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless activity, if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw–how empty then and comfortless life would be!

Life often enough is empty and comfortless but life again is what you make it to be.

The hidden truth of cynics is that there be no need of gods or a eternal universal 'god' in this existence in that through the power and will of ourselves are we as individuals gods of our own lives should we choose to be through our convictions and persevering courage.

There be no need of a fanciful fictional divinity involved in spark of imagination for one to enjoy the fruits, pleasures, and wonders of this world.

The true strength of a man is that of one who can laugh in the face of the so called sacred and use a sanctified alter as a foot stool for such a man has no masters beyond death.

Ocko
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 06:10 AM
I can proof them to you but for the proof I have to kill you. Still interested?

The Horned God
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 09:18 AM
To the OP I would say that proof is a hard thing to come by at the best of times. So there is certainly no 100% verifiable proof that god exists. If there was the matter would have been settled long ago.

But I would boil the question down to this; Is the Universe infinite? If the universe is infinite, as it very well might be, allowing for extra dimensions and parallel universes etc, then everything that can happen must happen eventually.This includes the existence of the greatest possible being, i.e God.

If such a being exists then whether he created the universe or whether he emerged from it or is inseparable from it all seem like secondary questions to me. The central point is that in an "infinite universe" the existence of God is implied.

Wulfram
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 11:41 AM
So there is certainly no 100% verifiable proof that god exists.

There is no 100% verifiable proof that denial exists either (the previous sentence is a total contradiction! :D)
Either way I feel it is just far too easy to say "God exists" or "God doesn't exists".
Would not a creator program into us this sort of smug reasoning, the kind that when asked for evidence most of us respond "I just know".
That is the final answer I have heard BOTH chistians and atheists give when all other "explanations" fail to impress me.
Lets face it, the universe is just too effing WEIRD to even begin to understand.
The only way we will ever know of its origins is to have witnessed ourselves being created, or existence being created from nothing.
Until this happens I don't think we can say anything.


If there was the matter would have been settled long ago.

Or tomorrow, maybe?


But I would boil the question down to this; Is the Universe infinite? If the universe is infinite, as it very well might be, allowing for extra dimensions and parallel universes etc, then everything that can happen must happen eventually.This includes the existence of the greatest possible being, i.e God.

Possibly. or the universe, or nulliverse, could very well be like the movie "The Truman Show", with infinity painted up on a mega dome above.
How do we really know it is infinite if we have not seen it? Just because science insists it is out there?
Science, especially when it comes to space (NASA) has proven itself to be every bit the liars and deceivers as our governments.
Prove to me that the universe is exactly what we have been led to believe what it is without having to present the so-called evidence of another human being.

Denial or belief are mere attempts to harness at least a fraction of the mystery.


If such a being exists then whether he created the universe or whether he emerged from it or is inseparable from it all seem like secondary questions to me. The central point is that in an "infinite universe" the existence of God is implied.

In an infinite universe, let us hope here is a God, and a benevolent one at that.
I hold out for the existence of God the same way I hope that UFOs, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness monster exist.
Not once have I seen one, but I am always looking around the corner just in case.

The Horned God
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 01:42 PM
There is no 100% verifiable proof that denial exists either (the previous sentence is a total contradiction! :D)

Where's the contradiction? I'm saying that gods existence has not been proved and it hasn't, not to my satisfaction anyway. It hasn't been disproved either.

Atheists sometimes say that there is no burden upon them to disprove God, but I don't find much merit in that position either.



Either way I feel it is just far too easy to say "God exists" or "God doesn't exists".

I agree with that. People are far too quite to jump into one corral or the other, when imo an attitude of constant questioning would be a better and more rational one.


Would not a creator program into us this sort of smug reasoning, the kind that when asked for evidence most of us respond "I just know".

Is that a rhetorical question? I have no idea what he might do.



That is the final answer I have heard BOTH chistians and atheists give when all other "explanations" fail to impress me.

Of course "I just know" is an answer free of any objective value.


Lets face it, the universe is just too effing WEIRD to even begin to understand.

J. B. S. Haldane
Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

I'd mostly go along with that however, I think we can begin to understand it and it is worthwhile trying. A lot has been learned since Galileo for instance.
It is just not possible to understand it fully at this point. There are levels of understanding though, just as there are levels of competence at doing anything.



The only way we will ever know of its origins is to have witnessed ourselves being created, or existence being created from nothing.
Until this happens I don't think we can say anything.

You are making a well known assumption. The idea of something being created from "nothing". How do you know that there was "nothing" in the beginning? We don't know that. There may "always" have been something. Theists say that god was "always" there. Well, perhaps matter or energy was "always" there?




Or tomorrow, maybe?

Maybe. I don't see why the existence or non-existence of God should be by definition unprovable.




Possibly. or the universe, or nulliverse, could very well be like the movie "The Truman Show", with infinity painted up on a mega dome above.

From a purely mathematical point of view we could all be living on the inside of sphere instead of the outside of one. With space becoming increasingly compacted as one moves towards the centre of the sphere reaching infinite complicatedness at the centre. We could never tell the difference. ;)


How do we really know it is infinite if we have not seen it? Just because science insists it is out there?

I think there comes a point where you have to make a decision on whether or not to trust the opinions of experts.Personally I do give most of them some credit for knowing something about their respective fields.



Science, especially when it comes to space (NASA) has proven itself to be every bit the liars and deceivers as our governments.

I don't know what you are referring to but Nasa is still just one organisation in the world. The Science of cosmology is much, much bigger than even Nasa. The thing that makes science as powerful as it is is that scientists are constantly trying to prove each other wrong. Science is full of factions all trying to prove that the theory they subscribe to is right. And then the theories get tested and either proved or disproved. It's brilliant really.


Prove to me that the universe is exactly what we have been led to believe what it is without having to present the so-called evidence of another human being.

I'm afraid your request is impossible to grant. It would require a proof based on pure reason alone. No such proof exists.


Logical conclusions is only as accurate as the data they are based on. If you ignore the use of instruments you are relying solely on what conclusions you can draw from the input of your five senses. The ancient Greeks using only logic and their 5 senses concluded that the universe consisted of 4 elements; earth, air, fire and water. Most people today would agree they ended up being more than a little off the mark.


Denial or belief are mere attempts to harness at least a fraction of the mystery.

I see them as an attempt by people to draw a line around the subject so that it can then be ignored. Thus avoiding having to engage in a degree of thought which might prove too strenuous.



In an infinite universe, let us hope here is a God, and a benevolent one at that.

In an infinite universe hope is not needed. In such a universe God exists by definition. That is what the word infinite implies. If the universe contains intelligence (which it does), then if the universe is infinite it must contain an infinite intelligence. It's weird but that's infinity for you.

Whether that intelligence would be benevolent or not is another matter. Would an infinite being be malevolent? I don't think so but I can't know for sure.




I hold out for the existence of God the same way I hope that UFOs, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness monster exist.
Not once have I seen one, but I am always looking around the corner just in case.

Personally I think God is considerably more likely than the Loch Ness monster. He's well up there with UFO's at least. ;)

Wulfram
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 02:46 PM
Atheists sometimes say that there is no burden upon them to disprove God, but I don't find much merit in that position either.

I agree with that. People are far too quite to jump into one corral or the other, when imo an attitude of constant questioning would be a better and more rational one.

True, and most atheists I have met will demonize any attempt to question their disbelief every bit as much as most chistians do with belief.
Ultimately they both cancel each other out.


Is that a rhetorical question? I have no idea what he might do.


Yes, I was just supposing.


Of course "I just know" is an answer free of any objective value.

Whenever they reach this point I always end the debate since it's obvious that it is what many of them need in life to maintain a personal sense of well-being.
It is the ones who say it with condescension that I enjoy tearing into.


J. B. S. Haldane
Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

Great quote.


I'd mostly go along with that however, I think we can begin to understand it and it is worthwhile trying. A lot has been learned since Galileo for instance.

"The fate of all explanation is to close one door only to have another fly wide open."

"If there is an underlying oneness of all things, it does not matter where we begin, whether with stars, or laws of supply and demand, or frogs, or Napoleon Bonaparte. One measures a circle, beginning anywhere."

- Charles Fort

If it does not matter where we begin then how would it be possible to reach a conclusion?


It is just not possible to understand it fully at this point. There are levels of understanding though, just as there are levels of competence at doing anything.


Agreed


You are making a well known assumption. The idea of something being created from "nothing". How do you know that there was "nothing" in the beginning? We don't know that. There may "always" have been something. Theists say that god was "always" there. Well, perhaps matter or energy was "always" there?


There is no possible rationale either way. The arguments for both existence and non-existence have become pretty stale, and rely on more clever and elaborate ways to make them seem valid.
Atheism had fallen on hard times until the hip, charismatic Richard Dawkins showed up to inject life back into it, picking up where the dull, matronly, and unconvincing Madilyn Murray O' Hair left off. He is personally responsible for the majority of newly converted atheists in the last fifteen years.
Every atheist site or forum I have visited all treat him like he is royalty.


I think there comes a point where you have to make a decision on whether or not to trust the opinions of experts.Personally I do give most of them some credit for knowing something about their respective fields.


Most of what any expert knows about the more mundane aspects of earth-bound life hardly compare to the seemingly infinite task of figuring out, well, the infinite.


Logical conclusions is only as accurate as the data they are based on.


Which isn't a whole lot. It really depends if the scientist explaining his conclusions can be effectively clever enough to make it seem truthful.


If you ignore the use of instruments you are relying solely on what conclusions you can draw from the input of your five senses. The ancient Greeks using only logic and their 5 senses concluded that the universe consisted of 4 elements; earth, air, fire and water. Most people today would agree they ended up being more than a little off the mark.

What proof do we have that modern conceptions of the universe are any closer to an explanation?


I see them as an attempt by people to draw a line around the subject so that it can then be ignored. Thus avoiding having to engage in a degree of thought which might prove too strenuous.


True


Whether that intelligence would be benevolent or not is another matter. Would an infinite being be malevolent? I don't think so but I can't know for sure.

This is why we have jesus, Santa Claus, and Richard Dawkins. They give people a chance to "know for sure".


Personally I think God is considerably more likely than the Loch Ness monster. He's well up there with UFO's at least. ;)

This is a conclusion that I hope to reach myself one day. ;)

Joe McCarthy
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan
There is nothing to wage for the wager is based upon the incomprehensible.


In plain terms Pascal's Wager can be summed up as thinking that a belief in God is safer than non-belief as non-belief holds out the possibility for damnation whilst belief holds out the possibility for salvation. In other words, by believing in God one has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

I think that's a very sensible view.

The Horned God
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 09:33 PM
In other words, by believing in God one has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

I think that's a very sensible view.

I just have to jump in here. The problem I see with pascals wager is that one can't simply will oneself to believe in something just because it might curry favour with some sort of God. One either believes or one does not believe, choosing is impossible.

Ocko
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 09:55 PM
"This is no time to make new enemies." - Voltaire, when asked on his deathbed to forswear Satan

Joe McCarthy
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 10:04 PM
I just have to jump in here. The problem I see with pascals wager is that one can't simply will oneself to believe in something just because it might curry favour with some sort of God. One either believes or one does not believe, choosing is impossible.

Yes, this is the usual criticism of Pascal's Wager, but it is fallacious as to believe involves the act of choosing. One cannot believe without it.

The Horned God
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 10:58 PM
Yes, this is the usual criticism of Pascal's Wager, but it is fallacious as to believe involves the act of choosing. One cannot believe without it.

The idea of choosing to believe in something where the evidence seems insufficient just doesn't make any sense to me at all. I certainly can't do it, and I don't think that any person who is being truly honest with themselves can.

All I can say with regard to believe in God is that the evidence allows me to go so far and no farther. This is the most any rational being can do.

Shine
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010, 11:04 PM
I think its a case of each their own when it comes to religion ... both literally and figuratively. No two believers or disbeliever’s are the same. However you define religion, one thing is clear; it involves a person and their interpretation of a concept that they think is important enough to connect with. If this concept is a God, philosophy, it is so important to the individual that it becomes an integral part of the person in some form.

As for asking for proof this denies faith, and without faith there can be no God. Skepticism is fine but it can only take us so far and we ultimately sometimes need to make those unjustifiable leaps of faith in order for truth to be found. Of course its inevitable mistakes will be made, but it will be made by those who try. Many great scientific discoveries have been made by taking a leap of faith.

Humans make life meaningful by constructing a "spiritual mode" according to biological and social factors. Whatever this is, it allows them a sense of certainty and security..

The Horned God
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 02:04 AM
Many great scientific discoveries have been made by taking a leap of faith.

Many great theories have been proposed by formulating a conjecture (making a leap of faith if you like). But they have only been proved to hold water by experimentation. But there is a big difference between a scientific theory and a scientific "discovery". The word discovery implies that the theory has been verified through experiment. The vast majority of theories don't pan out when put to the test. The current theories of what God is or if he exists are "probably" no exception.


Humans make life meaningful by constructing a "spiritual mode" according to biological and social factors. Whatever this is, it allows them a sense of certainty and security..

What humans do or don't do in order to feel more secure in the world does nothing to help us reveal anything beyond human psychology. If one tribe of people thinks God wants us to perform human sacrifice in order to stop the world from ending (as the Aztec's believed), does this tell us more about god or about people performing the sacrifices?

Vindefense
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 02:36 AM
I'm a atheist.

Then you are part of a religion and like all religions your conviction rests upon faith.


Prove to me the existence of a god.

Why would you ask this question, unless you subconsciously have doubt of your doubt. I would never say, prove to me god does not exist.


Prove to me a creative design to the universe and show me how it all isn't just random.

It is likely that your senses have been bombarded with proof since your conception, but you choose to deny it, which is your right. If I were you, I would hold to your faith that you are right for to know is far from bliss.

Ocko
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 03:06 AM
Sometimes I have the curios feeling that your brain is producing your reality.

If you look into the cosmos and you are convinced there is nothing but matter, then there is nothing like that. Literally.

If you look into the cosmos and you see it full of celestial beings, then they are reality.

Your brain produces God and he becomes reality.

That is how I understand Ragnar Storytellers 'quantum physics' and his explanation of the rune work.

That man was a math prof.. most likely he is not an idiot.

The Horned God
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 03:07 AM
"The fate of all explanation is to close one door only to have another fly wide open."

Sure, but every time you open a new door haven't you discovered something more about the shape of the labyrinth? Have you heard of the Planck constant? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant). The Planck constant describes the smallest amount of energy that can exist, known as "quanta". So there is a "granularity" to the universe in terms of how energy can exist. The theory of the constant is over a hundred years old and after 50 years of atomic experiments it has always proved sound. Progress in understanding the underlying nature of the universe is being made.



"If there is an underlying oneness of all things, it does not matter where we begin, whether with stars, or laws of supply and demand, or frogs, or Napoleon Bonaparte. One measures a circle, beginning anywhere."

- Charles Fort

If it does not matter where we begin then how would it be possible to reach a conclusion?

Well it doesn't matter where you start with a jigsaw puzzle does it? In fact in the case of a jigsaw you don't even have to complete it before it starts resembling the picture on the box. You can think of scientific theories in the same way. A theory is a set of principles which describes the universe or some aspect of it as it appears to be, plus is able to make predictions about what will happen in the future. The ability to make predictions is the really crucial thing.




There is no possible rationale either way. The arguments for both existence and non-existence have become pretty stale, and rely on more clever and elaborate ways to make them seem valid.

It's true that almost everything that can be said on this topic probably already has been. However it is amazing to me the amount of faulty thinking that is still allowed to pass for "faith".; Imo if people applied a bit more intellectual rigour to their thought processes when they think about matters of faith it could only do them good. They would be strengthened in their relationship to reality and the world around them.



Atheism had fallen on hard times until the hip, charismatic Richard Dawkins showed up to inject life back into it, picking up where the dull, matronly, and unconvincing Madilyn Murray O' Hair left off. He is personally responsible for the majority of newly converted atheists in the last fifteen years.
Every atheist site or forum I have visited all treat him like he is royalty.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you're right about Dawkins, but whether he was the only Atheist in the world or one among 3 billion Atheists it would do nothing to either support or detract from the basic content of his arguments, now would it?




Most of what any expert knows about the more mundane aspects of earth-bound life hardly compare to the seemingly infinite task of figuring out, well, the infinite.

The experts I'm thinking of are mostly theoretical physicists, so thinking about the infinite is what they do for a living.




Which isn't a whole lot. It really depends if the scientist explaining his conclusions can be effectively clever enough to make it seem truthful.

There is an element of ego and virtuosity in theoretical physics, it is true. I don't tend to get too excited about a theory until it is at least partially verified, as for instance when an atomic clock was put on the long haul flight and proved that time does pass more slowly for fast moving objects relative to slower moving ones, as predicted by Einstein.




What proof do we have that modern conceptions of the universe are any closer to an explanation?

Well, modern theories allow us to make more accurate predictions than earlier theories could. Therefore by definition we are closer to an understanding of how the world actually works.

The ancient Greeks for instance couldn't do much chemistry because their model of the world as it is on the atomic scale was just too rudimentary.



This is why we have jesus, Santa Claus, and Richard Dawkins. They give people a chance to "know for sure".

Dawkins is btw an evolutionary biologist not a theoretical physicist or a cosmologist. It is probably no coincidence that biology is the field that really set atheism going in the modern period, starting with Darwin of course.

velvet
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 03:23 AM
Believing people claim that a religion would create social order, give certainty, give hope for a better "life" in the afterlife.

The latter alone, as an argument, is already worth to reject religion on. In this case it would be pretty much anti-life and essentially a deathcult. It obviously serves no purpose in life, ie to better life. Religion therefore is completely useless, as the believers are slave to their alleged afterlife.

And for the rest, am I supposed to believe that humans, or at least the fairly intelligent part of humanity, need some imaginary "god" to maintain social order and taboos? A "god" that is not present, as the claimed omnipotent and omnipresent creature (<- a "creation" that existed before the creation that he himself allegedly created?) it allegedly is would - of course - be, apparent to everyone, and tell them how to live, what to do and what not to do in order to select the ones worth to enter heaven while sending the rest into hell? A "god" that takes all responsibility off humans and instead gives them "certainty" in prayers and services and absolves them from their sins if they just pray enough Ave Marias?

I think if we humans really "require" this sort of construct to maintain our social order, then we better stop calling us the crown of creation. For if we are unable to create rules and maintain social order on our own responsibility, we are not any better than primitive animals without any social order. In that case any herd animal would stand above us. What are we when we need a creature that is not of our kind to tell us how to live because we are unable to give us purpose and direction ourselves, on grounds of our knowledge, history and experiences?

I know how the universe came to be, and there is neither room nor need for a "god". It's a relatively simple physical process that happened over a timespan that exceeds the imaginary power of many people (I dont say it doesnt cause headaches though), and that is why most people resort to god and a religion in order to not have to bother with complex facts.

Noone ever said life was easy, but thats no excuse to resort to fluffy promises of a fluffy god that wraps you in cotton wool and comes to pick up your soul after death to bring you into a fluffy paradise.

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 03:27 AM
Well with all these posts and attention of this thread it would seem I better make a quick dodgy defense before I retire for the night for another hard day of work in the morning. ;)

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 03:39 AM
There are several arguments for the existence of God, many of which can be found in the Bible itself, but for an athiest of unbeliever, it can be difficult to grasp what is written in the Bible, since they don't believe in the Holy God in the first place.


we will explain the basic "big four", " logical" statements that prove that there really is a God and that the universe didn't just spring out of randomness, but had a creator, intelligient design behind it. Quoting the article "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?" at http://www.gotquestions.org, here are the four main logical, scientific arguments proving the existence of God, which would also prove that everything found in the Bible is in fact, true.






I have always been a believer, but wasn't really shure about how God can be proven besides the fact that the Bible tells us that he is real.


However, after reading these arguments, especially the teleological argument, I was certain there was a God, and that the absence of God just couldn't be possible. It really shows how even science proves the existence of God.



"In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.”

How does this being become known if it so greatly conceived?

If it is greatly conceived it must leave a trail of it's existence somewhere to be looked upon in observation.




It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist.

Must exist, how?




If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

I can conceive a three headed hydra as the most highest power of the universe.

What does this prove?





A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

This does not prove anything other than that with the randomity of chance you sometimes get results where there are no other.





A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

What if I was to tell you that the universe has always existed where there is no beginning or end in which causality is merely a interface of constant flow?

What then would this do for your belief in a 'god'?


A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law.

Not a favorite subject for me considering I have nothing but disdain for laws, morals, and ethics. ;)



Everyone has a sense of right and wrong.

Those conceptions are constructs.



Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected.

Provide evidence for universal values first before interjecting them here.



Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?"

My response is the same to the previous one above this quoted text.

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 03:49 AM
This is going to sound crazy.

But when you look at the Universe on the most microscopic level possible it behaves like a computer- packing information in smiple manageable chunks called probability waves.

This is the same way that computers pixelate a screen because they cannot have infinate information- they need to package information because it cannot handle infinite or vast amounts of information.

When you look at light it cannot go past a certain speed. The universe tends to compartmentalize itself over vast distances (ex. you cannot see what is happening right now on the other side of the universe).

Why were you born as yourself and not somebody else? Why do you feel like you have control over yourself?

Reality could very well be an illusion. We could be a program and programs typically have a creator.

Just because there is organized chaos of the universe doesn't mean that there is prime direction.

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 03:52 AM
I can proof them to you but for the proof I have to kill you. Still interested?

Who can speak of death except for that of the walking undead?;)

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 03:55 AM
To the OP I would say that proof is a hard thing to come by at the best of times. So there is certainly no 100% verifiable proof that god exists. If there was the matter would have been settled long ago.

But I would boil the question down to this; Is the Universe infinite? If the universe is infinite, as it very well might be, allowing for extra dimensions and parallel universes etc, then everything that can happen must happen eventually.This includes the existence of the greatest possible being, i.e God.

If such a being exists then whether he created the universe or whether he emerged from it or is inseparable from it all seem like secondary questions to me. The central point is that in an "infinite universe" the existence of God is implied.

Is the universe infinite? Infinite within spatial limitations I would say.

The problem with interdimensions is that they are theoretical so it might be more accurate to say that they possibly exist instead having never expirienced a inter dimension myself.


The central point is that in an "infinite universe" the existence of God is implied.

Implied, how?

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 04:19 AM
There is no 100% verifiable proof that denial exists either (the previous sentence is a total contradiction! :D)
Either way I feel it is just far too easy to say "God exists" or "God doesn't exists".
Would not a creator program into us this sort of smug reasoning, the kind that when asked for evidence most of us respond "I just know".
That is the final answer I have heard BOTH chistians and atheists give when all other "explanations" fail to impress me.
Lets face it, the universe is just too effing WEIRD to even begin to understand.
The only way we will ever know of its origins is to have witnessed ourselves being created, or existence being created from nothing.
Until this happens I don't think we can say anything.



Or tomorrow, maybe?



Possibly. or the universe, or nulliverse, could very well be like the movie "The Truman Show", with infinity painted up on a mega dome above.
How do we really know it is infinite if we have not seen it? Just because science insists it is out there?
Science, especially when it comes to space (NASA) has proven itself to be every bit the liars and deceivers as our governments.
Prove to me that the universe is exactly what we have been led to believe what it is without having to present the so-called evidence of another human being.

Denial or belief are mere attempts to harness at least a fraction of the mystery.



In an infinite universe, let us hope here is a God, and a benevolent one at that.
I hold out for the existence of God the same way I hope that UFOs, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness monster exist.
Not once have I seen one, but I am always looking around the corner just in case.



There is no 100% verifiable proof that denial exists either (the previous sentence is a total contradiction! )
Either way I feel it is just far too easy to say "God exists" or "God doesn't exists".
Would not a creator program into us this sort of smug reasoning, the kind that when asked for evidence most of us respond "I just know".
That is the final answer I have heard BOTH chistians and atheists give when all other "explanations" fail to impress me.
Lets face it, the universe is just too effing WEIRD to even begin to understand.
The only way we will ever know of its origins is to have witnessed ourselves being created, or existence being created from nothing.
Until this happens I don't think we can say anything.


The problem with agnostics is their cowardice to have any specified chosen certainty for themselves where to everything rather than say I know they instead say to everything I do not know of which they try to come off as intellectual in their lack of certainty in their impartialness.

[Agnosticism the intellectualism of saying I do not know.]

How is it possible even to not know that of which is incomprehensible to which any discernment of not knowing would be pointless in that which is incomprehensible cannot neither be known or unknown for even that which is unknown must be comprehended in some sort of way?

In comparison the atheist says I do not know of anything of which shows the existence of a 'god' and by not knowing the atheist goes out fourth even more by saying that their lack of clarity is proof enough of that which they do not know cannot exist for that which they cannot know cannot exist being that for somthing to exist they must know of first.

The absence of knowing somthing is the direct explanation of it's absence.

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 04:31 AM
The Horned God


In an infinite universe hope is not needed. In such a universe God exists by definition. That is what the word infinite implies. If the universe contains intelligence (which it does), then if the universe is infinite it must contain an infinite intelligence. It's weird but that's infinity for you.

Whether that intelligence would be benevolent or not is another matter. Would an infinite being be malevolent? I don't think so but I can't know for sure.


The universe is non thinking where instead intelligence is merely a self made manufacture through perceived consciousness of a agent perceiving themselves in comparison to existence around them where by conscious judgement they intelligize.

What is it about the universe at large which makes you think that it has infinite knowledge?

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 04:48 AM
I think its a case of each their own when it comes to religion ... both literally and figuratively. No two believers or disbeliever’s are the same. However you define religion, one thing is clear; it involves a person and their interpretation of a concept that they think is important enough to connect with. If this concept is a God, philosophy, it is so important to the individual that it becomes an integral part of the person in some form.

As for asking for proof this denies faith, and without faith there can be no God. Skepticism is fine but it can only take us so far and we ultimately sometimes need to make those unjustifiable leaps of faith in order for truth to be found. Of course its inevitable mistakes will be made, but it will be made by those who try. Many great scientific discoveries have been made by taking a leap of faith.

Humans make life meaningful by constructing a "spiritual mode" according to biological and social factors. Whatever this is, it allows them a sense of certainty and security..

People will believe whatever they wish even if it brinks upon the absurd and to all of this they shall attest faith.

The delusional homeless man under a bridge with a shower towel on his shoulders carrying a wooden staff with a ripped hat on his head worn like a crown will profess faith and belief that he is the king of Spain under his freeway abode to whom the local wild animals he calls his loyal subjects.

In his mind this is everyday reality of which is very real for it is the faith of this reality he believes to be living to which reinforces that his beliefs are real but to those who walk by him everyday he is a living tragedy.

The Horned God
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 04:54 AM
Is the universe infinite? Infinite within spatial limitations I would say.

It may also be infinite in time. If the universe can come into existence once why couldn't it happen twice or an infinite number of times? In fact a recurring universe would seem more likely to me than the idea that it has happened only once and will never happen again. After all the universe can take all the time it needs.




The problem with interdimensions is that they are theoretical so it might be more accurate to say that they possibly exist instead having never expirienced a inter dimension myself.

They are still theoretical yes but there are good reasons for thinking they exist;

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread411715/pg1




Implied, how?

If the universe contains intelligence (which it does), then if the universe is infinite it must contain an infinite intelligence, because all possible combinations of matter and energy will be explored. It's a weird sounding conclusion maybe, but then infinity is weird.

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 04:59 AM
Then you are part of a religion and like all religions your conviction rests upon faith.



Why would you ask this question, unless you subconsciously have doubt of your doubt. I would never say, prove to me god does not exist.



It is likely that your senses have been bombarded with proof since your conception, but you choose to deny it, which is your right. If I were you, I would hold to your faith that you are right for to know is far from bliss.

Atheism is the perspective visual of a absence of religion to which the atheist believes existence can only be verified on a material empirical foundation.

Atheism is not a religion for it is the very perspective of being in a state without religion.


Why would you ask this question, unless you subconsciously have doubt of your doubt. I would never say, prove to me god does not exist.

I have no doubts but rather I ask the question in attempt to entertain the question and to get a response out of others.


It is likely that your senses have been bombarded with proof since your conception, but you choose to deny it, which is your right. If I were you, I would hold to your faith that you are right for to know is far from bliss.

I do not understand this statement. What do you mean?

Caledonian
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 05:05 AM
Will write more later guys. ;)

It's beyond my bedtime.:)

The Horned God
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 05:08 AM
The universe is non thinking where instead intelligence is merely a self made manufacture through perceived consciousness of a agent perceiving themselves in comparison to existence around them where by conscious judgement they intelligize.

Allow me to recommend;

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRznAi5lVHJ4IMB0TzHk2O tySgjG5BiGQVGuUeVLDAIpRPucXs&t=1&usg=__pmUo8hFpVLMK1dKuszYLe4B1wAo=



http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/dp/020530902X

No need to thank me. ;)


What is it about the universe at large which makes you think that it has infinite knowledge?

I've already answered this question in my previous post.

weybrecht
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 06:51 AM
Whaaatttt?

Ahhh,the egotistical assurredness to give the "God Concept" a gender.
No small wonder doubt enters when "God" is placed on the same plane as Man.

"For the believer, no explanation is necessary.
For the non-believer, no explanation will suffice."

In regards to Alariclachlan's response to The Horned God, Thread #56:
To "intelligize": Is this term being used adjectivably or adverabably???

Thank you for your time.

freyjas servant
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 10:29 AM
I'm a atheist.

Prove to me the existence of a god.

Prove to me a creative design to the universe and show me how it all isn't just random.

I'll await a answer or reply.

The stars in their courses, the movement of the tides, and the pattern that unfolds from the spoken word.

Fyrgenholt
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 11:43 AM
I'm currently reading a book regarding Advaiti Vedanta, as I like to read about a multitude of religions for I believe it gives me a greater understanding of things. Please allow me to add a few quotes:


2. "The existent was here in the beginning, my son, alone and without a second. On this there are some who say 'the nonexistent was here in the beginning, alone and without a second, from that nonexistent sprang the existent.', But how could it really be so, my son?" He said. "How could what exists spring from what does not exist? On the contrary, my son, the existent was here all along, alone and without a second."


13. "Throw this salt in the water and sit with me on the morrow."
So he did. He said to him, "Well, bring me the salt that you threw in the water last night." He looked for it, but could not find it, as it was dissolved."
"Well, taste the water on this side. -- How does it taste?"
"Salty."
"Taste it in the middle. -- How does it taste?"
"Salty."
"Taste it at the other end. -- How does it taste?"
"Salty."
"Take a mouthful and sit with me." So he did.
"It is always the same."
He said to him "You cannot make out what exists in there, yet it is there.
"It is this very fineness which ensouls all this world, it is the true one, it is the soul. You are that.

It is said that the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which provides the grounding for matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this universe is Brahman. It is said that Brahman cannot be known by material means, that we cannot be made conscious of it, because Brahman is our consciousness and being itself. In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is without attributes and is strictly impersonal, although in other philosophies it can be understood as personal or intrapersonal. Brahman is infinite being, infinite consciousness, and infinite bliss. It is pure knowing itself. The Advaitins regard Brahman to be the ultimate truth, so in comparison to Brahman, every other thing, including the material world, its distinctness and the individuality of the living creatures is all untrue. Brahman is the effulgent cause of everything that exists and can possibly exist. Since it is beyond human comprehension, it is without any attributes, for assigning attributes to it would be distorting the true nature of Brahman. When man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of an illusionary power of Brahman called Maya (meaning illusion - in one form or another), Brahman becomes god or the creator, for this is the reflection of the Brahman in the environment of illusion. Humans, under the influence of Maya, consider themselves limited by the body and the material, observable world. This misperception of Brahman as the observed universe results in human emotions such as happiness, sadness, anger and fear. The ultimate reality remains Brahman and nothing else. Once the curtain of maya is lifted, the Atman (individual spirit) is exactly equal to Brahman. Thus, due to true knowledge, an individual loses the sense of ego (Ahamkara) and achieves liberation. The goal of enlightenment is to understand this — more precisely, to experience this: to see intuitively that the distinction between the self and the universe is a false dichotomy. The distinction between consciousness and physical matter, between mind and body, is the result of an unenlightened perspective.

And so, in our current state, any genuine perception of god or a creator or anything else is but that - a perception influenced by the illusion of physicality. We simply cannot comprehend, and we are not going to find true comprehension by asking for hard, physical evidence, rather, we need to delve deep in to our minds, through our consciousness. Prividing physical evidence is an act of futility.

Very interesting, I believe, and without going in to it too much, as I intend to make a more 'to the point' post regarding how the similarities between Orlog and Urdr to Jiva-Atma (or Atman) and Brahman, the Norns to Bhrahma Shakti, Vishnu Shakti and Shiva Shakti, Aum to Ymir and so forth are truly immense. Through things of this nature, I believe we can understand our indigenous religions on a much greater level.

I hope this post makes sense, there was alot of copy and paste simply for ease (so I didn't have to type things up from a book that I can find easily online).

Shine
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 12:29 PM
Many great theories have been proposed by formulating a conjecture (making a leap of faith if you like). But they have only been proved to hold water by experimentation. But there is a big difference between a scientific theory and a scientific "discovery". The word discovery implies that the theory has been verified through experiment. The vast majority of theories don't pan out when put to the test. The current theories of what God is or if he exists are "probably" no exception.



What humans do or don't do in order to feel more secure in the world does nothing to help us reveal anything beyond human psychology. If one tribe of people thinks God wants us to perform human sacrifice in order to stop the world from ending (as the Aztec's believed), does this tell us more about god or about people performing the sacrifices?

The none believer will always want proof that God exists and that he created the universe…Just as a religious person will want the opposite, proof that God doesn’t exist. Even if both were faced with facts to prove things either way they would still resist each other. It’s kind of like the Ouroborus, the serpent eating its own tail the argument will go on forever and always has.

The atheists feel they have the inner knowledge that there are no supreme beings, despite whatever any evidence shows. The believer has a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own humanity's or all nature's destiny.

The question is how can it be proven either way? As to satisfy the arguments. mankinds nature seems to have the need for labels. Atheist, Christian, Agnostic. These are all labels, groups to belong to. Are they really that different from each other?

To me, religion is any paradigm by which mankind answers the basic fundamental questions of life, universe and his/her existence within it Why am I here? What is my purpose in life? How did it ALL come into being? Are gods a necessary requirement for religion ?

Joe McCarthy
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 06:26 PM
The idea of choosing to believe in something where the evidence seems insufficient just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

It makes perfect sense following Pascal's logic. If one has everything to gain by believing, and everything to lose by not believing, it is perfectly sensible to believe.


I certainly can't do it, and I don't think that any person who is being truly honest with themselves can.


This of course assumes that the evidence is that God doesn't exist. That is by no means a certainty

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 07:36 PM
It makes perfect sense following Pascal's logic. If one has everything to gain by believing, and everything to lose by not believing, it is perfectly sensible to believe.



If God is incomprehensible, as Pascal maintains, then from our position of absolute ignorance, we can't say God is any more likely to reward belief than punish it.

Joe McCarthy
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 07:47 PM
If God is incomprehensible, as Pascal maintains, then from our position of absolute ignorance, we can't say God is any more likely to reward belief than punish it.

This is a misunderstanding of Pascal and Christian doctrine generally. One can believe that God is incomprehensible in that it is impossible to fathom why he does as he does, but still understand that he offers everlasting life and that earthly rewards come by following his decrees.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 08:14 PM
This is a misunderstanding of Pascal and Christian doctrine generally. One can believe that God is incomprehensible in that it is impossible to fathom why he does as he does, but still understand that he offers everlasting life and that earthly rewards come by following his decrees.

Pascal: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is."

He's 'infinitely incomprehensible'. All we can know of 'him' is what he's not, and the sole criterion for knowing what thing he's not is that we can comprehend that thing. So if Pascal is right that God is infinitely incomprehensible to his very core, then we can be sure God isn't good, because we can comprehend goodness, or bad, because we can comprehend badness. He's not kind, just, omnipresent, omniscient etc., nor is he the opposite of any of those things. He's incomprehensible -- not anything we can think of, nor its opposite.

This is basically consistent with most theologians' insistence that God is the creator of space and time. We can only conceive of things within the framework of space-time. God 'exists' beyond it (although, since 'exist' and 'beyond' are concepts we understand and only apply to things within space-time, they can't technically apply to God either) and therefore we lack the basic cognitive faculties to even approach an understanding of him. But we can say he's not a consciousness, or a 'him' or a 'they' or any pronoun, not a unity or a multiplicity (spacial concepts) and so on and so forth.

Fyrgenholt
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 09:26 PM
Pascal: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is."

He's 'infinitely incomprehensible'. All we can know of 'him' is what he's not, and the sole criterion for knowing what thing he's not is that we can comprehend that thing. So if Pascal is right that God is infinitely incomprehensible to his very core, then we can be sure God isn't good, because we can comprehend goodness, or bad, because we can comprehend badness. He's not kind, just, omnipresent, omniscient etc., nor is he the opposite of any of those things. He's incomprehensible -- not anything we can think of, nor its opposite.

This is basically consistent with most theologians' insistence that God is the creator of space and time. We can only conceive of things within the framework of space-time. God 'exists' beyond it (although, since 'exist' and 'beyond' are concepts we understand and only apply to things within space-time, they can't technically apply to God either) and therefore we lack the basic cognitive faculties to even approach an understanding of him. But we can say he's not a consciousness, or a 'him' or a 'they' or any pronoun, not a unity or a multiplicity (spacial concepts) and so on and so forth.

Surely incomprehensible when perceived within the limitations of physicality.

God, or the creator, or anything of such can only be attributeless (although this is once again something of a paradox in regards to incomprehension, due to God's having to neither have attributes nor not have attributes...), due to what we associate as being an attribute being rooted in the physical universe, so, when we attach attributes to God we create a perception trapped in the realms of physicality, ie, something that god should 'exist' outside of. If good, bad, male, female and so on and so forth are attributes rooted in the comprehensible physical, they are things, along with physicality itself, that must be deconstructed in order for us to rightfully comprehend God, because, as you say, God exists beyond the limitations of time and space (and as you say, they can't technically apply to God, either).

It's difficult for me to wrap my head around :P

Joe McCarthy
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 09:29 PM
Pascal: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is."

He's 'infinitely incomprehensible'. All we can know of 'him' is what he's not, and the sole criterion for knowing what thing he's not is that we can comprehend that thing. So if Pascal is right that God is infinitely incomprehensible to his very core, then we can be sure God isn't good, because we can comprehend goodness, or bad, because we can comprehend badness. He's not kind, just, omnipresent, omniscient etc., nor is he the opposite of any of those things. He's incomprehensible -- not anything we can think of, nor its opposite.

This is basically consistent with most theologians' insistence that God is the creator of space and time. We can only conceive of things within the framework of space-time. God 'exists' beyond it (although, since 'exist' and 'beyond' are concepts we understand and only apply to things within space-time, they can't technically apply to God either) and therefore we lack the basic cognitive faculties to even approach an understanding of him. But we can say he's not a consciousness, or a 'him' or a 'they' or any pronoun, not a unity or a multiplicity (spacial concepts) and so on and so forth.

Logically it follows that if Pascal thought incomprehensibility applied to the point that it would not allow for us to potentially enjoy God's blessings, he wouldn't have recommended believing in him at all. He is speaking of substance, or essence, not commenting on the utility of belief, which he obviously affirms, in commenting on God's incomprehensibility.

Zogbot
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 09:36 PM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able, nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Joe McCarthy
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 09:50 PM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able, nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Ah, the problem of evil. I'll let the normative Christians handle that one. As a Gnostic I don't have to deal with it at all.

The Horned God
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 11:11 PM
It makes perfect sense following Pascal's logic. If one has everything to gain by believing, and everything to lose by not believing, it is perfectly sensible to believe.

I'm sorry, but no it doesn't make sense. The fact remains that you cannot force yourself to believe something if the evidence for it is not enough to convince you. I can't state it any more simply than that. That is basic logic.

You can hope God exists, and you say "I haven't made up my mind yet, I'm waiting for more evidence to come in", but you cannot say "I believe", because until you are presented with a body of evidence that seems convincing to you, you simply do not believe.

The other point about Pascals wager is that it ignores something very valuable that would be lost by taking such a wager (even if it were possible, which it isn't); The honest search for the truth.

If someone comes to a belief in God because they have honestly searched for the evidence and believe they have found it, then at least that person is worthy of being accorded points for their effort. On the other hand the guy who just goes around saying, (against his own better judgement) that he believes in god because he is afraid of the possible repercussions if he doesn't, is another matter entirely.He is like someone living under a cosmic dictatorship.Imo he is only to be pitied.




This of course assumes that the evidence is that God doesn't exist. That is by no means a certainty

The evidence we have at the moment is not enough to prove the existence of god beyond reasonable doubt. And in the absence of evidence the "God explanation" is not a strong explanation in itself as it could always be used to explain anything.

Ocko
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010, 11:21 PM
God or the Gods can't be proven as proof demands a repeatable occurrence in a predetermined set-up

God or the Gods per definition don't follow any rules. So any set -up you do may work or may not. By Set-up I mean rituals, evocations etc.

In general for experiments you use your 5 senses. But what if you want to proof something beyond the 5 senses? What do you use?

For my understanding you have to develope 'senses' which surpass the physical senses. God (or Gods) per definition don't exist on the physical realm.

It is said that the influence and creation of Gods effect the physical realm. And proof only works there

Therefore the question for proof won't work.

What works instead is to transform yourself into an perception organ to perceive those beings, commonly called as God or Gods.

An Atheist will never do so because his preconceived belief is they don't exist. An Atheist will never perceive them as God or Gods are not interested in them.

The question is also why shall I 'proof' the Gods to somebody? It is a personal experience and that should stay so.

For what reason should anybody be brought to something he doesn't want to acknowledge?

Ocko
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 12:02 AM
I think atheists don't really look for the truth, they look for a good defense of their belief. If their were truthseekers they would experiment themselves.

Instead they ask others 'proof!'. That is a defensive strategy, a wall to hide behind.

They are afraid of change. they would lose their identity and would have to engage in 'silly' procedures they have no control over.

I guess that is the real reason: To not appear silly

The Horned God
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 02:01 AM
The none believer will always want proof that God exists and that he created the universe…Just as a religious person will want the opposite, proof that God doesn’t exist.

You are making a judgement on the "non-believer", implying that they would not believe whatever evidence was presented. I would say that if the non-believer is a rational thinking being and they are presented with proof that they find compelling of the existence of God then they will become a believer.

However, if the religious person is believing in something without proof, then they are not holding a rational position.



The atheists feel they have the inner knowledge that there are no supreme beings, despite whatever any evidence shows. The believer has a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own humanity's or all nature's destiny.

Inner knowledge, personal awareness, they both amount the same thing and neither one is rational. If the atheist says "I just know there is no God" then I agree that that is not a rational position. But saying "I know there is no God" is different from saying "I am not yet convinced by the evidence that there is a God" the latter is a rational statement.



The question is how can it be proven either way? As to satisfy the arguments. mankinds nature seems to have the need for labels. Atheist, Christian, Agnostic. These are all labels, groups to belong to. Are they really that different from each other?

At the moment I don't think it can be proven either way, however that doesn't mean it will never be proven.

Btw labels are necessary to differentiate any two things that differ either in quantity or in essence.. Promise me you'll never take work in a medicine lab. ;)
The point is we do need labels.


To me, religion is any paradigm by which mankind answers the basic fundamental questions of life, universe and his/her existence within it Why am I here? What is my purpose in life? How did it ALL come into being? Are gods a necessary requirement for religion ?

Yes that looks like a reasonable definition of what religion is as. However, anybody can come up with "answers" to lifes questions and many would-be messiahs do. Without evidence however, they are all shooting in the dark. One religious group might "feel within themselves" that they are compelled to commit suicide or even perform child-sacrifice in order to commune with God. While another one feels they can get away with wafers and wine.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 01:51 PM
Logically it follows that if Pascal thought incomprehensibility applied to the point that it would not allow for us to potentially enjoy God's blessings, he wouldn't have recommended believing in him at all. He is speaking of substance, or essence, not commenting on the utility of belief, which he obviously affirms, in commenting on God's incomprehensibility.

He commits the same error as nearly all theists: He stresses the physical, intellectual and spiritual dichotomy between God and man, and then proceeds to thoroughly anthropomorphise 'him'.

If we know nothing about God's essence, then we know nothing about what he 'thinks' or 'wants' (ridiculous anthropomorphisms, btw). How do we know God wants us to enjoy his 'blessings'? How do we know what God considers a blessing and what not? Is bowel cancer a blessing? Is congenital blindness? He created them, so I'm guessing yes. But I can't be certain.

The only way anyone could know would be if he communicated his position on things through some kind of revelation, or endowed us from our very inception with the capacity to comprehend him, neither of which he's done.

Vindefense
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 02:07 PM
The other point about Pascals wager is that it ignores something very valuable that would be lost by taking such a wager (even if it were possible, which it isn't); The honest search for the truth.

If someone comes to a belief in God because they have honestly searched for the evidence and believe they have found it, then at least that person is worthy of being accorded points for their effort. On the other hand the guy who just goes around saying, (against his own better judgement) that he believes in god because he is afraid of the possible repercussions if he doesn't, is another matter entirely.He is like someone living under a cosmic dictatorship.Imo he is only to be pitied.

Yes. Like an insurance policy where the peddlers of religion go door to door selling their doubt to those who will purchase it.



Atheism is the perspective visual of a absence of religion to which the atheist believes existence can only be verified on a material empirical foundation.

Atheism is not a religion for it is the very perspective of being in a state without religion.

It is a religion since it is based upon a belief as you yourself said, which merely substitutes data for dogma. There is no difference ultimately your conviction requires faith. You must assume that what is being passed off as knowledge is truth and at the same time reject intuition. If you have ever lost something you know that if you look everywhere it is not does not imply that it does not exist. Just the other day I dropped something in the shop and knowledge told me that from the size and shape of the object, it could not have gone too far. So I looked for a while in the obvious area where I reasoned it could be and did not find it till later that day, when I gave in to intuition, and looked on the other side of the room.

I have no doubts.

If you say so, but surly at one point in your life intuition has told you otherwise or you would not be interested in other opinions. If you know that god does not exist then there is no proof that one can produce otherwise that will change your mind and you would have no reason to inquire. But of course you can not say this, and so you do doubt and it is safe to say that you doubt not only the existence of god but also the non existence of god in which case doubt puts you in a suspended plane.


I do not understand this statement. What do you mean?

It's only natural when we find ourselves in a suspended plane to find solace in religion, which is exactly what atheists do because a religion is any belief system whether founded on material evidence or spiritual that paralyzes your senses with either dogma or data and blinds your intuitive faculties with reason. Thus any "ism" requires blind faith in exchange for comfort. To live outside of these "isms" is like taking a bold step into the unknown where you forsake the comfort that religion brings you and embrace the torment of standing on your own with your own two legs. Thus, only the truly brave can throw off the yoke of religion and find god where god does exist. If you were to strip yourself of what you think you know, the question asked would be, how could you exist and god not?

Wulfram
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 02:34 PM
If we know nothing about God's essence, then we know nothing about what he 'thinks' or 'wants' (ridiculous anthropomorphisms, btw).
How do we know God wants us to enjoy his 'blessings'? How do we know what God considers a blessing and what not?

Rewrite the above as:

If Hamar Fox knows nothing about God's essence, then Hamar Fox knows nothing about what he 'thinks' or 'wants'.
How does Hamar Fox know God wants Hamar Fox to enjoy his 'blessings'? How does Hamar Fox know what God considers a blessing and what not?

You say "we" and "us" quite a lot.
How do you know for sure that everybody else's experience with life are exactly the same as your own?


Is bowel cancer a blessing? Is congenital blindness? He created them, so I'm guessing yes. But I can't be certain.

If God, or "God" knows all things then perhaps God has also suffered as well.
Maybe because we humans tend to whine about every little ailment that God chooses to ignore most complaints.
Man always blunders when creating, making incredible mistakes. Why not God also?
It would actually make me feel more comfortable about the possibility of God's existence if we were more in its image.


The only way anyone could know would be if he communicated his position on things through some kind of revelation, or endowed us from our very inception with the capacity to comprehend him, neither of which he's done.

Are you 100% positive that not one person out of the billions has communicated with God, or been given a sign, or has been endowed with the capacity to comprehend him?
Because it hasn't happened to you yet?
Does God only choose those who it thinks are worthy? Do you consider yourself worthy?
Atheists tend to think that they are very important people, so how could a God possibly ignore that?

(Perhaps those who have been were sworn to secrecy. ;))

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 03:40 PM
Rewrite the above as:

If Hamar Fox knows nothing about God's essence, then Hamar Fox knows nothing about what he 'thinks' or 'wants'.
How does Hamar Fox know God wants Hamar Fox to enjoy his 'blessings'? How does Hamar Fox know what God considers a blessing and what not?

You say "we" and "us" quite a lot.
How do you know for sure that everybody else's experience with life are exactly the same as your own?

I'm fairly sure I belong to the same species as everybody else who'll ever read my posts on this forum, so I feel pretty confident in using terms like 'us' and 'we'. Unless somebody comes forward with a sense that I don't possess, then they can't have had radically different experiences in life than I have. I'm not talking about an experience like some people have been to Alton Towers and others haven't. I'm talking about fundamental cognitive abilities.

I mean, are you actually saying there's a whole class of people who DO possess the intellectual faculties required to converse with God (who don't also live in public toilets and flash old ladies in the subway)?


If God, or "God" knows all things then perhaps God has also suffered as well.
Maybe because we humans tend to whine about every little ailment that God chooses to ignore most complaints.
Man always blunders when creating, making incredible mistakes. Why not God also?
It would actually make me feel more comfortable about the possibility of God's existence if we were more in its image.


So God created the laws of nature such that for a short period in our evolutionary history we'd resemble him in some way? What about a million years ago? Were our ancestors like God then? What about in a million years in the future, when our descendants no longer even closely resemble humans of today? Will we still be in God's image? Will God's image change to keep pace with our ever evolving species?

As for whether he makes mistakes, wait, I thought he was omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.


Are you 100% positive that not one person out of the billions has communicated with God, or been given a sign, or has been endowed with the capacity to comprehend him?
Because it hasn't happened to you yet?
Does God only choose those who it thinks are worthy? Do you consider yourself worthy?
Atheists tend to think that they are very important people, so how could a God possibly ignore that?

(Perhaps those who have been were sworn to secrecy. ;))

Yeah, if God wants everyone to understand his message and observe his morals, he should make it clear to everyone, not just one Jew 2000 years ago (and that jibbering, sign-carrying guy who tries to urinate on you while you're waiting for the bus). And he really shouldn't have given Muhammed and Jesus conflicting messages. He should probably stop telling people to blow up schools and buses too.

You know, I've never understood why he'd rely to some minuscule fraction of the world's people what's really on his mind (inconsistently, mind you) yet expect EVERYONE to somehow know, and punish them if they don't. How were Australian aborigines and American Natives to know what he told Jesus? Did he send them all to hell until the European missionaries arrived? Seems unfair. Did he give them their own version of Jesus? If so, why did their Jesus tell them to eat each other's brains?

velvet
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 04:00 PM
It is a religion since it is based upon a belief as you yourself said, which merely substitutes data for dogma. There is no difference ultimately your conviction requires faith. You must assume that what is being passed off as knowledge is truth and at the same time reject intuition.

So, basically you say that people who do not believe in a fantasy god for which there arent even hints for his/her/its existence, cannot have intuition? But yeah, I remember that "believers" also assume that this fantasy god gave "them" the free will, while those who do not believe also have no will, neither free nor anyhow else.

In essence, this is what the Semitic religions all state: if you do not believe, you are not human. If you do not believe, you will end in hell. If you do not believe, you will burn for the rest of eternity.

This is mental blackmail.

Based on an endless array of absense of any hints and signs.



If you say so, but surly at one point in your life intuition has told you otherwise or you would not be interested in other opinions. If you know that god does not exist then there is no proof that one can produce otherwise that will change your mind and you would have no reason to inquire.

So, because someone is curious and interested in other people's opinions, you construct the conclusion that this person "must" actually know/think/believe/doubt otherwise?

The seeking for knowledge, and this includes the knowledge about the motivation of other people to believe, to try to understand this motivation has nothing to do with doubting one's own knowledge that there is no god. It's the wish to understand the psychology of belief if you will, nothing else.



It's only natural when we find ourselves in a suspended plane to find solace in religion, which is exactly what atheists do because a religion is any belief system whether founded on material evidence or spiritual that paralyzes your senses with either dogma or data and blinds your intuitive faculties with reason.

You say 2+2=5, but you have no way to actually make 2+2=5, and so you say that everyone who says that 2+2=4 also just believes that this is correct. And you even further and say that everyone who just cares for the facts at hand creates his own fantasy world, creates a dogma.

Now, of course "truth" is the opposite of "belief", and when you argue from the point of belief, everything which rejects belief and only cares for truth must be, by the believer's definitions, also just dogma.

The entire thing looks very very different from the point of truth though.


Thus any "ism" requires blind faith in exchange for comfort. To live outside of these "isms" is like taking a bold step into the unknown where you forsake the comfort that religion brings you and embrace the torment of standing on your own with your own two legs. Thus, only the truly brave can throw off the yoke of religion and find god where god does exist.

Not believing in god, based on a complete lack of his/her/its presence, alleged doings and so on is not "faith", it is knowledge.

But again you do the trick to say that someone who would (or could) dare this would, at the end of the day, still "find god". You create a argumentative cycle which always leads to god. But this is a reasoning of a believer, not of a non-believer. When there is no god, whatever you do will not produce a (belief in) god.

This only happens when people break under the pressure of the weak around them who drag the strong person into the abyss of comfort. Belief thus is the promotion of weakness, not only of the single person, but the entire group. Belief thus is the opposite of the survival instinct. Belief gives comfort in the misguided belief that whatever happens to one self or the group is somehow "god's will" and so perfectly fine, no matter how much the one or the group suffers from it. Belief is the promotion of defenseless suicide.


If you were to strip yourself of what you think you know, the question asked would be, how could you exist and god not?

When you strip yourself off everything you know, the question is why would one come to the idea that there is something like god? When you delete all the BS data from your mind, also the empty assumption of a "god" is deleted, and so this tabula rasa person would NEVER ask this question. Because then you are bound to reality and try to figure it out, and then there is also no room for intellectual fantasy like a god, because you're forced to respond to the outside immediately, based on your instincts.

When such a person - without being brought to the idea that there could be a god, without being influenced - then would come up with such an idea, then it could be a hint that there is "something". But it could also just make for an interesting study object on the psychology of humans, why they flee into fantasy worlds of comfort instead of taking reality as what it is and deal with it.

Personally I think "belief", this fleeing into comfort that there is something else, is just a sign that humans are far from being mature. Humans are childrens, and when they grow up and mom and dad dont pamper them anymore all the time, they seek for something that replaces this pampering and gives them back this comfort of their childhood when they themselves werent yet responsible for themselves. Belief is at large the rejection of responsibility for yourself, your actions and your life as a whole. And belief also hinders humans to become mature, because belief attaches itself to the fear of childrens of the dark room at night and doesnt allow the emotion of fear to ever be passed by, because it is so much easier to find this comfort in the burning candle beside the bed.

Wulfram
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 04:27 PM
I'm fairly sure I belong to the same species as everybody else who'll ever read my posts on this forum, so I feel pretty confident in using terms like 'us' and 'we'. Unless somebody comes forward with a sense that I don't possess, then they can't have had radically different experiences in life than I have.

"Unless somebody comes forward with a sense that I don't possess..."

That sentence pretty much says it all. "Unless" should not be a part of any atheists vocabulary.
This is how an agnostic would argue the issue. It implies uncertainty as well as leaving oopen the possibility that someone out there may have had genuine contact.
As for the rest of your statement, you again imply that just because it has not happened to you then it could not possibly have happened to anyone else.


I mean, are you actually saying there's a whole class of people who DO possess the intellectual faculties required to converse with God (who don't also live in public toilets and flash old ladies in the subway)?

Are you actually saying that their isn't a whole class of people who are capable?
How could you possibly know if only they are capable?


So God created the laws of nature such that for a short period in our evolutionary history we'd resemble him in some way?

Maybe, maybe not.


What about a million years ago? Were our ancestors like God then?


The same questions about life and existence apply as equally to them as it does to us.
Since we have no evidence that we are any different from our most distant ancestors then we cannot even begin to assume that they were any nearer or farther away from the truth than we are.


What about in a million years in the future, when our descendants no longer even closely resemble humans of today?

You are arguing from an evolutionary standpoint.
I am still cringing from the previous debate on evolution and prefer not to tread down this path, for now.


As for whether he makes mistakes, wait, I thought he was omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.

I am not debating from a christian standpoint, if this is what you are implying.
Much of your arguments seem to be based in this very thing.
For example, you keep on referring to God as "he", which is very christian.
From an agnostic/atheist standpoint God can be nothing more than "it" at best.


Yeah, if God wants everyone to understand his message and observe his morals, he should make it clear to everyone, not just one Jew 2000 years ago (and the jibbering, sign-carrying guy who tries to urinate on you while you're waiting for the bus).

Why bring jesus into this?
Why do you suppose that my search for a possible God can only be through the christian concept?


And he really shouldn't have given Muhammed and Jesus conflicting messages. He should probably stop telling people to blow up schools and buses too.

Right, he should instead tell them to blow up all the mosques standing in Europe.


You know, I've never understood why he'd rely to some minuscule fraction of the world's people what's really on his mind (inconsistently, mind you) yet expect EVERYONE to somehow know, and punish them if they don't.

You again are assuming that I debate from a chistian viewpoint, which I am not.


How were Australian aborigines and American Natives to know what he told Jesus? Did he send them all to hell until the European missionaries arrived? Seems unfair. Did he give them their own version of Jesus? If so, why did their Jesus tell them to eat each other's brains?

Why do you persist with the christian theme?
Why demonize God based on what a single book alleges to know of him?
Atheists do tend to argue, subconsciously, from the standpoint of their initial belief.
Are you a former christian?
Perhaps a small part of you still wants to believe in jesus.
Your arguments begin to resemble more and more those of an agnostic.

SaxonPagan
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 04:46 PM
Wow!! This is one of those great debates where you find yourself agreeing with one poster one moment and then with another (who holds opposing views) the next.

I sense I'll be a much wiser person by the time this all reaches its conclusion - if my mind is still intact :confused :D

Anyway, just realised this doesn't add much to the debate itself. Do carry on ...

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 05:11 PM
"Unless somebody comes forward with a sense that I don't possess..."

That sentence pretty much says it all. "Unless" should not be a part of any atheists vocabulary.
This is how an agnostic would argue the issue. It implies uncertainty as well as leaving oopen the possibility that someone out there may have had genuine contact.
As for the rest of your statement, you again imply that just because it has not happened to you then it could not possibly have happened to anyone else.


I was being sarcastic. I don't genuinely think there are people who can communicate with God. I think there are people who think they can communicate with God; i.e. the mentally ill. I also think there are mentally healthy people who say they can communicate with God; i.e. liars.



Are you actually saying that their isn't a whole class of people who are capable?
How could you possibly know if only they are capable?

Easy. People can demonstrate their unique abilities. I know somebody has a mathematical ability that I don't have when they demonstrate they can solve equations that are too complex for me to solve. People can demonstrate they can communicate with God by being accurate about something only God could possibly know. The fact that religious people throughout history have been wrong about everything that could later be scientifically verified or falsified suggests either that nobody can talk to God or that such people haven't been very influential in the history and development of modern relgion.


The same questions about life and existence apply as equally to them as it does to us.
Since we have no evidence that we are any different from our most distant ancestors then we cannot even begin to assume that they were any nearer or farther away from the truth than we are.

Our most distant ancestors were monocellular. At what point did we start resembling God?



I am not debating from a christian standpoint, if this is what you are implying.
Much of your arguments seem to be based in this very thing.
For example, you keep on referring to God as "he", which is very christian.
From an agnostic/atheist standpoint God can be nothing more than "it" at best.

No, I'm not. I said before that no pronoun can refer to God. But because it would be annoying to write sentences like "God looked in God's pocket to see where God had placed God's keys", I say 'he'.

The 3 omni's perspective isn't inherent to Christianity at all. It's actually MORE sophisticated than Christianity's traditional view -- which is of an anthropomorphic God --. The 3 omni's argument was invented by philosophers long after the birth of Chrisianity.

God as some kind of physically-human-but-bigger, angry, judgemental, egotistical idiot who made a tonne of mistakes in creating the world and its people but expects praise regardless, and then curses his creations to hell anyway for being the imperfect things he himself made them -- is what Christians would believe without Anselm and Aquinas.

You seem to be recommending a reversion to that view as non-Christian.


Why bring jesus into this?
Why do you suppose that my search for a possible God can only be through the christian concept?

I used him as an example of someone who supposedly conversed with God. I also used Muhammed as an example, and I could cite a whole bunch of serial killers too.


Why do you persist with the christian theme?
Why demonize God based on what a single book alleges to know of him?
Atheists do tend to argue, subconsciously, from the standpoint of their initial belief.
Are you a former christian?
Perhaps a small part of you still wants to believe in jesus.
Your arguments begin to resemble more and more those of an agnostic.

I was using Christianity as an expose of the God-as-an-anthropomorphism viewpoint. One, because it's more familar to me, and two, because it's essentially no different from any other Abrahamic religion, and three, because the whole 'suffering God' thing you mentioned sounded pretty Christian. Besides, I've only recently started mentioning specific religions in this thread. My earlier arguments were purely philosophical.

And, no, I'm not and never was Christian (except on paper).

Wulfram
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 06:06 PM
I was being sarcastic. I don't genuinely think there are people who can communicate with God. I think there are people who think they can communicate with God; i.e. the mentally ill. I also think there are mentally healthy people who say they can communicate with God; i.e. liars.

Again, you are basing this assumption entirely on the fact that you yourself have not experienced it.
I know there are a lot of nuts out there who have claimed to be best pals with God, but are we to assume that all the rest must be crazies too?
Is it possible that many of those who may have had contact just prefer to keep it to themselves for fear of being mocked, or that we are not worth sharing the experience with?
Why would they care what an atheist thinks?

This aspect of the debate could go on forever.
There simply is no way for either of us to know if there has ever been a true experience.
Since neither of us has obviously felt it, how can we possibly know what it does or does not feel like?


The fact that religious people throughout history have been wrong about everything that could later be scientifically verified or falsified suggests either that nobody can talk to God or that such people haven't been very influential in the history and development of modern relgion.

Scientifically verified? How is this any different from spiritually realized?
Is it because science has usurprd religions place in schools and in peoples minds the reason why most are apt to believe what it says about everything? Please list all of the things that religious people have been wrong about and I will ask you to prove it yourself without you having to rely on what other men have convinced you to believe.
Please provide for me your own personal findings that you made in the field and laboratory.


Our most distant ancestors were monocellular. At what point did we start resembling God?

Unless we were there from the beginning to witness humans emerge as monocellular then it is nothing more than a theory to suit the evolutionary argument. Can you prove that we did not just appear as is, looking no different than we do now? Of course not.
I could easily ask you at what point did "monocellular" start resembling humans.
There is no way for you to know this unless you were there to witness the transformation.


The 3 omni's perspective isn't inherent to Christianity at all. It's actually MORE sophisticated than Christianity's traditional view -- which is of an anthropomorphic God --. The 3 omni's argument was invented by philosophers long after the birth of Chrisianity.

It does not matter if they were not of christian origin, since the powerful adherents of that religion used them anyway as if they were their own.
The 3 omnis are:

Omnipotence(it can do anything)
Oomniscience(it knows everything)
Omnipresence(it is everywhere)

This sounds christian enough to me.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 06:37 PM
Scientifically verified? How is this any different from spiritually realized?
Is it because science has usurprd religions place in schools and in peoples minds the reason why most are apt to believe what it says about everything? Please list all of the things that religious people have been wrong about and I will ask you to prove it yourself without you having to rely on what other men have convinced you to believe.
Please provide for me your own personal findings that you made in the field and laboratory.

That the world is flat. That the sun orbits the Earth. That the Earth is 6000 years old. That the Earth was created on the same day as the universe. That the universe is 6000 years old. That mind and matter are irreducible. That species were created exactly as they are today.


Unless we were there from the beginning to witness humans emerge as monocellular then it is nothing more than a theory to suit the evolutionary argument. Can you prove that we did not just appear as is, looking no different than we do now? Of course not.
I could easily ask you at what point did "monocellular" start resembling humans.
There is no way for you to know this unless you were there to witness the transformation.

Of course I can. Genes encoding for blondism (hair and eye) can be shown to be recent evolutionary developments. If I have blue-grey eyes (and I do), then I can't possibly look like someone who existed before the mutation for eye blondism came into existence.


It does not matter if they were not of christian origin, since the powerful adherents of that religion used them anyway as if they were their own.
The 3 omnis are:

Omnipotence(it can do anything)
Oomniscience(it knows everything)
Omnipresence(it is everywhere)

This sounds christian enough to me.

Not really. It's more pure theology. The 3 omnis resulted from (in my opinion flawed) logical deductions based on what at the time were accepted ontological and teleological truths. However, they were developed largely by philosophers within Christian lands and so were shoehorned (by the philosophers themselves) into the basic Christian belief system they knew. Christians as a whole, after some resistance, accepted them because the philosophical approach was more convincing than any of the nonsense in the Bible.

Wulfram
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 07:20 PM
That the world is flat. That the sun orbits the Earth. That the Earth is 6000 years old. That the Earth was created on the same day as the universe. That the universe is 6000 years old. That mind and matter are irreducible. That species were created exactly as they are today.

Come on! Those are a given. :D (Or are they?)
Sure, I believe the earth is round, but I have never seen it from a distance.
Even though I believe it is the likely explanation I have never personally seen any planet orbit the sun.
I too believe the earth is more than 6,000 years old. But exactly how do we know just how old it really is?

Do you have any evidence other than somebody else's "likely" theory that humans haven't always been the same?
I ask you again to provide evidence as to how you know this for sure without believing what you have been told.


Of course I can. Genes encoding for blondism (hair and eye) can be shown to be recent evolutionary developments.

Please show me.


If I have blue-grey eyes (and I do), then I can't possibly look like someone who existed before the mutation for eye blondism came into existence.


Again, you are basing your assumptions on evolutionary theory, which means that it is still unproven.


Much of your arguments for atheism typically fall back on evolution to give it extra support. If you rely on a theory to support your belief then atheism itself is equally theoretical. Once again an atheist is taking the "I just know" stance. Neither has ever come close to convincing me otherwise.

How has evolution, or atheism benefited Germanics?
How is it supposed to help us fight islam, multi-culture, or anti-Germanic sentiment?
If our ancestors got along fine without it for untold centuries then why should it be important for modern Germanics?
If they did not need atheism to make our culture great then why should we use it to help return it to glory?
It does not seem to have assisted in the present crisis in the least.
That these theories are also championed by the majority of our enemies does not strike you as odd?
Sure, it may give one the chance to exercise their intellectual muscle, but in the end what is the point?
If modern Germanics have been driven to the lowest point in their history then could not atheism be considered one of the culprits?

velvet
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 08:07 PM
How has (an abrahamic) religion benefited Germanics?

As Agrippa pointed out, christianity has contributed to a large degree to the decreasing of the overall genetic quality of Germanics. Christianity has also corrupted values and virtues. Instead of being accountable for your deeds, you simply bought a letter of indulgence and all was fine again. It teached people that right and wrong are not that important and flexible definitions anyway. Much more important is that you are rich enough to buy you free from the responsibility for your deeds. Christianity thus teaches materialism. Christianity also hijacks the field of social taboos and redefines them as "morals" that are some "god's" commands, thus makes them a thing of religion rather than social behavior and rational reasoning.

So, how has this religion benefited Germanics?

Wulfram
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 08:13 PM
How has (an abrahamic) religion benefited Germanics?


In my previous post I was only asking how atheism/evolution have benefited Germanics, and not justifying christianity.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 08:16 PM
Come on! Those are a given. :D (Or are they?)
Sure, I believe the earth is round, but I have never seen it from a distance.
Even though I believe it is the likely explanation I have never personally seen any planet orbit the sun.
I too believe the earth is more than 6,000 years old. But exactly how do we know just how old it really is?

I don't know if Bolivia exists, or even South America. I've never been. And even if I did go, how would I know I'd landed where the pilot said I'd landed, or that the maps or GPS I looked at weren't lying to me? Maybe there's a worldwide conspiracy that everyone but me is in on to make me think that Bolivia exists, even though it doesn't.

I've never carbon dated anything or been into space, but it's a sign of a poor argument when it needs to fall back on Cartesian-like denial of everything in order to stay alive. There's really no question about evolution, or about the sun's orbit or the approximate age of the Earth. But if you want to think there's a sinister conspiracy in the scientific community to keep secret the truth that the Sun really does orbit the Earth, which is 6000 years old, was made in a day and has always had humans on it, then I say go for it.


Do you have any evidence other than somebody else's "likely" theory that humans haven't always been the same?
I ask you again to provide evidence as to how you know this for sure without believing what you have been told.

There's a wealth of evidence. But if, for example, I cite genetic reasons, or paleontological ones, you'll say "How do you know genetics or paleontology aren't lying to us?", and if I say, "because X", you'll say "How do you know X isn't lying to us?" and so on ad infinitum.


Again, you are basing your assumptions on evolutionary theory, which means that it is still unproven.


Much of your arguments for atheism typically fall back on evolution to give it extra support. If you rely on a theory to support your belief then atheism itself is equally theoretical. Once again an atheist is taking the "I just know" stance. Neither has ever come close to convincing me otherwise.



Not really. Earlier in the thread I proved, if not the non-existence of God, then the irrelevance of God without any recourse whatsoever to the theory of evolution. The latter is just an extra nail in religion's coffin, after it's already been poisoned, bludgeoned to death, decapitated, set alight and buried as ashes.


How has evolution, or atheism benefited Germanics?

Evolution: Quite a lot, since Germanics wouldn't have come into existence without it.

Atheism: Again, quite a lot, since almost all race-denying or race-mixing ideology is rooted in Christian humanitariansim. Plus, it's just plain embarrassing to worship a Jew. But in any case, efficacy has nothing to do with an idea's truth value.


How is it supposed to help us fight islam, multi-culture, or anti-Germanic sentiment?

Easy. When I don't believe in absolute morality, Leftist humanitarian moralists have no leg whatsoever to stand on in arguments with me. They have no retort to the fact that I simply don't value people who don't belong to my race. Leftists always 'give up' on trying to convert me, because they know they'll get absolutely nowhere. Countless times have race-mixers started with, "If you believe in God, then you must love all God's creatures equally" to which I only need reply "I don't and I don't." Christians can't justify not caring about other races.


If our ancestors got along fine without it for untold centuries then why should it be important for modern Germanics?

It depends on the religion. Paganism is harmless. Christianity is harmful.



That these theories are also championed by the majority of our enemies does not strike you as odd?

The fact that 'atheist' Leftists are morally Christian without even realising it is something I never tire of bringing to their attention.


Sure, it may give one the chance to exercise their intellectual muscle, but in the end what is the point?
If modern Germanics have been driven to the lowest point in their history then could not atheism be considered one of the culprits?

No, Christianity is the culprit. It's the origin of humanitarianism. Most atheist are too dense to realise that they're essentially still Christian at heart, but atheism is still a start. Within atheism it's easy to justify racism or preservation or anything you like. Within Christianity it's impossible.

Wulfram
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 09:04 PM
I don't know if Bolivia exists, or even South America. I've never been. And even if I did go, how would I know I'd landed where the pilot said I'd landed, or that the maps or GPS I looked at weren't lying to me? Maybe there's a worldwide conspiracy that everyone but me is in on to make me think that Bolivia exists, even though it doesn't.

At least you have the option of hopping onto a plane and finding out.
Because of this we both know darned well that Bolivia exists.
With space we have to rely on what we are told by those who claim they have been there.


There's really no question about evolution, or about the sun's orbit or the approximate age of the Earth.

Sure there are:

Did you witness the emergence of humans based on this theory?
No.
Have you ever been at a sufficient enough distance to have witnessed the sun's orbit?
No.
How do you know even the approximate age of the earth without having tested it himself?
What were your methods to determine not only its age but also to corroborate the findings of these other men?

For you to say that my persistence in requesting personal evidence is a "poor argument" just says to me that you are trying to cover the fact that you haven't one.
Without evidence you are still relying entirely on what others expect you to believe.
This is not even an argument, just me asking that you provide proof based on YOUR OWN FINDINGS.


There's a wealth of evidence. But if, for example, I cite genetic reasons, or paleontological ones, you'll say "How do you know genetics or paleontology aren't lying to us?", and if I say, "because X", you'll say "How do you know X isn't lying to us?" and so on ad infinitum.

See my previous response.
My questions are quite valid.
I ask for evidence to lend support to your argument.
How is this supposed to be "...and so on ad infinitum"?
The only thing that I see being endless is your refusal to acknowledge that you have no personal evidence to support the theories of others.


Not really. Earlier in the thread I proved, if not the non-existence of God, then the irrelevance of God without any recourse whatsoever to the theory of evolution. The latter is just an extra nail in religion's coffin, after it's already been poisoned, bludgeoned to death, decapitated, set alight and buried as ashes.

Evolution relies on atheism relies on evolution.
The whole point of arguing atheism is to refute the existence of God.
The atheist must naturally have an alternative explanation as to why humans came into being.


Evolution: Quite a lot, since Germanics wouldn't have come into existence without it.

You did not witness a single Germanic come into existence because of evolution.
Once again, it is the old "I just know" theory.


Atheism: Again, quite a lot, since almost all race-denying or race-mixing ideology is rooted in Christian humanitariansim.

Atheism is a staple belief among the majority of liberals who have pushed race-mixing among our people.


Easy. When I don't believe in absolute morality, Leftist humanitarian moralists have no leg whatsoever to stand on in arguments with me. They have no retort to the fact that I simply don't value people who don't belong to my race. Leftists always 'give up' on trying to convert me, because they know they'll get absolutely nowhere. Countless times have race-mixers started with, "If you believe in God, then you must love all God's creatures equally" to which I only need reply "I don't and I don't." Christians can't justify not caring about other races.

How is your ability to talk down leftists supposed to help remove the muslims they were responsible for bringing onto our lands?


It depends on the religion. Paganism is harmless. Christianity is harmful.

What does this have to do with my question? Please elaborate.


No, Christianity is the culprit.

One of the culprits. The inventors of this religion knew that those who turned away from christianity were going to seek an alternative belief.
Atheism plays this role quite nicely. It served to steer Germanics away from returning to the old gods.

Old Winter
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 09:06 PM
Go to a haunted place and see real ghosts, that's what i did.

Joe McCarthy
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 09:15 PM
He commits the same error as nearly all theists: He stresses the physical, intellectual and spiritual dichotomy between God and man, and then proceeds to thoroughly anthropomorphise 'him'.

If we know nothing about God's essence, then we know nothing about what he 'thinks' or 'wants' (ridiculous anthropomorphisms, btw). How do we know God wants us to enjoy his 'blessings'? How do we know what God considers a blessing and what not? Is bowel cancer a blessing? Is congenital blindness? He created them, so I'm guessing yes. But I can't be certain.

The only way anyone could know would be if he communicated his position on things through some kind of revelation, or endowed us from our very inception with the capacity to comprehend him, neither of which he's done.

No offense to you, friend, but you are repeatedly failing to grasp Pascal's argument (though I'm beginning to think it is willful, as I'm well aware that this stuff is often as dogmatic to atheists as it is to the most hardened fundamentalists). I will therefore state the argument one more time and then this debate will be finished, on my end at least.

When Pascal says that God's essence is incomprehensible that has nothing to do with his view that belief in God has utility, for if God exists, and if believing in him gains us salvation, then we have much to gain in believing in him, and much to lose in not believing in him. Sure, God may not exist, but it offers us nothing to disbelieve. That, put simply, is Pascal's Wager, and I'll wager that most relatively un-dogmatic people will see its validity.

Joe McCarthy
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by Ronan
How has evolution, or atheism benefited Germanics?
How is it supposed to help us fight islam, multi-culture, or anti-Germanic sentiment?
If our ancestors got along fine without it for untold centuries then why should it be important for modern Germanics?


A fine point often made in the consequentialist mold, and one that atheists have never adequately addressed. When Sobieski led his cavalry charge down the hill against Kara Mustafa Pasha at the gates of Vienna, his men were motivated by Christian faith. Atheists, in their theocidal fanaticism, have never offered a suitable alternative to God as a motivator, and we are seeing the consequences of the death of God now: with highly motivated Muslims, whose God is still very real to them, on the verge of destroying us.

Joseph de Maistre foresaw this two centuries ago in asking the skeptics: once you have abolished God, what will you replace him with? As we have seen, nothing has replaced him except hopelessness, weakness, nihilism, and a will-to-death.

Western man needs God.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 09:36 PM
At least you have the option of hopping onto a plane and finding out.
Because of this we both know darned well that Bolivia exists.
With space we have to rely on what we are told by those who claim they have been there.

This is getting ridiculous. It's like talking to a child who keeps saying "Why?" "Why?" "Why?"

You can get on a plane and go to Bolivia, just like you could get on a space shuttle, or watch a satellite feed, or follow Copernicus' mathematics, or observe how axis and position of orbit combine to explain seasons, day/night cycles etc. or any one of the many other ways of knowing that the earth orbits the sun. What if the satellite feeds are fake, you ask? Well, what if all the sign posts telling you you're in Bolivia are fake? What if you had a stroke that made you think Bolivia existed, and whenever you look at where you think Bolivia is on a map, which is in reality is just a big lake in S. America, your brain is telling you that you see a country called Bolivia?



Did you witness the emergence of humans based on this theory?


Have you ever been to Bolivia?


Have you ever been at a sufficient enough distance to have witnessed the sun's orbit?

Ever wondered why you've never met anyone from Bolivia?


How do you know even the approximate age of the earth without having tested it himself?

Bolivia is a lie.

Look, there's a difference between healthy suspicion and a lust for scientific theoretical rigour, and being absurd. If you think that of the hundreds of thousands of people who've studied astronomy, paleontology, genetics etc. every single one of them has seen the lie but sworn a secret oath never to reveal the truth to the masses. We're not talking about a small group of people with OBVIOUS vested interests saying "We've seen the truth, just trust us" (which, incidentally, is what religion is) -- scientific research is available to everyone who wants to see. Science isn't taken on faith; it's proved to people who are capable of understanding it. If you research genetic science yourself, then you can see for yourself what's real and what's not.

But I'll tell you what, if science is such a lie, learn an area of it yourself, expose the many ways in which the scientific community has been lying to us, and then become rich and famous.


hat were your methods to determine not only its age but also to corroborate the findings of these other men?

For you to say that my persistence in requesting personal evidence is a "poor argument" just says to me that you are trying to cover the fact that you haven't one.
Without evidence you are still relying entirely on what others expect you to believe.
This is not even an argument, just me asking that you provide proof based
on YOUR OWN FINDINGS.

So every single person needs to discover the theory of relativity for themselves before they believe it? What about nuclear physics? Do you believe nuclear science is behind nuclear explosions, or do you think nuclear missiles are just as likely to be filled with gummy bears? Neither os us understands nuclear physics, so we should be weary of gummy bears. They may explode at any time.


See my previous response.
My questions are quite valid.
I ask for evidence to lend support to your argument.
How is this supposed to be "...and so on ad infinitum"?
The only thing that I see being endless is your refusal to acknowledge that you have no personal evidence to support the theories of others.

Do you think people should independently invent planes before they go on holliday to Hawaii? If not, then basically you're expecting people to trust a science they themselves didn't invent. I don't need to invent genetic science in order to understand and follow it personally.


Evolution relies on atheism relies on evolution.
The whole point of arguing atheism is to refute the existence of God.
The atheist must naturally have an alternative explanation as to why humans came into being.

Why? That reminds me of an annoying thing my dad used to do. He'd say something like "That's Hulk Hogan!" I'd say "No, it's not" and he'd say "Who is it then?" I don't need to know who the person is to know it isn't Hulk Hogan, just as atheists don't need to know how the universe was created to prove God doesn't exist.



Atheism is a staple belief among the majority of liberals who have pushed race-mixing among our people.

Because they were socialised into a society in which Christian values persist, although the religion is dead.


How is your ability to talk down leftists supposed to help remove the muslims they were responsible for bringing onto our lands?

Extrapolate. If all Germanics were me, there'd be no problems in our lands.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 09:40 PM
No offense to you, friend, but you are repeatedly failing to grasp Pascal's argument (though I'm beginning to think it is willfull, as I'm well aware that this stuff is often as dogmatic to atheists as it is to the most hardened fundamentalists). I will therefore state the argument one more time and then this debate will be finished, on my end at least.

When Pascal says that God's essence is incomprehensible that has nothing to do with his view that belief in God has utility, for if God exists, and if believing in him gains us salvation, then we have much to gain in believing in him, and much to lose in not believing in him. Sure, God may not exist, but it offers us nothing to disbelieve. That, put simply, is Pascal's Wager, and I'll wager that most relatively un-dogmatic people will see its validity.

Nope, you just failed to understand me (for about the third time). Because I'm tiring of this, I'll state it as succinctly as possible: If we can't comprehend God, then we have no idea whether believing in him gains us salvation or not. I can't make myself clearer than this. If you dont know anything about somebody, you don't whether they like cheesecake or not. If you don't know anything about God, you don't know whether he likes people to believe in him or not. He could very well despise sycophants.

Wulfram
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 10:02 PM
If you think that of the hundreds of thousands of people who've studied astronomy, paleontology, genetics etc.


Hundreds of millions believe in islam as well. Hundreds of thousands out of these have "studied" it. Does this mean they are also telling the truth?


If you research genetic science yourself, then you can see for yourself what's real and what's not.

I would have to invent my own methods to determine that previous theories on genetic science are true.
You still offer me nothing but your insistence that what other men say are true.
I want evidence of Hamar Fox coming to his own conclusions using his own techniques to confirm what he thinks is the likely truth.
Instead of throwing a fit why don't you just provide what I am asking of you?
Is this so hard?
If you cannot then you have only the word of others, which is not nearly enough.


So every single person needs to discover the theory of relativity for themselves before they believe it? What about nuclear physics?


They would need to conduct independent studies to determine if these accepted beliefs are in fact correct.
Until this is achieved there is no way any of them can possibly know if they are even close to the truth.



...just as atheists don't need to know how the universe was created to prove God doesn't exist.


Perhaps your most naive sentence yet. You don't need proof?! :|


Because they were socialised into a society in which Christian values persist, although the religion is dead.

You also were socialized into that society. Do you really think your atheism is any different than their own? It all boils down to the same basic tenet.


If all Germanics were me, there'd be no problems in our lands.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, atheists tend to think they are very important people.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 10:27 PM
Hundreds of millions believe in islam as well. Hundreds of thousands out of these have "studied" it. Does this mean they are also telling the truth?

They know that Islam is a real religion. They didn't study Islam for years only to discover that no such religion exists. Study of Islam doesn't entail study of the truth of Islam, but the content of Islam. Study of science entails the study of the validity of science.


I would have to invent my own methods to determine that previous theories on genetic science are true.
You still offer me nothing but your insistence that what other men say are true.
I want evidence of Hamar Fox coming to his own conclusions using his own techniques to confirm what he thinks is the likely truth.

See the first three or four of my posts in this thread (which I'm sure you didn't bother to read). All my own thoughts and ideas. I didn't copy anyone and I wasn't inspired by anyone.


Instead of throwing a fit why don't you just provide what I am asking of you?
Is this so hard?
If you cannot then you have only the word of others, which is not nearly enough.

LOL @ 'throwing a fit'. Although I will admit this is becoming so tedious it actually is beginning to get under my skin. You want me on the spot to invent my own unique scientific methods in order to verify that the sun doesn't orbit the Earth, without any reference whatsoever to established methods? You want me to develop unique equipment and provide you with the data they yield so I can respond to your request in this thread?


Perhaps your most naive sentence yet. You don't need proof?! :|

Read what I said. You don't need to know what something is in order to know what it isn't. You don't need to know what 56745674574 times 356553636 is in order to know it's not 1.


You also were socialized into that society. Do you really think your atheism is any different than their own? It all boils down to the same basic tenet.

Yes, I really do. I've yet to meet anyone who comes close to being anything like me. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly true. Nobody thinks what I think for the same reasons I think them. If someone does, I really want to meet him (or preferably her :D ).


As I mentioned in a previous thread, atheists tend to think they are very important people.

Arrogance is a Germanic virtue.

Wulfram
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 10:33 PM
They know that Islam is a real religion. They didn't study Islam for years only to discover that no such religion exists. Study of Islam doesn't entail study of the truth of Islam, but the content of Islam.
study of science entails the study of the validity of science.



See the first three or four of my posts in this thread (which I'm sure you didn't bother to read). All my own thoughts and ideas. I didn't copy anyone and I wasn't inspired by anyone.



LOL @ 'throwing a fit. Although I will admit this is becoming so painful it actually is beginning to get under my skin. You want me on the spot to invent my own unique scientific methods in order to verify that the sun doesn't orbit the Earth, without any reference whatsoever to established methods? You want me to develop unique equipment and provide you with the data they yield so I can respond to your request in this thread?



Read what I said. You don't need to know what something is in order to know what it isn't. You don't need to know what 56745674574 times 356553636 is in order to know it's not 1.



Yes, I really do. I've yet to meet anyone who comes close to being anything like me. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly true. Nobody thinks what I think for the same reasons I think them. If someone does, I really want to meet him.



Arrogance is a Germanic virtue.

I feel that I have already made enough sufficient points to counter your arguments.
If you feel the need to belabor your unconvincing arguments go ahead, but I am off to have some dinner. :)

velvet
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 10:34 PM
How has (an abrahamic) religion benefited Germanics?

In my previous post I was only asking how atheism/evolution have benefited Germanics, and not justifying christianity.

The point is that before christianity came, Germanics did not have a "religion". Germanics didnt know a religion, nor the concept of religion. Religion is in its entirety an Abrahamic/Semitic construct.

The opposite of atheism is to have a religion. Not that Vindefense would agree, he says atheism is a religion as well. Which is nonsense, because when you don't believe in god, what atheism simply means, you have absolutely no use for a religion either.

But also "atheism" is a semitic concept. It applies to everyone who doesnt believe in the biblical god. It doesnt matter, and didnt matter 1000 years ago either, whether the people believed in other gods. Christian writers called Germanics godless and gentiles until well into the 11th century, Jews continue to call us gentiles. Muslims call us infidels, unbelievers, funnily enough also christians who believe in the very same god but call him different. So, atheism doesnt only apply to non-believers in god, but also to those who follow the wrong religion. And this interconnection of the terms "god" and "religion", the inseperable connection between the object of worship and the method of worship, is in its entirety a Semitic concept.

So, the opposite of atheism is having a religion, and thus it must, by definition, be one of the three Abrahamic religions, because there are no others.

Thus, the legitimate question in return how religion has benefited Germanics in the past. And objectively viewed, the results and consequences of this imposed religion have been catastrophal. How surprising actually, after all there has never come anything good out of the Semitic mind.

And from this point it makes absolutely no sense to ask for the benefits of Atheism or another faith that people can possibly have, because it would at any rate prove to be better than that.

One of my earlier arguments is that believers are essentially children. Maybe atheists, at least those who spent some serious thoughts on that and not just quit christianity because they dont want to pay the church fee anymore, are our best bet for matured human beings that are able to handle reality without any superstitions. Laws, rules, right and wrong, social taboos are much better based in common sense, rational reasoning, science and facts than in superstitions.

The same essentially is true for Nihilists, but thats a different discussion alltogether.

God's nature and meaning is the same as the nature and meaning of the monster under the bed (that is only there in the dark, hence the candle beside the bed for comfort and to banish the fear). Eventually the child must get past that to become matured or be the rest of its life a creature controlled by fear.

And btw I can think of thousand reasons to push out Muslims, god though is none of them. Our race, our cultures, our social order, our lands, our laws, our rules, our right and wrong, our history, our ancestors, our future generations, our whatever down to the point of each person's personal little important things and each person's life. For me personally this is enough to fight for.

And, of course, for Odin, Thor and Freya and the rest :thumbup

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 7th, 2010, 10:42 PM
I feel that I have already made enough sufficient points to counter your arguments.
If you feel the need to belabor your unconvincing arguments go ahead, but I am off to have some dinner. :)

I'm sorry I failed to convince you the sun doesn't orbit the Earth. Perhaps Copernicus could have done better :(

Vindefense
Friday, October 8th, 2010, 01:38 AM
So, basically you say that people who do not believe in a fantasy god for which there arent even hints for his/her/its existence, cannot have intuition? But yeah, I remember that "believers" also assume that this fantasy god gave "them" the free will, while those who do not believe also have no will, neither free nor anyhow else.

Velvet, I agree with you on the issue of belief and faith, they both are a means to suppress doubt. My aim was to point out that those who reject religion do not escape it by turning to atheism. Those who turn to atheism usually do so because of doubt and no matter how you look at it doubt is hardly a solid footing. Besides, doesn't a skeptic usually asks questions in order to alleviate their unsureness?


Not believing in god, based on a complete lack of his/her/its presence, alleged doings and so on is not "faith", it is knowledge.

The problem with science is that it has become diametrically opposed to a higher explanation of life and so it will never cede to anything other than a material existence. It has left the realm of truth which is why atheism has become extremely contradictory and is a religion in itself.


When you strip yourself off everything you know, the question is why would one come to the idea that there is something like god? When you delete all the BS data from your mind, also the empty assumption of a "god" is deleted, and so this tabula rasa person would NEVER ask this question.

Your right, the question would not need to be asked, neither doubt nor faith would be necessary as this is something that must be learned. To children god is a feeling they can feel, a scent they can smell and a presence all around them. We root this out of children by teaching them god is not tangible but something they must have faith in and believe in like the fictional Santa Claus.

One goes beyond belief when they admit to themselves that the existence of a god can not be denied as it manifests everywhere you look, whether it is in the tenderness of a mother cat with her kittens or the violence of the fox that overtakes the hare. It is there.

Johann Wolfgang Goethe:


"I ask not whether this highest Being has reason and understanding, but I feel that He is Reason, is Understanding itself. Therewith are all creatures penetrated; and man has so much of it that he can recognize parts of the Highest."

Wulfram
Friday, October 8th, 2010, 01:40 PM
Thus, the legitimate question in return how religion has benefited Germanics in the past. And objectively viewed, the results and consequences of this imposed religion have been catastrophal. How surprising actually, after all there has never come anything good out of the Semitic mind.

And from this point it makes absolutely no sense to ask for the benefits of Atheism or another faith that people can possibly have, because it would at any rate prove to be better than that.

Atheism is as a result of being dissatisfied with not just religion but existence itself. It is spiritual frustration.
Therefore atheism came after the notion of God or religion.
No evidence exists to suggest that our earliest thinking ancestors went straight for the disbelief as soon as they could first reason.
Whose to say that they did not get religion right, and only later was it corrupted? (Corrupted by atheists, perhaps?)

You still have not answered my question as to how atheism is going to help modern Germanics rise above and become great again.

velvet
Friday, October 8th, 2010, 02:42 PM
Velvet, I agree with you on the issue of belief and faith, they both are a means to suppress doubt. My aim was to point out that those who reject religion do not escape it by turning to atheism. Those who turn to atheism usually do so because of doubt and no matter how you look at it doubt is hardly a solid footing. Besides, doesn't a skeptic usually asks questions in order to alleviate their unsureness?

But, seriously, what would be the alternative to "religion" if the not the rejection of it, ie atheism? Another religion? Exchange one nonsense for another nonsense?

And I find it rather pointless to repeat that being curious, asking questions and so on is a very basic natural human behavior and longing for knowledge as well, it isnt a "religion" though. As I said, religion is the inseperable conjunction of the object of worship and the method of worship. When you want to equate the "longing for knowledge" with the object of worship, then this 'might' work, but science does not pin down the method of worship. Science also contains the possibility to correct until then accepted knowledge, science also contains the possibility to use a myriad of alternative methods etc. It is therefore not "religion".



The problem with science is that it has become diametrically opposed to a higher explanation of life and so it will never cede to anything other than a material existence. It has left the realm of truth which is why atheism has become extremely contradictory and is a religion in itself.

My profile still says "Heathen atheist", to which I fully stand, but I cant find myself in your definition of atheism at all. When science, the seeking for knowledge, is, as you say, a contradiction, then the belief in a fantasy god is even more a contradiction - to life itself, and the human abilities to understand.

And it IS a contradiction. Whatever people claim this 3omni god has done, said, not done, whatever, is from A to Z a fantasy product of people who have stopped to seek knowledge and made up fluffy explanations instead - that in the course of scientific development for large parts have already been proven beyond any doubt wrong.

So, where is the basis for a belief in this fantasy god?
That it gives comfort? That's a cheap excuse, not a basis. That it promises you eternal life after you have died (which makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER)? Okay, I understand that the fact that afterwards there is nothing is frustrating maybe. But it is still not more than a cheap excuse. I just dont understand the psychology, or even the alleged emotional reward of having a religion. It is just a cheap excuse for not taking responsibility for your life. And believe me, I have tried to find this comfort and emotional reward when I was a youth. There is just nothing, no matter how much I or you wished there would be something.



Your right, the question would not need to be asked, neither doubt nor faith would be necessary as this is something that must be learned. To children god is a feeling they can feel, a scent they can smell and a presence all around them. We root this out of children by teaching them god is not tangible but something they must have faith in and believe in like the fictional Santa Claus.

Why is the feeling itself not enough? The love of the mother, the smell when she makes cookies for the child, when she sings it into sleep, whatever. Why is the love, that is present at all times, of the extended family / tribe not enough to "worship"? I dont understand why there must be that fantasy product that takes all the glory, although it has nothing to do with the child's or anyone's life at all, has never done anything, never gave anything? Why is nature, this impersonal yet so powerful ehm "essence" (for lack of a better word right now) not enough to worship? Nature is our mother, our father, our life, our past, our future, nature is always there, has always been there and will still be there when we are long gone. Why is it not enough to worship, but there needs to be this fantasy product in order to give "meaning", which we already have. We just need to open our eyes.


One goes beyond belief when they admit to themselves that the existence of a god can not be denied as it manifests everywhere you look, whether it is in the tenderness of a mother cat with her kittens or the violence of the fox that overtakes the hare. It is there.

Maybe I lack the sense for this infantile (sorry) romanticism, but the brutal truth is that this is nature, not a god. And for sure not one with the 3omni attributes.

You see, I dont deny Odin, Freya, Thor and all the others, there might even be more than we know or remember. But they didnt create the universe, they didnt create the earth, they didnt create life. They are themselves a product of evolution, that have some connection to us, but they arent the source nor governer of us or anything around us. They are nothing like what we today, after thousands of years of intellectual rape of the term, understand under a "god". And when you start to penetrate the secret of their nature, you also start to understand that spirituality and science do not need to be contradictions.

You say, science and religion are a contradiction. This is true. But religion is also a contradiction to spirituality. When you really seek some form of "higher existence" or "higher truth of existence", it is absolutely vital that you leave religion, and this absurd notion of a 3omni god, behind. There is no truth in it.

Der Gott, der Eisen wachsen liess, der wollte keine Knechte ;)

Joe McCarthy
Friday, October 8th, 2010, 10:44 PM
Originally Posted by Hamar Fox
No, Christianity is the culprit. It's the origin of humanitarianism. Most atheist are too dense to realise that they're essentially still Christian at heart, but atheism is still a start. Within atheism it's easy to justify racism or preservation or anything you like. Within Christianity it's impossible.

Much of racialist thought, particularly in the US, has been informed by Christianity. To say humanitarianism came out of Christianity isn't saying anything particularly compelling. Given Christianity's all pervasive influence on our culture, it's pretty much influenced everything. As the atheist Sartre said, in reality we are still Christians.

One could even argue that humanitarianism derives specifically from Renaissance Humanism, and the Renaissance was something of a pagan revival, if anything.


Easy. When I don't believe in absolute morality, Leftist humanitarian moralists have no leg whatsoever to stand on in arguments with me.

Historicism is a form of moral relativism, and it is the ethical partner of nationalism. Historicism as it relates to nationalism came from a Protestant minister, so this simplistic model you're offering which justifies anti-Christian sentiment by equating it with 'absolute morality' is woefully naive.

Indeed, as you strike me as a Nietzschean, you should know that historicist currents influenced Nietzsche's own 'positive ethics'.

Hamar Fox
Friday, October 8th, 2010, 11:18 PM
Much of racialist thought, particularly in the US, has been informed by Christianity. To say humanitarianism came out of Christianity isn't saying anything particularly compelling. Given Christianity's all pervasive influence on our culture, it's pretty much influenced everything. As the atheist Sartre said, in reality we are still Christians.

Anti-racist ideology is premised on the Christian concept of the brotherhood of man. Whatever racism existed in Christian societies, existed despite Christianity, not because of it. Whether by instinct or by some vestige of pre-Christian attitude, racism did persist through the ages, but was fought vehemently at every step by Christian moralists (e.g. Wilberforce).

It did take Christianity a few centuries to claw its way into the European character. For a few centuries (until around the 17th) Christianity was essentially a pretext for Europeans to do what it was in their nature to do (for the English to expel Jews and Gypsies, for the Inquisition to expel or execute Moriscos and Jews, for the crusaders to conquer lands etc.). The teachings of Jebus were so alien to Europe that, quite simply, for a long time our ancestors simply didn't 'get it'. They did things Jebus would never himself do or endorse, yet they did it in his name. It was around the 17th century that Jebus' words finally began to sink in and our ancestors started echoing his universalistic worldview. I find it hard to find any trace of racist thought in 17th to early 19th century British literature. To Europeans of that era races could be made equal to Europeans by showing them the light of Christianity. Blood was removed from the equation completely. All arguments at the time promoting the humanity of non-Europeans were of a religious nature. The fundamental equality of all men was obvious to the followers of Jebus. Racism didn't come back in vogue in Europe until Darwin arrived with his brand of scientific racism, which had nothing to do with Christianity and, indeed, was strongly opposed by Christians (partly owing to moral outrage at the idea of races being inherently unequal).


One could even argue that humanitarianism derives specifically from Renaissance Humanism, and the Renaissance was something of a pagan revival, if anything.

It derives specifically from the Christian precept that all men are equal under God.


Historicism is a form of moral relativism, and it is the ethical partner of nationalism. Historicism as it relates to nationalism came from a Protestant minister, so this simplistic model you're offering which justifies anti-Christian sentiment by equating it with 'absolute morality' is woefully naive.

Indeed, as you strike me as a Nietzschean, you should know that historicist currents influenced Nietzsche's own 'positive ethics'.

Christians believe in absolute morality. There's no getting around that. If a particular nominal Christian espouses moral relativism, then he's a poor Christian. Again, all manner of achievement has been accomplished within Christian Europe, but despite it, not because of it.

Joe McCarthy
Friday, October 8th, 2010, 11:35 PM
Originally Posted by Hamar Fox
Anti-racist ideology is premised on the Christian concept of the brotherhood of man.

This can be debated, and I have no strong view, but anti-racism probably came out of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the French Revolution was a fundamentally anti-Christian revolution.


Whatever racism existed in Christian societies, existed despite Christianity, not because of it.

This is certainly false. Theologians constantly used scripture to bolster racialist views, especially the story involving Ham.


Racism didn't come back in vogue in Europe until Darwin arrived with his brand of scientific racism, which had nothing to do with Christianity and, indeed, was strongly opposed by Christians

This is involved as well, but early on at least, Darwin didn't intend his theories to be an attack on Christianity, and in The Origin of Species he specifically denied they were.


It derives specifically from the Christian precept that all men are equal under God.

This isn't entirely clear in my opinion. It could be rooted in Greek humanism. Maybe Protagoras.


Again, all manner of achievement has been accomplished within Christian Europe, but despite it, not because of it.

As Houston Stewart Chamberlain observed, one of religion's strong points is that it motivates men to build great edifices for their gods. Needless to say, Christian faith motivated much art and architecture in Europe. Christendom also instilled a sense of unity in Europeans that enabled them to resist the Ottomans, which laid the groundwork for much of the progress we have seen. In truth, the benefits Christianity gave to Europe are too numerous to be listed, though there were negatives as well. Conversely, I dare say atheism's negative balance is much worse than Christianity's.

velvet
Saturday, October 9th, 2010, 12:32 AM
This can be debated, and I have no strong view, but anti-racism probably came out of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the French Revolution was a fundamentally anti-Christian revolution.

No, it was an anti totalitarian monarch and anti church revolution. The church ruled, the church selected the monarch, the church crowned the monarch, the church killed the monarch when he wasnt to use anymore, the church governed and the puppet monarch represented (familiar concept eh... the CFR so to say is the church... and it's still entirely Jewish... oops I did it again :-O ). It was certainly not "anti-christian", the slogan is taken directly out of christian scholar teaching of the time.

To make the equation church = christianity certainly would lead to a misconception, just like people keep claiming that Marxism would be anti-christian. It is not, it is christianity completely, except that they exchanged "god" with the "state" and the service to the god with the service to the state.



As Houston Stewart Chamberlain observed, one of religion's strong points is that it motivates men to build great edifices for their gods.

Which has what worth, value and sense exactly? :scratch

And it's very much one of the many completely alien things to our ancestors that Hamar Fox mentioned. They didnt build temples for their gods. This would have been quite an absurd idea to them, as well as idolatry.

Though they had holy sites, and christianity desecrated them with shallow worship. Of a Jew.


Needless to say, Christian faith motivated much art and architecture in Europe.

I would have prefered to see works of OUR culture and traditions, instead of a dead Jew nailed to the cross....


Christendom also instilled a sense of unity in Europeans that enabled them to resist the Ottomans

BS. The still pagan Saxons paused their own battle against the Franks to go support them to push back out the Muslims, who attempted to take Spain and France.
So to say that a pagan Europe would have been overrun due to a lack of a unity-sense certainly is wrong.

And even further. Christianity has for long periods contributed to the overall division of Europe, because being christian isnt enough for any of the myriads of denominations, you need the right denomination, and so neighbor city fought against neighbor city, neighbor duchy fought against neighbor duchy and so on. Although it is meanwhile at large denied, but the Ireland conflict is such a religious conflict. Not enough that the English want to rule over them, no, they also want to impose their religion upon them. And this is the real problem there, not that an "alien" people attempts to rule them.

Which in turn also proves that christianity puts emphasis on the wrong things. The Irish should rather bother about being ruled by someone else rather than just by the wrong religion. :shrug


which laid the groundwork for much of the progress we have seen.

Ah, yeah, the progress in persecuting people with medical knowledge (mostly women, ie "witches"), the progress in persecuting scientists, doctors, astronomers, in hindering scientific work and hiding tons of books and scriptures and artefacts in inaccessible libraries or the Vatikan. It has certainly brought us forward to burn the best of our people, keep people poor and uneducated, stupid and controllable and as slaves to landlords and the church, which pressed a fortune out of the starving people while it glorified a Jew with gold and other useless staffage. Before you say this was middle ages. No, it wasnt. The last "witch" was burnt in 1898 in England. Long after the renaissance, the enlightenment and all the fancy revolutions. And the church stopped with that only because laws stopped them.


Conversely, I dare say atheism's negative balance is much worse than Christianity's.

Quod demonstrandum erat.

Forest_Dweller
Saturday, October 9th, 2010, 01:36 AM
When it comes to my beliefs I don't try make much reasoning for it, it is simply what I believe. I believe that emotions are more than biological functions and if we did not have some kind of spiritual life force we would merely be robotic beings living on impulse.

For me whether god exists at all is irrelevent, what is important is striving for a higher ideal, looking to a higher being (whether real or not) and having a being that represents your culture and folk identity. In this sense I don't think Atheists should be excluded from ritual and religious practices if they want to take part. I don't think one should have to believe in the gods to be an Odinist or Asatruer, all that is needed is an affinity with your roots and ancestors.

And as for people arguing whats the point of making temples shrines and churches for your god. Well I think this all goes back to the importance of beauty and sanctuary. I think we as humans need a place to go to contemplate, to be a way from the busy and stressful speed of life and explore our subconscious. Some people would say nature provides this need and it does in a sense, but temples are also manmade and formed from nature. So I think a temple is much more personal than nature and expresses our identity and culture in a way nature can't. Another reason why they are important.

Gods for me can either be inward expressions of our culture and ideals or outward independant beings, but they are still important imo.

I believe our ancestors did have a temple aswell in Uppsala where sacrifices were performed.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, October 9th, 2010, 09:50 AM
This can be debated, and I have no strong view, but anti-racism probably came out of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the French Revolution was a fundamentally anti-Christian revolution.

I'd say it was Christian. The key legacy of Christianity is its corruption of the European character. One of the primary motives for leftist anti-Christianism is that the established branches of Christianity aren't Christian enough -- meaning that within the Christianity they know, Christian ideals of tolerance and universalism are insufficiently realised. When leftists oppose Christianity, it isn't the spirit of Jesus' teachings they oppose, but a particular interpretation of Christianity, which differs from Jesus' teachings, however slightly, because it's invested with at least some European instinct.

Leftism in essence is pure Christianity. The French Revolution was a a revolt against blood caste, and hence in the broadest sense against race. In fact, I know of at least one Mulatto general who fought with the revolutionaries. And this happened because the natural order of caste could no longer sustain itself once Christianity had rotted its moral foundation.

When a religion's ideals permeate a race's character, then nominal religiosity becomes irrelevant. The religion has already won. That's how I see leftists. Pure Christians in mind and spirit who've merely ejected the redundant shell of nominal Christianity.


This is certainly false. Theologians constantly used scripture to bolster racialist views, especially the story involving Ham.

Sure, but that's because they still had at least some healthy instincts. They were clutching at straws, though. Christianity entails an emphasis on Christ and the New Testament, which contains no such racialism. If the new and old testaments conflict, Christians must follow the new by default.


This is involved as well, but early on at least, Darwin didn't intend his theories to be an attack on Christianity, and in The Origin of Species he specifically denied they were.

True. Darwin was also anti-racist. The un-Christian ramifications of his theory pained him, because like all good Christians he wanted to believe all men were fundamentally equal. In reading his works, I've noticed a number of deliberate attempts to water down the implications of his theory as it relates to human races.


As Houston Stewart Chamberlain observed, one of religion's strong points is that it motivates men to build great edifices for their gods. Needless to say, Christian faith motivated much art and architecture in Europe. Christendom also instilled a sense of unity in Europeans that enabled them to resist the Ottomans, which laid the groundwork for much of the progress we have seen. In truth, the benefits Christianity gave to Europe are too numerous to be listed, though there were negatives as well. Conversely, I dare say atheism's negative balance is much worse than Christianity's.

And without Christianity, Pagan art and architecture would have dominated. Europeans are a creative race. They can work with anything you give them. Threat of invasion is sufficient to motivate a people or a constellation of people to wage war. It was in all Europeans' interest to stem the flood of Moors and Ottomans into Europe. Similar (non-religious) alliances were forged in the defence of Europe from Huns, Mongols etc.

It's true that Christianity instilled a sense of unity in its followers. But it's mere geographical happenstance that those followers were mostly European. That certainly wouldn't be the case forever, and became less and less true over time. That same unity now undercuts race: it binds Europeans to a multitude of other races, which European missionaries were always eager to convert and invite into the fold.

I agree with you, though: Atheists in general, at least in my experience, hate Christianity for the few features I kind of like; i.e. the few elements that are instinctively European. Too many atheists defy Christianity on moral grounds, and are in essence better Christians than the Christians themselves. Those who reject Christianity on a philosophical basis, however, really shouldn't be tarnished with the same brush.

Joe McCarthy
Saturday, October 9th, 2010, 10:05 PM
Much of what I'm about to say to Hamar also addresses velvet's points, so in the interest of time I'll concentrate on his points.


Originally Posted by Hamar Fox
I'd say it was Christian. The key legacy of Christianity is its corruption of the European character. One of the primary motives for leftist anti-Christianism is that the established branches of Christianity aren't Christian enough -- meaning that within the Christianity they know, Christian ideals of tolerance and universalism are insufficiently realised. When leftists oppose Christianity, it isn't the spirit of Jesus' teachings they oppose, but a particular interpretation of Christianity, which differs from Jesus' teachings, however slightly, because it's invested with at least some European instinct.


I don't think desecration of churches, gunning down priests, public orgies in the streets, mass murder and rapine, cults of 'reason' that deny God, etc., qualifies as a Christian revolution.


True. Darwin was also anti-racist.

Maybe early on. He seemed to become more racist as he became less religious, though I'm unsure the two are connected. Here are some extracts from his later work The Descent of Man:

http://www.westernrevival.org/descent_of_man.htm


And without Christianity, Pagan art and architecture would have dominated. Europeans are a creative race.

Not necessarily. The sort of architecture that was common among Christians was basically unknown among Germanics prior to Christianity. Christianity served as a creative spark. When Chamberlain spoke of pagan accomplishments in building great architecture for their gods, it's telling that he didn't speak of Germanics but of things like the Greek Parthenon. This is all the more revealing as Chamberlain was a pan-German chauvinist.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/parthenon-and-the-acropolis-landmark-1.jpg




Threat of invasion is sufficient to motivate a people or a constellation of people to wage war. It was in all Europeans' interest to stem the flood of Moors and Ottomans into Europe. Similar (non-religious) alliances were forged in the defence of Europe from Huns, Mongols etc.


The Christian Commonwealth instilled a sense of unity that would not have been achieved otherwise. While some non-Christian military alliances existed and would have existed without Christianity, it's not hard to agree with the idea that Christianity strengthened the prospects for this. We wouldn't have seen the degree of unity that existed between Latins and Germanics, such as there was, without Christianity, for example. Christianity provided a metaphysical motive to push out the infidel. Sobieski, a Pole, came to the aid of Vienna due in great part to Christian faith.


I find it hard to find any trace of racist thought in 17th to early 19th century British literature. To Europeans of that era races could be made equal to Europeans by showing them the light of Christianity. Blood was removed from the equation completely.

Hmmm, off the top of my head I recall borderline anti-Semitism in Jane Austen, I believe Pride and Prejudice, more than borderline in Lord Byron's Don Juan, and racialist views even among Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Kant. In fact, it also existed among British philosophers. Here is David Hume in Of National Characters (1753):


I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly

There are no doubt many others from that time period I could cite if given the time to research it and recall what I've read.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, October 13th, 2010, 08:12 PM
Much of what I'm about to say to Hamar also addresses velvet's points, so in the interest of time I'll concentrate on his points.

I don't think desecration of churches, gunning down priests, public orgies in the streets, mass murder and rapine, cults of 'reason' that deny God, etc., qualifies as a Christian revolution.

Oh, they weren't particularly Christian in method, but they were wholly so in objective. A leftist utopia and a Christian utopia would be identical.


Not necessarily. The sort of architecture that was common among Christians was basically unknown among Germanics prior to Christianity. Christianity served as a creative spark. When Chamberlain spoke of pagan accomplishments in building great architecture for their gods, it's telling that he didn't speak of Germanics but of things like the Greek Parthenon. This is all the more revealing as Chamberlain was a pan-German chauvinist.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/parthenon-and-the-acropolis-landmark-1.jpg

http://www.roxanneardary.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/neuschwanstein-castle.jpg


The Christian Commonwealth instilled a sense of unity that would not have been achieved otherwise. While some non-Christian military alliances existed and would have existed without Christianity, it's not hard to agree with the idea that Christianity strengthened the prospects for this. We wouldn't have seen the degree of unity that existed between Latins and Germanics, such as there was, without Christianity, for example. Christianity provided a metaphysical motive to push out the infidel. Sobieski, a Pole, came to the aid of Vienna due in great part to Christian faith.

Alliances between Rome and Germanics existed in order to repel the Huns. Common interest/fear binds people more closely than common religion.


Hmmm, off the top of my head I recall borderline anti-Semitism in Jane Austen, I believe Pride and Prejudice, more than borderline in Lord Byron's Don Juan, and racialist views even among Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Kant. In fact, it also existed among British philosophers. Here is David Hume in Of National Characters (1753):



There are no doubt many others from that time period I could cite if given the time to research it and recall what I've read.

Examples are scarce, and where they occur are usually of a cultural more than biological nature. Biological racism (which was present in Shakespeare and his peers) went out of fashion for a good couple of centuries, at least in Europe, until it was finally reignited by the Darwinists (though, as you say, initially unintended by the young, more Christian Darwin). The cultural-but-not-biological 'racism' went hand in hand with an increasingly Christian Europe's optimism about a world united under the banner of racial fraternity. This theme is evident in Robinson Crusoe, Wilberforce, the various charities established to help the 'black poor' of London, and similar groups in Paris, and of course was the motivation behind more than a few passionate criticisms of Hume's above quote. He actually received as much flak back then in a Christian age as he would now in a leftist one. See my first point.

Joe McCarthy
Wednesday, October 13th, 2010, 09:58 PM
Originally Posted by Hamar Fox
http://www.roxanneardary.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/neuschwanstein-castle.jpg

Uh, help me out here. What does a castle built in homage to Wagner in the 19th century have to do with this discussion? It wasn't built in the pagan era.


Alliances between Rome and Germanics existed in order to repel the Huns.

That's of course true, but the devil is in the details. The Huns had a great number of whites, including Germanics, in their ranks. Contrast that with the front presented to the Ottomans. With the notable exception of France, European states were generally united or neutral toward the Ottomans, with conquered vassals reluctantly providing soldiers, if they provided them at all.


and of course was the motivation behind more than a few passionate criticisms of Hume's above quote. He actually received as much flak back then in a Christian age as he would now in a leftist one.

This is implausible. While I have no doubt Hume received criticism, just as he would in any era, the idea that he received as much criticism then as he would now isn't credible. Hume was a highly successful author in his day, and to the extent he suffered persecution it was due to the perception that he was an atheist, not a racialist. If he wrote Of National Characters today he'd be ruined professionally. Indeed, his bestseller The History of England was published almost immediately after Of National Characters.

Vindefense
Thursday, October 14th, 2010, 05:07 AM
But, seriously, what would be the alternative to "religion" if the not the rejection of it, ie atheism?

Atheism is more accurately the rejection of the Deity. Here we see quite clearly how atheists leave one flock for another only this one gathers in praise of a godless world. http://atheists.meetup.com/



And I find it rather pointless to repeat that being curious, asking questions and so on is a very basic natural human behavior and longing for knowledge as well, it isnt a "religion" though. As I said, religion is the inseperable conjunction of the object of worship and the method of worship. When you want to equate the "longing for knowledge" with the object of worship, then this 'might' work, but science does not pin down the method of worship.

Wherever the many gather, you will find religion. Some worship a dead god, some a tyrant, some money, some sex. None are without gods. An alcoholic will find another outlet for their vice of over consumption, an atheist in turn puts down one god for another, the god Doubt.


Science also contains the possibility to correct until then accepted knowledge, science also contains the possibility to use a myriad of alternative methods etc. It is therefore not "religion".

Science is nothing more than keen observation. I also would agree that science is not a religion but the act of accepting whatever scientists say without question, is. That scientists reach the conclusion that life is the product of chance and proxy is as absurd as believing that tones and melodies and harmonies could arrange themselves into a symphony without a Mozart or the marvels of the Reims cathedral or York Minster were the result of chance and not an architect.


My profile still says "Heathen atheist", to which I fully stand, but I cant find myself in your definition of atheism at all.

Don't stop questioning yourself. If there is any advice that I could give one, it is just that. If you question the existence of god, fine question equally the non existence of god too. This holds true for anything you think you know. If you do this you are bound to no religion other than truth.


And it IS a contradiction. Whatever people claim this 3omni god has done, said, not done, whatever, is from A to Z a fantasy product of people who have stopped to seek knowledge and made up fluffy explanations instead - that in the course of scientific development for large parts have already been proven beyond any doubt wrong.

Religious zealots will steer you on the path that they themselves tread, they are comfortable when they have large numbers. After all, how could so many be anything but right?


So, where is the basis for a belief in this fantasy god?
That it gives comfort? That's a cheap excuse, not a basis.

If man was honest with himself he would seek out what is uncomfortable and reject what gives comfort and truth is seldom comfortable.



That it promises you eternal life after you have died (which makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER)? Okay, I understand that the fact that afterwards there is nothing is frustrating maybe. But it is still not more than a cheap excuse.

I agree, worshiping a deity so that you may save your self is a supreme act of selfishness and cowardice.


I just dont understand the psychology, or even the alleged emotional reward of having a religion. It is just a cheap excuse for not taking responsibility for your life. And believe me, I have tried to find this comfort and emotional reward when I was a youth. There is just nothing, no matter how much I or you wished there would be something.

That you find nothing in Religion is cause to reject Religion wherever it is and all of it's various isms, including but not limited to, atheism.:D



Why is the feeling itself not enough? The love of the mother, the smell when she makes cookies for the child, when she sings it into sleep, whatever. Why is the love, that is present at all times, of the extended family / tribe not enough to "worship"?

That all of those things and more, both good and bad exist is not the effect of fiat but something very real.


Why is nature, this impersonal yet so powerful ehm "essence" (for lack of a better word right now) not enough to worship? Nature is our mother, our father, our life, our past, our future, nature is always there, has always been there and will still be there when we are long gone. Why is it not enough to worship, but there needs to be this fantasy product in order to give "meaning", which we already have. We just need to open our eyes.

But, we are not savages. The savage may observe all those things and in this state of innocence proclaim that as God and they aren't fully incorrect but the savage lacks the ability to comprehend any more than that, where we don't.



You say, science and religion are a contradiction. This is true. But religion is also a contradiction to spirituality. When you really seek some form of "higher existence" or "higher truth of existence", it is absolutely vital that you leave religion, and this absurd notion of a 3omni god, behind. There is no truth in it.

I am in full agreement, I also don't accept the existence of a "3omni god".

Caledonian
Thursday, October 14th, 2010, 05:12 AM
I'll get back to you guys tomorrow. ;)

[No I haven't forgotten this thread.]

[ More or less taking a break from the conversation as the subject can be mentally exhausting.]

Hamar Fox
Thursday, October 14th, 2010, 08:44 AM
Uh, help me out here. What does a castle built in homage to Wagner in the 19th century have to do with this discussion? It wasn't built in the pagan era.

I predicted this reply. Of course, not being built in the pagan era is absolutely irrelevant. It's an example of beautiful Germanic architecture that has nothing to do with Christianity.


This is implausible. While I have no doubt Hume received criticism, just as he would in any era, the idea that he received as much criticism then as he would now isn't credible. Hume was a highly successful author in his day, and to the extent he suffered persecution it was due to the perception that he was an atheist, not a racialist. If he wrote Of National Characters today he'd be ruined professionally. Indeed, his bestseller The History of England was published almost immediately after Of National Characters.

His quote was, as far as I remember, a footnote. It wasn't central to any of his works. Authors today who've made similar points central to their works (anyone writing on racial IQ differences, for example) haven't been ruined.

Fyrgenholt
Thursday, October 14th, 2010, 08:54 AM
But, seriously, what would be the alternative to "religion" if the not the rejection of it, ie atheism? Another religion? Exchange one nonsense for another nonsense?

And I find it rather pointless to repeat that being curious, asking questions and so on is a very basic natural human behavior and longing for knowledge as well, it isnt a "religion" though. As I said, religion is the inseperable conjunction of the object of worship and the method of worship. When you want to equate the "longing for knowledge" with the object of worship, then this 'might' work, but science does not pin down the method of worship. Science also contains the possibility to correct until then accepted knowledge, science also contains the possibility to use a myriad of alternative methods etc. It is therefore not "religion".




My profile still says "Heathen atheist", to which I fully stand, but I cant find myself in your definition of atheism at all. When science, the seeking for knowledge, is, as you say, a contradiction, then the belief in a fantasy god is even more a contradiction - to life itself, and the human abilities to understand.

And it IS a contradiction. Whatever people claim this 3omni god has done, said, not done, whatever, is from A to Z a fantasy product of people who have stopped to seek knowledge and made up fluffy explanations instead - that in the course of scientific development for large parts have already been proven beyond any doubt wrong.

So, where is the basis for a belief in this fantasy god?
That it gives comfort? That's a cheap excuse, not a basis. That it promises you eternal life after you have died (which makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER)? Okay, I understand that the fact that afterwards there is nothing is frustrating maybe. But it is still not more than a cheap excuse. I just dont understand the psychology, or even the alleged emotional reward of having a religion. It is just a cheap excuse for not taking responsibility for your life. And believe me, I have tried to find this comfort and emotional reward when I was a youth. There is just nothing, no matter how much I or you wished there would be something.




Why is the feeling itself not enough? The love of the mother, the smell when she makes cookies for the child, when she sings it into sleep, whatever. Why is the love, that is present at all times, of the extended family / tribe not enough to "worship"? I dont understand why there must be that fantasy product that takes all the glory, although it has nothing to do with the child's or anyone's life at all, has never done anything, never gave anything? Why is nature, this impersonal yet so powerful ehm "essence" (for lack of a better word right now) not enough to worship? Nature is our mother, our father, our life, our past, our future, nature is always there, has always been there and will still be there when we are long gone. Why is it not enough to worship, but there needs to be this fantasy product in order to give "meaning", which we already have. We just need to open our eyes.



Maybe I lack the sense for this infantile (sorry) romanticism, but the brutal truth is that this is nature, not a god. And for sure not one with the 3omni attributes.

You see, I dont deny Odin, Freya, Thor and all the others, there might even be more than we know or remember. But they didnt create the universe, they didnt create the earth, they didnt create life. They are themselves a product of evolution, that have some connection to us, but they arent the source nor governer of us or anything around us. They are nothing like what we today, after thousands of years of intellectual rape of the term, understand under a "god". And when you start to penetrate the secret of their nature, you also start to understand that spirituality and science do not need to be contradictions.

You say, science and religion are a contradiction. This is true. But religion is also a contradiction to spirituality. When you really seek some form of "higher existence" or "higher truth of existence", it is absolutely vital that you leave religion, and this absurd notion of a 3omni god, behind. There is no truth in it.

Der Gott, der Eisen wachsen liess, der wollte keine Knechte ;)

You sound like a pantheist. Concern yourself with the notion of the self and of consciousness, concern yourself with animism and with pantheism, consider the interconnectivity of all things - then take your readings and apply them to your reading of the northern European mythos, you might find something that interests you :)

The alternative to 'religion' or 'belief' is not necessarily atheism. Make the quest for wisdom and for truth your religion. To decide that religiosity is rubbish outright without constantly questioning the notion is to not seek truth, rather, it is to follow a belief.

EDIT: I should probably express that this post was not a criticism and you may well be very familiar with the things I describe, it was just my 2 cents :)

Joe McCarthy
Thursday, October 14th, 2010, 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by Hamar Fox
I predicted this reply. Of course, not being built in the pagan era is absolutely irrelevant.

Ahh, but it is relevant. You assumed that without Christianity pagan architecture would have been built anyway. Neuschwanstein Castle is many things, but it's certainly not a structure dedicated to Odin.

Moreover, as I noted earlier, Christianity has been so all pervasive in our culture that it's pretty much influenced everything. Neuschwanstein Castle is built in the Neo-Romanesque style, which is related to the Romanesque and Gothic styles, both of which have been greatly preferred by Christians in building churches, particularly Catholics and Anglicans. It has Roman origins, of course, but the Romanesque style which inspired the Neo-Romanesque which is the style of this castle hails from the very Christian 11th and 12th centuries when Romanesque and Gothic churches were en vogue.


His quote was, as far as I remember, a footnote. It wasn't central to any of his works. Authors today who've made similar points central to their works (anyone writing on racial IQ differences, for example) haven't been ruined.

You and I will have to agree to disagree. I find it outlandish frankly that a major figure like Hume could write that other races are 'naturally inferior to the whites' in 2010 and then go on to publish a bestseller the very next year. We have the equivalent of inquisitorial tribunals in Europe over 'racist soup' nowadays for God's sake.

Balders gate
Thursday, October 14th, 2010, 10:12 PM
I believe in god myself but I think he works differently than most people think. It seems everytime when my life is going through some tough times right out of the blue a miracle happens as small as it is. If you have a question about something after a while it will come to you in answer. I believe it is universal laws that comes into play. If you think bright thoughts you are geared to good, when you think dark thoughts your life will become a nightmare beyond your imagination. I have seen it happen to me and to other people over and over again. I personally don't go to church but I know something is out there. I find it hard to believe that our planet earth can sustain life by being at the right distance from the sun. Just a little further away or a little closer to the sun we wouldn't be here. Something is at play out in the universe.

Hamar Fox
Friday, October 15th, 2010, 02:14 PM
I personally don't go to church but I know something is out there. I find it hard to believe that our planet earth can sustain life by being at the right distance from the sun. Just a little further away or a little closer to the sun we wouldn't be here. Something is at play out in the universe.

There are trillions of solar systems and planets. It's statisically near-impossible that there wouldn't be at least one planet in the universe that was at a suitable distance from a star to cultivate life. One of those planets is called Earth. Also, nobody knows precisely what conditions must necessarily be met in order for life to develop. Life as we know it on earth couldn't develop within significantly different atmospheric conditions or temperature ranges, but that doesn't mean other forms of life couldn't generate and acclimatise themselves to other environments. Earth-life is in harmony with Earth-conditions because Earth-life evolved in accordance with Earth-conditions.


Ahh, but it is relevant. You assumed that without Christianity pagan architecture would have been built anyway. Neuschwanstein Castle is many things, but it's certainly not a structure dedicated to Odin.

Only relevant in the sense that the occurrence of any event is dependent on every event that preceded it. If Christianity hadn't existed, the castle probably wouldn't have been built. in the same sense that if the bubonic plague hadn't existed, it probably wouldn't have been built. It's a mere truism that if any given major historical event hadn't occurred, then the course of history would have flowed differently. But that doesn't say that the alternate course wouldn't be equal or even better.


You and I will have to agree to disagree. I find it outlandish frankly that a major figure like Hume could write that other races are 'naturally inferior to the whites' in 2010 and then go on to publish a bestseller the very next year. We have the equivalent of inquisitorial tribunals in Europe over 'racist soup' nowadays for God's sake.

Few careers of respected men are destroyed by a single comment (which is what Hume's was, as far as I know). Unpopular remarks in and of themselves seldom ruin reputations; it's usually upon elaboration that people begin to dig their graves. If writers/actors/celebrities remain silent for a while, or retract their statements a la Mel Gibson, society forgives them and they can move on. Hume never expounded on his view (although he never removed it from later editions of his work either), from what I know, so after a time it was forgotten.

ulfrik
Thursday, November 18th, 2010, 06:05 AM
i am a folkish odinist, however i am kinda Agnostic.

no one knows the answer to the ultimate question

Sgt.Tripoli
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 11:30 AM
I've always seen it as this. I believe there is a god, and that Jesus was a real guy, and was the son of god. But other then those two facts (Facts, as in how I see it in my reality) I also see it as this, God my have well actually used the big bang to create the universe just like he used man to write the bible. Maybe he used Adams rib forming into eve as a basic story to explain evolution to primitive man, but then we took it literally.
The bible is full of primitive stories that try to explain what the men who wrote the bible saw.

Proof of God is not possible to come by except through personal experience. Just like a roller coaster, you can be told by your friends just how awesome the ride is, but you'll never really know till you ride it.


(p.s. For those who despise the bible because it was written by Jews, hear me out. Much like the evil Jews and good Jews today, there were evil Jews and good Jews back then. The bad Jews were Gold diggers, money grabbers, liars and cheaters.
And guess what Jesus damned them. He told them they were evil and to get out of his site and off holy lands.

So just like today there were good Jews and bad Jews, and Jesus hated he latter, just like we hate the latter today. Not trying to convert anyone, I would just like to spread the knowledge. And that's what we Germanic's are really good at, getting smarter and sharing knowledge.