Atheists are right...

a reply to: luthier

I'm at a loss for words ol'pal. Wherein found is my lacking ability to comprehend the idea that sustains this thread. On one hand there is science... which accordingly does not explain anything and then at the same time explains alot. Then... on the other hand religion explains nothing and yet it does. This leads to bickering.

Here is my take... if I may... imo...

Two Ways To Solve God Is Real....
1. Her Labors Pains Were Increased... In That Fashion... She Will Bare Her Children. As If That Were Not Enough.... Her Desire For A Man Was Immutably Shoved Down Her Throat. This Is How She And All Of Them Live. Scientifically And Religiously Accepted!

2. She Exists! ALWAYS HAS!
She Is Not Found In A Lack Of Belief Designed By Arrogance. Nor Is She Found In Church On Sunday. She Is Most Likely Going To Convince You That Books, And Churches, And Chants Of Strange Gods, And Hocus Pocus, And Strange Idioms, And And Science Or The Lack Thereof, Upto And Including The So Called Professor(s) Who Entertain Ideas With Thoughtless Mindless Babbling. At Times We Like That... We Are All Just Bitten With Malcontent. Snake Bites.....

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Not trolling just pointing out science doesn't make claims about God and a theist can use it the same way an atheist would to make claims.

The truth of the matter is if you have asked for proof from a theist from a god claim (that isn't purely design based) your accepting a metaphysical debate and you can very well loose( by some one like William Lane Craig who is a master at catching your logical mistakes, especially if you get flustered by what I consider nonsense). Metaphysics is a gentleman's debate. There are no clear winners just falacy. Science doesn't always hold up because of the nature of metaphysics. That doesn't make science superior from a mental or social standpoint.

Morality ultimately comes from either authority or the social contract.

I pick the social contract.

i wouldnt say requesting proof of a deity invites a metaphysical debate anymore than asking for proof of apples is a metaphysical debate. the first conclusion I would derive from such a response is that metaphysical evidence is the only evidence to be had, that is, evidence which cannot be measured or tested by any means available currently to professionals who are trained in measuring and testing phenomena. since apples are generally agreed to be real without metaphysical debate (except in cases concerning the reliability of human perception and the substantiality of physics) anything that cannot generally be agreed about without metaphysical debate is more perceptual than substantial, like a magic eye picture as a rough example. regarding Spinoza, woulnt his idea of pantheism be considered heresy or heathenism?

a reply to: Pinocchio

Personally...

I believe in god. And I hate that I do. His is a confusing craft. First there is faith. An obligation I walk away from. Then there is trust.... and that sh_t is more mind boggling than faith. It doesn't fall from my a__ like drops of rain. It is not polite to believe and betray the order of our existence. But trusting that dude means I set myslef up to learn life is nothing quite like I imagined. Yet... everytime I see a woman I relearn that his is a most marvelous craft.
So... I start to believe. Also.... my god is Christian. So... his is a curiosity about his sad believer.
My short stor is boiled down to "damned if I do and damned if I dont."
That makes god real.... but also... a bogus and fantastical being.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I would ask yu to think again.

God is metaphysical. Unless you have made very specific qualifications for the word God.

There does not need to be physical evidence. This is where you go wrong.

Do you have a definate answer, one that science provides to disregard a prime mover or necesary being?

You don't. Because it's a concept that can not possibly have proof. Even if a little green man said hey god is this...you have to be skeptical to not just be following the crowd.

You can however say what is false if there is evidence based claims.

He cured my disease when it hadn't. If you join you rise from the dead and do the hoke pokie...nope.

It becomes very difficult to argue some topics of God in a definate destruction of the claim of something like a prime mover.

It comes down to interpreting what people say they have measured and reasoned about reality.


Or what they feel inside. Which obviously can't be argued against. So call it that and move on.

Atheists do this too. A lot use science like religeon meaning they don't really get what is in the book either. They write off QM as sillness when applied macro. Yet right there it says we have found evidence of macro superposition in expirement. Like people who say it's a religeon of peace. Then you read about subjugation and brute force.

People hate thinking the reality they based all their opinions on could be different than the bs they have been spouting for years. Myself included.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

I would ask yu to think again...
If you join you rise from the dead and do the hoke pokie...nope.

Actually.... That's Exactly What Happens....

a reply to: Pinocchio

Well you have to prove a physical claim for sure. At the least have logical theory to support such a claim.

Now if this is a spiritual metaphysical claim of after life then I don't even have an argument. It isn't worth trying to debate.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
People behave morally without religion then why is religion even necessary?

And why is your definition of moral the right one?

Seems some people need a rehash on this thead and the definitions of words such as:

Theist
Atheist

Gnostic
Agnostic


People should understand the true meaning of these words.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
Seems some people need a rehash on this thead and the definitions of words such as:

Theist
Atheist

Gnostic
Agnostic


People should understand the true meaning of these words.

Coomba98

and while we are at it, maybe a reliable and substantial definition of god that doesnt pander to socioeconomic trend.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Very true.

And arrgh crap forgot to include the link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Coomba98

a reply to: luthier

Ahh so you are an admitted troll.

You do realise i love trolling trolls.

The spot for Padawan #3 IS open.

Wanna apply? 😀

Coomba98

Can anyone tell me why their definition of morality and what is moral and what is not is the "right" one?

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm not sure it's weird, I think it is the mind set of many who post here, that there is simply "one God". Thats a shame, it would be like eating a single meal over and over, or listenting to one song, never experiencing new tastes or sounds

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm not sure it's weird, I think it is the mind set of many who post here, that there is simply "one God". Thats a shame, it would be like eating a single meal over and over, or listenting to one song, never experiencing new tastes or sounds

An omnipotent God is every possibility all a the same time. So you have have all the Gods you want.

I've wondered at the moment of your death you might be given the power of omnipotence (an omnipotent God can do this). And after a few million years of living out the same boring dead end paths of your imagination you will be begging God to take you into heaven so you can experience eternal heavenly bliss.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Some would say your morality comes from your spirit. How do you know that you are not in fact advanced technology that includes a soul and that soul returns to the mother ship once your mortal coil stops working? I do wonder if we are some advanced technology and some times that tech malfunctions. Different levels of malfunction for sure..

i am a soft polytheist. i believe in many gods, that in the end are only one god. kinda like bob is human, but part of the over all Human, if you will.

logically i can not defend my choice to believe in the gods. it is a choice. the gods give me hope for an after life. its my fear of disappearing at death that motivates my choice.

that, and after much study of anatomy and physiology, i cant help but think something higher than us got involved in our evolution. healing a cut, for example, is incredibly complex. actually, every system is way more complex than you might think. just producing sperm/ovum requires 7 different steps or more. how does the body know how to do this? also, every cell is alive, yet death is almost instant for every cell in the body once the brain stops. really quite incredible!

most of what we know about cell makeup was only discovered in the last 70 years! there is still a third layer of muscles in the abdomen that we arent sure what their function is.

now, after writting all that, i do believe in science. i believe that everything physical can be explained by science.

my mind, myself, is powered by this body. it is like a light bulb. when this body shuts down and no more energy is provided to light the bulb, does it just go dark? or does that light continue into the universe? if it does, does it dissipate like light does now? either way i disappear (though i wont know it, so does it matter?).

im reminded of a hindu saying, "when you are asleep, and not dreaming, where are you?" logically that is death. nothingness. sleep without dreaming. forever. that s### scares me to no end!

so i choose to belive in gods and an afterlife.
"
now, if you belive unshakable that the god/s exist or dont, to me, brings up one conclusion. either you lack imagination (atheist) or you lack reason (theist). the only correct answer to "do the god/s exist?" is "i dont know, but i choose to belive...".

after all, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but should inspire skepticism.

p.s. while i think the god/s exist, i think they view us like ants. when was the last time you cared about the inner workings of an ant colony, or an individual ant, for that matter? some of you may have had an ant farm, and cared about the colony, but an individual ant? maybe. that is how i view that relationship between the god/s and us.

a reply to: TzarChasm

There is only one Father, whom has been perverted throughout history. I presume the one currently known as "Satan" or "Lucifer" tried to instantiate himself and his demons as Gods at some point, which is where the pantheon comes from. That information is lost in antiquity though.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Who really cares what name you give to a fictionnal character? They are all the same imaginary friends some people need to be good persons. I say, let the believers believe and do your own thing.

Peace out.

originally posted by: Aedaeum
a reply to: TzarChasm

There is only one Father, whom has been perverted throughout history. I presume the one currently known as "Satan" or "Lucifer" tried to instantiate himself and his demons as Gods at some point, which is where the pantheon comes from. That information is lost in antiquity though.

history suggests that you might be mistaken. I would say that if anyone is responsible for the perversion of theology, it is politicians who had no right trying to assimilate spirituality into their socioeconomic games, but did it anyway. many marvelous gods and goddesses have paid the price for the hubris of arrogant greedy men and women.

Not only is there no proof of the existence of God, but there's no proof of the righteousness of morality (whose morality?) - beyond that which we ascribe to different behaviors that feel more or less fair and just to us subjectively - nor that there is any meaning or purpose to our existence whatsoever. We all believe in things for which there is no empirical proof such as, "This feeling we call love which I feel for my child/wife/husband/parent/friend means something special." (According to empirical science, it's just meat and ion channels, electrical impulses and hormones. Evolved behaviors in an animal that will one day inevitably go extinct, if not by its own hands, then when the universe grows cold and dark.)

Objectively, evidenciarily, nothing means anything. Doing "good" means nothing. Loving means nothing. Making an effort to do anything other than lay down and wait for death, is an exercise in denial of the inevitable, and the product of behavior and instinct that has evolved to be complex enough as to seem magical and significant.

And yet... here we are all on a website, hoping anything we can do do or say might mean something, anything, somehow.

So I say: if I'm deluded in my theism, allow me my delusions, and I'll allow you yours. Because either there is meaning beyond this life, or there isn't, but either way... we all believe in things for which there is no empirical proof. That's why it's faith, not provable knowledge.

Peace.