Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 2
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry MattersPage 1 of 30    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
For instance, if you say that god(s) exist(s), you might want to offer your evidence.


On the 29th of June, Year of our Lord, 2011


*teehee* year of our lord, indeed!
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 4
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 6/29/2011 7:01:47 PM
I never posted, nor even looked at the original thread.

Frankly, can anybody here say anything on the subject that hasn't been said (and said better) by the thousands who have opined for millennia. Can't we just let a subject die a natural death?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 9
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 6/30/2011 4:44:02 AM
I keep coming back to the FUNCTIONAL or STRUCTURAL side of this sort of thing.

Concern about the existence or non-existence of a god only matters, if there is something to be done differently because of the decision. That's ALWAYS been what the fighting and fussing is all about.

The side issue talk about which religion's followers committed the most egregious foul acts is specious. From a logical point of view, how someone either uses or misuses a thing, has nothing to do with the thing itself, and only illuminates the persons using it.


My greatest frustration with human interactions in general, is that it is SO common for people to play games of diversion and distraction to try to get what they want. In matters of the heart and dating and such, we have to deal with people CLAIMING that they want wonderful things for us, but then they do horrible things instead. I made up my own little "wise saying" to describe this and to somewhat comfort myself : "it's not so much that people don't say what they mean, or mean what they say, as that they DO WHAT THEY WANT, and then to explain it, THEY SAY WHAT THEY'VE HEARD."

The very same thing plagues the whole debate about the existence and/or meaning of gods. The bulk of all the talk is NOT really about gods at all, or even directed at faith, or at understanding the world around us. Instead, it's about unstated desires for revenge or hegemony, veiled in talk of religion, in order to deflect responsibility away from the particular greedy persons themselves. Greed here, does not simply mean greed for money, it includes greed for status, and for anything else a person desires.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 11
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 6/30/2011 9:44:35 AM
Why continue it? That thread hasn't added anything to the topic that thousands of years of more intelligent debate has not already produced.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 15
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 6/30/2011 1:38:19 PM
The most intriguing thing to me about the subject of religion and it's influence and effects , is NOT the age-old arguments about who should be in charge, or the nature of a god, or whether this or that belief system has had more atrocities committed in its name.
What is interesting, is the essential paradoxes of people and their religions. What may be the greatest of the paradoxes, and possibly the primary source of the very problems so often mentioned here, is that at the same time as religions are an attempt by humans to UNDERSTAND and to CONTROL their universe, by choosing a RELIGIOUS model, they choose BOTH to have the ultimate RESPONSIBILITY for everything be in the 'hands' of a (usually invisible) Great Being, who is by definition, not accountable for any choices made, AND to have the description and all explanations of this beings intentions, be in THEIR OWN hands.


<div class='quote'>Every notice how "hate speech" and "religious fervor" are often in appearance at the same time? What's up with that?

This is the result of another of the essential elements of all religious explanations of the universe. For a religion to take hold of a large group of people, it has to EXCITE them with the sense that they are "on the right track." Enthusiasm is the key element, NOT what the enthusiasm is triggered by or "aimed at." Therefore, once excited, and given the ability to "behave correctly (according to their religion), " WITHOUT at the same time being required to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, people will tend to do the most exciting thing they can think of to do.

Carefully selecting tender, gentle, helpful nudges to give to strangers is NOT exciting.

It might be true, that the reason that the largest religions all share the CLAIM of good intentions and "being nice" to each other, is simple politics. There HAVE been many religions in the past that were based on hatred of enemies, but they were always limited to the immediate realm of the original leadership. It's very hard to "sell" your religion to people who it is aimed at destroying, so to "Sell" the most "memberships," it is important to emphasize the POSITIVES. Hence, all big religions contain "love" and "niceness" clauses, in order to make them less threatening to any existing powerful peoples, and to appeal to "moms" that might keep their sons and daughters away otherwise.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 18
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 6/30/2011 8:53:45 PM
yeah kreb, it was hard getting on that ole one!

still trying to get on it, don't member what I said bout somethin.

anyways, if you don't see somethin in the small things, [one thousanths of an inch] you ain't gonna see it!

nothing constructive happens without prior direction, is what I says.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/1/2011 3:52:57 AM
I think it ALWAYS stood hand in hand with big business. What changed, was Big Business, and the peasantry.

"Big Business" has always included governments, both because of the monies spent, and the power wielded. Sometimes the Church was an arm of the government, other times, especially in western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, it WAS the government.

The peasantry has become more educated, and more financially self sufficient. That always lessens their DEPENDENCE on things like churches for psychological underpinnings.

It has always been UNUSUAL for the large religion in a given area NOT to support the goals of the rich and powerful. The large religions of today did have their rebellious periods, but that ceased as soon as the governments accepted them. The history of Christianity itself, is very much like the history of a business, in that as the church progressed, it's leaders PURPOSELY added to the religion, in order to persuade new large groups to join. It isn't an accident, nor is it a true indication of deeper meaning or magical portent that so many Christian stories match up so well with the "myths of yearning" of the people who eventually adopted it.

At the central heart of religions, are the idealistic tenants most of us think of when the subject of religion arises. To an extent, those central ideals are identical to what most large corporations have even today: goals and principles (though I must say, there seems to be a huge decline in principles these days). But the central ideas are 'adjusted' as required by the folks at the head of any group, to support their goals of the moment, while at the same time, they use the "nice sounding" aspects of the goals as advertising script.

The reason why especially the western European churches USED to be the leaders in scientific research, had more to do with their desire to preserve the heart of the Roman Empire, than in a principle of enlightenment and a serious search for unfettered knowledge. If anything, the reason for their modern reputation for meaningful preservation and expansion of human knowledge, is due to the fact that no one else was doing ANY such work, rather than that they were such a top notch Research Organization.
Scientists and artists have always gravitated to who ever supplied the financial backing and security required for them to work. Once there was relative peace in most nations, and capitalist endeavors caused Businesses to have more of the money than the Churches did, and the REWARDS of research and learning were seen to lead to MORE PROFIT, then the centers of learning ceased being in the Churches, and went where they are now.

 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 25
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/1/2011 5:53:23 PM
religion?

nothing constuctive happens without prior direction.

are the only choices religion and materialism?

remember, that jesus guy, [if he existed, humour me] well, he had no use for religion.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 33
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/2/2011 7:12:35 PM

If you are worried about the church taking over the world like igor is,


Whoa there lad! I am neither trying to take over the world myself (as your grammar implies), nor am I worried about any church trying to.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 39
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/2/2011 10:01:18 PM
organized religion sucks.

so does blindly believing science. [remember it changes all the time!]

are you thinking now?

that there might be something else?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 42
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/2/2011 10:35:04 PM
why defend science so??

you don't think science has dogma?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/3/2011 2:09:01 AM
I'd agree with Igor that there are paradoxes in religion. Mind you, I find that paradoxes exist in lots of things. Kurt Gödel even went so far as to show that almost everything has a contradiction, if you look far enough into it.

I also agree that religions have a certain power in this world, that sometimes results in corruption, or war, or other things we don't like. So what happens if we reject all religions? In America and in the UK, we say that China violates human rights. But China is an atheist state, run by atheists, who don't adhere to any religion. They are doing what non-religious people in Western countries want them to do, to give up religion. So there should be no problem with them. How can this be?

People often do not realise that quantum decoherence requires that a choice is made, and "no choice" is not a choice. Even if you abandon one set of values, your actions, from then on in, are going to be consistent with a pattern, which defines their choices in life, and who they are. If you want to know a person, look at their actions. So you are actually just swapping one set of values for another set of values.

But whose set of values are you adopting? What is in those values? Do those values advocate atrocities? How can you actually know, if you don't know what those values are?

That, is the danger of criticising someone else's values, but without laying down your own values, in a black-and-white way, that leaves your values open to scientific examination, such as in a formal document. That's what happens in China. That's what happens everywhere where people do not formally set out their beliefs and values.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 54
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/3/2011 3:53:37 PM
RE Msg: 66 by Krebby2001:
Values are derived from many sources. Science and religion are only two such sources. Science is a rigidly instituted, precision-oriented method of discovery. It has no built in morality; however, this does not mean that it cannot be guided by morality.
I agree that the subject called science, that has been studied by religious scholars and non-religious scholars for thousands of years, is not in itself moral, as any subject is, and can be guided by morality.

However, the word "science" that refers to the accomplishments and views of modern Western society, that is run by a general group called "the scientific community", is itself purporting to dictate moral values to the rest of the world.

Religion, on the other hand, purports to be a "moral" system of values; however, the morality, oftentimes, is purely rhetorical.
It is true that some of religious morality is rhetorical, just as morality that is found in the scientific community is rhetorical. However, much of the morality of religions is for a very valid purpose, such as the drive of Quakers and Methodists against slavery, and the fight for the Xian Chancery Courts to establish the rule of equity, or equal fairness, in law.

I agree with Igor to the extent that the rhetoric revolves around gaining membership and power. And, far too often, the rhetoric is forgotten and actions in direct opposition to the rhetoric are orchestrated. Thus, many (I won't say all) forms of organized religion are a living contradiction between what it purports to seek to accomplish and what is actually done.
It is true that some of what some religious organisations have done, and still do, has been about gaining membership and power. However, many people today are of the opinion that much of what the scientific community does today, is about gaining greater membership, in the form of trying to encourage more people to enter science, and gaining power, to encourage their funding to be guaranteed, no matter what, irrespective of whether all of current scientific research is going to help humanity or not.

There is also no "dogma" in science, as science, as method, must remain subject to revision and recasting, if further empirical evidence shows that a previous finding is not sustainable.
I agree that the subject called science, that has been studied by religious scholars and non-religious scholars for thousands of years, is not in itself dogmatic. I agree that what religious texts state, often appears to be dogmatic. I agree that the way that most Westerners have been told to assume, is that religions are in principle dogmatic.

However, in practice, we ourselves have seen many changes, in only our own lifetime, that show that many religious denominations have revised and updated their views according to new information and new changes in society, the CofE's current debate to have gay bishops, is only one of many in our time. Going back in time, it is far more clear that religions are subject to revision and recasting, when evidence shows that previous views are not sustainable.

On the other hand, it is quite clear that science, meaning the Western view of science as expressed by the scientific community, has been incredibly dogmatic over the centuries, and often refuses to give in to change. An interesting recent development is that science was so against old-age cures, that the US banned any statement that honey had any medicinal cures whatsoever, and yet, very recently, scientists are now advocating that Manuka honey, a type of honey, actually is a proper medical treatment. The 2 are in complete contradiction, because the US didn't even allow for the possibility that honey MIGHT turn out to have medical properties, even though doctors had been writing about the medical effectiveness of honey for thousands of years. But that is only one of many, many such examples of such dogma.

Science is liable to the same issues and solutions that religions have.

However, I would agree that there is a tendency in the last 150 years for many people to be of the opinion that science is almost completely without blemish, and that religions are almost always so blemished as to be better off without. This attitude can be found in the former U.S.S.R., and in the French Revolution. In both cases, the issue was political, not epistemological, or in the interests of the people. Both countries were in the grip of a revolution that overthrew the previous political system in their countries.

Both countries' revolutions were bloody, exterminating the royal family, and anyone related to them, thus ensuring that even if there was a call to return to monarchy, there was no-one to return to, like what happened in the UK.

Both countries also called for a 'tyranny of the monarchy'. Yet, both countries were re-organised, in such a way, that made it impossible for any future revolutions to take place. In Russia, this was enforced by the Russian Army, and the oppression of anyone wanting to express political views or personal practices that were not 100% in line with the state policy and propaganda. In France, this was enforced by re-building the centre of Paris, the place of the French Revolution, into avenues from the centre, that are large enough for clear views from the centre, and large enough for people to crowd each other and struggle to move ahead, but not large enough for a mass group to be able to attack the centre, without being mown down by soldiers with guns in the centres. So it would be impossible for the French to revolt against the new political system. The 'tyranny', became a tyranny of the politicians, who came from the middle class, and formed a political class.

Both countries had had strong support for religion, Xianity, which was rumoured to support their kings. This was not always true. But in principle there was a lot of calls from religious figures to not just drop the monarchy altogether, and to not advocate mass slaughter. Also, many religions have spoken time and again, for support for the poor and the helpless.

Thus, religion was seen by the new political systems of France and Russia, to be a direct threat to the new governments. Religions were not in themselves a threat, because in both countries, they lacked the power to be so. The threat was that religious leaders were preaching values of basic morality that the people believed, but were being violated by the new governments, in most heinous ways, and so made the people aware that their own needs were being trampled over.

This conflict, between the people's needs, and what the governments actually did, was so huge, that it threatened to cause another revolution, to something else. The new leaders did not want to be hoisted by their own people, as that was what they had done to their predecessors. So they set things up, via the army, and re-building cities, to ensure that the people were incapable of revolting again, and to do everything to exterminate anyone who might remind the people that they have self-esteem and value worth fighting for.

So it became necessary to wipe out the old system of support for government, and to replace it with something else, and in that something else, only those who were loyal to the new governments would be supported. The rest were political dissidents, who were enemies of the state.

Science filled the gap, that religion used to take. It was the new means of telling people to trust in their governments. In return, scientists loyal to their governments could expect that they would have funding for their lifetime, which became known as 'tenure', and were given respect and admiration, in order to ensure that people would listen to them when they told the people to listen to their government.

This resulted in governments perceiving that science was a valid political tool for propaganda, and since scientists are still heavily funded by governments, via universities, they still have the power to ensure that is the case.

As time has progressed, science has expanded, to become inter-national, to allow for a larger concept of a global scientific community, that thus would have its own views that are independent of any one government, and so there is a larger conflict between an individual government and the scientific community. However, there is still a give-and-take here, because scientists are still heavily funded by governments, via universities.

So science is still heavily embroiled in politics.

At the same time, government funding to religious organisations has waned more and more, which has freed religious organisations from being a political arm of government.

This results in a conflict between the scientific community and religious organisations and religious people, that is of its nature, political, being a conflict between the general views that most Western governments wish the populace to accept, and those who are independent of those views, and critical of those views.

It's an ugly thing, to realise that one's ideals, and the career one has chosen, is itself compromised. But one's reality is often loaded with imperfection.

Of course, scientists have the physical choice of how to act. But it's not an easy one. If they speak what they honestly believe, and what they believe is totally counter to what governments claim, such as Professor David Nutt's assessment of the dangers of illegal drugs, one can find oneself out of a job. So it's not an easy choice. Given what we already know about human nature from science, it is realistic to say that standing for truth against government is either going to be something that one's government is actually OK with, even if officially they say they are not, or they are likely to be finding themselves under such pressure, that they are likely to be in the minority of scientists.

It's a difficult choice, and not one that I would envy.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 64
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/3/2011 7:38:16 PM
God would never slap anyone in the head. The whole idea of god is precious and valuable and peaceful and more than any of you men can ever hope to conjure in your endless and wrought imaginings. God will be your downfall. lol.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 67
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/3/2011 8:15:23 PM
Dirty work? When was a mirror held up to one's ignobile face ...dirty work? I have not read the bible in depth but what I have read reflects on moral and ethical issues that have not been dealt with. If God unleashes...so be it. Somebody has to to correct the wayward and ugly ways of man..men..women...etc. etc. By the flippin way...God never wrote the bible. Ever. What you have is what the wise and experienced wrote. god never wrote anything. God is the last thing you will face.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 69
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/3/2011 8:53:23 PM
Frankly.when was the last time you abandoned hubris?? Just wondering.
Buddhism and taoism are a path to a valuable way. Get rid of your attachments. Why is that different from a belief in God, ehhhh???
Jesus actually informed all that the attachment to fathers and mothers and etc. needs a final and abrupt revision. You bet...thats right....it all comes down to how you treat the way you live in a wise and informed way. What the heck is the difference in buddhism and taoism??? What? Get spinning. Buddhists need to enjoy a cup of hot chocolate and taoists just need to touch their hair and be blown away by the magic. Then its all square and the sum is right.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 70
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/3/2011 9:28:00 PM
HMM and here I thought everybody was saved.. my error.. excuse me thanks for the correction... whoa is me destined to be an ignoramus..
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 71
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/3/2011 9:41:08 PM
Here's to the ignoramuses who believe they really do not know.
Here's to those who believe that your family is the last reprieve from knowing.
Here's to the ignorant and arrogant who believe that what they think matters.
Here's to the one's who have died and know that words are empty air.
Here is to the brave...who face up to the knowledge that they are indeed very fancy and gone...in a flash.
Here is to the grumpy who are waiting for a flash of light to awknowledge their hard and painful path. Watch out...here it comes.
Here is to the finality of what you have.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 72
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/3/2011 10:51:24 PM
K.Offishal..you are s0 into yourself and your store of knowledge that it becomes very difficult and again..difficult to breach the levy. What the heck does epistemological have to do with what you see and awknowledge? I am fatigued by your stash. smile.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 73
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/4/2011 7:44:17 AM
RE Msg: 117 by Kardinal Offishall:

Science is a dogma, when it holds its empirical way of looking at the world to be the ONLY way to llook at the world, the only truth in the world.
Ultimately it is the best way to look at the world, and its truth claims ultimately admit of no epistemological rivals. All investigative activity by humans is on the same plane, looking at the same reality.
Science has been proved to be an extremely useful tool, and nearly everyone in the world would happily acknowledge that.

Within the field of scientific research, and their related fields, many would say that it is the best tool, much as the carpenter would say that the best tool is the hammer, the tool he uses the most. They speak about their level of expertise.

However, few outside of those who work in scientific research, or related fields, would say that it is the best tool. The vast majority of the planet, including millions of people whose IQs seriously outstrip their counterparts in scientific research, have to deal with subjects where a number of factors are involved, and where lack of competency is likely to get you sacked. In such subjects, science alone is not enough to even do their job to a minimal level of competency, while other approaches, which seem to be rather trite and seemingly useless by comparison, are actually enough to complete the necessary tasks, even to a high level of competency. They thus learn by bitter experience, of being passed over for promotion, or even being fired, which are the best tools for their job. These groups form the majority of human experience, and thus the majority of empirical evidence.

Scientists often do not realise this, because they lack the experience of anything outside of their field, and are not required to take responsibility for what is wrong in their field, by being sacked if a theory of theirs turns out to be proved wrong by later evidence, something that does happen in real life.
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 74
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/4/2011 10:19:22 AM

Why continue it? That thread hasn't added anything to the topic that thousands of years of more intelligent debate has not already produced.


It's called mental masturbation. Once you do it, you come back for more. It could be man-made, or a revelation from god. We won't know until the end of this thread.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 77
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/4/2011 4:57:13 PM
RE Msg: 122 by _alan:
People can also visit http://www.evilbible.com/ and be informed ( about what's actually said in the Bible about various topics... Ritual Human Sacrifice, Rape in the Bible, Murder in the Bible, Slavery in the Bible and other things. such as:

Common Lies Christians Tell
Biblical Intolerance
Contradictions of the Gospel
Sexism in the Torah
etc.

None of this either proves or disproves God exists, it does show you what the Bible actually says, & makes you wonder why people would want to use the Bible as their guide.
Some people choose to follow the Bible, because it's part of a lifestyle that gives them a lot of benefits. Others choose to follow the Bible, because they sat and analysed it, and found that it makes a lot of sense. Many things that are claimed to be contradictions, use slightly different language, or are in slightly different contexts, which highlight different legal and narrative principles at play in each section. Many things that are claimed to be atrocious values, describe pragmatic ways to implement values that rationalists idealise, but as of yet, haven't begun to figure out how to implement them in any meaningful way.

It's rather like talking to someone who keeps complaining about how the bankers went mental in the Credit Crunch and have to be punished for their crimes as a deterrent, when you had the Glass-Steagall Act for decades and that worked very well to keep them in line. You just keep wondering why they don't just call for the Glass-Steagall Act to be re-implemented.

Of course, that is not to say that we should return to "that old-time religion", because in many cases, that just meant returning to whatever your priest or minister told you to do, and not actually what it says in the Bible, or what makes sense. It just means that the old is not always evil or redundant, even if you like the modern and the new.
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 78
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/4/2011 6:41:53 PM
I would like to recommend the book Why We Believe In God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith by Anderson Thomson. It explains what is known about the neurobiology of religious impulses and their evolutionary advantages.

We are psychologically wired to want to believe in an all-powerful parent who will take care of us. Our capacity to imagine, in a very realistic way, someone who is not physically present, gives us the capacity to imagine (and believe in) unseen beings. We want the world to make sense. Humans do not like ambiguity and uncertainty. So, humans created gods in their own image - all-powerful beings that would protect us and that helped us make sense of the world around us, which is a scary and often unpredictable place.

All cultures have some sort of gods. This has been the case since cave people.

When we here talk about "God" we are usually referring to the Christian/Jewish/Moslem Abrahamic father in the sky. We asume that this is the one true "God" and all others are false. But, of course, were you to go to India, they would be just as convinced that their gods were just as real. Or if you were to consult with the aborigines in Australia, or the Native Americans, or the people of the Amazon rainforest.

One cannot help but wonder why this one true all-powerful father in the sky chose to reveal himself only to one small band of wandering people in the desert 6,000 years ago? And if he were capable of communicating to them all the detailed laws of the Old Testament, why did he also not choose to reveal to them that simple handwashing would dramatically reduce disease? Why did he let us wait thousands of years to figure that out? If Jesus was indeed God, why did he not inform people that epilepsy was a physical brain disorder rather than demonic possession?

And if God so cares about us, why does he allow earthquakes and tsunamis to devastate innocent people? Because they did not pray to him properly? They did not say the right prayer at the right time with the right words? If God so cares about us, even before we are born, why does he allow the formation of grotesquely deformed babies?

It makes much more sense to accept the world is what it is and there is no sky father manipulating it all. That natural disasters are just that - natural disasters. That mistakes in replication occur and lead to deformed babies. That disease has been part of evolution and it happens.

It is much harder to be a non-believer than a believer. It is in our genes, it is socially advantageous. But I see no evidence for the father in the sky god or any other god. Nor do I see any evidence for the existence of angels or an afterlife or any other unseen beings outside of what our imaginations.

When one is a believer, by definition one's belief is a faith in something for which there is no evidence. Therefore, all evidence to the contrary is rejected.

I think the natural world is amazing enough on its own. One does not need a god to make it any more so. And the assertion that without God there are no morals is patently ridiculous. Atheists are no less moral than believers and, in fact, the majority of people in jail claim to be believers. A sense of fairness and empathy, the foundation of moral behavior, is hardwired into us and is evident even in babies. It is not even a uniquely human trait. Chimps display it. Our culture reinforces it and interprets certain details about it, but humans have a sense of fairness and empathy hardwired into them that is already demonstrated in babies as young as six months old.

While belief in gods can inspire humans towards compassionate living, it can and has been used to inspire prejudice and violence towards others. When one believes that one is acting on God's behalf, one is capable of the most horrendous acts.

I would like to see the world move towards more rational thinking but I think it will happen slowly.
 ComplekCity
Joined: 1/17/2011
Msg: 80
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/5/2011 9:33:25 AM
Careful Appreciative, I got banned 3 days for correcting grammar ( telling people that " would've" is short for " would HAVE " not " would OF " ) .

Just a heads up.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 85
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/5/2011 9:46:18 PM
I like city intellectuals...they know how to play...they understand the beginning and the end and they often care very little for the existence of God. What a surprise when they indeed prove that God is invisible but present. Would they ever admit it? Nah. Are they full of hubris. Yep. But ..often they are wise and funny and reverent in a wide open and freeing manner. God is the last matter on their stern and hilarious minds. Deviant minds are a curve ball that highlights an ultimate mystery. Why would anybody hurt anybody else for self gratification??? Why serial killers? Why Hitler? Why the psychopaths that often infiltrate very high end positions in government and etc.??? ...and other Sundry Matters.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters