Like it or not, God is immoral.

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


Exactly my point. I keep saying that there IS NO EVIL OR GOOD. There is only service to self and service to others. "Good" and "evil" are entirely dependent on how we feel about the event.

If you need an example, take the Middle East. They seem evil to Americans, but we seem evil to them. Why? Because both sides are looking at the same issue from two different perspectives based on the same principle of two opposing desires: service to self. What they want is not what we want.

Good and evil are values that we invented to define an event based on how we feel about it. If what you want changes, then so does that value. And along with that value, the definition. Further example: the Dark Knight.

The attorney, Harvey Dent, would have considered his actions towards the end of the movie to be evil. But when his perspective abruptly changed (those who have seen the movie will know what I mean) good and evil changed as well. And no, just because it's "just a movie", does not mean that principle doesn't thrive in the real world.

Which means good and evil are not absolute. They are values determined by our character. Our emotions and thoughts, dreams and fears. Remove emotional bias, and everything changes.

edit on 14-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



I can think of a way around that. Everyone wants to be respected, right? So if you respect others because you want to be respected, that means any problems they bring to your attention, you will try to rectify, and vice versa.

In that sense, the "Golden Rule" is perfectly sensible. After all, we do have a global definition for 'respect'.


This does not apply to a "Ethical Subjectivist" who whole-heartily only cares about their own views and that the views of others matter not. Or a pure egoist who would also care nothing for respect if dis-respecting somehow benefits them.



Senseless and prejudice? I was simply making the point that if "only those with faith will understand" that's the same as saying, "Because I said so," or "Because the Bible says so".

There is absolutely no logical basis, and therefore no reason to give you any credence. At all.


I would re-read my statement then read your reply again. Your response about why bother with science, move in with the amish would make no sense even in this argument you present above. However just to respond to the mis-understanding, My statement put simply was saying, "One that believes in God should not try to argue about the morality of God with someone that doesn't believe. This is because if the moral agent is non-existant in the eyes of one of the arguers then the morality is irrelevant." So it in no way represents the "Because I said so or bible says so." I made no claim of any of my personal beliefs or that of the bible; I was just pointing out a fallacy in the argument.
edit on 14-9-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: spelling



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by g0dhims3lf
 



This does not apply to a "Ethical Subjectivist" who whole-heartily only cares about their own views and that the views of others matter not. Or a pure egoist who would also care nothing for respect if dis-respecting somehow benefits them.


Then those people are complete a**holes. I'm not talking about those kind of people, because I generally don't associate with them and don't consider them a valid topic of moral discussion - unless I'm talking about what NOT to do.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


You say you are a gnostic Christian, however your posts only up until recently do they even reflect Gnosticism.

You speak about the Godhead and seem like you know some of the early history of how the religion sprung up.

What confuses me is how you seem to be angered with God and continue to place judgement on the creator time and time again in threads including this one.

Why is that?

If I were to have to pick a religion to be a part of it would be the same as you, but I choose not to lable such.

As a teen I connected with Gnosticism and have sense, but I just can't stick to one because I find half truths in all of them. That's just how I SEE it in my mind.

I have an analytical mind whereas I have pieced them all together, all myths, and see where they connect, he ce my signature.

I see Jesus reflecting the Mind in all his incarnations.

So be it.


"Why is that? "

Because I have a social conscience and it is an evil immoral religion.
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

www.youtube.com...

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...

Promoting death to Gays.
www.youtube.com...

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

------------------------------

"As a teen I connected with Gnosticism and have sense, but I just can't stick to one because I find half truths in all of them. That's just how I SEE it in my mind. "

And that is the way it should be. Some wisdom can be found in all of the books of wisdom, bibles and philosophical writings. Nothing wrong in choosing the best from each in building your paradigm. That is what I dis and was rewarded with apotheosis for my efforts.

All Gods should be thought of as myths until one is lucky, or unlucky depending on how you look at things, to force his apotheosis.

I do not have all the pieces yet and hope I never do as then I would be idol worshiping what I found.
I am starting to confirm my view that all religions evolved from the same source.

This is long but it adds to that view.

www.youtube.com...

FMPOV, if one can make sense of the Eden myth, then the rest of the true theology that the Godhead has formed will be known.

This clip has given me a new perspective that I find compelling and is leading to the possibility that religions were created to control sexual mores in finite communities so that overpopulation would not disturb the organization of those demographic entities/cities. This may actually be why temple prostitutes were the first prostitutes. My theories are not complete yet though but the logic seems sound.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL
edit on 14-9-2012 by Greatest I am because: (no reason given)


I'm glad you found your truth. I'm glad you are beginning to see things in a different light and I'm glad you were open in this post to actually take a look at my pov. I know yours.

You want to ask questions and bait people or so it seems in the threads you have authored.

I'm done with them though and putting my energies with people who really and truly want to learn what I can offer them and vice versa. If I have been in a place where you are then why do I want to go back in time. Like I told you before.... I'm moving forward but while doing so I don't mind taking a step back to show others the light I see within my mind.

A glimpse of the entire frame work of the mind and the Universe can be had and is being experienced by me.

I don't want to share with others who are not willing to accept though.

I've said all along, it's not about being right. It's seeing things for what they are.

Maybe it sounds like I have a swollen head, I don't. I'm very humble and willing to share to those who ask and open their ears.

" like it or not god is immoral" is really not a personality who will engage in back and forth converstaion without wanting to be right and showing others their way is not as good as your way.

There is a way.... But it takes many to get to the one way.

Mind is the builder!!

Everything has opposites. This is clear.

Why? Is the question!



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Mind is the builder, but it is also the destroyer. And which way do you think our nature leans? What path do we favor, in this day and age? Which way has it leaned in the past? Looking at the past and present, judging by precedent cases, which way will it continue to lean if we do not change?

What that change might be, no one can say for certain. Qualities might be identified, but the catalyst, the trigger, remains uncertain.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


O ok so when "you" make a generalized statement or assumption we are all suppose to automatically know which groups are excluded? How can you exclude two examples of moral thinking on a moral discussion just because you have a predisposed opinion on them? This sounds a lot like subjectivism, ironically one of the viewpoints your saying you don't associate with. This only enforces what I was saying. If you only associate and take into consideration moral views you agree with and surround yourself only with those that share them, then it is pointless to argue them with others. If you come onto a forum and say my viewpoints are right and the other two are held only by assholes then you are saying they are wrong and ought to agree with yours. Which is totally fine but you have to have backing as to why. When having a moral discussion ALL moral viewpoints are included, simply dismissing the ones you don't agree with is a cop-out.
edit on 14-9-2012 by g0dhims3lf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by g0dhims3lf
 


Everything is subjective. I try not to be, but I am only human.


If you only associate and take into consideration moral views you agree with and surround yourself only with those that share them, then it is pointless to argue them with others.

Oh, I will admit when I am wrong. I am fully willing to do so. However, I see the flaws in other views, and I see the flaws in my own. I am not going to exchange a cracked windshield for a shattered one, even if the salesman insists to hell and back that it can be made as good as new...for an extra $50.


There are many views that I have seen that are different from mine, but just as beautifully insightful. Take Buddhism, for instance, or Taoism. Perhaps a little bit of Mormonism, a touch of Scientology...that stuff. It all has wonderful aspects to it, and I love seeing what Christians do in the guise of saving their own souls.

But when it comes to philosophical discussion, I would have more fun bashing my head against a brick wall.


When having a moral discussion ALL moral viewpoints are included, simply dismissing the ones you don't agree with is a cop-out.


All moral viewpoints are included, yes, but logical deduction narrows them down to a mere handful, and close examination shows us that morals, invented by mankind, are simply our way of deciding what feels right and what feels wrong. So in such a subjective matter, who is correct? That all depends on what region you live in. And since most of us on here really can't hurt each other, it's simpler to agree to disagree. That doesn't make anyone wrong; it simply means the discussion can't go any further without digressing into an exchange of tantrums or spinning in meaningless circles that lead nowhere.
edit on 14-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

A windshield can be seen so that only takes common sense not logical deduction. Also anything made with a salesman I would get in writing with a good warranty.



There are many views that I have seen that are different from mine, but just as beautifully insightful. Take Buddhism, for instance, or Taoism. Perhaps a little bit of Mormonism, a touch of Scientology...that stuff. It all has wonderful aspects to it, and I love seeing what Christians do in the guise of saving their own souls.

But when it comes to philosophical discussion, I would have more fun bashing my head against a brick wall.


I agree that there is much to learn in the teachings of all religions but when you look at it that way then it essentially becomes a philosophical discussion.



All moral viewpoints are included, yes, but logical deduction narrows them down to a mere handful, and close examination shows us that morals, invented by mankind, are simply our way of deciding what feels right and what feels wrong. So in such a subjective matter, who is correct? That all depends on what region you live in


Formal argument is a form of logical deduction and this response from you is much more acceptable than "becoming amish" or "they are all assholes" as that is just ignorant argument. Saying they are invented by mankind is aslo an opinion. If you or I were a believer in any of the religions that say God says what is right or wrong then morals are beyond man (however I agree with you). It only depends on what region you are from if you are a Cultural relativist.

Argumentation is an avenue of learning and challenging others and in return being challenged re-enforces or makes us question what we believe at the moment. For the most part we seem to agree on a lot and yes many things are not definite but that does not mean it is pointless to argue them.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by akushla99


But, my short answer is NO...God is not immoral...

Satisfied?

A99


Thanks.

So all the times God is shown as either directly or indirectly killing children and babies because of what their parents have done are justified in your eyes. Right?

If you lived in those days and were asked to smash a babies skull against a rock you would would you?

Regards
DL



WRONG

You did not read what I wrote...patently!

...or you do not understand plain english...

Here it is again...read it...

"You are using a misinterpreted interpretation to come to a conclusion; a conclusion (incidentally), promoted by fundies (of most major faiths - think...Islamic fundies), that presents you with a vision of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-creating, all-encompassing, timeless being...who is so conflicted in its all-pervading potency, that it would pit Itself against itself, and then (in some cosmic schizophrenic episode), require its creations (essentially itself, if you follow the hidden parts of the text) to avail themselves of thier own salvation from itself...

In the EXTREME...this scenario...DOES NOT MAKE SENSE...and let me be clear, God is not an idiot...which is what is mooted in this scenario...a scenario you (at some level believe) give credit to, in the original thread question..."

A99


So God is moral but that does not make sense so he is not. Got you.
Good English that even this Frenchman can understand. Not.
Perhaps you are in some cosmic schizophrenic episode.

Regards
DL


Paris 15eme..je suis Francais!

To make it absolutely clear - judging a supreme being using human attributes (a contradiction in itself), is infantile, to say the least...

Morals (for a supreme God)...do not figure in the equation...this is a viewpoint that is often mistakenly overlooked...
Prophets appear in history, who reveal the pathway through what has been set in motion...choose your prophet (they all allude to the same principles)...

Morality...is for incarnate man, not for an All powerful, omnipotent, omniscient creator of all that is seen and unseen...hence, all the ridiculous musings on the morality of a god that would appear to be schizophrenic (notice 'appear')...ridiculous musings that would use passages from a book written in another time, the original text of which is questionable...translated, transmuted, rehashed, changed to suit whatever purpose, men at the time, wanted it to achieve...all in all...distraction...

I'm not here to play a game of point scoring with you...this is infantile...

My original reply clearly states that I do not believe the scenario that we have been 'fed'...and for the reasons I have enumerated...if you disagree, ca ne me regarde pas!

A99
edit on 14-9-2012 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
[...this scenario...DOES NOT MAKE SENSE...and let me be clear, God is not an idiot...which is what is mooted in this scenario...a scenario you (at some level believe) give credit to, in the original thread question..."

A99


So God is moral but that does not make sense so he is not. Got you.
Good English that even this Frenchman can understand. Not.
Perhaps you are in some cosmic schizophrenic episode.

Regards
DL

Paris 15eme..je suis Francais!

To make it absolutely clear - judging a supreme being using human attributes (a contradiction in itself), is infantile, to say the least...

Morals (for a supreme God)...do not figure in the equation...this is a viewpoint that is often mistakenly overlooked...
]

It is not infantile if human morals and the understanding of them is the same and in scriptures God himself said that A & E had become like Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

We can thus judge his morals just fine because we have the same knowledge of good and evil that he does and thus the same moral sense.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I am still wanting to know whether you want to discuss the thesis in your OP, which is the challenge, "like it or not".

You have reached a preclusion based on your own view that whether or not I agree matters little, you want me to notice your conclusion and say nothing about it. As far as you are concerned, I have to like it. What if I don't like it, what then?

Since it is your challenge and I am responding to it, tell me why your opinion is worth more than mine. Like it or not, this is my response. Like it or not, you can't tell me how to think. Is that a good enough response? Next time, frame your questions better, this was a simple ad hominem attack, and a straw man.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by akushla99
[...this scenario...DOES NOT MAKE SENSE...and let me be clear, God is not an idiot...which is what is mooted in this scenario...a scenario you (at some level believe) give credit to, in the original thread question..."

A99


So God is moral but that does not make sense so he is not. Got you.
Good English that even this Frenchman can understand. Not.
Perhaps you are in some cosmic schizophrenic episode.

Regards
DL


{Paris 15eme..je suis Francais!

To make it absolutely clear - judging a supreme being using human attributes (a contradiction in itself), is infantile, to say the least...

Morals (for a supreme God)...do not figure in the equation...this is a viewpoint that is often mistakenly overlooked...
] }

It is not infantile if human morals and the understanding of them is the same and in scriptures God himself said that A & E had become like Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

We can thus judge his morals just fine because we have the same knowledge of good and evil that he does and thus the same moral sense.

Regards
DL

We can NOT judge His morals...because...wait for it...we are not the judge!

If you truly believe that God is All powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, creator of all that is seen and unseen - who are you, or anyone that would dare to perform this exercise in futility and arrogance?

We are clearly not speaking of the same god...

A99
edit on 14-9-2012 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I am still wanting to know whether you want to discuss the thesis in your OP, which is the challenge, "like it or not".

You have reached a preclusion based on your own view that whether or not I agree matters little, you want me to notice your conclusion and say nothing about it. As far as you are concerned, I have to like it. What if I don't like it, what then?

Since it is your challenge and I am responding to it, tell me why your opinion is worth more than mine. Like it or not, this is my response. Like it or not, you can't tell me how to think. Is that a good enough response? Next time, frame your questions better, this was a simple ad hominem attack, and a straw man.


If you wish to speak to the issue and not the straw man you yourself have created, I am there for that.

Regards
DL



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 



Morals (for a supreme God)...do not figure in the equation...this is a viewpoint that is often mistakenly overlooked...


Then how dare we look our children in the eye when they ask us, "Why does God do this"? or "Why did God say that?" and pretend that we understand the first thing of what he was thinking?

Really, it's all just an illusion to make us believe we actually understand the world. Unfortunately, we apply human characteristics and the whole charade goes downhill from there.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 



If you truly believe that God is All powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, creator of all that is seen and unseen - who are you, or anyone that would dare to perform this exercise in futility and arrogance?

We are clearly not speaking of the same god...


Thank you! Ladies and gentleman, we have officially reached the crux. The creator I believe in is NOT your god, because your god fits all the qualities named above, which makes him an anomaly, a quandary, a paradox. He cannot exist as you claim he does. He cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and make us this way, then punish us for it, then be called loving and merciful when he has taken more lives, and been responsible for more deaths, than Hitler and Attila put together. If he is truly a responsible "God", he would have seen the future and done everything in his power to change it.

That's the long and short of it. And if you refuse to acknowledge that the mad scientist has ALWAYS been held responsible for his creations, then that is your personal problem, not mine.


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus


The fact is, either he's an irresponsible god, or not a god at all. You, and all of your brothers and sisters in this faith, refuse to accept this because of one thing: it is easier to ignore mistakes in bliss than to admit your entire history is a lie. We have never dealt well with pain, and this "Christianity" has served as a highly convenient backdoor for those who would rather not think about the higher concepts in life and just have the answers handed to them along with the instructions.

Since when have toys from the Dollar Store ever been quality? That's right, they're not. They break very easily. You just tape them together and pretend they're not broken, and if someone points it out and tries to replace it with a better one, you scream and cry and throw a fit.

Sound familiar? Thought so.
edit on 15-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I am still wanting to know whether you want to discuss the thesis in your OP, which is the challenge, "like it or not".

You have reached a preclusion based on your own view that whether or not I agree matters little, you want me to notice your conclusion and say nothing about it. As far as you are concerned, I have to like it. What if I don't like it, what then?

Since it is your challenge and I am responding to it, tell me why your opinion is worth more than mine. Like it or not, this is my response. Like it or not, you can't tell me how to think. Is that a good enough response? Next time, frame your questions better, this was a simple ad hominem attack, and a straw man.


If you wish to speak to the issue and not the straw man you yourself have created, I am there for that.

Regards
DL




Straw man

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.


You have concluded in your title that it has already been refuted. Therefore, it is your logical fallacy, a straw man. The real argument has been untouched. Don't pull the straw over my eyes. You created the straw man.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


It's my personal believe that the Christians in this thread are unable to defend their beloved deity from the onslaught of logical discourse, so they have resorted to a battle of semantics in order to avoid the true contention of this thread.

A transparent ploy, and painfully weak. I'm calling on it, right here, so no one misses the dodge: the fact that "God" apparently stands above our morals, which are based on his laws, and the Christians have chosen to pick on the "lack of option" in the assertion, when it chould be so much easier to prove it wrong and avoid the whole mess.

Failing that, they argue semantics and "not having the opportunity to argue", which they actually have but are wasting trying to prove that they don't have it...if that makes sense. After all, everyone here is open to being disproved, but you have to disprove it first.


Your move, my friends.
edit on 15-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


It's my personal believe that the Christians in this thread are unable to defend their beloved deity from the onslaught of logical discourse, so they have resorted to a battle of semantics in order to avoid the true contention of this thread.

A transparent ploy, and painfully weak. I'm calling on it, right here, so no one misses the dodge: the fact that "God" apparently stands above our morals, which are based on his laws, and the Christians have chosen to pick on the "lack of option" in the assertion, when it chould be so much easier to prove it wrong and avoid the whole mess.

Failing that, they argue semantics and "not having the opportunity to argue", which they actually have but are wasting trying to prove that they don't have it...if that makes sense. After all, everyone here is open to being disproved, but you have to disprove it first.


Your move, my friends.
edit on 15-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


The transparent ploy was in the title. Why do you not just simply ask the question, "Is God immoral?" then present your views on why you believe such a thing. I don't really care what your opinion is on the matter, because you have established already that my opinion is worthless to begin with. I encourage you to stop the charade, you think you have made a point.

Argue with me all day long, it does not matter to me. I don't have to like the OP's title, he told me to like it or not. So go ahead, show me all day long you are not willing to admit it was a crude attempt at non-dialogue and ad hominem against people who believe. I've got all day to sit on this point, whether you like it or not.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
The immoral aspect is the lies presented for what god isn't.

God, in the original concept, is that of the force that created the universe billions of years ago and shows traces of intelligent design. No image exists for this God concept and the only one that is close is the Unverse itself.

The false concepts for god stem from more recent times in the area of Sumeria and the gods of Anu, and reference to these concepts as god is the immorality due to telling big lies. This making the entire Biblical concepts for god false and immoral.

Yahweh isn't god, and neither is Jesus.

Promotion of gods in the recent time is about promotion of Royalists and Kings, about promotion of inequality over that of equality. It is about starting wars for power and control held in the hands of the few.


This ^^^ needs another bump!

My thoughts exactly. The God of the Bible is NOT God.




Originally posted by mythos

Originally posted by Murgatroid

The serpent was subtle and lied to Eve -- beguiled (deceived) her. Had Eve understood God's real love and the real consequences of obeying Satan, she would not have done it. Satan denied the consequences and made evil appear to be good. ~ Gen. 3:1-5,13


Genesis is blatant propaganda against the female-earth based religions; it names the serpent as evil, who in most all other cultures and traditions is a revered symbol of the earth and rebirth. it blames the woman for original sin and condemns birth and menstruation as punishment for her crime. it creates a male as the first being, and woman as an afterthought. and in the greatest of all blasphemies it names God as a HE....

it is this thinking that has allowed the wanton pillaging of the earth, the countless indignities perpetrated upon women and has condemned us to this unbalanced patriarchal - "my sword is bigger than your sword" - BS we must endure everyday.

the only God that is immoral is the God that hates. i will leave that for the readers to say which God is so keen on fire & brimstone.



may the Goddess & the God & the Great Mystery beyond forgive us... for we know not what we are doing.

edit on 12-9-2012 by mythos because: fix quotes


And there it is! Evil and immoral from the get go! Immorality is the basis of the religions formed around the biblical picture of God.

The Problem With God



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




The transparent ploy was in the title. Why do you not just simply ask the question, "Is God immoral?" then present your views on why you believe such a thing.


And you continue to dodge the issue. Again.


I don't really care what your opinion is on the matter, because you have established already that my opinion is worthless to begin with. I encourage you to stop the charade, you think you have made a point.


Oh please, do tell me your point of view. I'd love to hear what your stance on the topic is. Don't be surprised if I don't accept "free will" as an answer though. Logical discourse has already torn that argument to shreds. If you have something fresh, let's hear it.



So go ahead, show me all day long you are not willing to admit it was a crude attempt at non-dialogue and ad hominem against people who believe.


That's because it's true. And there's the proof: 'belief', which operates independently of logic. Logic, a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference. Which means that by taking certain parameters to be true, such and such will lead to such and such, making the nature of this thing to be like this other thing, which indicates that this equals that, and therefore that should be this. I hope you followed that.

I'd like to show you something:


William Seabrook lived for years among the Malinke people in old French West Africa and tells of aBelgian hunter who abused and murdered his local bearers until, as a matter of private justice, theyarranged for a sorcerer to lay on a death-sending for him. In a clearing in the jungle the witch doctorsset up the corpse of a man requisitioned from a nearby village, dressed it in one of the Belgian's shirts,combed some of his hair in among its own, fastened some of his nail parings to its fingers, andrebaptised the body with the hunter's name. Around this object of sympathetic magic, they chantedand drummed, focusing their malignant hatred on the white man miles away.A number of his employees, pretending sympathy for him, made certain that the Belgian knew that allthis was going on and would continue until he died. He soon fell ill and did die, apparently fromautosuggestion. (302) The accepted explanation for events of this kind is that an unconscious belief inthe power of the spell, even if one has not in fact been cast, can kill. But the discovery of what seemsto be illness transmitted by telepathy suggests that the ceremony itself may be important. The frenzyof hate around the corpse in the jungle would certainly have a hypnotic effect on the participants andwould produce exactly the conditions now known to be necessary for creating a telepathic state, thetoken doll in this case perhaps serving only as a focus for emotions that were in themselves doingdamage at a distance.


www.scribd.com...

Search the link above, under the title "Witchcraft". That's right, many of what you believe to be 'answered prayers' and 'spiritual experiences' are not guaranteed to be that of a "god", per se. We can do that to ourselves, and Lyall Watson's research has proven it.

The connection here is that you BELIEVE because of miracles. Those miracles are explained using something that is not of this world, and therefore not bound by its laws. This begs the assumption that we KNOW all of the laws of Earth. We do not.

It's a very simple case study that shows everything we attribute to a higher being, could in fact be a result of our own desires. Even pyshokinetics studies have shown that the desire of a test subject influences the experiment; when asked for a specific outcome, their desires override that conscious intent and create a different, albeit improbable, outcome.

I believe we have what may possibly be our 'smoking gun'. I wouldn't swear to it, but there's that possibility...and if the Christians and Judaics are anything to judge by, the possibility is all we need.
edit on 15-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join