# Is there a GOD?



## tech/a (6 May 2007)

Do you believe in god.


----------



## nizar (6 May 2007)

*Re: Is there GOD*



tech/a said:


> Do you believe in god.




Iv got another question: How did you pass the 100 character thing???

And yes - of course there is God. Only 1 God.

As for "belief" - well some things are true whether you believe in them or not.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Do you believe in god.




Yes Tech I believe in god. 
Do you?

Garpal


----------



## constable (6 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Do you believe in god.




You dont seriously think he's going to help you with your footy tips?


Im a non believer. The only thing i believe is no one can prove me wrong!

However i must add that religion is a vessel for providing society with principals and discipline  that in general, is for the greater good!


----------



## Joe Blow (6 May 2007)

*Re: Is there GOD*



nizar said:


> Iv got another question: How did you pass the 100 character thing???




100 character minimum only applies to the three stock forums: Stocks A-H, Stocks I-P and Stocks Q-Z.


----------



## juiceman (6 May 2007)

Possibly, but that would depend on my age, and the cost of exercising my options at entry to heaven, oh and on the basis that: Bendigo City Town Hall clock tower doesnt fall into one Bendigo Golds ventilator shafts:thus spoiling my only chance, of squaring up with that mother of a share


----------



## svensk (6 May 2007)

A mysterious higher power looking over us? An entity that formed the universe and the earth, as well as mankind itself? 

I cannot even begin to comprehend that, let alone believe it.


----------



## Kimosabi (6 May 2007)

You forgot:

"No-one really knows"


----------



## constable (6 May 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> You forgot:
> 
> "No-one really knows"




lol, bit like the tassie tiger, the yeti, bunyips and pixies at the bottom of my garden!


----------



## purple (6 May 2007)

Yes. period.

You'll never know the sunshine outside if you stay in your room the whole day.


----------



## Crafty (6 May 2007)

I wish I did believe in God...   But I don't.


----------



## nizar (6 May 2007)

purple said:


> You'll never know the sunshine outside if you stay in your room the whole day.




Exactly.
Good point.

Which part of UAE are you from?


----------



## barney (6 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Do you believe in god.




If I can be a little "tangentle" (thats probably not a word, but I occassionally make my own words up!!), in an attempt to look past the obvious, what prompted the question Tech? ...........

I trust you have not suffered any situation (family/ill health etc) which makes you "question" your "position" in the universe ................

For the record, I think if any person considers humans/him or herself to be the "top of the chain" in respect of evolution/creation or whatever anyone wishes to call it, then that person is a) narrow minded b) narrow minded and c) narrow minded ................. 

I'm not going to tell you there is a god, cause I can't prove it, and even if I could, those who didn't want to believe there was, wouldn't believe me anyway!! ............. BUT .......... For anyone to discount the possibilty that a higher life form could exist, then they are are simply limiting their possible experiences of what life may be all about ............. 

I look at the facts ............. Human life exists ............ Life/nature/science etc is so complex that we as humans are still only touching the surface of what we really know ............... For example, It was pointed out to me by a learned "older friend" of mine who reads a great deal on "everything", that science has shown that there are more moving parts in every living human cell than in any man made machine !!! ............. Mind boggling ........... 

The question of  whether or not we "believe" in God should possibly be replaced with .........  "Have we shut our minds off to the possibilities of our own smallness (insignificance) in the overall scheme of the universe and beyond .................... Are we prepared to keep our minds open to the "truths" of the universe ............... 

My perception of God is probably way "left field" , but I too am a victim of my own bias ................. I see my part as a human, is to "learn" to keep my mind open as much as possible ........... that way the learned dogma of my past will not taint the possibility of future truths .................

Enough ranting ................ I'm not normally this serious (bit the opposite!!), but I thought the question from Tech deserved some "serious" comment .....

PS Hows the footy tipping going Tech??


----------



## Stan 101 (6 May 2007)

I believe in one less god than most theists. If there is a god, he/she/it really needs to take a long, hard look at its actions.


The scientist has got my vote!

cheers,


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Do you believe in god.




No,I do not believe in god because the idea was created from human mind.The other living organisms on the earth have no words to explain things either.


----------



## imajica (6 May 2007)

all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions. 

the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.


----------



## nomore4s (6 May 2007)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.




I agree with this.


----------



## constable (6 May 2007)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.




good golly that is concise!


----------



## the barry (6 May 2007)

he wore a number 5 geurnsy and ran about in the geelong jumper.


----------



## Stan 101 (6 May 2007)

the barry said:


> he wore a number 5 geurnsy and ran about in the geelong jumper.




ha ha ha.... funny!


----------



## wayneL (6 May 2007)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.



While I think this is true, it doesn't discount the possibility of God/Allah/infinite intelligence/creator/the Force/whatever.

Religion sucks, but I have my reasons for believing in another level of existence.

Cheers

...and please, state your beliefs/positions, but no ridicule.


----------



## son of baglimit (6 May 2007)

oh cmon tech - a harmless question like this - why not create a real, divisive question like........................

oh yeah this is the divisive one.

divides families, friends, neighbours, workmates, regions, countries - and pretty much everything else.

it creates government policy, laws, wars, and above all, indoctrinates.

I DONT BELIEVE, AND UNTIL THE A-HOLES WHO RUN RELIGIONS CAN COME TO AGREEMENT, I HAVE NO TIME FOR ITS FOLLOWERS EITHER. 
ANY RELIGION.

dont like my attitude, get over it - its what free thinking is about.


----------



## wayneL (6 May 2007)

barney said:


> If I can be a little "tangentle" (thats probably not a word, but I occassionally make my own words up!!), in an attempt to look past the obvious, what prompted the question Tech? ...........
> 
> I trust you have not suffered any situation (family/ill health etc) which makes you "question" your "position" in the universe ................
> 
> ...



Top post...

I believe Tech is currently reading "The God Delusion" and that is the reason for the thread.


----------



## barney (6 May 2007)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.





Hi I,
This may surprise you if you read my above post, but in essence I actually agree with your statement ...................... What Tech asked was Do we believe in God? ................... If we bring in religion and the bible we are assuming a "christian" God .............. We (western society) are conditioned to relate "God" to a christian God only (which is fair enough cause thats what we were brought up with), but, to me, God is simply a "higher more advanced life form than man ................ I mean if we think we/man can have evolved out of nothing from nothing, what is to say that a greater/far more superior life form did not/has not evolved long before we did, somewhere else in the Universe, and that we on earth are no more than an "experiment" in a "test tube" to them (God/Gods) ............... I believe the essence of God whether we are Christian, Buddist, or any whatever, is the same .................. Man has a seemingly inate tendency to "seek God" (Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not ....... Its up to the individual to sort that one out) ............  I think it is just our biased perception of what/who God is that causes most of the arguments/confusion .................. An open mind is essential .............. Lets face it, is the world still flat? ................. What about travelling through time/space at warp speed, or the concept of string theory, relating to multiple dimensions of time/space existing in virtually the same place .......... Is this possible? .............. with an open mind, yes (Scientists are working on the theory already)............... I just like to keep my "options" open ............................ I think I'm getting out of my depth   ......... Going to play my wife at scrabble    ............ Cheers.

PS Cheers Wayne ................. Maybe we think a similar "language" .............. Pity I can't trade like you can (LOL)


----------



## Crafty (6 May 2007)

the barry said:


> he wore a number 5 geurnsy and ran about in the geelong jumper.





As Rex Hunt would say....   "YAAAAABBBBBBLLLLEEEEETTTTTT"


----------



## stargazer (6 May 2007)

Hi all

This is some interesting reading

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com

Cheers
SG


----------



## Dukey (6 May 2007)

Interesting that at present almost 40% went for the full 'No god' option. - Thats higher than I thought. I too voted that way - but I'd like to qualify my position:
I presumed that by 'God' - Tech meant _'Conscious God as found in the Bible'_.
I voted No - because I don't believe in that conscious creator-God...

*But I am a Pantheist *- which is someone who believes that 'Nature' or 'The Universe' are synonymous with 'God'. Many people who think they are atheists turn out to be Pantheists when they consider what it actually is.

Pantheists revere Nature as the driving force behind all of existence.

Other tenets include:
- Pantheist Nature/god - is not a conscious entity, who makes decisions and judgements about the world or 'good and evil'.   Instead it can be seen as the laws of physics//chemistry/biology etc - working over aeons of time.

- All Things are One Thing (this is the ZEN bit).  Everything is a part of this Nature-God and Nature-God IS everything. Including all people and living things - in fact everything in existence. AND all of it is sacred.

- NO church necessary - Just the majesty and wonder of Nature.

        - Famous Pantheists include Einstein, Gorbachev, Sagan, Steven Hawkings, Sitting Bull, SPinoza of course and many others.



> Quote from Albert Einstein: _A                          knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the                          manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant                          beauty  - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the                          truly religious attitude;  in this sense, *and this alone*, I am a                          deeply religious man._



Anyway - thats where I'm at. I see no need to believe in the fear mongering biblical god - And totally agree that that Biblical god was made in mans image - not the other way round.
Pantheism.net
​..... so hows that for freaky...???????????  Any takers   ?????????
​


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 May 2007)

Dukey said:


> ..... so hows that for freaky...???????????  Any takers   ?????????




Your words are many but you say very little.My words of explanation are foolish.

Letters become words, words become thoughts, thoughts are passed from one to another.This will go on forever.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2007)

Well, Tech, your choice of literature has clearly prompted this so difficult question.
Then, as I write that, I know that for many it's not a difficult question at all:  they simply believe in a God, end of story.
I've seen many of these believers find immense comfort in that belief and trust during difficult times, but similarly seen other believers reduced to confusion  and questioning when life's events turn against them.

I have a total loathing of all religion, i.e. the rituals and dogma which are used to control populations.  Voltaire said "If God did not exist, man would have to invent him".  I'm with Voltaire here.  The worst religions are those which preach the existence of hell and suggest unless one takes up with their particular God (and it's theirs alone of course) the fires of hell will be one's fate.

I like Dukey's thoughts on Pantheism.  This pretty much sums up how I feel.
I am at times in total awe of the precision and beauty of nature, perhaps just walking on the beach watching the regularity of the tides coming in and going out every day.

Devotees of religion often say that this is the only basis for living a moral and ethical life.  I totally reject that.  They are standing on pretty damn shaky ground given the level of sexual and other abuse which has for so long existed amongst the clergy of all religions.

I respect absolutely the right of those who want to believe in a God, whatever they conceive him, she, or it to be.  It just doesn't make much sense to me.  

Another question might be "do you believe in a spiritual existence after the death of the human body"?  I have known a number of people who reject religion and the idea of a God, but nonetheless believe in a spiritual level of being.  I am agnostic about this but do find it interesting.  It might be nothing more than a mechanism to make death more acceptable.

Thanks, Tech, for the thought provoking thread.


----------



## Dukey (6 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Your words are many but you say very little.My words of explanation are foolish.
> 
> Letters become words, words become thoughts, thoughts are passed from one to another.This will go on forever.




??????????????????????
With all due respect ... just WTF are you talking about here???? Whats your point? I agreed with you at least in part anyway??? But - If I had any idea of exactly what you were trying to say WYSIWIG - then I might be able to have some decent kind of discussion with you - as it is ... I'l let it ride...
--------------------

Julia - I'm with you all the way - nice thoughtful post.


----------



## FinalFantasy (6 May 2007)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.




wow I like that, well said!


----------



## >Apocalypto< (7 May 2007)

I believe Jesus had a vision of how we could all live with each other in a better way. I value his message.

Then the Europeans got a hold of it and turned it into a way to control the masses.

I also beleive Jesus would have been shocked at what we did with his teachings

I belive in being good to one another and not juding on race or religion.

The only God I fear and respect is the market!


----------



## lesm (7 May 2007)

Why not throw Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution' into the mix, appears to be more plausible.


----------



## krisbarry (7 May 2007)

Going by the stats in this survey it would appear that believing in God and trading on the market are polls apart 

How dare you believe in god and make squillions 

For someone to gain wealth in the market, someone has to lose, maybe thats why we have so few that believe in God 

By the way I don't believe there is a God, but I am sure we have all prayed to a God for that winning trade...


----------



## tech/a (7 May 2007)

A fascinating diverse subject,and yes Wayne is correct and I agree with most written here,although some would see my replies as contradictory to some.

I will post my thoughts on the topic when I can devote the time necessary to give a more complete veiw,as it is easy to pigeon hole a veiw in a small amount of text.

I guess my question is more along Julia's lines of the confrontation of Mortality,rather than the Existance of a Creator.

But just quickly on the subject of belief.----A little favorite which doesnt reflect my views entirely but can be appropriate.

"One person suffering from delusion is seen as insane.
A great number of people suffering from delusion---a religion."


----------



## bingk6 (7 May 2007)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.




Very Very Very True!!!!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 May 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Going by the stats in this survey it would appear that believing in God and trading on the market are polls apart
> 
> How dare you believe in god and make squillions
> 
> ...




Very well said

It appears the bell curve of answers is skewed towards the heathens at present.

It would be interesting to run it in a bear market.

Enclosed is a chart of god superimposed on a monthly chart of the XAO

Garpal


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (7 May 2007)

Todd Rundgren wrote a song about God. He named all the Gods he could remember ,and finished off but saying " Will the real God please stand up" . With all my travels I've always noticed ...poorer the country ,stronger beliefs in a God ,richer the country ,then not so much.


----------



## Gundini (7 May 2007)

Whether there is a God or not I can't be certain, but for the first 7 years of my life I thought I was "Jesus Christ"

Every time I drew on the wall will crayons, or tipped my dinner on ther floor, my Father would come in and say....

"Jesus Christ, what the ---- do you think you are doing?"


----------



## The Mint Man (7 May 2007)

I dont realy think there is a 'God' considering some of the things that go on in the world!!! Also some of his 'followers' actions leave much to be desired.
Having said that, I dont know if there is a 'God' but I do believe that we are not the only life in the universe, so based on that I had to say _God's existance is equally probable and improbable _


----------



## The Mint Man (7 May 2007)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.



Very, Very good!


----------



## BIG BWACULL (7 May 2007)

Have faith in ye my children, Ye who have no faith shall be stricken off thy christmas list LOVE Santa    LOL


----------



## purple (7 May 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Very well said
> 
> It appears the bell curve of answers is skewed towards the heathens at present.
> 
> ...




LOL...true! 

church attendance increased 25% in the US right after 9/11.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 May 2007)

Danish pastry is atheist.!


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s871560.htm *I'm an atheist, pastor declares*  . A Danish pastor in the state Protestant Church has been suspended from his job after admitting he does not believe in God.
> 
> The Danish news agency Ritzau says Pastor Thorkild Grosboell revealed his religious beliefs, or lack thereof, in a newspaper interview published at the weekend.  Bishop Lise-Lotte Rebel described the pastor's comments as totally *unacceptable and suspended him for one week*.
> 
> ...



Sounds like his parishioners have as much faith in him as they do in the church   - freedom of expression had been violated etc 


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s877813.htm *Parishioners demand return of atheist pastor*.  *Hundreds of parishioners * in the Danish village of Taarbaek have come to the defence of their pastor after he was suspended for not believing in God and *have demanded his reinstatement*, Danish media reported.
> 
> At a protest, parishioners condemned the state Lutheran Protestant Church for its decision to suspend 55-year-old Thorkild Grosboell after he spoke of his lack of beliefs in a newspaper interview last week.  "If there is no place for our pastor in this Church, then there is no place for many of us either," the head of the parish council, Lars Heilesen, told the gathering.
> 
> ...



A few quotes I found on the subject:-

Faith - n, belief without evuidence in what is told by one who speaks, without knowledge, of things without parallel.

Faith - an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. HL Mencken.

Faith must trample unferfoot all reason, sense and understanding.  - Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) 

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider it terrifying and absolutely vile. - Kurt Vonnegut 

I had to set limits to knowledge in order to make place for faith - Immanuel Kany (1724 -1804)

The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, a continual flight from wonder. - Albert Einstein.

myself:- we have no way of knowing, but most importantly let's avoid going down this particular road to blind faith at all costs   :-


> "Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm.   What I wish to maintain is that ALL faiths do harm.  We may define faith as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.  When there is evidence, noone speaks of "faith". We do not speak of faith that two and two are four, or that the earthis round.  We only speak of faith when we wish to substiture emotion for evidence.  We are told that faith could remove mountains, but noone believed it, we are now told that the atomic bomb can remove mountains, and everyone believes it"  - Bertrand Russell.



PS Let's tone down the faith, especially in the vicinity of atomic bombs.


----------



## Bullion (7 May 2007)

I used to be a bit of an Atheist. For most of my life actually. Some may say I still am, but I feel I no longer am.

I always loved discussing this and was always on the "can't prove it, so dont believe it" side. But now it's more... "I can't prove it, but nobody can dis-prove it either. So there definately could be"

People who dismiss the idea completely because it sounds ridiculous or whatever are narrow minded. People who only believe in God without questioning it, also, narrow minded.

Fact is, if God does exist, it does not mean that everyone who follows him will do good and that everyone who believes in him is doing the right thing. Another fact is that "right and wrong", morals, good nature and everything that makes us a "civil" race has been affected strongly by the teachings of the Bible. But that is a different question.

Does God exist Tech asks...

Well, nobody can prove the big bang theory. Evolution exists, but that DOES NOT counter-act or dis-prove that God exists either. Science does not prove God doesn't exist either. They are seperate entities. Science just works out why things work and how. It CAN run side by side with God. 

On a side note, did anyone ever think that the whole "creation" story with Adam and Eve might not be so literal and that it just represents something else?


ps - Just because you believe in God, does not mean you believe in the Church. The Church is run by humans after all, which we humans are all flawed.


----------



## Rafa (7 May 2007)

3 veiws of a secret said:


> With all my travels I've always noticed ...poorer the country ,stronger beliefs in a God ,richer the country ,then not so much.




its interesting... to beleive in God requires humility... civilisations that fail to be humble, eventually fail.

but back to the topic...
my views on religion have been aired before...

i believe the in the teachings of Jesus...
and from what i can see, a good a deal of the good in the world today is as a  result of those teachings... the very freedoms that we now enjoy started from the teaching of Jesus, where he told his followers to NOT be afraid of anthing that man throws at them.

Ironically, a lot of the bad in this world has come from the dogmatic institutionalisation of those teachings... which actually actively restricted those freedoms that Jesus preached about... 

Trade_It summed it up well


> I believe Jesus had a vision of how we could all live with each other in a better way. I value his message.
> Then the Europeans got a hold of it and turned it into a way to control the masses.
> I also beleive Jesus would have been shocked at what we did with his teachings




and as for God, who are we to question Gods existence...?


----------



## Uncle Festivus (7 May 2007)

Why yes, I believe in Dog.

Q: Did you hear about the group of dyslexic devil worshippers in Sydney?
A: They sold their souls to Santa!


----------



## The Mint Man (7 May 2007)

Bullion said:


> On a side note, did anyone ever think that the whole "creation" story with Adam and Eve might not be so literal and that it just represents something else?



Sorry but thats just stupid! and it sounds like many religious people I have met over the years, trying to twist words to create more confusion in order to win an argument about this very question  
Please spare us of this type of rot!

Cheers


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (7 May 2007)

If there is a God, he doesn't like me trading.


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (7 May 2007)

Having watched people die in front of my eyes, there's always that strange moment of aura when the person gasps his last breath. I have always wonder in that final moment of salvation does the person accept his religion and his creator. On a similar vein to think of all the stars in our universe is greater than all grains of sand on earth is a shattering thought as to why are we so special.
Philosophy is not my strength, but we all have to serve somebody. Everybody lives on HOPE.


----------



## anon (7 May 2007)

Is there a GOD???
If we look back in history we will find that there has always been a God, in fact lots of gods. Egyptians believed in gods, and backed their beliefs by preparing their kings for life beyond death by mummifying them.  Three thousand years later those kings are still on earth, resting in museums around the world.

Then came Greek civilization with its own set of gods, to be followed by Roman civilization with their Roman gods, many of whom were borrowed from the Greeks. Scandinavian mythology had its cluster of gods, whilst on the other side of the world completely isolated from philosophies of the western world were Incas and Aztecs with their own gods. I googled up  "inca gods"  and got a list of some hundred and fifteen names. Then I googled  "aztec gods" and gave up counting after reaching sixty. Back on our side of the world Israeli, Muslim and Christian gods (some say it is the same god) received very strong recognition and gained massive followings. 

Conclusions??  It would seem that humanity needs that higher being to guide it in the way it should conduct its life on earth, and the process had very spectacular results - some very good and some disastrous. We are witnessing some of those effects right now, and they aren't pretty. Makes one wonder why gods don't take a more active role in the ongoing mess on earth. 

anon


----------



## happytown (7 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> ...
> 
> and as for God, who are we to question Gods existence...?




rafa,

power to you,

however, i would tend to answer that as

*we* are entities proven to exist

and my take on texta's original question

yes - and he is a member of asf - and he has lots of followers - and he is vengeful - and you must therefore never question him

and i note the gender inflection above

am currently reading several books on myths and the power of at the moment and have yet to decide who my god shall be

cheers


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 May 2007)

I have four books in front of me now.One is The Book of Mormon (the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints) , one is the Holy Bible-King James version (church of jesus christ of latter-day saints) , one is Holy Bible (placed by The Gideons) and one is Mankind`s search for God (jehovah`s witness). 
I keep them because they have some good human traits and qualities to learn from...O.K. the book says this but humans do that and it is this contradiction, between right and wrong , that I have my thoughts on the question of Is there a GOD.

*I believe the idea was created from human mind , so it is only a human mind that can believe the concept.*

If humans had no thought then there would be no explanation and life would would continue on as it does now.Worse for life on this planet is yet to come with thinking man.The smart people , with their ideas and actions to make life easier for the us followers , are creating an unnatural planet.Me , you and everybody else are swept along with the flow.the bigger contributors are the ones who want four cars ,three houses, two kids and one dog with all the factory manufactured stuff that they can ill afford.Most want to `live it up` while they`re alive.

*The question of a GOD has no conclusive answer , only billions of different perceptions (or however many people there are on earth right now) that are created in small mind.*

These thoughts include all the other chappies who have laid claim to fame along the way too.Buddah and co.I watched someone die and that is all that happened , they died , so no half baked potatoe is gonna determine what happens to me when I cease to live.


----------



## Rafa (7 May 2007)

happytown said:


> rafa,
> *we* are entities proven to exist





yes, we DO exist...
(unless you believe the Matrix   )

but do we know enough to be certain one way or another? 

In my humble opinion, believing in anything with certainty is start of all problems, be it certain that GOD DOES NOT EXIST or certain that GENESIS is literally true!

One of the fundamental principles of science is the principle of uncertainty. Even Newtons laws of physics were at best an approximation.


----------



## stockGURU (7 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> In my humble opinion, believing in anything with certainty is start of all problems, be it certain that GOD DOES NOT EXIST or certain that GENESIS is literally true!




So you would say that believing with certainty that god *does* exist is equally as silly as believing with certainty that god *doesn't* exist?


----------



## constable (7 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I have four books in front of me now.One is The Book of Mormon (the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints) , one is the Holy Bible-King James version (church of jesus christ of latter-day saints) , one is Holy Bible (placed by The Gideons) and one is Mankind`s search for God (jehovah`s witness).




What amazes me is that all these books were written hundreds of years ago, by people who had absolutley no idea. Specifically no science at their disposal to answer the unexplained in their big scarey world. Of course they needed gods to get them through. 
eg especially when people were dying of any type of viruses we now have antibiotics for or there was a tidal wave , earthquake, fire, famine, locusts , shooting stars , comets tornadoes etc etc . I mean a thousand years ago the world was a scarey place and it was unimaginably big.
Just imagine there was no religion in the past and today you tried to introduce the idea of a god or almighty being. Science would have your guts for garters and you would be thrown into mental inst or worse called a terrorist!
The problem is that when you see someone who you trust and love, someone who you look up to, believe in religion , of course you naturally want to believe in it yourself. 
If you were born into a muslim family chances are your a muslim. If you were born into a catholic family chances are your a catholic. Its not hard for children to become conditioned to the idea., etc etc through the generations.
Do the peolpe who become devout followers ever seriously investigate other religions ? Im mean what sought of religion road testing do followers really take on. How do you even qualify a religion against another one, apart from the fact my freinds /family follow it so this god /gods is the right one for me...oh and just take this tablespoon full of faith, that help you swallow it down!
Eg i have a friend who has married a jehova's witness and hey presto 5 years later he is a jehova's witness. Of course i couldnt help but say, if she had of been Indian he too would now be a hindu.
Hey but it would be hard to say to someone close "i think everything you believe in is a lie and you've been brainwashed like the rest of them, but i still want to be close to you."


----------



## Mousie (7 May 2007)

stockGURU said:


> So you would say that believing with certainty that god *does* exist is equally as silly as believing with certainty that god *doesn't* exist?




Nothing to do with silliness IMO; how we can be certain/uncertain of something depends on what we formulate out of our experiences. Experiences are something very personal; you don't deride others' experiences (eg call them "silly") unless you know them well enough. I'm described as being too logical of a person many a time by others, yet I've seen enough that defies my logic to conclude that so much is beyond my comprehension.

For instance, humans can be proud of their many inventions to make life easier, eg the internet. But with these inventions come many side-effects, eg radiation, isolationism, etc. And neither has any of said inventions managed to change and more importantly, sustain our well-being for the entire existence of Planet Earth as what we are born with; in our birthday suit.

Just as science is meant to be a study as to how things _work_, these studies will, if done correctly and without bias, ultimately and unfailingly point to the intricacy and remarkableness of how things _are_. We could not have just existed out of thin air, nor could things past have. This remarkable excellence with which things are made alone points to a higher power at work; one which we cannot even begin to comprehend its brain power.

Things can't just exist and fall in place; they need something to move it. If you want to see your business get started, you go get it started; you don't sit and wait. Why then do the seasons come and go? Who could have motivated the change in seasons? Who could have put those _systems_ in place?

Maybe the "who" should have been "what", I hear you say. Well then, how does this "what" enable us to care about these questions as we gaze at things created by this "what"? A "what" is an object; a "who" is a person. How can a "what" make us feel with our heart how amazing the wind, the sun, and the moon and the stars are? How can a "what" make us love another person, if that "what" created us all? The "what" has got to have feelings to give us feelings. We couldn't give of something we don't already have.

SUMMARY: This is where the "what" gives way to a "who". A mere object could not possibly have such power over both things of the mind and things of the heart. This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers. This has to be GOD...


----------



## happytown (7 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> ...
> 
> (unless you believe the Matrix   )




you found the hole in my argument a little too easily for my liking   

interesting how all of us have approached answers to original question

is there a god

question seeking answer of fact v question seeking answer of belief

i know no facts and have no beliefs and am therefore without a box to tick

cheers


----------



## patrick (7 May 2007)

Looked up GOD on the asx and they told me the company doesnt appear to be listed. Therefore at this stage in my life I dont believe in GOD perhaps this will change later in my life but we'll have to wait and see


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 May 2007)

Personally I'm very inclined to the notion of a benevolent mother nature (non-interventionist) - although by that I probably just mean the miracle of hereditary knowledge handed down   

e.g. I just posted something on the "videos that send  a message " thread. 



> a great caterpillar minidocumentary
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWOC8trquFo BBC Worldwide: Attenborough - Caterpillars




I mean , you look at that, then you eyeball the little critter that's doing it, and you can tell he has a brain the size of half a pinhead - and yet ... somebody told him how to make that little tent   

"and I have felt a presence that disturbs me , with the joy of elevated thought" as Wordsworth used to say   magic. !!  (but in truth probably not a miracle, just damned clever - who knows).

Sorry to do this to you folks, but here's a repeat of a poem #154 on poetry thread. 



> INSTINCT SOULS and BIRDDOGS
> 
> I spied a brown hawk on a hovering stalk, As he straightened and swooped for some feast,
> And I wondered who learned him, and what birthright earned him, The power and skills of the beast,
> ...


----------



## greggy (7 May 2007)

Yes, being a Catholic. I do believe in God.  But I also believe that people have the right to believe in whatever they want.


----------



## wayneL (7 May 2007)

stockGURU said:


> So you would say that believing with certainty that god *does* exist is equally as silly as believing with certainty that god *doesn't* exist?



I think this is a problem in these discussions. People either are mostly either all in or all out.

You are either with a religion and all else are going to hell (including those other pesky religions  ) or you believe the case set forth by Dawkins et al.

What about somewhere in the middle, somewhere along Dukey's Pantheism...or indeed some other concept....

Our concept of God is effectively a meme to use the tem originally coined by Dawkins himself, (i.e. "essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses" as quoted by Imajica) and all our concepts of God have been placed there by someone.

In our culture we have the judeo/christian meme, where God is some dude sitting on a cloud, tut tutting and putting black crosses against our name when we screw up. To be quite frank, this is where people have difficulty with God concepts and legitimately reject that model.

The shame I feel is that most of these folk default to the Darwin/Dawkins model (another meme IMO). This to me is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Their right of course, but it often done without consideration or observation of anything else.

This creates a polarized debate where both sides only consider evidence to support there own particular meme infection.

I read a book called "Conversations with God" by Neil Donald Walsch. Now was he actually talking with God? $#@*ed if I know, but it certainly was thought provoking and goes a long way towards the pantheistic view (without actually being pantheistic if that makes sense). The religious hate the book with a passion. Those with open minds love it. 

I haven't read the God Delusion, but to me Dawkins is extremely emotional about the topic from what I have seen of him. In other words he has an extreme emotional investment in the Darwinian model. His choice, but important to be aware of.

There can be no question that there was some sort of gradual unfolding of life on this planet, call it evolution, and I think the biblical account of creation cannot really be taken seriously if being rational. However look deeply at the world we live in and it is full of magic. It all obeys the physical laws of course, but the magic is in the so called "irreducible complexity" of it all for many of us.

Chuck in a few mysteries and things are not so cut and dried IMO

I'm just kinda waffling on here, but a few points to think about anyway.

Cheers


----------



## Flying Fish (7 May 2007)

I have nothing against religion as long as it affects noone else. But I must admit that any religion can get out of hand. As to a supreme being... well I guess every living thing is supreme in its own right, otherwise it would not exist 
Perhaps god is the planet that we live and solely rely.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 May 2007)

thought for the day 
If an a-theist doesn't believe in any god
and a mono-theist believes in one god
then do they call someone who belives in two gods  ... maybe 

a toothiest ?


----------



## Kauri (7 May 2007)

My dog believes that I am God.... (My wife doesn't    )


----------



## tech/a (7 May 2007)

Is it possible that Man hasnt yet evolved to the point where he can investigate thouroughly the very question he seems "Hell bent" on answering.

As such there are polarised views. Niether fully supported by available evidence,often creating more questions than answers.
Bought about by our own limitations and current understandings.

Much has changed in the evolution of man both in the physical and the Psycological. While I see religion much the same as many here---a man made convienience. God as the figure head (Or indeed excuse) of such convienience. (Incidently that convienience takes many forms).
I can also understand that we may well be a quirk of nature as individual as our singular existance,which could be just that.

But to then explain ALL of existance even that which we know let alone that which we dont---as simply massive occurences of Quirks,which we expect to be governed by those physical parameters which govern ourselves (The most obvious being time).I find a hard pill to swallow.

That we as a conscious organism expect to know EVERYTHING,is to me simply a trait of the organism---certainly not the authority in all that we DONT KNOW and cant possibly explain due to our own lack of developement so far.

Just as the world didnt end up being flat---so the un explained may well be explained as simply---but only when we question and investigate in the right areas and are capable of UNDERSTANDING that which we are investigating.

But then again perhaps we do--perhaps it is as simple as Dawkins puts it!

Packer may well have been right.
"I've been there and let me tell you there IS NOTHING!"

*QUESTION*

Anyone who is 100% sure there is a God care to explain how they are this way?---Other than Faith.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 May 2007)

Kauri said:


> My dog believes that I am God.... (My wife doesn't    )




my dog believes that I am "god"
my god believes that I am "dog"

my wife thinks I am partly "devil"
as long as - in the end - we've "lived"


----------



## wotthe (7 May 2007)

I believe in God ... and I know his son, too


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 May 2007)

If there is a god, he's got a sense of humour   :_
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h8I3cqpgnA&mode=related&search= BBC Worldwide: Attenborough - Orchid Wasp Mimic


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (7 May 2007)

OMG its my birthday!


----------



## $20shoes (7 May 2007)

Many pose the question - if there is a God, why do we have wars? Why do we have famine and disease?
I will put to it to you that the very existence of such acts is the proof of God's existence. To go further, if you base divine supremacy on the notion that there is "one spirit", then there is no room for duality at all. That is, nothing in creation is less than one, or more than one - it just simply is the all-encompasing spirit. Anything less or more is imperfection, and we in either abstract or even personal/spiritual terms comprehend the perfection of the divine and will accept nothing less for our Master. 
Now, if all in spiritual creation is of perfect unity, we cannot be more than God, we cannot be less then God. ALL IS ONE, ONE IS ALL.
Therefore, our spirit chooses to experience God, because as one unified spirit it can KNOW but not EXPERIENCE the love of GOD.     
Hence, the physicality of the human body is a way a soul can experience LOVE or GOD. 
Now, for this to work we need concepts of relativity. So, now we have a dichotomy where everything is completely part of the all-encompassing whole but the spirit can expereince based on the relativity we have on earth. 
That is, it is only with war that we can experience peace; it is only with hate that we can know love; it is only with atheism that we can know GOD; it is only without GOD that we can know GOD. 
If the spirit has some means of controlling how it wants to experience GOD, then we have a very dynamic ever changing world in response to the experience we want of GOD. In this way, atheism is as valid as catholicism, is as valid as Islam in the eyes of God because the relativity of each is needed for the spirit to experience God and grow in love. 
Without the comparison of one to another, then the world must have grown significantly spiritual as each spirit no longer needs such a volatile dynamic to understand God's love. 
Our world is is a branching out of GOD to experience GOD - without us GOD is not GOD.  
If there were no God, then it actually becomes difficult to explain the forces behind why we create turbulence, and inequality in everything we do. 
Hmmm, kind of taken from concepts out of Donald Walshes book..and filtered through the eyes of me.


----------



## Julia (7 May 2007)

$20shoes said:


> Many pose the question - if there is a God, why do we have wars? Why do we have famine and disease?
> I will put to it to you that the very existence of such acts is the proof of God's existence. To go further, if you base divine supremacy on the notion that there is "one spirit", then there is no room for duality at all. That is, nothing in creation is less than one, or more than one - it just simply is the all-encompasing spirit. Anything less or more is imperfection, and we in either abstract or even personal/spiritual terms comprehend the perfection of the divine and will accept nothing less for our Master.
> Now, if all in spiritual creation is of perfect unity, we cannot be more than God, we cannot be less then God. ALL IS ONE, ONE IS ALL.
> Therefore, our spirit chooses to experience God, because as one unified spirit it can KNOW but not EXPERIENCE the love of GOD.
> ...




I don't wish to be offensive, but I've read through your post three times and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Could you translate all this into a more simple answer to Tech's question if possible?


----------



## Julia (7 May 2007)

constable said:


> What amazes me is that all these books were written hundreds of years ago, by people who had absolutley no idea. Specifically no science at their disposal to answer the unexplained in their big scarey world. Of course they needed gods to get them through.
> eg especially when people were dying of any type of viruses we now have antibiotics for or there was a tidal wave , earthquake, fire, famine, locusts , shooting stars , comets tornadoes etc etc




Constable,  This is a great and really salient point.  Knowledge and understanding go a long way towards eliminating the need for faith, I guess.


----------



## Julia (7 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I think this is a problem in these discussions. People either are mostly either all in or all out.
> 
> You are either with a religion and all else are going to hell (including those other pesky religions  ) or you believe the case set forth by Dawkins et al.
> 
> ...




There are some really great posts on this thread but this from Wayne says it all for me.  Doesn't seem like waffle to me.  Thanks, Wayne.


----------



## $20shoes (7 May 2007)

Haha Julia, I'm not even sure it makes sense to me...lol

My premise of God is based on some concepts you must take as given to accept my stance - 

i) There is a spiritual presence that is perfect. This is important - if anything falls outside of God as perfect then he is no longer perfect. Stay with me - if, for instance we take Catholicism;s view that Hell is somehow not of God then there is a duality present - that is, there is something in the universe that is not God. Hence, God cannot be perfect since there is something that exists without his presence. Therefore, my concept is EVERYTHING is GOD. I mean everything. 
ii) If EVERYTHING is GOD, how does GOD distinguish himself from GOD. How does GOD experience the LOVE that is his very essence. 
iii) To answer point two, his spirit has to experience GOD through a process of relativity. This is the dichotomy - there is nothing that is not GOD. But the Earth/humans give GOD a way of knowing himself through the relativity he has set up for us. 
So, Julia when you have a losing trade, you are in communication with God saying ah, that is a pretty crummy feeling. So, NOW I know that a winning trade feels so much better. 
And you see that this concept could manifest into ad infinitum areas and indeed intersect with everyone else to create something akin to a mass love-in of GOD loving GOD.

Any clearer?


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 May 2007)

$20shoes said:


> Haha Julia, I'm not even sure it makes sense to me...lol
> ...ii) If EVERYTHING is GOD, how does GOD distinguish himself from GOD. How does GOD experience the LOVE that is his very essence.
> iii) To answer point two, his spirit has to experience GOD through a process of relativity. This is the dichotomy - there is nothing that is not GOD. But the Earth/humans give GOD a way of knowing himself through the relativity he has set up for us. ....
> 
> And you see that this concept could manifest into ad infinitum areas and indeed intersect with everyone else to create something akin to a mass love-in of GOD loving GOD.  Any clearer?




$20shoes, ahh so THAT's what you meant !!  (I had to read it a few times as well , lol)  You're way over my head m8, but here are some guesses. ..

I thought when you said :-


> Now, if all in spiritual creation is of perfect unity, we cannot be more than God, we cannot be less then God. ALL IS ONE, ONE IS ALL.
> Therefore, our spirit chooses to experience God, because as one unified spirit it can KNOW but not EXPERIENCE the love of GOD.



I thought you'd had a brilliant batch of potatoes go through your still , and having drunk your spiritual creations was like experiencing GOD!! 

When you say "There is nothing that is not God" , you reminded me of the definition of the agnostic (oops), as -  someone who goes to see the Wallabies play the Allblacks, and who doesn't care who wins.   BTW I know something that is definitely not God - it's a bottle of apricot schnapps I found under the house the other day - blow the top of your head off!. 

How does God experience love? - well I guess when you're invisible, you can get away with all sorts of mischief.  

and "All is one , one is all" sound a bit like a motto for the Mighty Ducks  .

LOL  - but interesting thought patterns .  PS are you SURE you're not GOD yourself?  At least a close relative anyways


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 May 2007)

Hi shoes  ,good input . I think that truth with this question is hard to define.Evidence and interpretation is in the eye of the beholder for me.With that said someone may have already come up with the truth!Since records of universal history are limited from a chronological point of view, how things came about is still open to interpretation of information. 

Apparently there is a record of all events,knowledge and life experiences called the  Akashic records.These records are not in word form but on an esoteric level can be accessed by anyone.To me this is hard to understand.Once again human thought created this concept but since written/spoken words are an interpretation thing, I like the idea and feel it has some possibility.I also like the meme (sounds a bit selfish that word) idea.It is another phenomenon of mind that I see clearly. 

Keep em` coming.


----------



## Bobby (7 May 2007)

I've seen things that no god would or could allow.

There is no god, but if there were what a pathetic grub! Seen the sufferings Your god has been succour in   

Bobby.


----------



## retroaugogo (7 May 2007)

O taste and see that the Lord is good- Psalm 34:8 

All a matter of experience isn't it?
Just because you haven't experienced doesn't mean others haven't. 


Here's a parable fit for a trader.


Matt 13:45,46  "Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who is a merchant seeking fine pearls,  who having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had, and bought it."


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

*I see mention of spirit.*
Mentioned in every religion.

Yet there has never  EVER been proof that spirit of anything actually exists.
Spirit is again a manifestation of man to explain purpose of existance.

The thought that we actually die with no further life in ANY form other than those years we had in human form is impossible for most to handle.
That we came about as a quirk of nature and leave just the same rather than a part of a devine plan.

I've not been able to find a shred of evidence other than "Faith" that indicates any different.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

a few quick comments (scattered thoughts)
1. heard a great radio program a few nights back on ABC or perhaps it was BBC, hence my difficuilty in finding it to quote accurately)  - anyway, three kiwi atheists/ agnostics ( they had their own definitions of their respective stances) . They were really well read, and had researched the mattr far far more than most christians / believers.   Incidentally they were totally tolerant of everyon'e right to believe what they wished.
2. I think they even introduced terms like "dis-interest-ism" which pretty much covers where my kids fit in all this .   These three were anything but disinterested, and put forward atheist as a definite religion.  
3. They went on to point out that this does NOT mean that you don't believe in "anything" .  (I'll see if I can find it).
4. One pointed out that the "leap of faith" required has nothing to do with rationality, - forget the exact words, but something like it had more in common with self-hypnosis.

5.But changing the subject a bit - and this one I feel strongly about.  Whether or not there is a God, he is at least a constructive influence, and helpful i ntimes of distress, or needing courage, or singlemindedness ( more difficult to brainwash etc), but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE DEVIL.
6.  Sometimes people argue that you need relativity on the question of a god (and good), then there must be an anti-god (or an anti-good), otherwise how do we know what is good.  I find that a very dangerous place to go.
7.  Movies like "the Exercist" are just plain disturbing, and unnecessary.  impresionable kids are left afraid of the dark, or any pairs of dimly glowing lights, because there's a chance it's the Devil. etc.   I mean the movie starts with two dogs fighting in some desert scene - as if everything is this violent nasty fight between God and an almost tangible Devil.
8. Impressionable civilisations/ countries, (and here I agree with the post back there that poorer countries sometimes get this God thing a little too literal), often have a high percentage of people needing exorcists for instance.   Haiti,  voodoo, unhealthy susperstitious nonsense.  And the church has told these impressionable people  all about this potential for "heads spinning"  until their heads spin as it were. 
9. Even in the Philippines for goodness sake.
10.  Even I read on Wikipedia, as she was almost on her deathbed, Mother Theresa was subjected to an exorcism.  To be fair, my guess is that there are degress of exorcism, and this could have been nothing more that a prayer for her getting better - I'd like to think so, because I respect her (as I I'm entitled to even judge her  - her work with the poor of india, sheesh)  (but I have MAJOR trouble with respecting anyone who believes in exorcisms)  .  I find this Devil stuff wierd and totally unhelpful to everyone's mental health.



> Deteriorating health and death  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
> Mother Teresa suffered a heart attack in Rome during 1983, while visiting Pope John Paul II. After a second attack in 1989, she received a pacemaker. In 1991, after a battle with pneumonia while in Mexico, she suffered further heart problems. She offered to resign her position as head of the Missionaries of Charity. However, the nuns of the order, in a secret ballot, voted for her to stay. Mother Teresa agreed to continue her work as head of the order.
> 
> In April 1996, Mother Teresa fell and broke her collar bone. In August of that year she suffered from malaria and failure of the left heart ventricle. She underwent heart surgery, but it was clear that her health was declining. On March 13, 1997, she stepped down from the head of Missionaries of Charity and died on September 5, 1997, nine days after her 87th birthday.
> ...



11. Just a trivial anecdote.  when we were young, you had to go our into the dark to go to a toilet down the back yard. - my sister , then about 4 or 5, and religious at the time was frightened to go there, always claiming "there might be a ghost!"  . And my brother teased her to the point where she was quite paranoid.  My mother had had enough.  So my mother thought she'd sort it out with a firm statement "oh don't be so stupid and superstitious, there are no such things as ghosts!!"

to which my sister replied " Yeah? well what about the Holy Ghost !"   
(kid 1, parent nil, lol)


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> *I see mention of spirit.*
> Mentioned in every religion.
> 
> Yet there has never  EVER been proof that spirit of anything actually exists.
> ...



A quick google found this fwiw;

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/cfpf-scientific-proof.pdf


----------



## $20shoes (8 May 2007)

2020 loved your comments...especially about the schnapps!!

I reread my initial comments, and should have tried to articulate it better. However, I hope people see where I'm coming from. 

I like the arguments presented by WayneL also - I was not familiar with this concept of "meme" and will look into it further. 

Actually, the posts here have been amazingly creative and tolerant. A big clap for all of us!!

And also our concept of spirit/GOD changes with time. So, it is somewhat relative to the limited framework of our current belief system. For example, there was a time in Christianity, where the central belief, and supported by mystics, was of a more universal God, and we were a manifestation of God trying to love God within the context of free will. 
I don't think at this time the concept of a punishing GOD or hell played a major part in christianity.


----------



## constable (8 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> A quick google found this fwiw;
> 
> http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/cfpf-scientific-proof.pdf




That's somewhat eyeopening! printed it off in fact..


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

Thanks Wayne.

Your obviously a closet Skeptic!

Ive sent the articles off to The Physist for his "learned scientific view".


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

BBC on skepticism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/ 

and one to avoid ( albeit partially rooted in catholicism)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

heaps more there http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sea...ge&q=atheist&scope=all&Search.x=45&Search.y=5

example
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml
click the link and you can listen to this interview with Pete Dawkins



> Richard Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science in Oxford, and as such he takes a high profile role in the exposition and elucidation of scientific ideas in our culture. He's eminently well placed to do so, being himself one of science's most innovative thinkers.
> 
> His first book, The Selfish Gene, made a huge impact back in 1976, with its message of the central role of genes in evolution. There followed a stream of more books, all with highly poetic titles - The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving The Rainbow, and most recently A Devil's Chaplain, each offering further development and commentary upon Darwin's concept of Natural Selection. There is one book whose title is not poetic - The Extended Phenotype - which Dawkins himself believes marks his biggest claim to scientific innovation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bullion (8 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Sorry but thats just stupid! and it sounds like many religious people I have met over the years, trying to twist words to create more confusion in order to win an argument about this very question
> Please spare us of this type of rot!
> 
> Cheers




I'm not competing to win any arguments, nor did I say that's what I felt. It's just another option. The problem is that people don't question things enough. Or, people like yourself, ignore everything because it sounds stupid to you.


----------



## constable (8 May 2007)

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/crookes/researches/investigation.htm
One of Crookes experiments from the Quarterly journal of science 1871 - researches in the phenomena of modern spiritualism


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

Bullion said:


> On a side note, did anyone ever think that the whole "creation" story with Adam and Eve might not be so literal and that it just represents something else?




Bullion, did you see Chasers handing out apples to the pollies etc (dressed as a serpent ) - is it all allegorical? maybe, but imo hard to see it as anything that will affect me   Personally I love apples for a starters.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

*Kris ("The Physist's reply") to Wayne's papers.*
Which I sent over by email this morning.

Hi Dad,

I'll just comment on the `paper' as I read it...

The part of the title `SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH' makes me laugh; an oxymoron if ever I've seen one. Not really advancing the cause of circumventing skepticism...

Firstly, whoever wrote this has taken the typical paranormal stance and is defensive right off the bat. Also, typical of most crackpots, they are developing conspiracy theories from the beginning (suppression of free thought by the media etc.). Why must they need the media anyway. If it's a real phenomenon, then what does television and radio have to do with it? Strange...

What's up with the quote taken from: Michael Scott BSc. Graduate in Astrophysics, Edinburgh University. I mean, the guy graduated only with a BSc.
There are so many of these guys that there has to be at least one willing to spout baseless flawed `logic' like this. I HATE it when people don't give correct, albeit surprising, theories like quantum the respect they deserve. i.e.
they don't go to the effort to actually learn them.

Oh dear... I can see where this is going: `This is the reason why we are forced to work with a human medium in order to prove survival after death. No machine invented so far is as sophisticated as the human mind and brain.' Sure, the latter comment is true, but come on... I'm pretty sure the `medium' would be a willing participant. It's remarkable how even the presence of a skeptic can alter the results of these tests 

OK... Now I'm laughing! This guy's a loon. Once again he proves how little he knows about physics (the logical study of fundamental reality). I can't believe I'm reading this: `Lodge said the people from the "next world" who are appearing at the experiments must possess bodies that are made of the same invisible matter as our radio and television signals. He called it an etheric substance.' OK... What he's referring to is the `Aether'. It was concocted during early work on electromagnetism as an explanation of HOW electromagnetic waves (like your radio and TV signals) propagate through apparently empty space.
However, essentially every physicist nowadays agrees that the Aether is an absurd concept (there are extremely good reasons for this). These arguments were settled over a century ago! But even if it DID exist, how the hell does one jump to the conclusion that `ethereal' being are made of the same stuff? The lack of logic abounds.

Also, as soon as he talk of the neutrino he somehow jumps to an explanation of ghosts walking through walls. Neutrinos are the most weakly interacting particles known to man; that is why they can pass through so much matter without interaction. They're also almost massless (hence travel VERY close to the speed of light). So how then can the humble neutrino manage to collude with its friends to create a slow moving visible spectre? Uuuugh...

OH DEAR LORD!!! Now I'm just getting mad!: `If only our contemporary physicists had shared Einstein's scepticism (sic) then we would not have wasted so much time and money trying to match up Niels Bohr's quantum mechanics with relativity.' WTF!?! OK, to begin with, Neils Bohr was certainly a big player in the construction of quantum theory, but he was only a part of it. Indeed, Einstein himself is often considered as one of the grandfathers of quantum theory, thanks to his work on the photoelectric effect (which incidentally won him the Nobel prize in physics, not relativity). EVEN SO, quantum theory and SPECIAL relativity HAVE been reconciled; they form what is known as `relativistic quantum mechanics' . This theory then leads on to the infinitely successful quantum electrodynamics (QED) which this moron actually references as a good point later on. And that's only the beginning. It's only GENERAL relativity that has so far proven irreconcilable with the quantum. This is the pursuit of a `quantum theory of gravity'. And it's no big secret, either!

I'm stopping the commentary now. This is an insult to work of thousands of good scientists. There really is no logic to the thinking and it's all borne from the usual conspiracy theorist perspective of crackpot fringe `thinkers'. Another dead give-away is the pick-and-choose technique they're employing, mostly from quotes of famous and respected scientists.

Also, while it's true that there are issues with the peer-review process, illogical ranting is certainly no substitute.

Reading on, the arguments just get more and more turgid and confused, jumping from fundamental physics to the supernatural to love and hatred to god knows what else.

Thanks for the email, nontheless  I really enjoy discussing these kinds of things with people. It really makes you exercise your own rationale. Look forward to more questions discussions, etc.

Kris




> Getting into Dawkins book.
> He is definitely passionate.
>
> Here is some "Scientific Proof" of the Existance of something after 
> death.
>
> Interested in your learned comments.
>
> DAD.
> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
>
> cfpf-scientific-proof.pdf
>
>
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent 
> sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your 
> e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
>


@-----------------------------@
|                             |
|        Kris          |
|                             |
|  Photonics Ph.D. Student    |
|School of Chemistry & Physics|
|  University of Adelaide     |
|     Adelaide SA 5005        |
|        Australia            |
|   Tel: +61 (0)8 8303 5357   |
@-----------------------------@


----------



## The Mint Man (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> *QUESTION*
> Anyone who is 100% sure there is a God care to explain how they are this way?---Other than Faith.



Well come on people answer the damn question!  typical


----------



## retroaugogo (8 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> 5.But changing the subject a bit - and this one I feel strongly about.  Whether or not there is a God, he is at least a constructive influence, and helpful i ntimes of distress, or needing courage, or singlemindedness ( more difficult to brainwash etc), but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE DEVIL.
> 6.  Sometimes people argue that you need relativity on the question of a god (and good), then there must be an anti-god (or an anti-good), otherwise how do we know what is good.  I find that a very dangerous place to go.
> 7.  Movies like "the Exercist" are just plain disturbing, and unnecessary.  impresionable kids are left afraid of the dark, or any pairs of dimly glowing lights, because there's a chance it's the Devil. etc.   I mean the movie starts with two dogs fighting in some desert scene - as if everything is this violent nasty fight between God and an almost tangible Devil.
> I find this Devil stuff wierd and totally unhelpful to everyone's mental health.




I bow to CS Lewis on this one.

I wonder you should ask me whether it is essential to keep the patient in ignorance of your own existence. That question, at least for the present phase of the struggle, has been answered for us by the High Command. Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. We are really faced with a cruel dilemma. When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism, and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and sceptics. 

At least, not yet. I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect. a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the enemy. The “Life Force,” the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits”—then the end of the war will be in sight. But in the meantime we must obey our orders. I do not think you will have much difficulty in keeping the patient in the dark. The fact that “devils” are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.

The Screwtape Letters -CS Lewis


----------



## retroaugogo (8 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Well come on people answer the damn question!  typical




As I said a few posts back experience.

How do you know your wife/husband/mother/father loves you?
Because they told you and showed you.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Well come on people answer the damn question!  typical




I think really the only answer here is one of "faith"
Due to lack of evidence to the existance of spirit faith is all that is left.
For most contemplating our existance to be as meaningless
as a single 70-80 yr period of consciousness in the endless
spiral of time,dilutes any reason for our existance down to 
simply continuation of our species,just as it is with the evolution of ANY species.

As the most intelligent of known species we find this impossible to deal with and have done so for centuries---in spite of overwhelming evidence that this is the ONLY true evidence available.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> As I said a few posts back experience.
> 
> How do you know your wife/husband/mother/father loves you?
> Because they told you and showed you.




Surely this isnt presented as an answer to the question?


----------



## Rafa (8 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Well come on people answer the damn question!  typical




you do realise, everyone is entitled to their own opinion...

and moreover, everyone is entitled to keep their own opinion regardless of logic or reason... and no one should be forced to provide justification one way or another.

for all the talk about religious people preaching, from what i can see, its you athiests who seem to be doing the most preaching!

i for one, am not going to write my personal experiences which have resulted in my faith being supremely strenthed simply becuase i cannot, on this forum, 
a) provide verifiable proof of the accuracy of my statements
b) leave myself open to cheap shots from the many sceptics on this forum.
c) regardless of the above alter the opinion of a single person either way on this forum.

If you don't have an open mind, and are not willing to be open to other possibilities, simply WHAT IS THE POINT of an answering either way, besides providing you and the other sceptics a chance to belittle other peoples beliefs all so that you can boost your own ego and think, jezz, i am so smart, i won that debate!

but did you really?
i guess you won't find that out till your dead!


----------



## constable (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> I think really the only answer here is one of "faith"
> Due to lack of evidence to the existance of spirit faith is all that is left.
> For most contemplating our existance to be as meaningless
> as a single 70-80 yr period of consciousness in the endless
> ...




Tech forget religon and gods they just conveniently fill the gaps to what science is yet to uncover. But could there be several levels of existance without putting any religious spin on it?


----------



## retroaugogo (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Surely this isnt presented as an answer to the question?




Oh I see.You must have theory.

Something presented in the form of a balance sheet maybe.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> you do realise, everyone is entitled to their own opinion...




Rafa I dont think anyone is denying you or anyone that opportunity.



> and moreover, everyone is entitled to keep their own opinion regardless of logic or reason... and no one should be forced to provide justification one way or another.




No one is forcing anyone to do this. But it would be great if we had a few views from those who 100% know there is a God.
Frankly I personally would very much welcome a continued existance of consciousness in ANY form.



> for all the talk about religious people preaching, from what i can see, its you athiests who seem to be doing the most preaching!




This is a label which un fortunately when veiws are presented people wish to pigeon hole others in. I havent voted in the poll.



> i for one, am not going to write my personal experiences which have resulted in my faith being supremely strenthed simply becuase i cannot, on this forum,
> a) provide verifiable proof of the accuracy of my statements
> b) leave myself open to cheap shots from the many sceptics on this forum.
> c) regardless of the above alter the opinion of a single person either way on this forum.




Your choice. My wife supposedly "sees " people I cant prove it but she has come up with some amazing stuff---dont know how. Ive seen my fair share of death as well and spoken with quite a few who have had NDE's,and while amazing in their own right not compelling in fact.



> If you don't have an open mind, and are not willing to be open to other possibilities, simply WHAT IS THE POINT of an answering either way,




Where does an open mind and ignorance cross the line.When is evidence enough or to little?



> besides providing you and the other sceptics a chance to belittle other peoples beliefs all so that you can boost your own ego and think, jezz, i am so smart, i won that debate!




Ive not seen anything here to suggest peoples beliefs are being be littled.
It is known that less educated cultures thrive on faith--they have little else.



> i guess you won't find that out till your dead!



True just as those who sailed over the edge of the earth proved the arguements of the "Learned scientists of the time".
I hope in this case those same learned Scientists arent right!!


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

constable said:


> Tech forget religon and gods they just conveniently fill the gaps to what science is yet to uncover. But could there be several levels of existance without putting any religious spin on it?




YES.

Youd be as suprised as I was with what science actually HAS proven.

For starters they have *proven * 12 dimensions I have a video on it from a few years ago. Yes these are the same 12 dimensions mentioned in some religous texts.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Oh I see.You must have theory.
> 
> Something presented in the form of a balance sheet maybe.




Your "something" is the reality of the existance of your parents whom you can see and interact with---they are not a belief.
Ask any child who has never met their parent/s wether they believe that they were/are loved by them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> [ OK... What he's referring to is the `Aether'. It was concocted during early work on electromagnetism as an explanation of HOW electromagnetic waves (like your radio and TV signals) propagate through apparently empty space............
> 
> Reading on, the arguments just get more and more turgid and confused, jumping from fundamental physics to the supernatural to love and hatred to god knows what else.
> 
> Thanks for the email, nontheless  I really enjoy discussing these kinds of things with people. It really makes you exercise your own rationale. Look forward to more questions discussions, etc.



I take it that the last sentence is yours tech (??) - certainly a very technocratic study of that article  - and I'll have to read it further " later" lol. 

PS Imagine if you'd shown Matthew Mark Luke or John a modern computer, linking up to the internet with a wireless connection, and communicating about the existence of god with people all over the world... lol  - they'd be telling their mates / disciples - sheesh , wait till I tell you about these miracles I've just seen!!

Imagine if you'd shown em that link to youtube with Celine Dion singing with Elvis (risen from the dead lol) !!


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHqoSuu_0sU
> This is creepy !!
> Elvis (singing in 1968) on stage with Celine Dion in 2007






retroaugogo said:


> I bow to CS Lewis on this one.
> .... Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. [ presumably devils chatting here? ]
> 
> ...a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the enemy. The “Life Force,” the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis may here prove useful.
> ...



Lol, not sure where you're going here retro, but sounds like CS Lewis (Narnia, and others kids books - made into a movie I'm reliably told - about a year ago), anyway hardly likely to be too serious on the topic of the devil. 

As I mentioned, talk of this stupid "devil" is why I never had any of my kids christened.    In short, I didn't want them to be screwed up by the church.  About devils.  About having to stoke fires for eternity (let's face it, that's a hell of a lot of stoking !!).

But on the question of a spirit, or rather a human soul...
a) I had an old friendly neighbour when I was a kid, he was 90 , I was about 12...  Anyway he was a radiologist at the local hospital in a small town.  When he retired he became a Lay Preacher.  (deaf as a post poor old man ) - But He was always fascinated with the comparison of Xrays of dead vs live bodies - in the end he had to admit, there wasn't any difference  

Finally I'll just add that I find religion a convenient comfort for others - suppose a relative were to need comfort re dying for instance.  If they believe it, I'll reinforce it for them.  I posted a poem on poetry thread about mercy-euthenasia. And  I just posted a song on "favourite lyrics" exactly that sort of thing , beautiful lyrics 

 - BUT no way will I consider a prayer for my own deliverence to Heavan etc - just don't believe in it, end of story.  

PS  If man has a soul, so logically so too an ape, a horse - where do you stop? gnat? a sandfly?  - then why not a plant? -   Just acept that we all have some "lifeforce" within us - and CELEBRATE the fact imho. 

"Little flower waving in the breeze, Spare a moment please, you've got me on my knees
teach me on symmetry, teach me your reality, live and breathe with me - Share my EXISTENCE"


----------



## retroaugogo (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Your "something" is the reality of the existance of your parents whom you can see and interact with---they are not a belief.
> Ask any child who has never met their parent/s wether they believe that they were/are loved by them.




You're thinking only in the physical.There's a spiritual realm that can only really be measured in experiences.Those experiences become just as real to us as those that happen in the physical.

I'm closer to my spirtual father than I am to my physical father.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> You're thinking only in the physical.There's a spiritual realm that can only really be measured in experiences.Those experiences become just as real to us as those that happen in the physical.
> 
> I'm closer to my spirtual father than I am to my physical father.




Yes and this is where the skeptic in me,sees the Spiritual as a Manifectation of the Physical mind.
There is no evidence that the spirit in any form exists other than in the minds of those who wish to believe in its existance and scripture.

Like religion and God I cant help but agree with the available evidence that these are manifestations of those who need such things.

We look at native tribes and even the ancient greeks who "Foolishly" worshiped all sorts of gods.
Yet we do the same (as a human race) and see it as wise---indeed enlightened.
1000s of years later----hmm whats changed?


----------



## Mousie (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> *QUESTION*
> 
> Anyone who is 100% sure there is a God care to explain how they are this way?---Other than Faith.




Please read post #57 of this thread.


----------



## Julia (8 May 2007)

The more I think about why some of us believe in a God and/or a spiritual level of existence, the more I feel it has to do with being comforted.

To accept that we are bits of matter little different from, say, insects and are insignificant in the overall history of the universe is somewhat depressing.  So perhaps we look for meaning and point to our existence in the form of being "created by God", said God being the maker of our entire known universe.  And likewise, to avoid the nothingness of death we need to have this God bestow on us (in Christian terms) life ever after.  Thus, we observe in believers of life after death a willingness and acceptance of their impending end.  Why, otherwise, is it that so many prisoners on death row say they experience a profound conversion to religious beliefs?
(To take it to the ridiculous level, remember Michelle Leslie very temporarily becoming a Muslim while in jail in Indonesia!  I doubt very much that any genuine beliefs were involved in this instance.)

Personally, when anxious or upset about something I sometimes have the sense of my dead grandmother saying the sort of calming things she did when she was alive.  If I were religious or putting a spiritual slant on this, I would say her spirit was with me, giving me comfort and support.
However, if I were not inclined to the spiritual explanation, then I would simply say that my memory is bringing up the phrases she so often used which I found comforting then and still do now when I think about them.

So, I think what I'm attempting to say here is that we will put our own constructs on anything depending on our need at the time.

Perhaps this is why when someone we love has died we sometimes experience a sense of that person's spirit still being with us in  almost as real a sense as their physical presence.  This may be nothing more than our creation of a means of reducing our grieving, and a form of denial emotionally that that loved person has actually gone for ever


----------



## The Mint Man (8 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> i for one, am not going to write my personal experiences which have resulted in my *faith* being supremely strenthed simply becuase i cannot, on this forum



Even though you said you wouldnt justify your beliefs, I think you have partly answered techs question.... Highlighted in my quote above! 
and as for the rest of your rant, ditto what tech said following it.  (EDIT) including the part about his partner seeing things!

Cheers


----------



## constable (8 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Even though you said you wouldnt justify your beliefs, I think you have partly answered techs question.... Highlighted in my quote above!
> and as for the rest of your rant, ditto what tech said following it.
> 
> Cheers




Cmon you guys its been a really thought provolking thread so far. 
There is never going to be a definitive answer and even if there is i doubt its going to pop its head up first on ASF!


----------



## retroaugogo (8 May 2007)

Julia said:


> The more I think about why some of us believe in a God and/or a spiritual level of existence, the more I feel it has to do with being comforted.




I've never found getting in touch with the creator to have been a particularly comforting experience despite popular misconception.

Confronting yes,comforting no.He's a pretty hard taskmaster.


God, who foresaw your tribulation, has specially armed you to go through it, not without pain but without stain."
Author: Lewis, C.S


----------



## The Mint Man (8 May 2007)

Bullion said:


> I'm not competing to win any arguments, nor did I say that's what I felt. It's just another option. The problem is that people don't question things enough. Or, people like yourself, ignore everything because it sounds stupid to you.



Ok, I think what I was trying to say was... tell us what you are actually trying to say instead of talking in riddles, I find this method of debate to be common amoung religious people. Thats all I was saying, it was not ment to be a direct attack on you, it just happend to remind me of certain people I have come accross over the years.
As for questioning, I think I do... but I want answers in plain english. Also if you read my first post where I mention my answer in the poll then I think it will tell you Im open to opinions.
For the record, I went to a church for 3 years in my teens and had many mates (and still do) that are religious. One of my mates from school actually became the pastor of that very church!



> So, I think what I'm attempting to say here is that we will put our own constructs on anything depending on our need at the time.



Well said.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

> SUMMARY: This is where the "what" gives way to a "who". A mere object could not possibly have such power over both things of the mind and things of the heart. This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers. This has to be GOD...




Well I'm afraid evolution which doesnt have the restraints of time nor the restraints of man---which by the way has only been around to manifest God and religion for a mear 60,000 yrs or so out of the 100s of millions of years in which the cosmos has developed to where it is today and will in 100s of millions of years still be evolving with or without man religion or our gods.

Evolution can and does explain not only this existance but every other existance known or un known.



> This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers.




Why cannot it be that Dinosaures became extinct and man simply evolved.
From cave dwelling existance to the modern man of today and tommorow.
our evolution has been and will be inspite of any God not because of it.

What did God create the first Dinosaure in his own image?

Man was no where to be seen for Millions of years.


----------



## nomore4s (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Well I'm afraid evolution which doesnt have the restraints of time nor the restraints of man---which by the way has only been around to manifest God and religion for a mear 60,000 yrs or so out of the 100s of millions of years in which the cosmos has developed to where it is today and will in 100s of millions of years still be evolving with or without man religion or our gods.
> 
> Evolution can and does explain not only this existance but every other existance known or un known.
> 
> ...




Very good post Tech, makes you wonder what will happen to God when man is becomes extinct.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

nomore4s said:


> Very good post Tech, makes you wonder what will happen to God when man is becomes extinct.





(A) Well I'm sure it would be said that he would allow the complete destruction of the human race because they had sinned and sinned---
Then would simply create another better Adam and Eve.

(B) When simply by manifestation of God in the heavenly skies above would through sheer power of vision have every sinner to their knees and every disbeliever a preacher,Every skeptic an advocate,every scientist a willing pupil!

Strange how A seems more practical and best applied doesnt it?


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 May 2007)

Great posting ,Some more thoughts. 

The common denominator in life is survival.To all other forms of life on this planet survival is instinctive (no thought processing).Man is physically small & vulnerable in comparison to other creatures and without mind would not have reached such numbers on the earth.
The thing I don`t get is when did smart man begin?That turning point is what does not make sense.If the product of smart man is concrete,steel,plastic,glass etcetera (all made from the earth) then/now the nature balance has broken down.The ultimate consumer is us and the survival meme/gene has no significance to the continuation of human species. 

Believing in a god is a safe haven (group numbers) and something to hold onto.The contribution on a practical level is little... but pomp,ceremony and self or group aggrandization is important for the group to stay together and to reinforce the fears and faith.With our thoughts we create physical and emotional life.The destructive nature of man has no rhyme or reason. 

People will go on believing (there is that word again) in a god until we humans are consumed or we consume the planet.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> What did God create the first Dinosaure in his own image?
> 
> Man was no where to be seen for Millions of years.



If horses could draw, they would draw their gods as horses  - Xenophanes



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes Xenophanes of Colophon (Greek Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος, XenophÃ¡nes; 570 – 480 BC) was a Greek philosopher, poet, and social and religious critic. Our knowledge of his views comes from his surviving poetry, all of which are fragments passed down as quotations by later Greek writers. His poetry criticized and satirized a wide range of ideas, including the belief in the pantheon of anthropomorphic gods and the Greeks' veneration of athleticism. He is the earliest Greek poet who claims explicitly to be writing for future generations, creating "fame that will reach all of Greece, and never die while the Greek kind of songs survives."[1]
> 
> *Xenophanes rejected the idea that the gods resembled humans in form*. One famous passage ridiculed the idea by claiming that, if oxen were able to imagine gods, then those gods would be in the image of oxen:
> 
> ...






> http://www.iep.utm.edu/x/x-phanes.htm
> ..... Xenophanes found the weapons he required for his attack on polytheism in the science of the time. Here are traces of Anaximander's cosmology in the fragments, and Xenophanes may easily have been his disciple before he left Ionia. He seems to have taken the gods of mythology one by one and reduced them to meteorological phenomena, and especially to clouds. And he maintained there was only one god -- namely, the world. God is one incorporeal eternal being, and, like the universe, spherical in form; that he is of the same nature with the universe, comprehending all things within himself; is intelligent, and pervades all things, but bears no resemblance to human nature either in body or mind.
> 
> He taught that if there had ever been a time when nothing existed, nothing could ever have existed. Whatever is, always has been from eternity, without deriving its existence from any prior principles. Nature, he believed, is one and without limit; that what is one is similar in all its parts, else it would be many; that the one infinite, eternal, and homogeneous universe is immutable and incapable of change. His position is often classified as pantheistic, although his use of the term 'god' simply follows the use characteristic of the early cosmologists generally. There is no evidence that Xenophanes regarded this 'god' with any religious feeling, and all we are told about him (or rather about it) is purely negative. He is quite unlike a man, and has no special organs of sense, but 'sees all over, thinks all over, hears all over' (fr. 24). Further, he does not go about from place to place (fr. 26), but does everything 'without toil (fr. 25). It is not safe to go beyond this; for Xenophanes himself tells us no more. It is pretty certain that if he had said anything more positive or more definitely religious in its bearing it would have been quoted by later writers.


----------



## macca (8 May 2007)

And then we have the Chariots theory....................

If you read the descriptions in the bible, with an allowance for the fact that the witnesses would not have had a clue what they were, they could well have been spacecraft.

The theory is that intelligent man was created by the interbreeding with "gods" from another planet or another spiritual realm.

We can also consider the fact that to an ant we are huge, to a microbe we absolutely gigantic, could we be living on "Gods Ant Farm" ?

Maybe the stars at night are actually windows where beings pay 10 @*# to view the earth.

They may be reading this and laughing at us right now 

Me ? I am happy with the knowledge that the spirit lives on after the body stops and I also believe in karma,

I feel we each must decide for ourself and it is a very personal decision to make.


----------



## Mousie (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Well I'm afraid evolution which doesnt have the restraints of time nor the restraints of man---which by the way has only been around to manifest God and religion for a mear 60,000 yrs or so out of the 100s of millions of years in which the cosmos has developed to where it is today and will in 100s of millions of years still be evolving with or without man religion or our gods.
> 
> Evolution can and does explain not only this existance but every other existance known or un known.
> 
> ...




This is now encroaching into another creationism vs evolutionism battle, where (again!) each side will believe what they want to believe.

I cannot explain what I can't see, ie whether we existed as a result of evolution or creation. FWIW, believing in creationism or evolutionism or anything at all, involves *faith* in the accuracy of your judgment of the (academic/scientific/etc.) material presented to you. Yes, including the "The God Delusion" book you're currently reading!

But what I can see is that nature is the purest form of life itself; no one can claim to have manipulated nature (save genetic modification) and its seasons, and the way it makes you feel toward everything else nature since the day you're born to present you their beliefs and worldview. And that is how I know God exists; as simple, as pure and as unadulterated as that.


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> *Kris ("The Physist's reply") to Wayne's papers.*
> Which I sent over by email this morning.
> 
> Hi Dad,
> ...



Hi Tech,

Kris's comments are remarkably Dawkins-like, as per my previous comments. Take from that what you will, but lets say it is not surprising.

My own comments: Trying to "prove" anything "paranormal" is going to be problematic in the extreme in the scientific sense. This paper based on my own experiences remains interesting, however not rigourous enough to satisfy the "learned".

I have some friends of similar education which makes for interesting discussions on this topic. My observation is that their opinions remain fairly rigid along their lines of teaching... natural I suppose. I notice similar satirical responses to each other when there are discussions of big-bang, electric universe and string theory for example. They play the man not the ball, spending more time denigrating each others education rather than discussing possibilities. We have seen that right throughout the ages, with many concepts initially ridiculed. In other words, we should not take one students views as necessarily authoritative, particularly when the _modus operandi_ is ridicule.

Scientists seem to become remarkably close minded IMO.

That said, I have no idea whether the science is even valid, not my field, and I must admit I have only skimmed briefly through it.

**
In the continuing discussion, I note people defaulting to the judeo/christian meme and accompanying man-created religion in their references to God concepts.

Therefore I personally cannot take the ensuing logic to disparage the possibilty of "a God of some sort" seriously as it fails to regard alternative concepts. Religion is a fair target however; in my experience, religion is less about the spiritual and more about control. Apologies to those of a particular faith, but I think that is readily demonstrable.

Regarding evolution, as stated before there is no question that there is some gradual unfolding of life on this planet. So evolution is a fact? Well yes. However the biological mechanism can only be postulated. That life could have happened as a random accident would appear to be absolutely absurd to a great many.

If you look at the mechanisms and complexities for even a single cell organism to survive (eg respiration, photosynthesis/consumption of sustainance, elimination, procreation etc) it would seem rather absurd that an organism with such capabilities could spontaneously spring forth from some primordial cocktail of muck.

Just more waffle.

Cheers


----------



## Rafa (8 May 2007)

constable said:


> There is never going to be a definitive answer and even if there is i doubt its going to pop its head up first on ASF!





well said...

God can't be seen or touched... and unless you are willing to actually let go of yourself, be silent and listen... there is a good chance you'll never hear God either!

so, when it comes to faith in God, don't exepct logical arguements and reasoning... 

heck, its hard enought to work out the logic and reasoning of the stock market! and thats man made! 


PS: and i agree with WayneL between the distinction between religion and faith in God.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

*Wayne*


wayneL said:


> Hi Tech,
> 
> Kris's comments are remarkably Dawkins-like, as per my previous comments. Take from that what you will, but lets say it is not surprising.




Yes noticed that.



> My own comments: Trying to "prove" anything "paranormal" is going to be problematic in the extreme in the scientific sense. This paper based on my own experiences remains interesting, however not rigourous enough to satisfy the "learned".




Frankly I didnt find anything compelling and also note that most of the study took place in the early 1900s. When science was hardly where it is today.



> I have some friends of similar education which makes for interesting discussions on this topic. My observation is that their opinions remain fairly rigid along their lines of teaching... natural I suppose. I notice similar satirical responses to each other when there are discussions of big-bang, electric universe and string theory for example. They play the man not the ball, spending more time denigrating each others education rather than discussing possibilities. We have seen that right throughout the ages, with many concepts initially ridiculed. In other words, we should not take one students views as necessarily authoritative, particularly when the _modus operandi_ is ridicule.
> 
> Scientists seem to become remarkably close minded IMO.




I'd agree to a point. If you can follow them--which is difficult as they are less than patient---and they spend enough time with you its amazing what is being investigated and what is found. but in general terms I agree.
No different to a priest or any fanatic really.



> That said, I have no idea whether the science is even valid, not my field, and I must admit I have only skimmed briefly through it.




I didnt see any evidence of science only quotes of findings.

**


> In the continuing discussion, I note people defaulting to the judeo/christian meme and accompanying man-created religion in their references to God concepts.
> 
> Therefore I personally cannot take the ensuing logic to disparage the possibilty of "a God of some sort" seriously as it fails to regard alternative concepts.



God of some sort---define some sort.



> Religion is a fair target however; in my experience, religion is less about the spiritual and more about control. Apologies to those of a particular faith, but I think that is readily demonstrable.




Common ground I see.



> Regarding evolution, as stated before there is no question that there is some gradual unfolding of life on this planet. So evolution is a fact? Well yes. However the biological mechanism can only be postulated. That life could have happened as a random accident would appear to be absolutely absurd to a great many.
> 
> If you look at the mechanisms and complexities for even a single cell organism to survive (eg respiration, photosynthesis/consumption of sustainance, elimination, procreation etc) it would seem rather absurd that an organism with such capabilities could spontaneously spring forth from some primordial cocktail of muck.




I think you fall well short limiting evolution to just the developement of our species.I encompass from beginning to infinety as evolution,we are just a consequence on THIS planet in THIS universe.Evolution isnt limited to this place of Muck.
Literally Billions of Mucks all capable of the same fluke in a similar form.
Is a God or our God exclusive to this spec of dust?
Seems the other Billions of specs are overlooked when God and his teachings are bought up.

I'll see your waffling and raise you a thought process.


*Mousie*


> But what I can see is that nature is the purest form of life itself; no one can claim to have manipulated nature (save genetic modification) and its seasons, and the way it makes you feel toward everything else nature since the day you're born to present you their beliefs and worldview. And that is how I know God exists; as simple, as pure and as unadulterated as that.




Why cannot this be as possible as all other seasons on the millions of other uninhabited planets---without the intervention of a God.Why cannot it be possible that other wonders not known to us on other planets and stars are just evolving without any God intevention and that our SUN will snuff out purely because it will burn its own fuel.(as an example of how everything will go on long after we as the human race and this discussion are forgotten).


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> If you look at the mechanisms and complexities for even a single cell organism to survive (eg respiration, photosynthesis/consumption of sustainance, elimination, procreation etc) it would seem rather absurd that an organism with such capabilities could spontaneously spring forth from some primordial cocktail of muck.
> 
> Just more waffle.
> 
> Cheers



Wayne
You say that it's absurd to refer to the origins (apparent miracle) of  life as a spontaneous springing from primeval mud ....

1.  Most people in the poll seem to think it's from "a random quirk of nature" 
Or perhaps that's a typo - 
maybe that's "a random quick of nature"
maybe "a random quickie of nature"?  

2. We used to have coed mud wrestling when I was a student, and I'd be surprised if there weren't a few kids born as a result.  

3. As someone said once "Everyone wonders whether it is possible to make life in a laboratory - hek it's easy, just give me an attractive laboratory assistant" 

4. when I said most people in the poll think its random, (evolutionist), it's only by a short head, possibly in a photo finish, from those who think there's no question God exists and ( presumably) played a roll (assumption on my part - people in the first group may still believe in a non-interventionist God I guess - who simply set the ball rolling and sitting back as someone said watching us from his armchair, beer in hand, laughing at our antics -- possibly sending us a "task" like a cyclone to spice things up a bit -   bit like Big Brother really)

5. This question is not for you so much as those who belong to the first group...  

what shape is this god you know exists?  does it have eyes? hands? etc

I notice for instance that Xenophane thinks of it as a spherical God - just wonder if it's more difficult to pray to something spherical , possibly without eyes, than a handsome anglosaxon aged gentleman, albeit badly in need of a haircut .

6. Obviously incidentally Mohammed looks like his followers - and it will be a long time before Arabs follow a Jew like Jesus, however great his teachings  (two cents).  "If horses could draw etc etc "

7. Of all my distant relations, first was the prodigal son
I get to exercise 10 trillion body cells, proto-the-zoan had one
Funny how fashions have shifted, proto you son-of-a-gun,
You didn't get to have one raw emotion, and I write strange ditties for fun


----------



## Mousie (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> *Mousie*
> 
> 
> Why cannot this be as possible as all other seasons on the millions of other uninhabited planets---without the intervention of a God.Why cannot it be possible that other wonders not known to us on other planets and stars are just evolving without any God intevention and that our SUN will snuff out purely because it will burn its own fuel.(as an example of how everything will go on long after we as the human race and this discussion are forgotten).




I believe the following explains it. Even if it all started with a Big Bang things could not have just randomly fallen in place; the sheer orderliness and intricacy of every little detail tells me that much is quite impossible.



Mousie said:


> Just as science is meant to be a study as to how things _work_, these studies will, if done correctly and without bias, ultimately and unfailingly point to the intricacy and remarkableness of how things _are_. We could not have just existed out of thin air, nor could things past have. This remarkable excellence with which things are made alone points to a higher power at work; one which we cannot even begin to comprehend its brain power.
> 
> Things can't just exist and fall in place; they need something to move it. If you want to see your business get started, you go get it started; you don't sit and wait.




We humans are the superior beings in the universe (discounting aliens, I haven't seen any nor evidence of any so I don't know of any that exists). If we find it so difficult to get something started AND maintain it even for our own lifetimes what/who else can?



Mousie said:


> Why then do the seasons come and go? Who could have motivated the change in seasons? Who could have put those _systems_ in place?
> 
> Maybe the "who" should have been "what", I hear you say. Well then, how does this "what" enable us to care about these questions as we gaze at things created by this "what"? A "what" is an object; a "who" is a person. How can a "what" make us feel with our heart how amazing the wind, the sun, and the moon and the stars are? How can a "what" make us love another person, if that "what" created us all? The "what" has got to have feelings to give us feelings. We couldn't give of something we don't already have.
> 
> SUMMARY: This is where the "what" gives way to a "who". A mere object could not possibly have such power over both things of the mind and things of the heart. This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers. This has to be GOD...




I rest my case.


----------



## moses (8 May 2007)

Does God exist?

Where did the Universe come from?

The creation, cause or origin of the Universe (and thus the earth, life, consciousness and everything we know), is fundamentally unable to be determined by science, and therefore can only be known (or imagined) by faith.

For that matter, nothing can be known without an observer's perception, and therefore nothing can be known or imagined without faith. I think, therefore I am, is a statement of faith. Any physicist would agree with this.

The Big Bang is probably the greatest modern "proof" we have of God's existence, because appeal to God is the simplest (only?) answer to explain the origin of all matter and energy. Unfortunately this creates the never ending turtle question of where did God come from? By definition God is eternal and Uncreate, so technically the question is answered...but as such an answer can only be accepted in faith and remain unproven, we haven't really got anywhere! 

OTOH....if we could test God, he wouldn't be God. 

And besides, there are fundamental questions that cannot in principle ever be answered from within a system (such as the Universe) without information from outside of the system.

So, unless God reveals himself to the observer in a convincing way, the question of God's existence becomes a value judgment as to whether we believe life or the Universe has meaning, or design or purpose, or is in some sense just too good to be a fluke. Perhaps it is our sense of beauty, our ability to understand mathematics, and our ability to imagine ourselves outside of ourselves that is as good an indicator as anything that there is more to life and the Universe than mere matter and energy.

btw, Christians believe that God revealed himself in the man Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is an inspired book; therefore Christians believe that the Bible is a source of information from outside of the Universe and that it conveys information that could not have been sourced from within the Universe. But thats another story.


----------



## Mousie (8 May 2007)

moses said:


> The Big Bang is probably the greatest modern "proof" we have of God's existence, because appeal to God is the simplest (only?) answer to explain the origin of all matter and energy. Unfortunately this creates the never ending turtle question of where did God come from? By definition God is eternal and Uncreate, so technically the question is answered...but as such an answer can only be accepted in faith and remain unproven, we haven't really got anywhere!




Where did God come from? I don't really know. As long as God exists, that's good enough for me  



> OTOH....if we could test God, he wouldn't be God.




That you gotta seek God and find out why he'd still be God in spite of our testing


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> God of some sort---define some sort.



 Well we get into the field of belief and postulation here. Presuming for a moment there definitely IS a God, what IS God. I'll readily admit I have NFI so just for discussion:

Well there is the judeo/christian/muslim model. 'nuff said there as we all know that one.

Then there is the pantheistic or pantheistic like models. (see Dukey's post below.)

Among these is the concept of "Tao", which doesn't attempt to describe a God per se', but acknowledges... umm, let's call it spirituality. To quote the Tao on Tao.



> Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself.
> Even the finest name is insufficient to define it.
> Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
> and without a name, it can be known.




Again along these lines is the concept as put forth by $20shoes, That everything is God, we are all merely God experiencing himself.

Then there are the various "New Age" models.

I could go on and there are several more.

Which is right?  I don't know. None maybe. Certain ones ring true to me but acknowledge it could be a meme resurfacing. I just try to stay open and don't try to verbalize my own concept too much.



tech/a said:


> I think you fall well short limiting evolution to just the developement of our species.I encompass from beginning to infinety as evolution,we are just a consequence on THIS planet in THIS universe.Evolution isnt limited to this place of Muck.
> Literally Billions of Mucks all capable of the same fluke in a similar form.
> Is a God or our God exclusive to this spec of dust?
> Seems the other Billions of specs are overlooked when God and his teachings are bought up.
> ...



And an interesting thought process at that. Consideration of the universe as a whole certainly makes many arguments along these lines ridiculous. Certainly, why can there not be some life "evolving" elsewhere. Of course there can!

But it doesn't remove the core issue of the discussion at hand IMO, just broadens the parameters. Any life form if spontaneously generated in the beginning must still perform certain biological functions to survive and duplicate. That is the crux of my argument against a random occurrence... anywhere.

This begs the question, Did "God" snap his fingers (to default to the judeo/christian model for the sake of discussion) and... Shazam!? We have to acknowledge this where the Dawkinettes derive their difficulties with God concepts as it would require the suspension of the irrefutable physical laws of the universe as we know them. This would appear to be equally absurd.

As Mousie pointed out, both sides must revert to "faith" as neither can be definitively proven.

Stalemate?


----------



## constable (8 May 2007)

moses said:


> Does God exist?
> The Big Bang is probably the greatest modern "proof" we have of God's existence, because appeal to God is the simplest (only?) answer to explain the origin of all matter and energy.




Moses,(great name for a subject like this!) so once again should we rely on a god to fill the gaps in our science? Becuause we dont have the answers this proves there is a god? Im a bit miffed by this rationale!


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2007)

BTW

A cracking discussion going on here. So often these turn to sh!te. But this has been tops.

Cheers everyone.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

> Any life form if spontaneously generated in the beginning must still perform certain biological functions to survive and duplicate.




The dinosaurs qualified until rendered extinct through no fault of their own.
Just imagine for a moment that that didnt occur and man did not evolve.

Where then God and religion.
It was not handed to us from the dinosaurs.



> As Mousie pointed out, both sides must revert to "faith" as neither can be definitively proven.




I cant see how evolution can be argued against.
Its happening all the time.


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> I cant see how evolution can be argued against.
> Its happening all the time.



I don't think evolution can be argued against either, merely the initiating process.

That life spontaneously generated from muck (and not even organic muck... well organic in the sense of containing carbon, but not in the sense of having previously contained life) is an article of faith as it cannot be proven or reproduced.

We must have a starting point for life to evolve from and this is where the problem occurs. Study what even a single cell bacteria must do to survive and duplicate and we have a problem as to how it kicked itself off in the very beginning.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

Dukey said:


> Interesting that at present almost 40% went for the full 'No god' option. - Thats higher than I thought. I too voted that way - but I'd like to qualify my position:
> I presumed that by 'God' - Tech meant _'Conscious God as found in the Bible'_.
> I voted No - because I don't believe in that conscious creator-God...
> 
> ...



good on ya dukey 
yep - reckon I'm a pantheist as well  of the naturalist subsect (possibly classical in some respects (on the subject of blood cells for instance lol - see below)  


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract 'god'.
> 
> Varieties of pantheism
> This article distinguishes between three divergent groups of pantheists:
> ...




Interesting that Sitting Bull and Einstein were both pantheists, lol
I think I'm right in quoting him ..... during the deals over land during the disastrous Indian wars ( disastrous for the INdian anyway)

"Sell land?  - one might as well sell the sun, and the rivers and the lakes, and the forests, and the wind and the air"   (seriously paraphrased)
BTW, that quote was Sitting Bull, not Einstein 
PS It may not even be Sitting Bull - I just remember seeing it in the Museum in St Louis about 30 years ago lol. (the one associated with the big arch that obviously inspired MacDonalds lol)  - hence bound to be someone else, and completely different words.


----------



## retroaugogo (8 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> Well we get into the field of belief and postulation here. Presuming for a moment there definitely IS a God, what IS God. I'll readily admit I have NFI so just for discussion:
> 
> Well there is the judeo/christian/muslim model. 'nuff said there as we all know that one.
> 
> ...




As with anything worthy there's always red herrings and cheap copies.

I know you're probably only navel gazing but if you are genuinely interested and you look hard and long enough the genuine article is fairly obvious.

There's no excuses really.


----------



## The Mint Man (8 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> BTW
> 
> A cracking discussion going on here. So often these turn to sh!te. But this has been tops.
> 
> Cheers everyone.



ditto that!
If bullmarket was still around this thread would have turned to **** on the very first page
Good thread tech


----------



## retroaugogo (8 May 2007)

Nice little article on Einstein.

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
by Rich Deem

I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> As with anything worthy there's always red herrings and cheap copies.
> 
> I know you're probably only navel gazing but if you are genuinely interested and you look hard and long enough the genuine article is fairly obvious.
> 
> There's no excuses really.



So what is the "genuine article"?


----------



## stockGURU (8 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Nice little article on Einstein.
> 
> Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
> by Rich Deem
> ...




What colossal arrogance. Running down Einstein because he dared hold a different view. "Yes, he was a scientific genius but I know better when it comes to god because my holy book of choice says so...."


----------



## Dukey (8 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> good on ya dukey
> yep - reckon I'm a pantheist as well of the naturalist subsect (possibly classical in some respects (on the subject of blood cells for instance lol - see below)
> 
> Interesting that Sitting Bull and Einstein were both pantheists, lol
> ...




Great thread peoples - most interesting reading various ideas on God and religion.

2020 - Great quote from Sitting Bull (or someone?) - I expect most American Indian's spirituality would fall within the realm of Pantheism - though probably one with a 'more shamanistic' bent. 

I really think the *'Everything is God'*  concept of Pantheism (some folks say Nature or the Universe or Universal, some say Cosmos - but it's all the same) could potentially provide a bridge between religion and science - the main obstacle that must be overcome is peoples need to insist on an 'anthropomorphic' god.  - that is a god who has human characteristics such as consciousness and human feelings etc..
Once you get past that and see the physical world as a result of timeless processes according to the laws of physics etc - then then you really do feel the same 'closeness' with God (ie Nature)  the religious folks speak of.  I feel the awesome power of Nature everytime I see the moon, or get dumped by a wave, or stop to inspect a 'perfectly imperfect' flower.
Pantheism also fosters a more realistic positioning of *Humans WITHIN Nature* as opposed to ABOVE or even AGAINST nature which is the philosophical position for Humans which tends to be borne out of standard religions. If we see ourselves as being 'part of sacred Nature', then it's simply a natural extension to want to protect and preserve Nature(God) to the extent possible.

As for some kind of *life after death *- I happily expect (I don't know - cause I  havn't died... yet) that my continuance after death will take a number of forms.   
1. will be in the form of my body being recycled back into Nature (ie God) and recycled forever more, through the cosmos, stars etc. (of course I'm talking extreme geological time here).  
2. through my genes (presuming I have kids);  
3. and also through my ideas, communications and actions which propagate from person to person, both directly and indirectly (ie via the internet! etc). 

Hell... I could even become immortal (at least for the span of future human existence) by writing a best seller!!!!   If guys like Plato and Einstein and yes - Sitting Bull don't qualify as immortal - then who does????????

The Wikipedia article mentions some different varieties of Pantheism - Most modern Pantheists (at least in the west) probably fall under *'Scientific Pantheism'* - which obviously thinks of 'scientific' concepts/processes such as evolution as the means of development of this Nature/God of which we are all a part.

Anyway just some more thoughts on the Nature of God  (pun DEFINITELY intended)  
Hope I don't offend anyone  with my word count this time...


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2007)

A post from another forum I found with regards to genuine articles and whatnot. 



> Amost 2 hours of substantiated verifable facts which totally expose the "forced belief system" and the fraudulent deceptions about the origins of modern religions. Detailing the supposed virgin births of krishna, mithra, osiris/horus- 16 in total prior to Jesus. The history of the supression of thought that has led too "holy wars", the inquisition, mass slaughter of the innocent and other well evidenced reprehensible acts by the so called righteous. You will be absolutly astounded too find out what ALL modern religions are based on.
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6410112404402873027



I found it fascinating.

<EDIT> It looks as though this video has been taken down  I'll try and find it elsewhere)


----------



## Mousie (8 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God.




That's what I'd been saying all along; didn't know that Einstein held the same view!



stockGURU said:


> What colossal arrogance. Running down Einstein because he dared hold a different view. "Yes, he was a scientific genius but I know better when it comes to god because my holy book of choice says so...."




However, what you decide to do after understanding Einstein's (and my) point is entirely up to you. The title of this thread is "Is there a GOD?" and my answer is emphatically YES. I'll leave it at that


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Nice little article on Einstein.
> 
> Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
> by Rich Deem
> ...




Hi retro..incisive post from you.

The passage I highlighted is too broad for me to understand.The word universe is being used when I think that human being is what is meant.My reasoning .. the universe is perfect , it is human mind that is not perfect. 

Other than that I think the post is a good case for  god and christianity as an explanation of things.Definately convincing.

Do you know why A.Einstein was considered brilliant.Did he have very good recall of memory or were his thoughts new.


----------



## Dukey (8 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Nice little article on Einstein.
> 
> Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
> by Rich Deem
> ...




Retro - I think the author is making some 'quantum leaps' of his own regarding Einsteins reasons for dismissing an anthropomorphic God - in the section marked in blue. Einstein had many reasons to 'disbelieve' - and those mentioned above - while completely valid in my view - weren't his only reasons.
Here a couple of direct quotes from the man himself which may serve to explain...  from Einstein - Science and Religion website 



> Albert Einstein from the above website:
> The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events.
> 
> To be sure,       the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be       _refuted_, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
> ...



I thoroughly recommend the Biography: 'Einstein - A Life'  as a great read about Uncle Albert.   Not sure of the Author...


----------



## Dukey (8 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi retro..incisive post from you.
> 
> The passage I highlighted is too broad for me to understand.The word universe is being used when I think that human being is what is meant.My reasoning .. *the universe is perfect , it is human mind that is not perfect.
> *
> Other than that I think the post is a good case for  god and christianity as an explanation of things.Definately convincing.




WYSIWYG : I do believe you've hit the nail on the head with that statement.  
There is no good or evil in Nature - We just perceive things as good or evil depending upon how they impinge on our own existence.  
EDIT: and as such - we don't need an anthropomorphic God to explain problems or good & evil.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

Some quotes by Sitting Bull 

Behold, my friends, the spring is come; the earth has gladly received the embraces of the sun, and we shall soon see the results of their love! 
Sitting Bull 

Each man is good in His sight. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows. 
Each man is good in the sight of the Great Spirit. 
Every seed is awakened, and all animal life. 
God made me an Indian. I am here by the will of the Great Spirit, and by his will I am chief. 
He put in your heart certain wishes and plans; in my heart, he put other different desires. 
I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. 

I know Great Spirit is looking down upon me from above, and will hear what I say. 
If a man loses anything and goes back and looks carefully for it, he will find it. 
If I agree to dispose of any part of our land to the white people I would feel guilty of taking food away from our children's mouths, and I do not wish to be that mean. 
In my early days, I was eager to learn and to do things, and therefore I learned quickly. 
Is it wrong for me to love my own? Is it wicked for me because my skin is red? Because I am Sioux? Because I was born where my father lived? Because I would die for my people and my country? 

It is not necessary for eagles to be crows. 
*It is through this mysterious power that we too have our being, and we therefore yield to our neighbors, even to our animal neighbors, the same right as ourselves to inhabit this vast land. *
Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children. 
Only seven years ago we made a treaty by which we were assured that the buffalo country should be left to us forever. Now they threaten to take that from us also. 

*Strangely enough, they have a mind to till the soil, and the love of possessions is a disease in them. *
*The earth has received the embrace of the sun and we shall see the results of that love.* 
The white man knows how to make everything, but he does not know how to distribute it. 
*There are things they tell us that sound good to hear, but when they have accomplished their purpose they will go home and will not try to fulfill our agreements with them*. 
*They claim this mother of ours, the Earth, for their own use, and fence their neighbors away from her, and deface her with their buildings and their refuse*. 
This nation is like a spring freshet; it overruns its banks and destroys all who are in its path. 

What treaty that the whites have kept has the red man broken? Not one. 
What white man can say I never stole his land or a penny of his money? Yet they say that I am a thief. 
What white man has ever seen me drunk? Who has ever come to me hungry and left me unfed? Who has seen me beat my wives or abuse my children? What law have I broken? 
What white woman, however lonely, was ever captive or insulted by me? Yet they say I am a bad Indian. 
*When I was a boy, the Sioux owned the world. The sun rose and set on their land; they sent ten thousand men to battle. Where are the warriors today? Who slew them? Where are our lands? Who owns them? *
Yet hear me, friends! we have now to deal with another people, small and feeble when our forefathers first met with them, but now great and overbearing.

Another Chief had a quote once...  "When the white man came, we had the land, and he had the Bible - now we have the Bible, and he has the land" 

PS "Given enough time, and a prize at the end of a sneeky campaign, Paleface will eventually speak with forked tongue"... 2020


----------



## $20shoes (8 May 2007)

_There is no good or evil in Nature - We just perceive things as good or evil depending upon how they impinge on our own existence.
_

Dukey, that is a good point. Some bugger once said that "we can only see things through the eyes God has given us", alluding to our own limitations when in comes to the potential for divine realisation. Is it possibly our simple failure to grasp a reality beyond our own physical existence, that gives such weight to our assertions of nature and laws and and the linear traversal of time (biological advancement of man). That is, we fail to grasp how time works - at what point did the second hand start ticking at the beginning of the universe, and from whose perception did time start moving? And if we move linearly, where is the endpoint of time? Does the end of Earth mean all the universe stops moving because there is no perception of time as we define it? 
We have to develop constructs that make sense to our rational mind and make sense of the infintissemally small part we play. That is, we may actually make rational constructs due to our limitations to understand as well as spiritual constructs due to our same failures. 

Potentially, one could pose the question that if there is no God, why is there an incessant advancement of the human race. We all understand the biological benefits of advancing but is there a more philisophical drivinf force at play: What are we striving for? Why was there a need to grow from being a  person in 900BC. Why did we just not stop here - the food was good, sex was great (so I've heard) and the climate might have been good). Is it simply an innate force to better our world, is there a yearning for something that we're not yet seeing?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

sorry , this is a long post - just that , if you crop the songs, then the point might be lost. (assuming there is a point  )  - just two people's thoughts on death, Chief Seattle, and Billy Joel.  


Dukey said:


> ... my continuance after death will take a number of forms.
> 1. will be in the form of my body being recycled back into Nature (ie God) and recycled forever more, through the cosmos, stars etc. (of course I'm talking extreme geological time here).
> 2. through my genes (presuming I have kids);
> 3. *and also through my ideas, communications and actions *which propagate from person to person, both directly and indirectly (ie via the internet! etc).



1. I would agree with Chief Seattle,  - I lov that concept of , "when you walk on the earth, remember that you are walking on the ashes of your ancestors"


> (words and song by Judith Durham), from a television script by Ted Perry based on a short speech by Chief Seattle, 1854. http://www.judithdurham.com/
> not that good a song - but sure are interesting lyrics.
> 
> you can listen to a few bars of this song on that website (click on "enter". then "lyrics" etc) - but it's not one of her best in the music dept  - mainly the words. (imho)




2.	Genes  maybe, but in my will I want to be buried in my jeans – they’re going with me, wherever we go.  

3.	Your ideas live on …yep   Likewise , Billy Joel seems to adhere to this philosophy mate   the following is a repeat of a post on "favourite lyrics" thread...


> billy joel, goodnight my angel,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprteZX80tk&mode=related&search=  YESSS!!! found it - Billy Joel sings 'The Lullaby'
> 
> I once heard him interviewed over this  (THIS YOUTUBE - NB it continues past the break at the 5 minute mark ) - the child (then only 7 or so) was concerned that the parents had just divorced - so he had to reassure her.
> ...



Here’s that Chief Seattle song – but it has been reworked a bit, rhyme, metre, all those constraints that the red indian didn’t worry about 


> We must teach our children, That man didn't weave life's web
> For he's just one strand in it, So don't destroy the thread
> 
> We must teach our children, *That the ground beneath their feet
> ...


----------



## nomore4s (8 May 2007)

A few questions I've never understood about God.(I don't believe in God)

1. Why didn't God just make a Heaven and be done with it? Instead of this elaborate "test" of faith etc - are we just an experiment? Seeing as God knows everything, God surely should have known the outcome.

2. In the scheme of the universe we are the equivalent of nothing more then the smallest bacteria on the nail of our little toe, yet we seem to be the centre of the universe as far as religion is concerned. Did God create this whole universe just for us? I find this hard to believe.

3. Why does this supreme being want us to worship him? Maybe God has an ego?

I was forced to grow up in a strict church environment and as such saw too many inconsistences in religion to believe in a God.

IMO the only reason there is a God is because mankind invented God to explain our own mortality and the many unexplainable things in our world. People need God to believe in because they need/want there to be more to life than just our current physical existance, that there must be more than just this. As long as people continue to believe in a God there will be a God.
We seem to be the only living organism on this planet who needs to have a God, yet all the others seem to exist okay without one.


----------



## barney (8 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> I cant see how evolution can be argued against.
> Its happening all the time.




I'm just bouncing in between dinner and playing my wife scrabble (three nights in a row lol) 

Firstly, have to say what a great debate has developed here .... well done to all contributors ...............

I don't have time to get too deep, but re your point above Tech, ........ it is commonly scientifically accepted  that "evolution" is generally caused by "mutation" of the original cell structure, due to chemical or environmental 
modifications ............... ie Evolution is a simply a "degredation/modification" of what was originally there in the first place !! .................. No real point I'm making other than evolution could be described as a "decreasing" phenemenom which actually lowers our "options" as a species, as opposed to how most people percieve it, thinking that it creates "more" options ............. therefore initial life form/forms would have been required to have "all" the available structures of life to allow for evolution "mutation" etc to take place .................. Hope that makes sense to somebody out there .................. Just a side issue really, but worth considering with respect to the original question ...................... Cheers ........... I will now go and find a triple letter score for my "Q" !!!!!


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2007)

Barney.

Evolution of existance not from the Big Bang (Or whatever) to where we are now.

Not just the human species.


----------



## Out Too Soon (8 May 2007)

This thread got way off track right from the beginning! The question was "Is there a GOD?" & there have been countless posts about religion following.
There are so many religions the chance of your own faith being right & the rest wrong are incredibly remote (mathematically & logically).
There is so much more than our 5 senses can sense, including other dimensions many physicists now beleive exist, If there is a "GOD" it is so far beyond our comprehension......
Closer to home nature, our mother Earth & the continuation of "being" beyond the grave?
Star Wars had it right, there is Good & Evil everywhere we look (& shades of grey), opposing force that permeates the Universe, Yin & Yang, 

"May The Force Be With You"   

PS: I am nominally a Buddhist because The Buddha said His Way (to enlightenment) was not the only way just the way he had found. i.e he left the door open to all faiths & beleifs. If only Mohammed & Jesus etc had been so wise.


----------



## retroaugogo (8 May 2007)

nomore4s said:


> A few questions I've never understood about God.(I don't believe in God)
> 
> 1. Why didn't God just make a Heaven and be done with it? Instead of this elaborate "test" of faith etc - are we just an experiment? Seeing as God knows everything, God surely should have known the outcome.
> 
> ...





He chose to create us for His own pure enjoyment. It's no different with us - parents simply choose to have children to love them and raise them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

Barney - you old devil, lol - playing scrabble with the missus, when the rest of us are sorting out the universe here lol.

OTS - when you say "May the Force be with you" is that the Police Force? or something else lol.  The only force I've got going for me is... gravity?  

PS here's that song I mentioned back there - I like it anyway 
Mark Schultz song "Walking Her Home"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVZiWTmKNc0&mode=related&search=


----------



## Dukey (8 May 2007)

$20shoes said:


> _There is no good or evil in Nature - We just perceive things as good or evil depending upon how they impinge on our own existence.
> _
> 
> Dukey, that is a good point. Some bugger once said that "we can only see things through the eyes God has given us", alluding to our own limitations when in comes to the potential for divine realisation. Is it possibly our simple failure to grasp a reality beyond our own physical existence, that gives such weight to our assertions of nature and laws and and the linear traversal of time (biological advancement of man). That is, we fail to grasp how time works - at what point did the second hand start ticking at the beginning of the universe, and from whose perception did time start moving? And if we move linearly, where is the endpoint of time? Does the end of Earth mean all the universe stops moving because there is no perception of time as we define it?
> ...




VBQ !!! Very Big Questions $20  - and by and large they are beyond me... I've always wondered why time seems to get faster as we get older. But then each new day or year is a smaller fraction of the sum of your life right?? - Maybe it's another version of relativity?

A couple of ideas recycled from others about 'advancement of mankind and purposes'.

Evolution in the broader sense of 'development based on best-fit' can be seen in many realms in addition to the biological one.  
ie - think about the development of the car.  From chariots, horse drawn wagons, engines and gearboxes, to on board computerized fuel injection etc.  Its an evolutionary process - driven by mans desire for better/best transportation. Good design changes (adaptations) are retained, crazy ones are rejected (like the guy who strapped a jet fighter engine on his pick-up!... and killed himself - maybe an urban myth?) - but you get the idea.

I like the ideas of Robert Pirsig - who is the dude who wrote 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', followed many years later by 'Lila'.  In the latter he develops a kind evolutionary philosophy/metaphysics in which  evolution acts  upon a hierarchy of realms, with each successive realm taking a kind of 'moral' priority over the prior ones.
1st = physical realm. Atoms, rocks - non-living stuff.
2nd = biological realm - speaks for itself and the process is Darwinian evolution.
3rd = he proposes as 'social' realm - which is where organisms interact and form societies of various kinds.
4th = is (i think) the Intellectual realm - where we humans reside - probably alone.

So I from this model you might say that our advancement has largely been  driven by '*Darwinian evolution' - the aim of which is simply to 'best-fit' the organism to it's environment*. Maybe this kind of evolution dominated until the point came when we broke into the "intellectual ' realm. Then, we started using our own unique intelligence to push our 'social' and 'intellectual' evolution in  different directions. (example - we humans couldn't fly but we wanted to, so collectively, we used our intelligence to 'evolve' our land based transportation - using lessons from Nature - to make them fly. Then we evolved from bi-planes to F18 jets... and bomb the crap out of each other - go figure?) This kind of evolution seems to be faster than the 'best-fit' that happens in the biological realm... and getting faster all the time!!

So I think that in effect - evolution has jumped beyond the biological and social realms to a 'the higher intellectual' realm. Maybe this happened about the time that civilizations really started booming - like around your figure of 900BC ??
But now 3000 years later - and equipped with our more evolved intelligence we can decide our own purposes or aims (as individuals and as a race).
Just what that aim or the purpose of Mankind should be I'm not sure.
Maybe the biggest question of all time - especially for those of us who don't believe in a conscious God.  
'Preservation and even cultivation of life on earth and maybe even in the wider universe ' could be  a possible candidate?? 

Phew - I've worn myself out. gotta go eat some curry.


----------



## Julia (8 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> ditto that!
> If bullmarket was still around this thread would have turned to **** on the very first page
> Good thread tech



I was thinking exactly that earlier today, Mint Man.  Thank goodness he appears to have given up.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Barney - you old devil, lol - playing scrabble with the missus, when the rest of us are sorting out the universe here lol.
> 
> OTS - when you say "May the Force be with you" is that the Police Force? or something else lol. * The only force I've got going for me is... gravity?  *PS here's that song I mentioned back there - I like it anyway
> Mark Schultz song "Walking Her Home"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVZiWTmKNc0&mode=related&search=




That is bizarre 2020.I just spent an hour looking at the Sir Isaac Newton: The
Universal Law of Gravitation and tuned back in here at about 10.08 to see you had mentioned gravity .I have never been to the site before and that would have to be coincidental to be mentioned while I was there..


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> That is bizarre 2020.I just spent an hour looking at the Sir Isaac Newton: The
> Universal Law of Gravitation and tuned back in here at about 10.08 to see you had mentioned gravity .I have never been to the site before and that would have to be coincidental to be mentioned while I was there..



apologies in advance (this is several times more corny that Kansas in August)  :-  

They speak of forces, global, massive,  starting with this big bang theory
then of course the planets passive, spinning round for eons weary 
gravity's a certain bet, -  little there to worship , ha,
- what you sense is what you get,  (the one I fight's inertia )

what you worship, what you love, is yours to choose, where crossroads fork - 
should you choose some god above,  or simply "walk-the-conscience-walk"
what we choose to call "life's light", one day will sadly be "put out" - 
through the long eternal night, I'll remain, I fear, in doubt.  

My own version of all this ? "An honest man is the second noblest work of God - right behind an honest woman"  
The other biggie (although I just enunciated it for the first time) is "the biggest sin is to leave the world a worse place that when you arrived "   (BTW, if you hadn't already guessed, I agree with Chasers that having sex under apple trees is only a very minor sin - probably only a couple of Hail Marys and God will understand - until the next time )


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

yet another question, closely related.  Was Jesus closely related to God?

Retro introduced the topic of CS Lewis, and I just realise that he wrote 'Mere Christianity'.  I read it years ago - suspect I would fault it more now than I did then ...  For example the following :-


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis Trilemma
> In the book Mere Christianity, Lewis famously criticized the idea that Jesus was merely a human being, albeit a great moral teacher:
> 
> "*I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God*. That is the one thing we must not say. *A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell*. [[there's that word again ]]   You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis 1952, pp. 43)
> ...



Personally I would argue
a) does Jesus's philosophy of forgiveness work or doesn't it? (irrespective of any reference to Son of God / Divine / etc)
b) If it works, then why not try to live by it, accepting him as a moral teacher (only).  And what compulsion is there to accept the (completely separate) argument that he was the Son of God. 
(Notice how I was very self-controlled above, and didn't give all those other explanations ... eg "5. Jesus found out he could turn water into wine, and had just installed a new 2000 litre water tank" etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

Further to previous
a) it's a shame that JC was resurrected and "beamed up" to Heaven, body and soul - if he was buried somewhere, we could do a thorough DNA on him, and get a few more clues about big daddy.

b) If God is a Sphere (as Xenaphane proposes) , then why doesn't Jesus have at least a bit of a spherical look about him - maybe a beer gut or something ?  

ok ok , i realise i'll go to hell for this post - but the moving keyboard writes, and having writ moves on....


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Further to previous
> a) it's a shame that JC was resurrected and "beamed up" to Heaven, body and soul - if he was buried somewhere, we could do a thorough DNA on him, and get a few more clues about big daddy.
> 
> b) If God is a Sphere (as Xenaphane proposes) , then why doesn't Jesus have at least a bit of a spherical look about him - maybe a beer gut or something ?
> ...




:topic 2020 .. that is humorous but expect some punishment to be handed out.Hell will be the least of your worries .



> Trials
> There were extensive efforts to root out the supposed influence of Satan by various measures aimed at the people who were accused of being servants of Satan. People suspected of being "possessed" by Satan were put on trial. These trials were biased against the accused. Brutal techniques were routinely used to extract the required admission of guilt. They included hot pincers, the thumbscrew, and the 'swimming' of suspects (an old superstition whereby innocence was established by immersing the accused in water for a sufficiently long period of time).


----------



## $20shoes (9 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> yet another question, closely related.  Was Jesus closely related to God?
> 
> ... eg "5. Jesus found out he could turn water into wine, and had just installed a new 2000 litre water tank" etc




With our glut of wine, I wish he would com back and turn wine into water.  

Seriously though, the concept of Jesus as God is not unfathomable. If you use my arguments that we are a manifestation of God loving God, then there is potentiality for the spirit to be completely (consciously and subconsciously) aware its true self. How is gets to this point I do not know - is there any intervention involved? When you realise yourself, you can't help but walk around saying "God's da Bomb, MAN" (from the lost Gospel of $20Shoes) (Oh yeah, speaking of Bombs, you should do your own research on a newly listed - BOM. Has promise).

We can also use a positive construct - we can only know what life if like without a divine figure if we have had a divine figure.

I don't want to enter into how religion has taken the story of Jesus and tinkered with it. There are some things I accept and others that I need to question. 

My main point, and that of Donald Walsch, is that you may actually somehow be God trying to experience God. The notion, which might be too convenient for some, is that a punishing God, or hell, disappears. 
SATAN BE GONE. I'm not sure where this leaves Satanists?? Perhaps they could put on a show for us at you local thatre-restaurant.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

$20shoes said:


> SATAN BE GONE. I'm not sure where this leaves Satanists?? Perhaps they could put on a show for us at you local thatre-restaurant.



I liked Unc Festive's one about the dyslexic santa worshippers 
DNA =  national dyslexic association.

PS did they have paternity tests in those days ?
when JC said "I am the son of God" was this just speaking relatively, or was it a relative speaking ?
wysiwyg, thanks for those comforting comments about thumbscrews etc.
(you know the one about the big bolt of lightning comes down and hits the priest and the blasphemer playing golf - and the big voice booms out "JESUS I Missed."


----------



## The Mint Man (9 May 2007)

> 2. In the scheme of the universe we are the equivalent of nothing more then the smallest bacteria on the nail of our little toe,



So what does that make the bacteria... and the backteria on his toe? I think I might start another thread, _'What came first, the chicken or the egg?'_


nomore4s said:


> I was forced to grow up in a strict church environment and as such saw too many inconsistences in religion to believe in a God..



Ive heared that sooo many times before, good on you for having your own brain and/or saying what you really think. I have seen familys that just wont allow other family members believe in anything other then 'their god', beliefs or religion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

$20shoes said:


> 1. With our glut of wine, I wish he would com back and turn wine into water.
> 2. we are a manifestation of God loving God,
> 3. We can also use a positive construct - we can only know what life if like without a divine figure if we have had a divine figure.
> 4. The notion, which might be too convenient for some, is that a punishing God, or hell, disappears.
> 5. SATAN BE GONE.




1. Hek $20 - even I can turn wine into water !!   (sadly undrinkable, but good enough for the cabbages out the back)

2. Are you saying that God is a narcissistic mystic statistic? 
while at the same time is holistic, fatalistic, and futuristic, 
occasionally seen as a simplistic, optimistic ballistic
even anachronistic, sensationistic, moralistic
or even a paternatistic, opportunistic idealistic
who doesnt like materialistic, sadistic hednoistics
or chavenistic, feudalistic, nationalistics
or pessimistic, socialistic, jingoistics?

Is that what you are saying? (Y/N please!)
That's very uncharacteristic of you. 

3. well for the "divine figure" bit, I'm gonna have to refer that question to the wife 
4. Like it. If outcome justifies the means, I like it. (alternatively, never learn about him in the first place )
5. yep, but Santa, you can stick around I guess.  (damned confusing for the kids but what the heck - confusing too for that small country somewhere, where the newly converted Christians strung up Santa to a cross at Easter   )

Mintman's question on chicken or the egg is relevant  - but a better chance of a reasoned conclusion than this thread maybe.  (PS eg Obviously a chicken was born right, and it was a mutant chicken right, and ummm,  and then it was walking around one day, and thought, "geeps, what's that pain in my nether regions?",  and low and behold, out came the first egg !!! - too easy.

PS never thought of myself as a bacteria before  - specially not on a little toenail.  
PS does that mean that Johhny Howard gets to be on the big topnail?


----------



## Rafa (9 May 2007)

nomore4s said:


> I was forced to grow up in a strict church environment and as such saw too many inconsistences in religion to believe in a God.




there are incosistencies everywhere in life... its incosistency that defines our very existence and is present in everything we do.



nomore4s said:


> We seem to be the only living organism on this planet who needs to have a God, yet all the others seem to exist okay without one.




is this true? if it is, why is that? could it simply be becuase there is one?


as for the chicken and the egg... we can go a lot further back, to the beginning of time...
i was watching a documentary on ABC about scientists trying to recreate the big bang...
they said something that was very pretinenet...
We can see the results of the big bang... and everyone has many theories on how that eventually led us to where we are today... 
but no one knows what existed before the big bang... the big bang is always considered the point in time where time began... but what was going on before that?


just more questions, i don't pretend to have any of the answers...


----------



## insider (9 May 2007)

Yes... God wants you to vote on your preferred house... follow the link below

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=155323&highlight=prefer#post155323


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> ... the big bang is always considered the point in time where time began... but what was going on before that?..



sorry Rafa, but my intellectual faculties have not suffiently expanded in keeping with the universe to comprehend such delicately postulated fragments of intricate philosophical conjecture 

PS after this thread, I'm going back to being a common old garden variety naturalistic pantheistic autistic.


----------



## $20shoes (9 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. Hek $20 - even I can turn wine into water !!   (sadly undrinkable, but good enough for the cabbages out the back)
> 
> 2. Are you saying that God is a narcissistic mystic statistic?
> while at the same time is holistic, fatalistic, and futuristic,
> ...




2) 2020, you've go my point all wrong. You seem to be confusing my argument with a diatribe from Dr Seuss. What I'm trying to say is that GOD finds himself a delicious, nutritious, babe-a-licious dish, that is somewhat prone to being vicious, without being overtly malicious. 

3) Fair point, I often need to defer to my divine figure, or there is HELL to pay.

4) Yep, never did much enjoy the old Hell. I second the motion that we ditch this bad boy Satan once and for all. He has no place in modern day Australia. I suggest he be removed to Guantanamo, as he can be detained there indefinitely. The confusion arising from the whole Santa/Satan thing in the is thread alone, is a compelling enough reason to get rid of this puppy once and for all. 

I'll meet you all soon with pitchfork at the ready.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

$20shoes said:


> . What I'm trying to say is that GOD finds himself a delicious, nutritious,...



$20shoes - well you're miles ahead of me mate - and you're the first person I know to speculate on what God thinks of himself. 

I think my "god" just watches silent from the sidelines, and silently wishes to himself that he'd chosen some other species to be caretaker of this particular planet


----------



## Out Too Soon (9 May 2007)

Oh! sorry! forgot about my new religion!
PASTAFARIAN  check it out on Wikipedia.


----------



## Out Too Soon (9 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> $20shoes - well you're miles ahead of me mate - and you're the first person I know to speculate on what God thinks of himself.
> 
> I think my "god" just watches silent from the sidelines, and silently wishes to himself that he'd chosen some other species to be caretaker of this particular planet




Have you read Creation Memos by Geoffery Atkinson? Laugh, I never knew I could laugh so much at a filing cabinet full of memos, bills & building quotes.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

insider said:


> Yes... God wants you to vote on your preferred house... follow the link below
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=155323&highlight=prefer#post155323



HEY!! Insider!! lol - that was a clever con!! lol - you'll have us suspecting you really do have a "car for us", dodgey bros style, lol.
While you're at it, Here's a poll you can /could find on chasers (which incidentally is on tonight 

ps i voted for the permanent long lasting house - and for the cheap price ok


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

An only half serious study of early house building in Britain - starting with the bricks to build Stonehenge. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQtlaofjoI&mode=related&search=

and back to thread 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRwfwYGTPd8&mode=related&search= The Epilogue - Spike Milligan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMfzeHRD3xg&mode=related&search= Spike Milligan's obituary 1982


----------



## wayneL (9 May 2007)

Out Too Soon said:


> Oh! sorry! forgot about my new religion!
> PASTAFARIAN  check it out on Wikipedia.



I like pasta. 

Heres another new "religion" - apparently a few percent of people listed jediiism as their religion. http://www.thejediismway.org/

They look pretty fair dinkum too... nice site, but must be the first religion to be started by a movie?



> What is a Jedi? I don’t know how many times this question has been asked in multiple forums and by multiple people ranging from newcomers to people who have called themselves Jedi for years. There are two things that need to be stated up front before we start discussing what a Jedi is. The first thing is, the Jedi’s path is a way of living, thinking, and believing. It is an individualistic path; therefore it is impossible to lay out a detailed road map and say every Jedi does X, Y, and Z. The second thing is that we all come from very different lives, histories, and locations. Customs, beliefs, and other factors will be different from society to society, and sometimes these differences will be great. As Jedi, we need to remember that just because something is wrong, disgusting, and etc. to us, doesn’t mean people in a different cultures don’t look at what we do and say the same thing.
> 
> As mentioned above, the life of a Jedi is a very individualist path, however, there is a foundation which a majority of Jedi share, whether it is openly stated or kept to private. The Jedi Way is much like a house. Every house must have a foundation in order for the house to stand. If there is no foundation or if the foundation is faulty the house will fall. When the foundation is sturdy the house will be strong and will stand for all time. Each house has the commonality of the foundation, however, above that foundation, is where everything changes. Each house is different in its own way. Some houses are shaped differently, have different colors, are designed differently inside, and etc. Even though each house is different and unique does not mean it still does not share the same aspects in a foundation. Below you will find the foundation of a Jedi.
> 
> ...


----------



## BIG BWACULL (9 May 2007)

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative” Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

Out Too Soon said:


> Have you read Creation Memos by Geoffery Atkinson? Laugh, I never knew I could laugh so much at a filing cabinet full of memos, bills & building quotes.



Well I for one haven't mate, sounds great - will check it out. - 
Anything to do with this ?:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwlZ1O2Roh0

As for the Pastafarians - gives a new meaning to saying Grace doesn't it lol.  "thank you paster for all this pasta we are about to eat".
mind warping.  

"forgive us pasta for I have sinned - I ate your brother" etc


----------



## weird (9 May 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html



> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
> POSTED: 9:37 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007
> By Dr. Francis Collins
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2007)

Considering the Pope is even opting out of the "intelligent design" debate.. (see fourth quote below)


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zs7dDMdepg&mode=related&search= South Park Theory of Evolution &The Simpsons Evolution Intro



for the following, I recommend turning the sound down ( irrelevant distraction) and I found I had to pause frequently to let the various messages sink in - and allow me time to think of some counter arguments - not that I could come up with any  


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU&NR=1
> Why Creationists are WRONG about MacroEvolution
> Here I show how creationists are wrong when it comes to MacroEvolution (MaE). MaE is defined as evolution at or above the species level. This means MaE includes speciation. Despite what creationists say there are examples of new species occurring in nature, and scientists have produced new species in the lab. Many creationists claim that MaE means there must be a huge change in appearance. This is false. Many sister species, existing in the same genus and the cases we have of new species occurring in nature, share many characteristics. A new species of mosquito will still resemble a mosquito, and a new species of worm will still resemble a worm. Only after many speciation events will large changes begin to accumulate. This may take tens to hundreds of millions of years.   etc
> 
> ...





> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ&mode=related&search=  Evidence for Evolution





> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g&mode=related&search=
> Why Intelligent Design is WRONG
> In this video I show why the central tenant of Intelligent Design or ID is wrong. They argue they can tell when an object is "designed", meaning it could not have arisen by chance, but their logic is fatally flawed. Here I will actually simulate evolution showing how impossibly improbable outcomes can appear quite easily, without anything being designed.....



etc


> This on ABC:- Pope airs views on evolution http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...4/s1895066.htm
> Pope airs views on evolution ..By Rafael Epstein .  *Pope Benedict has expressed his views on evolution for the first time in his papacy, saying evolution and religion can coexist.  The Pope has made the comments in a new book titled Creation and Evolution.*
> 
> The Pope has not endorsed the religion-based theory 'intelligent design' which has been criticised for being another version of Creationism.  He had been thought of as endorsing that view after a recent book written by a former close adviser.
> ...


----------



## Robroy (9 May 2007)

You would just about have to be God yourself to say there was no God and you knew that for sure.

But the the reasons a God is highly unlikely IMO are:

1. The universe (Big Bang) did not require a supervening force to come into existence, or remain in existence. (Read Paul Davies' 'God & The New Physics' - he outlines it in some detail.) It was capable of doing it spontaneously.

2. The organic world (life - including us) did not require a God to come into existence either. The spontaneous exchange of sub-cellular information in the primeval soup led to cells...and the rest is history.

3. Religion is adaptive (it helped H. sapiens to survive), so we are hard-wired to be inclined to believe in a God. That gives rise to a huge panoply of emotions, deeply-held beliefs and convictions, and cherished ideals (to say nothing of religions, spiritual groups, et al)  - all of them subjective experiences caused by our neural wiring, with no corresponding reality outside of that wiring.

4. The human brain has in the last 25 years been sufficiently mapped to give us an understanding of how 'spiritual experiences' arise. (This mainly applies to the more Eastern- and 'inner journey'-oriented God-believers.) E.g. your sense of timelessness arises when one part of the brain is temporarily lulled, your sense of 'the presence of a superior power' arises when another part is stimulated, etc etc. That's why religions chant, pray, meditate and sometimes dance rhythmically: these things lull/stir the central nervous system in the required ways. It's well-understood stuff now.

5. In the entirety of human history, there has not been a single piece of evidence for the existence of God. This period includes the 200-odd year history of science, and the 100+ year history of cameras, film and audio recording devices. Not a photo, not a single pulse of data - in all of known time.

If you believe in God you do so because your brain (the product of a million years of human and pre-human evolution) has provided you with a religious /spiritual impulse, not because there is anything divine out there, in there, or anywhere else.

I personally find this sad by the way - I understand the desire to have a God in the Universe. But me wanting doesn't make it so.


----------



## weird (9 May 2007)

2020hindsight vs Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project.

Interesting ....


----------



## AJ_ (9 May 2007)

hello,

in answer to your question Tech, yes I beleive in God...

i saw this post by bobby



> I've seen things that no god would or could allow.
> 
> There is no god, but if there were what a pathetic grub! Seen the sufferings Your god has been succour in
> 
> Bobby.




As a Christian I beleive that God loved the world enough to send His Son to earth (John 3:16), who was crucified for our sins... so even God has suffered, gone through things that 'no god could allow' 

anyway, an interesting book if you're really interested is called "The case for Faith" by Lee Strobel, 

just thought id say something since i voted in the poll

anthony


----------



## Bobby (9 May 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
> 
> He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
> 
> ...




Gee thats so close to the truth !!

Good one Big Bwaacull


----------



## weird (9 May 2007)

Robroy, I think that, Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Human Genome Project, probabably feels sad for those that don't believe as well.


----------



## wayneL (9 May 2007)

weird said:


> Robroy, I think that, Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Human Genome Project, probabably feels sad for those that don't believe as well.



Indeed.

It doesn't help these discussions to go down this path of subtle deprecation of others views. That's how these types of threads turn to sh!te.

Let's not go there folks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

weird said:


> 2020hindsight vs Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project.  Interesting ....



weird, My post was not in reply to yours - just that it took me 15 or 20 minutes to draft it, and hence it appears to be in reply to yours  - just a coincidence.  But yes, certainly, those posts make an interesting clash on first sight .  Not sure Collins would dispute the video I posted , (i.e. "Why Creationists are WRONG about MacroEvolution") - but that's another story.  (PS You'll have to tell us what you think btw )

btw, It ain't me vs you, or me vs Franscis S Collins, it appears to be "cdk007" vs Francis S Collins.
Here is cdk's profile, 28 year old scientist, similar qualifications to your friend, my friend.



> http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=cdk007
> Intelligence is awareness of ignorance. Stupidity is ignorance of ignorance. Think about it.
> Age: 28
> vi veri veniversum vivus vici
> ...



Changing tack somewhat... This one might cheer you up.  It concerns which version of the Hymn "Nearer, my God, to Thee" was sung whilst the Titanic went down.  The 8 members of the band went down as heroes of course.  Doesn't have much to do with whether there's a god or not, but certainly shows that *when the chips are down, mankind's natural choice is to look up *


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic#_note-finale  Some events during the Titanic disaster have had a legendary impact. One of the most famous stories of Titanic is of the band. On 15 April, Titanic's eight-member band, led by Wallace Hartley, had assembled in the first class lounge in an effort to keep passengers calm and upbeat. Later they would move on to the forward half of the boat deck. Band members had played during Sunday worship services the previous morning, and the band continued playing music even when it became apparent the ship was going to sink.
> 
> A memorial in Southampton to the Titanic's musiciansNone of the band members survived the sinking, and there has been much speculation about what their last song was. Some witnesses said the final song played was the hymn "Nearer, my God, to Thee". However, there are three versions of this song in existence and no one really knows which version, if any, was played.



two versions of the film, each with different version of that hymn.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj-1b1Yvep8  Nearer My God To Thee
 (old film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDqOLseR4_I&mode=related&search= Nearer My God To Thee (remake)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtE0Y6CTQMQ&mode=related&search=  (full orchestral)


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

PS Weird ...
Your friend asks 


> "What is the meaning of life?"
> "Why am I here?"
> "Why does mathematics work, anyway?"
> "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?"
> ...



I would ask, "Why look outside ourselves and invent some omnipotent omnipresent 'thingo' to find these answers." (assuming that that is his idea of god, there being many others)  

To be honest , unless we define our terms it is crazy to argue, the threads so far have proven there are almost countless versions of "god", and your friend presumably has just one of them.

But he quotes something that I posted way back there as well (mainly because it;s bloody obvious, but also because I'd just heard it on the BBC driving home from work) - 


> .. reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. *Ultimately, a leap of faith is required*.



The BBC interviewee likened faith more to self-hypnosis than to anything based in fact or science.  ( he was just a kiwi, but he made sense - well for a kiwi anyway).  You and others might disagree.  But I find that plausible. I mean Einstein would apparently agree with the evolutionists for a start lol ( if you want to start quoting peoples qualifications)   And also with those that think that "man is his own moral boss".  



> http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html
> 
> "*What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world*." --Albert Einstein
> 
> *A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death*." --Albert Einstein



I guess Einstein is saying "Why do we have a moral sense? because we chose to be moral - not because we want to go to Heaven etc. "

In conclusion/summary,  I think the posters here did a pretty good job of coming up with countless options for "meaning to life" on the thread that bears that name.   And only a small percentage referred to God as I recall.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

To be fair even Einsten had a few romantic bones in his body...



> "Gravity cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
> 
> "It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."
> 
> ...



Gee some of these quotes make it obvious that we should be getting more tolerant of each other, and I personally think that religions are a real disaster in that respect.

lol... (off topic) I bet those scientists applying for grants for research would like this quote :-
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> To be fair even Einsten had a few romantic bones in his body...
> 
> 
> Gee some of these quotes make it obvious that we should be getting more tolerant of each other, and I personally think that religions are a real disaster in that respect.
> ...



He must have been a Jedi Master  

Certainly an honourary Jedi anyway


----------



## tech/a (10 May 2007)

FWIW.

My current view is.

(1) Religion of all sorts is man made at some point.
(2) Gods are invented by man to explain the un explainable.
(3) The enormity of Evolution is underestimated from --whatever origin to now evolution in billions of different forms-- all over the cosmos various diverse forms of life and NON life evolve. Becoming a never ending dynamic end product of evolution itself.
(4) Spirit world. Again I suspect a man made concept. However Ants cannot percieve our existance and I know I'm here---One thing I am certain of (Due to our limitations as humans) is that we cannot possibly understand or even percieve all that there is to know.
(5) Our place in the scheme of things.-- Continuation of species. A single existance is as important as all and any yet as meaningless as that of a single life in ANY species.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> He must have been a Jedi Master
> 
> Certainly an honourary Jedi anyway




"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with ....  sticks and stones.... and light beam swords?." 

(may the force be with you, Wayne, in your fight against the farce   (whatever you perceive that force to be - and that farce to be lol - we all have our own individual perception of ObiWan - and of Darth Vada lol)   
PS Fee Fie Foe Fum, I smell the blood of a Canadian"


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2007)

/\ I've just been sworn in as a Jedi Knight. Darth Vader beware 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






2020hindsight said:


> "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with ....  sticks and stones.... and light beam swords?."
> 
> (may the force be with you, Wayne, in your fight against the farce   (whatever you perceive that force to be - and that farce to be lol - we all have our own individual perception of ObiWan - and of Darth Vada lol)
> PS Fee Fie Foe Fum, I smell the blood of a Canadian"


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> /\ I've just been sworn in as a Jedi Knight. Darth Vader beware



lol - you're dropping your left shoulder!!  watch that left shoulder!!   

my wife  has some rels from west coast SI NZ - we went to meet up with them - two old churches standing in an old glacial river bed - rocks as far as the eye can see - (and very little else)
 it was explained to us that the two churches ( Catholic and Angican) had to be placed that far apart - to stop them throwing said rocks at each other   (in keeping with BWacall's joke lol)


----------



## Robroy (10 May 2007)

weird said:


> Robroy, I think that, Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Human Genome Project, probabably feels sad for those that don't believe as well.





I'm afraid that the argument that a scientist believes in God doesn't cut it as one worth addressing guys.

I went to the trouble (above) of laying out a careful, unemotive case for the probable non-existence of God.


----------



## tech/a (10 May 2007)

Robroy

Pretty well sums it up.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (10 May 2007)

Just To lighten the mood every now and then CHEERS   B.B
This from an e-mail jokester from Spain by the name of: irene.henry

The other day I went up to a local Christian bookstore and saw a "honk if you love Jesus" bumper sticker. I was feeling particularly sassy that day because I had just come from a thrilling choir performance, followed by a thunderous prayer meeting, so I bought the sticker and put it on my bumper.

Boy, I'm glad I did! What an uplifting experience followed!

I was stopped at a red light at a busy intersection, just lost in thought about the Lord and how good He is...and I didn't notice that the light had changed. It is a good thing someone else loves Jesus because if he hadn't honked, I'd never have noticed! I found that LOTS of people love Jesus!

While I was sitting there, the guy behind started honking like crazy, and then he leaned out of his window and screamed, "For the love of GOD! GO! GO! Jesus Christ, GO!"

What an exuberant cheerleader he was for Jesus! Everyone started honking! I just leaned out of my window and started waving and smiling at all these loving people. I even honked my horn a few times to share in the love!

There must have been a man from Florida back there because I heard him yelling something about a "sunny beach"... I saw another guy waving in a funny way with only his middle finger stuck up in the air. I asked my teenage grandson in the back seat what that meant, he said that it was probably a Hawaiian good luck sign or something.
Well, I've never met anyone from Hawaii, so I leaned out the window and gave him the good luck sign back. My grandson burst out laughing ... he was enjoying this religious experience, too!

A couple of the people were so caught up in the joy of the moment that they got out of their cars and started walking towards me. I bet they wanted to pray or ask what church I attended, but this is when I noticed the light had changed. So, I waved to all my sisters and brothers grinning, and drove on through the intersection. I noticed I was the only car that got through the intersection before the light changed again and I felt kind of sad that had to leave them after all the love we had shared, so I slowed the car down, leaned out of the window and gave them all the Hawaiian good luck sign one last time as I drove away.

Praise the Lord for such wonderful folks!


----------



## weird (10 May 2007)

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html



> Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
> By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Staff Writer
> 
> posted: 11 August 2005 02:24 pm ET
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> /\ I've just been sworn in as a Jedi Knight. Darth Vader beware




Wayne, a light poem (pun unintended) - probably needs a quick explanation :- Mount Tabor is allegedly where Jesus transfigured / glowed in front of his disciples :-


> Tabor    Mount, a mountain in N Israel, E of Nazareth. 1929 ft. (588 m).    Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary :-
> 
> Now Jebel et-Tur, a cone-like prominent mountain, 11 miles west of the Sea of Galilee. It is about 1,843 feet high. The view from the summit of it is said to be singularly extensive and grand. This is alluded to in Ps. 89:12; Jer. 46:18. .... There is an old tradition, which, however, is unfounded, that it was the scene of the transfiguration of our Lord.



.
Different times and different craving, attitudes to Gods and Tabors
where JC transfigured, waving, told disciples "love thy neigbours"
Different flags are furled and waving, attitudes to life and labours
...
Youngsters chase big surf, ...life saving 
Jedi old men want .....light sabres. 

PS This from a previous post on lyrics thread 


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytNoiQ8LkS8 heaven on their mind 1973
> Comment on youtube :- Pomtiedom, 56 year old dutchman "... I like the way the loneliness of this guy is accentuated by the vastness of the desert around him. Besides that, great performance by Carl Anderson"


----------



## Mousie (10 May 2007)

Robroy said:


> I'm afraid that the argument that a scientist believes in God doesn't cut it as one worth addressing guys.
> 
> I went to the trouble (above) of laying out a careful, unemotive case for the probable non-existence of God.




Unemotive? Probably. Full of logical holes? Definitely.



Robroy said:


> You would just about have to be God yourself to say there was no God and you knew that for sure.




I'm not God. But I believe I'm a less-superior version of God just based on *personal observation* (ie without relying on other sources, and therefore potentially answering the question of "Is there a God?" with FAITH based upon my belief in the accuracy of materials presented to me, as tech/a and a few others on this thread originally and repeatedly requested) of how I am made and how all things nature are made.

Besides, has anyone noticed how, if God does not exist since the beginning of time, we keep on debating these kinda things month after month, year after year, decade after decade, centuries after centuries, even millenia after millenia? Interesting, ain't it?



> But the the reasons a God is highly unlikely IMO are:
> 
> 1. The universe (Big Bang) did not require a supervening force to come into existence, or remain in existence. (Read Paul Davies' 'God & The New Physics' - he outlines it in some detail.) It was capable of doing it spontaneously.




Clearly a faith-based point as defined previously.



> 2. The organic world (life - including us) did not require a God to come into existence either. The spontaneous exchange of sub-cellular information in the primeval soup led to cells...and the rest is history.




Please explain this more clearly in ways all of us can see for ourselves.



> 3. Religion is adaptive (it helped H. sapiens to survive), so we are hard-wired to be inclined to believe in a God. That gives rise to a huge panoply of emotions, deeply-held beliefs and convictions, and cherished ideals (to say nothing of religions, spiritual groups, et al)  - all of them subjective experiences caused by our neural wiring, with no corresponding reality outside of that wiring.




We don't need religion to survive. The last I checked on my atheist friend of 18 years, he's all right (and still an atheist after 18 years). About emotions, they all stem from beliefs of any kind; if we strongly believe in something, there'll be emotions involved. And BTW, these emotions are not all subjective, either - are we not supposed to marvel at the beauty of women? Or at the diversity of sea creatures when scuba diving?



> 4. The human brain has in the last 25 years been sufficiently mapped to give us an understanding of how 'spiritual experiences' arise. (This mainly applies to the more Eastern- and 'inner journey'-oriented God-believers.) E.g. your sense of timelessness arises when one part of the brain is temporarily lulled, your sense of 'the presence of a superior power' arises when another part is stimulated, etc etc. That's why religions chant, pray, meditate and sometimes dance rhythmically: these things lull/stir the central nervous system in the required ways. It's well-understood stuff now.




This scientific finding in itself does not refute the existence of God.



> 5. In the entirety of human history, there has not been a single piece of evidence for the existence of God. This period includes the 200-odd year history of science, and the 100+ year history of cameras, film and audio recording devices. Not a photo, not a single pulse of data - in all of known time.




The entire nature points out God's existence to me, deafeningly loud and clear, even in the silence of the fields.

BTW, photos and films can be doctored, and pulses of data can be manipulated. I can say "I know this is God, here, I took a video of him" and still there'll be plenty of sceptics, and rightfully so. 

Whatever is man-made can be used to deceive; whatever is God-made cannot. With God, (apologies to Wysiwyg) what you see is what you get.



> If you believe in God you do so because your brain (the product of a million years of human and pre-human evolution) has provided you with a religious /spiritual impulse, not because there is anything divine out there, in there, or anywhere else.




I actually partially agree with the first part of the sentence. It only makes sense that we have some kind of impulse to want to relate to the divine because God made us (and all of nature), and he has his signature on us in various ways, so why can not this be in the form of an impulse to want to know all things God?



> I personally find this sad by the way - I understand the desire to have a God in the Universe. But me wanting doesn't make it so.




You don't have to be, really


----------



## retroaugogo (10 May 2007)

The evidence that there is a God, to me is overwhelming.

To the unbelievers,a simple question that deserves a simple answer.

What would it take to turn you from an atheist into a genuine believer?


----------



## stockGURU (10 May 2007)

Which god are we talking about here?

Is everyone who responded in the affirmative a believer in the Christian god or are there believers in other gods out there?


----------



## waza1960 (10 May 2007)

It doesn't matter to me if there is a god or not.I'm 95% athiest,perhaps the other 5% may believe in some form of spirituality however I believe that you can spend too much time and thought on religion.I just concentrate on doing the right thing by my family and everbody I have contact with i.e treat them as I like to be treated and broadly follow the ten commandments but I don't need to be religious to do this.I find that some of the people who are religious do not have high morals but generally if some people need religion as a prop or need to believe I don't have a problem with it as long as they don't impose their views on others.


----------



## imajica (10 May 2007)

GOD is a cultural construct - "we" invented this omnipotent overseer to make ourselves feel comforted - the universe is a chaotic, constantly evolving landscape and we are merely biological products forged from the crucible of its constituencies - to attempt to precict or define what is beyond our comprehension (ie-outside our own solar system - or even beyond the border of the 'infinite' universe) is pointless - it is something we will never witness or fully understand - 

I think the main point must be raised - whether or not ''GOD" exists is irrelevant - the social and cultural effect of the widespread belief in the vast multitude of religions around the world has a real impact in terms of violence, intolerance, civil war, persecution etc

As i have said previously - faith and devotion to any religion involves the participant allowing themselves to become 'infected' with its linguistic and ideological viruses - once they take hold - 'true'' believers are very hard to de-program - religion is merely a manipulative social tool for cementing and propagating a particular agenda - usually a dominant, mysogynistic discourse.


----------



## retroaugogo (10 May 2007)

Interesting that many use the argument that religion is used by the weak for comfort.

The same people state that religion is the cause of all the strife in the world. 

So if all these religious people are so weak and comfortable why are they causing so much strife?


----------



## waza1960 (10 May 2007)

I'm not saying that religious people are weak simply that they have a need to believe to make their world complete.They are unwilling to consider the mysteries of the universe,evolution etc.Believing in religion ties up the loose ends.Some people are a lot stronger with religion but some do unspeakable acts in the name of god


----------



## Happy (10 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Interesting that many use the argument that religion is used by the weak for comfort.
> 
> The same people state that religion is the cause of all the strife in the world.
> 
> So if all these religious people are so weak and comfortable why are they causing so much strife?




Aggressive religious fanaticism could account for some strife.


----------



## tech/a (10 May 2007)

> Besides, has anyone noticed how, if God does not exist since the beginning of time, we keep on debating these kinda things month after month, year after year, decade after decade, centuries after centuries, even millenia after millenia? Interesting, ain't it?




If the human sepecies as we know it were obliterated by say a comet hitting earth.
What would we be left with?
No religion.
Evolution would continue until another life form evolved that had conscious thought.
Would it not be natural as they evolved to then start again with Sun,Mountain,Sea etc worship to explain to the developing mind the un explainable.
Are we so primative that even when we can explain the un explainable we chose to ignore it---for a time anyway.

Many of the Old religious ways of primative people are looked upon as laughable now.
Perhaps in not so many years so to will todays civilisations also be laughed at for their fanaticism and primative beliefs.

Mind you power in religion guarentees a long fight between rational arguement and dogged determination in the spreading of "faith".


----------



## Rafa (10 May 2007)

i can't believe that people still actively purport the myth that is the problems in the world are because of religion...

the problems in this world are becuase of greed, corruption and a quest for power.

religion is just used as a motivating factor, just like race, culture, ethnicity and nationalism! If you take one away, smart politicians will just use another 'divisive' factor to get their way.

the posts on this thread have mostly been so intelligent and informative, its a credit to everyone here...  please don't devalue this thread by trying to throw this overtly simplistic and flawed argument into the mix...

and even if you really believe that religion is the cause of all these problems, that still doesn't mean God exists or doesn't... (which is the topic of this thread)... 

No one here can lay claim to know what God is thinking by saying, if I was God, i wouldn't want this, or i wouldn't do that, or let that happen, etc, etc...

everything happens for a reason... 99% of the time, i have no idea what the reason is...


----------



## retroaugogo (10 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> If the human sepecies as we know it were obliterated by say a comet hitting earth.
> What would we be left with?
> No religion.
> Evolution would continue until another life form evolved that had conscious thought.




Evolutionary scientists themselves started looking at the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism (a bacterium, for example) could result from a chance combining of life building blocks (amino acids, for example). Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10100,000,000,000. 3 

Sir Fred Hoyle, a popular agnostic who wrote Evolution from Space (1981), proposed that such odds were one chance in 1040,000 ("the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747").4

Scientists from various disciplines generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 1050 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). Therefore, whether one chance in 10100,000,000,000 or one chance in 1040,000, the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility. 

3 Harold Marowitz, Energy Flow in Biology, Academic Press, 1968. 
4 Sir Fred Hoyle, Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2007)

imajica said:


> As i have said previously - faith and devotion to any religion involves the participant allowing themselves to become 'infected' with its linguistic and ideological viruses - once they take hold - 'true'' believers are very hard to de-program - religion is merely a manipulative social tool for cementing and propagating a particular agenda - usually a dominant, mysogynistic discourse.



Oh yes!

My only comment on that is that this "meme" you describe not only infects the faithful, it also infects the non-faithfully, for it is this that they are rejecting. In the construction of the atheist argument, and in the anti-religious component of their argument, this meme invariably surfaces in the portrayal of the God they deny.

Is this fair?

Yes and No.

It is fair to reject the meme, but is it fair to reject outright the concept of the Great Kahuna in whatever form it may exist? Not without considering alternatives (many have been discussed here) for it then simply becomes an emotional stance which must be backed up by available logic. (a completely normal human trait)

This logic is compelling, but only within the narrow confines of their programmed judeo/christian "linguistic and ideological viruses". In this regard, atheists are also "very hard to de-program" of the model they reject.

This is a favourite discussion topic of mine and I have made some observations regarding the combatants. The religious are often emotionally  dogmatic and steadfast in rejecting all other considerations. Others find this quite repugnant TBH.

However the most remarkable observation I make is that atheists, though priding themselves in intellect and an inquiring mind, are often identical in this regard (emotionally  dogmatic and steadfast in rejecting all other considerations). I think there is no clearer example of this than Dawkins himself. This man of science can become quite irrational and uses numerous disingenuous arguments to bluster his view forward.

Every discussion on this topic ultimate reverts to this polarized battleground.

It's a nonsense and discredits the debate.

Cheers


----------



## Rafa (10 May 2007)

well said WayneL....

i have always said, that in todays world, especially with everything we know today, to actually beleive in a Big Kahuna requires one to be open minded...

after all, the easiest thing to prove is that God does not exist... coming from a mathematical, engineering backgroud... beleive me, i know a lot about proofs.

I can prove God doens't exist... yet, i know this being (in whatever form its in)... (call it God, the Force, the spirit, etc).... does!


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 May 2007)

The original (open to opinion) inhabitants of individual land masses on earth had a belief in something beyond what was solid or real.Spirits,Dreamtime or Inti for example.So it seems to me groups,races etc. needed something to believe in to maintain social structure.This is the purpose of believing in a god or other.To bond the group, to maintain order.

With so many different groups on the planet then there are going to be as many different beliefs.As the numbers multiply the beliefs will vary too.I really can`t see how social structure will be maintained/controlled with so many beliefs in different gods.The group with the most convincing story will obviously have the most numbers.

Strange enough , in my search for meaning to life and how the mind works I find some of the lines in the bible are really good practices and guidelines to live life by.Though in no way do I limit my belief to one particular following and in this way I am not bound to the words. or am I....The individualist society.


----------



## weird (10 May 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins



> In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design.
> 
> His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he defines as:
> 
> ...


----------



## Sean K (10 May 2007)

Of course!


----------



## allan998 (10 May 2007)

Take a swag, camp in the outback and have a look at the Milky Way on a clear crisp night.
The big bang created all of that and what created the big bang?I am calling him God.


----------



## Sean K (10 May 2007)

allan998 said:


> Take a swag, camp in the outback and have a look at the Milky Way on a clear crisp night.
> The big bang created all of that and what created the big bang?I am calling him God.



And what created that particular God?


----------



## Bobby (10 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> This is a favourite discussion topic of mine




Hello Wayne,

I found that post clever & interesting   looking forward to more.

Have Fun
Bobby.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

allan998 said:


> Take a swag, camp in the outback and have a look at the Milky Way on a clear crisp night.
> The big bang created all of that and what created the big bang? I am calling him God.



When I look at the stars I think of Galileo, who was clever enough to reason from that that the earth moved around the sun, (maths in motion) and was placed in house arrest by the Pope until he died 9 years later  
Surely the Galileo incident did nothing to help the cred of the church.


> Met an old man loved star-gazing, sat me down and pointed skyward
> Love those fires  (kind eyes blazing), (searched the darkness for more firewood)
> Many way's to see them sonny, Heavens, Gods, astronomy,
> So much better gods than money, find your own autonomy.
> ...




I copy this from a previous post  (to Bloveld who introduced Semmelweis award)
I think Galileo 1564 - 1642 takes the cake for the Semmelweis award, at least for the 17th century - over his opinion that the Earth revolved round the sun, although the church insisted otherwise. "G was forced to recant his views and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Following his recantation, G is said to have murmured Eppur si Muove (still itmoves). He was finally cleared of heresy by a Vatican commission in 1992!" Who said the church wasnt heavily into forgiveness. 



> Church controversy- the Galileo affair
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
> Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
> Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, …. By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas…. For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy.
> ...


----------



## Sean K (10 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> When I look at the stars I think of Galileo, who was clever enough to reason from that that the earth moved around the sun, (maths in motion) and was placed in house arrest by the Pope until he died 9 years later



I'm not sure how Galileo got into this (is he God?  ) but criticising religion for its follys probably shouldn't be in this thread. It's man (and women) who has been the construct of our blundering through history. Plenty of non believers have turned the gas switch on, as but one example. I'm sure there will be plenty more to come now that atheism is almost an acceptable philosophy of life. 

I do very much like the Galileo story though. The Catholics probably still think it was cool. Thanks!


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

PS Allan, saying that God created the big bang is ok by me.  (and having set it in motion has been watching on since).  

Even Weird's proposal that evolution is all ok (which is what cdk007 said incidentally) - granted a few riders that God somehow planned it that way, which I find a fairly severely watered down version of creationism.  

But having the Pope tell us that it is God's will that third world countries don't use condoms, or that he is the arbiter of what is or isn't moral   (etc )   what the??

Kennas -  ok lol - guilty as charged.  I've linked the church with the concept of God.. 

Question (to myself)  is it possible to separate them ? 
answer , I guess it is , at least if you try hard lol - certainly results in more harmonious discussion lol.

PS there have been other threads about religion as you say, and usually a lot of bruises and black eyes  

PS I guess I defend reference to Galileo becos he wos the father of the cosmos (scientifically speaking - well at least one of them - many a paternity suit argued out in scientific court there as well ) and kinda relevant in that the current Pope has just stated that he is "cool" with evolution 
- lol even the church is evolving !


----------



## weird (10 May 2007)

Thanks 2020hindsight.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.php



> # Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
> Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


----------



## allan998 (10 May 2007)

kennas said:


> And what created that particular God?




I will leave that question to others  to bust their brain cells over.


----------



## heads up (10 May 2007)

Galileo, who, asserted a scientific truth of profound importance denied it when faced with torture and death. To tell the truth is a futile exercise.


----------



## weird (10 May 2007)

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp



> Tortured for His Beliefs?
> 
> 
> In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not””as is commonly supposed””under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

weird said:


> Thanks 2020hindsight.
> 
> 
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.php



All true weird,
I included this as the second quote on long post of his quotes back there ...


> It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."



Incidentally, I omitted the one about "God does not throw dice" because it is probably one where he has (arguably) been proven wrong (Uncertainty Principle etc).  But having said that  - I accept that he was a romantic, loved the world, loved learning about it's ways, and sure, had a name for what started the big bang ( as you and Allan have referred to) - and yep it was God.

And he mentions god (or God if you prefer) several times in those quotes.

In the end, the thread is open to many interpretations is it not - I mean 
God? Y/N
Interventionist?  Y/N
listens to prayers? Y/N
walks through walls?  Y/N
etc etc  ( could fill up the 10000 word limit (again lol)

PS should we spell that god of God?
Bit like are you a small "l" liberal ? or a capital "L" ? 
Personally I'm happy to spell that "god" - although, since he's related to Mother Nature (who I love ) , I guess I could promote him to "God"    semantics? sure it is.

PS the following link to poetry thread only if you're having trouble getting to sleep lol

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88164&highlight=exceedingly#post88164


----------



## Bobby (10 May 2007)

heads up said:


> Galileo, who, asserted a scientific truth of profound importance denied it when faced with torture and death. To tell the truth is a futile exercise.




Spot on mate, you see it so often today !   

Bobby.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

weird said:


> http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp



oh boy - nice bit of damage control lol.
The point is he was charged with heresy   by an authority that claimed ( still claims) to know all about everything .

I like one aspect about the latest Pope - I get the feeling he reads Scientific American for instance - to learn about things lol - just a guess lol.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 May 2007)

> The original (open to opinion) inhabitants of individual land masses on earth had a belief in something beyond what was solid or real.Spirits,Dreamtime or Inti for example.




In the days when people did not know how nature worked they came up with all sorts of ideas and explanations.*The greatest ignorance is to hold these old beliefs from those who did not know into our present world.*


----------



## weird (10 May 2007)

Do not really get this line of argument, you have just read in these posts that some of the our most brilliant scientists of our time, that have contributed to our present knowledge  ... still hold these 'old beliefs'

And if anything , their work in the cutting edge of discoveries has only reaffirmed these 'old beliefs' in God.


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (10 May 2007)

To the question "Is there a God?". Yes.

The Bible gives us an infallible account of the entire history of our planet, including it's creation.

There is evidence all around us to support the Bible account.

One that I have recently read is how canyons form. The average atheist evolutionist will say that it took millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. However, there is no evidence to support this statement.

They simply make up a number, and that's their evidence. Why not make it trillions?

There is, however, evidence to support rapid formation of canyons, including the Grand Canyon.

If the world was covered in water, as recorded in the Bible, the Grand Canyon could have formed very quickly, as the waters receeded from the land, rapidly carving a massive canyon. The land would have been nice and soft as well after a couple of months of being underwater. 

Evolutionists will disagree though, and say that it was the river that gradually took millions of years to erode the Canyon.

In recent times, huge canyons have been seen to form in a matter of days from large volumes of water rushing through them.

All evidence points to the Bible's account of a flood, which must then cause people to ask themselves, could the rest of the Bible also be true?


----------



## nizar (10 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> *QUESTION*
> 
> Anyone who is 100% sure there is a God care to explain how they are this way?---Other than Faith.





*ANSWER*
If you really want to know, i suggest you read the Qur'an. It was written around 600AD. So 1400+ years ago. And have a look at some of the facts mentioned regarding the universe (no, not your trading universe LOL ), medicine, anatomy, embryology, and look at when these facts were known from Science (centuries later) and then think about WHO could have known this back in the 600s.

Then you may find your answer.

Many non-Muslim scholars (often renowned for other works) have studied the Qur'an and its miracles and their results are in the public arena if you are keen to follow up.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> In the days when people did not know how nature worked they came up with all sorts of ideas and explanations.*The greatest ignorance is to hold these old beliefs from those who did not know into our present world.*



no argument from me wysiwyg 
And I'd bet London to a brick that 
a) JC lived, 
b) he had some great ideas, and yet
c) he thought the earth was flat. 

(and if he DID know that the earth moved around the sun, it's a shame he didn't mention it to his disciples, so that the first Pope - and subsequent - could've been better prepared for his role as expert on everything. 

Here's another question which might test whether we're prepared to treat this as a scientific question, or something we were taught in Sunday School.

Does it matter if we blaspheme? i.e. Does this life-force that set the earth going back at the big bang 
d) even listen in on conversations, let alone 
e) care what is said ? 

I would argue that our consciences are where this grand plan catches up with us.  It's an internal thing - nothing to do with an external force. 

fwiw, I also think that apes are almost identical to us, - morals, social interaction etc - possibly spend more time nude, and possibly eat bananas unpeeled - but otherwise ....the same, if not pretty damned similar


----------



## weird (10 May 2007)

Hi AnalysisParalysis,

As also a Christian, I am sorry to say that I do not completely believe the stories of ‘creation’ as told in the ‘old testament’ as necessarily literally accurate. 

Genesis is an interesting book. My priest actually pointed this out to me, creation is actually told twice ... as I believe there were two popular accounts at the time, and as a result they were simply placed one after the other in the book. My thoughts are more inline with Collins' (the scientist I mentioned earlier). 

The Catholic stance on ‘creation’ is quite abit more liberal compared to the more fundamentalists ...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp



> Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4).




Ones interpretation of how creation is told in Genesis, as told as two different stories ... should not have any bearing or influence on one’s belief in the actual existence of a God.


----------



## professor_frink (10 May 2007)

nizar said:


> *ANSWER*
> If you really want to know, i suggest you read the Qur'an. It was written around 600AD. So 1400+ years ago. And have a look at some of the facts mentioned regarding the universe (no, not your trading universe LOL ), medicine, anatomy, embryology, and look at when these facts were known from Science (centuries later) and then think about WHO could have known this back in the 600s.
> 
> Then you may find your answer.
> ...




Nizar, would be able some names/links to information? Not that I'm doubting your statement, I'm just too lazy to try and find info on it myself without being pointed in the right direction


----------



## Mofra (10 May 2007)

AnalysisParalysis said:


> One that I have recently read is how canyons form. The average atheist evolutionist will say that it took millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. However, there is no evidence to support this statement.
> 
> They simply make up a number, and that's their evidence. Why not make it trillions?



Perhaps at least a quick google search will give you some idea. Unlike fictional stories collated & edited into an ancient text, geology has strict guidelines of scientific stuidy that are adhered to.

Quick question for the bible theorists - why are there no account of dinosaurs in the bible? Were fossils created by an untrusting God to test our faith?


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (10 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> fwiw, I also think that apes are almost identical to us, - morals, social interaction etc - possibly spend more time nude, and possibly eat bananas unpeeled - but otherwise ....the same, if not pretty damned similar




Mankind has free will. We have knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, and are able to choose to do either.

Animals live by instinct. Strongest survive etc.


----------



## Rough_Trade (10 May 2007)

AnalysisParalysis said:


> the Grand Canyon could have formed very quickly, as the waters receeded from the land, rapidly carving a massive canyon. The land would have been nice and soft as well after a couple of months of being underwater.




You have given a valid scientific theory on how the Grand Canyon could have been formed. 
I thought you were trying to prove that god does exist.


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2007)

The sh!te meter is starting to rise in this thread.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

AnalysisParalysis said:


> One that I have recently read is how canyons form. The average atheist evolutionist will say that it took millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. However, there is no evidence to support this statement



Now you're onto something, AP - there are massive canyons on Mars as well ! 
Is it the same God do you reckon?
Maybe the difference is .....mmmm,  over on Mars, Noah's equivalent was a lousy shipbuilder, and it sank, all hands lost   (and paws, and hooves, and webbed feet, and wings and ...)

Did you see that post about "(strict) creationists wrong (oops)" - the weight of all the INSECTS on Earth (just the insects!) would have been enough to sink the Ark


----------



## Bobby (10 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> The sh!te meter is starting to rise in this thread.




Wayne,

Lets see how it goes, don't step in yet.

Cheers 
Bobby.

P.S. please.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 May 2007)

While a god may be the reason for many , before thinking man came along (from who or where )the earth was in perfect balance.
The right amount of all life forms (and the terrain) for each to live off the other.At the top of the food chain the numbers were small..at the lower end the numbers were many.Thinking man is the only life form that can defy the laws of nature.This does not make sense. 

2020..gee your   jar must be getting low.

p.s. .. or you have piles..


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Just To lighten the mood every now and then CHEERS   B.B.....
> 
> .... A couple of the people were so caught up in the joy of the moment that they got out of their cars and started walking towards me. I bet they wanted to pray or ask what church I attended, but this is when I noticed the light had changed. So, I waved to all my sisters and brothers grinning, and drove on through the intersection. I noticed I was the only car that got through the intersection before the light changed again and I felt kind of sad that had to leave them after all the love we had shared, so I slowed the car down, leaned out of the window and gave them all the Hawaiian good luck sign one last time as I drove away.  Praise the Lord for such wonderful folks!



lol - good one BB - couldn't help thinking of Ned Flanders (as in Homer Simpsons neighbour)

Wysiwyg - Piles? you mean like the bloke that went to the fancy dress ball as a jetty lol. 
If you're referring to my swear jar, then yes , that's my principal retirement fund  
Good point about Man-the-intelligent being the principal species responsible for stuffing things up. 
As someone said, when Noah was collecting the animals it's a shame that man didnt miss the boat.


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (10 May 2007)

Mofra said:


> Perhaps at least a quick google search will give you some idea. Unlike fictional stories collated & edited into an ancient text, geology has strict guidelines of scientific stuidy that are adhered to.
> 
> Quick question for the bible theorists - why are there no account of dinosaurs in the bible? Were fossils created by an untrusting God to test our faith?




As there are fossils of dinosaurs, we know that they existed. The Bible tells us of a worldwide flood, where God destroyed everything on the planet, save Noah and his family, and the animals he had on board.

Apparently only a few dinosaurs grew really big, and possibly only because they lived for a long time. Climate change after the flood, coupled with increased disease and the like, would explain why many species became extinct. Noah probably had some species of dinosaur on board, apparently the average size of a dinosaur was only about the size of a sheep. Presumably he had some young adults of various species with him. Again, a lot of species became extinct, much like today we have animals becoming extinct due to the climate and environment being unable to sustain them.

The word dinosaur is only a couple of hundred of years old, so this would explain it's absence from the Bible.

The Bible does mention large creatures. God talks to Job about a "behemoth", that "moves it's tail like a cedar tree", as an example. An elephant has a very small tail, so it   would have been a Brachiasaurus or similar. Job 40: 15-19

Fossils of fish are found at tops of mountains. A worldwide flood would explain  this. 

Evidence points to dinosaurs co-existing with man, such as Indian cave drawings of dinosaurs and man together.  

Isa 30:6 talks of a fiery flying serpent, which may have been a pterydactyl.

Malachi 1:3 mentions "dragons of the wilderness".


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (10 May 2007)

Yes, I'm pulling most of this from a website.


----------



## nomore4s (10 May 2007)

AnalysisParalysis said:


> The Bible tells us of a worldwide flood, where God destroyed everything on the planet, *save Noah and his family*, and the animals he had on board.




If this is true, it means everyone on this planet is related and there has been a bit of interbreeding going on   . lol could explain a few things about todays world .
Noah and his family must have been good breeders thats all I can say.

Disclaimer: Please do not take this seriously.


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2007)

nomore4s said:


> If this is true, it means everyone on this planet is related and there has been a bit of interbreeding going on   . lol could explain a few things about todays world .
> Noah and his family must have been good breeders thats all I can say.
> 
> Disclaimer: Please do not take this seriously.



Actually, this something that evolutionists and creationists can agree on, that all humanity has descended from one single pair (backed by DNA evidence apparently)


----------



## nomore4s (10 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> Actually, this something that evolutionists and creationists can agree on, that all humanity has descended from one single pair (backed by DNA evidence apparently)




lol, Well there you go we are all interbred. They were obivously very good breeders.


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2007)

nomore4s said:


> lol, Well there you go *we are all interbred.* They were obivously very good breeders.



Humanity must have originally started somewhere in the Appalachians then


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> ...has descended from one single pair (backed by DNA evidence apparently)



And it wasn't the apple on the tree that was the problem - it was the pear in the bushes.!

interbreeding ? ahh  Incest - a game the whole family can enjoy .
Everythings relative as they say - In fact where I come from everyone's a relative as well.  Go to family reunions to pick up chicks, lol 

Thought for the day ... We must respect another fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.  :1 one cent 

Thought for the day after tomorrow week tuesday :  It is conceivable that religion may be morally useful without being intellectually sustainable.  John Stuart Mill 1806-1873.  (MD, PhD, DSO, VC+bar, OAM, ASX, MABC, DNA, KBE)


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> And it wasn't the apple on the tree that was the problem - it was the pear in the bushes.!



_Sans_ fig leaves I imagine.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 May 2007)

God? Y/N
got it going ? Y/N
could care less where it ends up? Y/N

jumps tall buildings in a single bound? Y/N
needs a short run up to jump tall buildings? Y/N
Jumps your average 2 story duplex with the help of a pogo stick? Y/N 
Once crawled over a small fence with the help of a leg-up from his mate Bhuddha ? Y/N

Faster than a speeding bullet? Y/N
about as fast as you'd expect for an old codger running? Y/N
has a sense of humour? Y/N

Listens in on all earthly conversations? Y/N
simultaneously? Y/N  
needs the help of several translators rostered on to assist? Y/N
Listens in to 2GB and 2CH and 2UE and 2BL concurrently? Y/N 
And is an especially big fan of Media Watch? Y/N
Knows all human thoughts? Y/N
Knows all ape thoughts? Y/N
Never forgets a single thing? Y/N
Has strict policy of not bowing to request for a remark of that final examination paper - you get 51 you're in , you get 49 you're out - judge's decision is final, and no discussion will be entered into , 
And I'm sorry Mr Mcenroe, but you and I both know that that ball really was out, don't we !, etc


----------



## Rough_Trade (11 May 2007)

AnalysisParalysis said:


> Yes, I'm pulling most of this from a website.



I thought you were pulling it from your ......


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (11 May 2007)

Rough_Trade said:


> You have given a valid scientific theory on how the Grand Canyon could have been formed.
> I thought you were trying to prove that god does exist.




Flood happened = Bible  true = God exists.


----------



## AJ_ (11 May 2007)

A few have commented on religion as being 'a prop' etc, but i'd like to suggest that being a Christian (i'm not meaning someone who calls themselves a christian because they go to church on easter and christmas, but someone who is a christ follower) is the total opposite of a prop...

True knowing that there is a God can bring comfort and hope, but to follow the teachings of Jesus, takes a lot of courage and guts in a world that as I can see, has no interest in God.

It takes courage and strength to turn away from sin and walk God's way.  It takes courage and strength to stand up against the peer pressures. It takes courage for the person on the job to take a stand against low humor, pornography, indecency and bad language.  

It takes courage to 'have faith' and trust in a God that you may not be able to pyhsically see, it takes courage to 'turn the other cheek', 'walk the extra mile', 

Anyway, my point is, being a christian is not all a nice happy life, just look at the life of jesus and a lot of the other early christians in the Bible, who lived under persecution, or the many thousands of christians in countries such as china, north korea, india etc, who face imprisonment, torture and death because of their faith in a God that does exist...


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (11 May 2007)

weird said:


> Hi AnalysisParalysis,
> 
> As also a Christian, I am sorry to say that I do not completely believe the stories of ‘creation’ as told in the ‘old testament’ as necessarily literally accurate.
> 
> ...




That's interesting, I did read it. Then I found this.

It makes no sense of Exodus 20:9–11.

    ‘Six days you shall labor and do all your work.

    ‘But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. You shall not do any work …

    ‘For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.’

The six days of creation and day of rest are exactly the same as those of the command to work six ordinary days and rest on the seventh. The passage is certainly not teaching an eternal weekend.


----------



## Rough_Trade (11 May 2007)

AJ_ said:


> It takes courage and strength to stand up against the peer pressures. It takes courage for the person on the job to take a stand against low humor, pornography, indecency and bad language.
> 
> It takes courage to 'have faith' and trust in a God that you may not be able to pyhsically see, it takes courage to 'turn the other cheek', 'walk the extra mile',




Are you stating this can only be achieved by following god?


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2007)

Another thing that has me confused is how far will man/woman get before before something is done about the destruction. We are born into this life and deal with what is happening the best (or worst) way we know how.From our parents and teachers and the undesirables we learn how to get through life but I`ll be hanged,drawn and quartered if they taught me how to care for the planet.
Island life taught me about recycling and not to waste food and water(or you get fed to the sharks).We get born,go to school ( I wish I was a kid forever)get taught how to wead & wight then off to work we trot.We go to work `cause ya needs the money son.Wiff da money you buy da food,wiff da money you buy da clothes and wiff da money you buy da house.So pack ya bags and pee off. And good luck.
25 years (good luck,bad luck.. who knows) later, after more slips,trips,falls,mistakes,babies,fights,drinks,crashes,pain,joy,happiness,laughs,contentment....  (the big picture ..not a pixel) I see that the same system still exists.  Is there no other way?



> It and strength takes courage  to turn away from sin and walk God's way. It takes courage and strength to stand up against the peer pressures. It takes courage for the person on the job to take a stand against low humor, pornography, indecency and bad language.




AJ Hi,every single human being on this earth sins every day.I have many examples if anyone doubts this.You cannot be human and not sin.Investing in shares is one to begin with.


----------



## Bobby (11 May 2007)

What I wish to know is the numbers of new members who have signed up in the last week that voted ?

Did they  increase the numbers  up  top    


Bobby


----------



## Robroy (11 May 2007)

Someone asked 'Which God are we talking about?'

Which is a fair enough question, given that there are thousands of them, even between the monotheists.

If it's the Christian God, allow me to add a layer to my previous post: the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, and an awful lot of miraculous New Testament stuff, was added to Christian scripture early in the fourth century when the Roman Empire took over the Church. (The Church version is that the Emperor Constantine was converted.)

There was no belief as to Jesus' resurrection before then - e.g. by the surviving apostles, in the years after his death - at least not according to the earliest Christian documents.

Mousie, I don't understand your first paragraph, but below that you said:

"...has anyone noticed how, if God does not exist since the beginning of time, we keep on debating these kinda things month after month, year after year, decade after decade, centuries after centuries, even millenia after millenia? Interesting, ain't it?"

I think that just underlines my point about our religious hard wiring. It goes back millennia (the singular is 'millennium' BTW), and will no doubt be around for as long as we're here (about another 50 years or so, the way global warming is going). It doesn't say anything about the existence of God, just about our proclivity to believe.

The creation of the Universe by the Big Bang is not faith-based, it's the hypothesis for which we have by far the most evidence. Do some reading in the physics field and you will see what I mean.

You asked me to explain more clearly how organic life arose spontaneously. I could try - but I'm not an organic chemist, so I would refer you to the works of Richard Dawkins, who describes the original process of the creation of life - and outlines the voluminous evidence for it - in several thick books, such as 'The Selfish Gene'.


"We don't need religion to survive." (Etc.)

I think you're confusing your atheist friend's survival with 'survival' of our species in the evolutionary sense. You really have to do some reading on evolution - it's how you got here after all - so we can discuss this with a bit of common ground.

Basically, religion gave us meaning and bound communities together, and provided moral codes, which helped Homo Sapiens hunting bands to survive bleak winters, sabre-toothed tigers, each other, etc.


It's true that the scientific findings on the brain don't refute the existence of God. But they do refute the claim that 'divine' experiences are proof of God.


"The entire nature points out God's existence to me, deafeningly loud and clear, even in the silence of the fields."

I had that same feeling for many years. Sadly, I have been cured by education. I am adapted by evolution to feel that way. I am also adapted by evolution to love my children more than yours. That doesn't objectively prove that my children are better (or more loveable) than yours. It merely proves that the impulse is there in me.

Mousie you stated several times over that God exists - without offering any evidence as yet.

I've presented my evidence. Now it's your turn.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 May 2007)

> SEVEN DAYS TO MAKE IT, SEVEN DAYS TO BREAK IT.
> 
> On Monday I woke to a world of “green”
> And I walked in a forest grand,
> ...




PS I read about a letter some bloke found in amongst the Dead Sea scrolls - now in a museum in Israel or Turkey or somewhere,..
"Dear God, I know you told me to get two of each and every animal and bird and frog and insect and stuff, but, gee, I wish you'd given me a bit more notice.  For instance those kangaroos - sheesh, did the missus and I have trouble catching two of those. Finding a Tasmanian Tiger proved a bit difficult as well, but our perseverence paid off.  Then the Siberian Tiger refused to settle down, kept picking a fight with the American Mountain Lion, mumbling something about politics or the Cuban crisis or something.   Fortunately winds around the Horn were favourable, and only about 40 metre seas, so dead simple really, once we strapped the elephants in nice and snug, having worked out which end was their tail.  Sorry the parchment is a bit stained, but we took a big wave over the bow the other day and everything got soaked - including the Tucan and the Kiwi and the Emu and the 34,041 other species on board.  The Albatrosses took off as soon as we caught them, - just scarpered - just refused to accept my argument that they'd regret it - they reckon that I didn't know what I was talking about !! Not sure if I got all the animals, but I got as many as I could in the couple of weeks available - If you're going to send down another flood, maybe give me a shopping list.  Thanks. N."

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88165&highlight=inmates#post88165


> ...... Take a slab of sleeping grizzly, take some bullhorns large,
> Teach me when to hibernate, teach me when to charge;
> -Teach me horse’s flowing manes,
> -Over fields where freedom reigns,
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 May 2007)

Robroy said:


> the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, and an awful lot of miraculous New Testament stuff, was added to Christian scripture early in the fourth century when the Roman Empire took over the Church. (The Church version is that the Emperor Constantine was converted.) There was no belief as to Jesus' resurrection before then - e.g. by the surviving apostles, in the years after his death - at least not according to the earliest Christian documents.



Wow, that's interesting, and would obviously be very controversial - Is this covered in any of those references you mention, Rob.?


Wysiwyg said:


> Another thing that has me confused is how far will man/woman get before before something is done about the destruction .We are born into this life and deal with what is happening the best (or worst) way we know how.From our parents and teachers and the undesirables we learn how to get through life but I`ll be hanged,drawn and quartered if they taught me how to care for the planet.
> Island life taught me about recycling and not to waste food and water(or you get fed to the sharks).We get born,go to school ( I wish I was a kid forever)get taught how to wead & wight then off to work we trot.We go to work `cause ya needs the money son.Wiff da money you buy da food,wiff da money you buy da clothes and wiff da money you buy da house.So pack ya bags and pee off. And good luck.
> 25 years (good luck,bad luck.. who knows) later , after more slips,trips,falls,mistakes,babies,fights,drinks,crashes,pain,joy,happiness,laughs,contentment....  (the big picture ..not a pixel) I see that the same system still exists.  Is there no other way?



Lol - funny dude. lovely summary of life mate   As for the destruction bit  - man is hopeless - and many would also say now beyond hope .  
(PS I suspect God's plan was that we spend at least as much time thinking about THIS planet as we do thinking about the next one, whereever he has that parked.  Maybe exercise that grey matter between our bludy ears - for the (unselfish) good of all - maybe that's what he figured we'd be able to do. - sadly he seems to have been overly optimistic on that score - some might say he screwed up even.   : 2twocents)

Father to teenage son:- "So pack da bags and pee off,  now while you know everything.."


----------



## weird (11 May 2007)

Robroy said:


> Someone asked 'Which God are we talking about?'
> 
> If it's the Christian God, allow me to add a layer to my previous post: the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, and an awful lot of miraculous New Testament stuff, was added to Christian scripture early in the fourth century when the Roman Empire took over the Church. (The Church version is that the Emperor Constantine was converted.)




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Virgin_Mary

And as a starting reply to debunking the 'Da Vinci code' ...

"By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, Christians were already in broad agreement about which books were genuine and ought to be read as holy scripture in the churches.  There was never really any doubt that the books called Matthew, Mark , Luke and John, contained the true account of Jesus.
- Source: Is it Worth Believing ? Greg Clarke.


----------



## $20shoes (11 May 2007)

Robroy said:


> Someone asked 'Which God are we talking about?'
> 
> I had that same feeling for many years. Sadly, I have been cured by education. I am adapted by evolution to feel that way. I am also adapted by evolution to love my children more than yours. That doesn't objectively prove that my children are better (or more loveable) than yours. It merely proves that the impulse is there in me.
> 
> ...




My issue with this argument is that with science we can analyse and present evidence simply because we have a theory and we prove it. Eg, earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, AIDS is a homosexual disease: long before we have the foresight to question these things, these fallacies are as much a part of the human consciousness/belief system as the suppositions we now hold dear.  

That is, with time, the human race has discovered certain things we believe to be incontrovertible truths. But our endeavours, our discoveries are boxed within the framework of human understanding and rationality and seem to be limited to linear time. Such as DNA - the human body has always been there, but 17th century doctors no more conceived this than a means of sending digital data down a thin, flexible glass pipe at light speed. 

If a=b+c, then c=a-b, right?

My take on it is YES, FOR NOW.

If you take it there is a GOD, then no theorem can hope to define something that is completely immeasurable. 

And if you have proven that "c" does that mean there is not a "d(c)" somewhere around the corner.  People of faith hold to a theory that does not really change - That art Thou (or a similar construct) - forever and a day. Science holds to laws that are much more mutable and one-day we may discover yet more about the universe we spin around in. 

For now, we cannot rationalise the irrational - some people can live with faith, others need logic. The melding of the two is not sensible. The proving of one thing does not disprove the other. For many, even the evidence of no god, is of God, since everything is God.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 May 2007)

Robroy said:


> I had that same feeling for many years. Sadly, I have been cured by education.



just picking up on this one sentence of your excellent post Rob, (among many other excellent posts).
"We do not have the same sense of awe and reverence when we see a rainbow as does a primitive native,  simply because we understand what causes it.  We have lost as much as we have gained in delving into the matter."  

We've lost sure, and that's sad - but then again, we have to 
a) face the reality of light refracting in spherical droplets, and
b) if we want to remain a romantic, somehow love the concept and enjoy and enthuse in the beauty nonetheless


----------



## Julia (11 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Another thing that has me confused is how far will man/woman get before before something is done about the destruction. We are born into this life and deal with what is happening the best (or worst) way we know how.From our parents and teachers and the undesirables we learn how to get through life but I`ll be hanged,drawn and quartered if they taught me how to care for the planet.
> Island life taught me about recycling and not to waste food and water(or you get fed to the sharks).We get born,go to school ( I wish I was a kid forever)get taught how to wead & wight then off to work we trot.We go to work `cause ya needs the money son.Wiff da money you buy da food,wiff da money you buy da clothes and wiff da money you buy da house.So pack ya bags and pee off. And good luck.
> 25 years (good luck,bad luck.. who knows) later, after more slips,trips,falls,mistakes,babies,fights,drinks,crashes,pain,joy,happiness,laughs,contentment....  (the big picture ..not a pixel) I see that the same system still exists.  Is there no other way?
> 
> ...



Why exactly is investing in shares a sin???


----------



## Julia (11 May 2007)

AJ_ said:


> True knowing that there is a God can bring comfort and hope, but to follow the teachings of Jesus, takes a lot of courage and guts in a world that as I can see, has no interest in God.
> 
> It takes courage and strength to turn away from sin and walk God's way.  It takes courage and strength to stand up against the peer pressures. It takes courage for the person on the job to take a stand against low humor, pornography, indecency and bad language.
> 
> ...




Plenty of people manage to do the above without necessarily believing in God, though personally under certain circumstances  I find the odd bit of bad language is  entirely appropriate and satisfying.


----------



## disarray (11 May 2007)

the belief in the existence of a universally supreme being who loves humanity, takes a personal interest in the day to day mundanity of our lives and offers an eternal existence once the flesh dies is the height of human arrogance. we are so special god loves us most out of everything in an infinite universe? sure ....

go to the hubble space telescope site and look at some pictures of the universe. to comprehend such a scale and then somehow be able to relate all that hugeness to some 6 thousand year old mythical construct is delusional. i understand people need spirituality, but people should look further than the rantings of 6000 year old madmen.

any creature of sufficiently advanced technology and intelligence could appear as "godlike" to us, as we must seem godlike to cats and dogs. every day our doctors perform "miracles" that were unheard of 50 years ago, let alone 2000 (cure for leprosy anyone?). we create matter out of thin air, smash atoms together in particle accelerators and are about to form black holes in the laboratory. we are tinkering with the fundamental structure of the universe and there is no place for our current concept of "god" there. there is something however that is far more comforting - its called "nature".

noahs flood - many cultures have a "great flood" story. a good theory doing the rounds is that a very early civilisation living in the black sea basin got flushed out due to rising sea levels at the end of the last ice age and its descendents spread the word.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

human ancestry - we all evolved in africa 60 thousand years ago. we can track genetic markers to follow the migration of humans throughout the world.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

the nature of the universe - looking at the 10th dimension

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

playing with the fundamental forces of the universe at cern

http://unisci.com/stories/20014/1001012.htm

our current concept of god is primitive and outdated. as early christians laughed at fire worshipping pagans as primitive savages, so we can view christians / jews / muslims of today the same way. god needs an overhaul. 

do humans need spirituality? a sense of place in an infinite universe? an acceptance of where we come from and where we go after we die? yes.

do we need a 6000 year old myth to tell us where to find this? no.

we need to kill god, but first we need a new spirituality, a new morality to fill the void. then maybe the world will be a better place.

p.s. for the christians - the Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5327692


----------



## Rafa (11 May 2007)

Julia said:


> I find the odd bit of bad language is  entirely appropriate and satisfying.




  


yes, why exactly is investing in shares a sin...? 
its crap like this that makes people turn away from organised religion and GOD.


We really need to be sure that what comes from the mouth of ‘man’, is dealt with as such…

Its like the whole world is round thing… it has nothing to with Jesus / GOD. Everything to do with religious institutions in a desperate attempt to hold onto power.

That still happens to this day… you don’t have to go much further than Johnny Howard, with the children overboard saga… Didn’t see him get voted out for that… after all its just politics.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Why exactly is investing in shares a sin???



Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..

Gluttony ,greed and wrath are three sins that being involved in shares brings out.
Here is what ASX determines as ethical ...
Ethical investing
Many investors want their investment holdings to reflect their values, and support companies that behave in ways they consider appropriate or responsible.  That is why growing numbers are getting behind investment managers that are perceived to be doing the right thing on a range of ethical, social and environmental issues.

BUT..my reasoning is that polluting the earth is a sin.All companies to a *greater* or *lesser* degree contribute to the pollution.In the products they use :steels,plastics,paints,rubbers,glass,paper,ceramics (have a look around there`s more).These products,although some are recycled, MOST goes to the hole in the ground near your city or town.

Good day to you ma`am.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 May 2007)

An example of how you have to define your terms :-
a sin in archery means you missed the bullseye.
And a greater the distance you miss by, the bigger the sin 

I wonder if that also applies for guilt-edged swords ? 

Is making a motsa on the market  sinful? - depends on what you do with the money (is my guess)   
(and is losing a motsa sinful? lol - probably, again depends on what you would have done with etc)

Is gambling at the STAR casino beyond your means sinful? 
Is gambling on the ASX casino beyond your means sinful? 
What do you mean by beyond your means?
Is it a sin to take a profit?
Is it a sin not to take a profit?  ahhh SHUDDUP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin


> Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation. The English word *sin was originally an archery term*. The distance from the center of the *bullseye to the point where an arrow struck is known as the 'sin of the arrow'*. Sin is often used meaning an action thought of as wrong or prohibited however in some religions (most notably Christianity), sin or sinning is not something that is done but rather a state of mind.
> 
> In monotheistic religions, the code of conduct is determined by God. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienative might be termed "sinful".
> 
> ...




Like the priest in the pulpit going through the ten commandments ..
couldn't help noticing a bloke in the 5th row get really agitated when he said "though shalt not steal" - and he determined to talk to him after the service to see what was troubling him.  But when he got to the "though shalt not commit adultery" the fellow seemed to relax. 

Meeting him on the way out he asked the man why  etcetc.
well said the fellow, when you said "thou shalt not steal", I thought "where the heck's my coat!!"   but then when you said "thou shalt not commit adultery" I remembered where I'd left it. 
(sheesh !!! how OLD are these jokes  )


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 May 2007)

In the buddhist sense, I'd say any gambling is a "negative" and "far too likely to lead to suffering" - but not a sin, mainly because they don't have sins (according to Wikipedia anyway)  
just a guess, I'll happily be corrected by someone who knows Buddhism better than I.

In summary, it would seem that in most religions, 
"if you win, then its no sin
if you lose, it's ..
back to the booze(?)"



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin Buddhist views of sin
> Buddhism doesn't recognize the idea behind Sin because in Buddhism, instead, there is a Cause-Effect Theory, known as Karma, or action. In general, Buddhism illustrates intentions as the cause of Karma, either good or bad. Furthermore, most thoughts in any being's mind can be negative.
> 
> Vipaka, the result of your Karma, may create low quality living, hardships, destruction and all means of disharmony in life and it may also create the healthy living, easiness, and harmony in life. Good deeds produce good results while bad deeds produce bad results. Karma and Vipaka is your own action and result.
> ...


----------



## Mousie (11 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> If the human sepecies as we know it were obliterated by say a comet hitting earth.
> What would we be left with?
> No religion.
> Evolution would continue until another life form evolved that had conscious thought.
> ...




tech/a,

Yes, I believe this whole cycle of animisme (hope that's the spelling) will repeat itself if we're wiped off the face of the earth. The very reason why some of our ancestors started worshipping the various things of nature is because they can't see the overall picture (of a God-created universe) YET. In most cases that require a change in mindset, humans need time (oftentimes lots of it) to adapt. Let's not laugh at them; just let them be. 

BTW, I do agree that religion is more about a form of control than about discovering God himself; a lot of rules added onto the seekers of God did much to disillusion the masses as to question God's very existence himself!  



Robroy said:


> Mousie, I don't understand your first paragraph,




Robroy, for your convenience, I quote a previous passage of mine, written before your post.



Mousie said:


> This is now encroaching into another creationism vs evolutionism battle, where (again!) each side will believe what they want to believe.
> 
> I cannot explain what I can't see, ie whether we existed as a result of evolution or creation. FWIW, believing in creationism or evolutionism or anything at all, involves *faith* in the accuracy of your judgment of the (academic/scientific/etc.) material presented to you. Yes, including the "The God Delusion" book you're currently reading! *(at that time, this was referring to tech/a; now, it is Robroy's various scientific sources)*
> 
> But what I can see is that nature is the purest form of life itself; no one can claim to have manipulated nature (save genetic modification) and its seasons, and the way it makes you feel toward everything else nature since the day you're born to present you their beliefs and worldview. And that is how I know God exists; as simple, as pure and as unadulterated as that.






> but below that you said:
> 
> "...has anyone noticed how, if God does not exist since the beginning of time, we keep on debating these kinda things month after month, year after year, decade after decade, centuries after centuries, even millenia after millenia? Interesting, ain't it?"
> 
> I think that just underlines my point about our religious hard wiring. It goes back millennia (the singular is 'millennium' BTW), and will no doubt be around for as long as we're here (about another 50 years or so, the way global warming is going). It doesn't say anything about the existence of God, just about our proclivity to believe.




And why would we be hard-wired to believe in God?

It is because God made us. There are only two entities that could have created us and this whole shebang we call the "universe", a "who" and a "what". How could a "what" possibly make us out to be God-wired? I shall quote a yet still further back post I made on this thread:



Mousie said:


> Just as science is meant to be a study as to how things _work_, these studies will, if done correctly and without bias, ultimately and unfailingly point to the intricacy and remarkableness of how things _are_. We could not have just existed out of thin air, nor could things past have. This remarkable excellence with which things are made alone points to a higher power at work; one which we cannot even begin to comprehend its brain power.
> 
> Things can't just exist and fall in place; they need something to move it. If you want to see your business get started, you go get it started; you don't sit and wait. Why then do the seasons come and go? Who could have motivated the change in seasons? Who could have put those _systems_ in place?
> 
> ...




I rest my case.



> The creation of the Universe by the Big Bang is not faith-based, it's the hypothesis for which we have by far the most evidence. Do some reading in the physics field and you will see what I mean.
> 
> You asked me to explain more clearly how organic life arose spontaneously. I could try - but I'm not an organic chemist, so I would refer you to the works of Richard Dawkins, who describes the original process of the creation of life - and outlines the voluminous evidence for it - in several thick books, such as 'The Selfish Gene'.




Again, as explained above, when it comes to making a choice between believing *what I see of nature with my own eyes *and believing in the accuracy of Richard Dawkins' works, I'd have to decline the latter.



> "We don't need religion to survive." (Etc.)
> 
> I think you're confusing your atheist friend's survival with 'survival' of our species in the evolutionary sense. You really have to do some reading on evolution - it's how you got here after all - so we can discuss this with a bit of common ground.
> 
> ...




I smell a contradiction. If they don't refute the existence of God, they can't refute that 'divine' experiences are proof of God, could they?

'Divine' experiences, like everything else nature, are proof of God.



> "The entire nature points out God's existence to me, deafeningly loud and clear, even in the silence of the fields."
> 
> I had that same feeling for many years. Sadly, I have been cured by education. I am adapted by evolution to feel that way. I am also adapted by evolution to love my children more than yours. That doesn't objectively prove that my children are better (or more loveable) than yours. It merely proves that the impulse is there in me.




Agreed about the impulse part.

Education is important, but when we become convicted by it to deny even what remaining pureness that exists in front of them, we become just another cog in a wheel.

Speaking of education, I fully agree and identify with Richard Branson who said "I learnt more about business in three months doing it myself than I could have in three years doing a business degree".



> Mousie you stated several times over that God exists - without offering any evidence as yet.
> 
> I've presented my evidence. Now it's your turn.




Robroy, I believe what is here should be more than adequate evidence, without relying on *faith* of any sort.



$20shoes said:


> My issue with this argument is that with science we can analyse and present evidence simply because we have a theory and we prove it. Eg, earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, AIDS is a homosexual disease: long before we have the foresight to question these things, these fallacies are as much a part of the human consciousness/belief system as the suppositions we now hold dear.
> 
> That is, with time, the human race has discovered certain things we believe to be incontrovertible truths. But our endeavours, our discoveries are boxed within the framework of human understanding and rationality and seem to be limited to linear time. Such as DNA - the human body has always been there, but 17th century doctors no more conceived this than a means of sending digital data down a thin, flexible glass pipe at light speed.
> 
> ...




Could not have said it better myself.


----------



## Julia (11 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..
> 
> Gluttony ,greed and wrath are three sins that being involved in shares brings out.
> Here is what ASX determines as ethical ...
> ...



You are, of course, entitled to your view.
I'm just finding it a bit hard not to indulge in some of the previously referred to bad language in response.


----------



## retroaugogo (11 May 2007)

Seems rather silly discussing types of sins when people don't even acknowledge the existance of God.

Like talking about methods of daytrading when the person has no interest in the stockmarket.


If they come into contact with a perfect God they'll soon realise that they are clothed in very filthy rags


----------



## Rafa (11 May 2007)

Julia said:


> You are, of course, entitled to your view.
> I'm just finding it a bit hard not to indulge in some of the previously referred to bad language in response.




Julia, you can take it from me, that if you do indulge in the aforementioned bad language in response to this post, it WILL NOT be a SIN


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Seems rather silly discussing types of sins when people don't even acknowledge the existance of God.
> 
> Like talking about methods of daytrading when the person has no interest in the stockmarket.



Actually "sin" is a judeo/christian concept. Along the lines of Buddhism (as pointed out by 2020) one can be a believer in (insert favourite pseudonym) and reject the concept of sin. I'm sure Christians will jump up and down over this but rejection of "sin" does not preclude the person from trying to do "right" such as in the Noble Eightfold Path, Tao and the Jedi Code . Subtle, but very important difference.

In the Christian (et al) tradition, people try to do right because they are scared of being chucked in hell. Negative.

In other traditions, people try to do right just because it is right. Positive. Even atheists and agnostics may live by this concept.

What is right and wrong? That is the fantastic journey of life. You get to learn that as you go along... or, as I am beginning to learn, everything is right and everything is wrong, and all at the same time. It just depends how you look at it.

More clutter of ideas.:

Note: I'm probably just saying the same thing as others above.


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2007)

Julia said:


> though personally under certain circumstances  I find the odd bit of bad language is  entirely appropriate and satisfying.



Julia

Where I live, "bad language" is just verbal padding. What could be said in 5-8 words in "basic English" takes 16 words.  

I suppose as people rarely have anything worthwhile to say outside of footy and beer, it keeps the conversation going a bit longer.  

I'm with you though Julia, I like to save it for when appropriate.... er, sometimes inappropriate, but HIGHLY satisfying.


----------



## retroaugogo (11 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> In the Christian (et al) tradition, people try to do right because they are scared of being chucked in hell. Negative.
> 
> In other traditions, people try to do right just because it is right. Positive. Even atheists and agnostics may live by this concept.




Actually as a christian I try do do right because it pleases God, not because I have anything to gain or lose from it.It's not a chore,more a mark of respect. 
When you have a relationship with someone you want to please them. 

Of course nobody is perfect.That's where forgiveness is sought.



Sin wouldn't be so attractive if the wages were paid immediately."
 Unknown, Author


----------



## Dukey (11 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..
> 
> Gluttony ,greed and wrath are three sins that being involved in shares brings out.
> Here is what ASX determines as ethical ...
> ...




Sorry WISYWYG - I`m not quite getting something here - in DIRE need of clarification...
1. By your own definition Share traders or even investors are SINNERS.
2. Now, we all know - or at least those who subscribe to the Almight God theory apparently know - that sinners will be punished in hell for all eternity...boiling cauldrens, flaming torches on the ass - all that juicy stuff. 
3. We can also presume from your previous posts that you are one of those who believe in the Almighty.

So - if you WISYWIG are investing or trading in any shares - then you are by your own argument sinning (& knowingly), and therefore condemning yourself to Hell!!!:whip 

Please tell me if my logic is flawed??
On the other hand ... maybe you don't actually own any shares - and are simply a 'contientious observer' of the market.????


----------



## constable (11 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Actually as a christian I try do do right because it pleases God, not because I have anything to gain or lose from it.It's not a chore,more a mark of respect.
> When you have a relationship with someone you want to please them.
> 
> Of course nobody is perfect.That's where forgiveness is sought.
> ...




Having a relationship with a "god" and wanting to please them, sure does sound strange when you put it like that. Glad we still dont sacrifice lambs especially with its price at the butchers!
Are you sure "god" is not just an imaginary friend for adults?


----------



## happytown (11 May 2007)

well as posted previously i was researching and on the hunt for a god on account of feeling somewhat like i was missing out on something fantabulous

success

and through this i feel i can once and for all answer the question monstrum that has vexed all since the birth of this thread

for i am now a rumsfeldian

and the answer follows,



> *The Unknown*
> As we know,
> There are known knowns.
> There are things we know we know.
> ...




blessed harmony bestowed upon thy all (in lieu of a meditative and deeply understanding smiley)


----------



## Robroy (11 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wow, that's interesting, and would obviously be very controversial - Is this covered in any of those references you mention, Rob.?




No, though you can read about it in 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Pagels, and in many other books.

Actually it's well-accepted by Bible scholars. The reason it sounds controversial is that we live in a Christian society and it is a bedrock belief that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. The fact that that was cooked up in the third century is never mentioned.

The story of the gospels is the story of most good ideas: rapidly co-opted by the powerful for their own ends. (George Bush shoring up the Bible Belt vote to ensure backing for the slaughter in Iraq is a modern example.)

Constantine, the Emperor who called the Council of Nicea (mentioned by another poster here) told the attending bishops that from now on Jesus was divine and had existed from the beginning of time. He was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Till that point the majority of Christians believed otherwise.

After that point, those who disputed the Constantine view were censured, even put to the sword. Their gospels - in which Jesus, for example, taught meditation, and preached against a church hierarchy - were burned.

A set of these scriptures was only rediscovered in 1947. It's called the Nag Hammadi find. At that point Christianity should have collapsed - but of course the power of denial being what it is, nothing happened at all.

Constantine had a number of gods by the way - his favourite was the sun god, Sol Invictus. Rather an irony given that he was the founder of the Christian Church.

Anyway, despite all that, I am no Christian-basher. I live in Thailand, and the greatest suffering in this part of the world is by the hundreds of thousands of Burmese who are driven from their homes at gunpoint by their military government (because they belong to the wrong ethnic group mostly).

Thousands of them live in scratch camps in the jungle. If you walk through eastern Burma you will sometimes find a couple of hundred of them sitting under a group of trees, having just watched their village get burned down and been told to leave the area - wondering what the hell to do next.

Anyway, the only people who give a toss about these guys are Christian missionaries. (The Buddhist Thais don't care about them - they believe it's their karma.) The Christians - a group called the Free Burma Rangers is particularly active - go into the jungle unarmed, carrying food, medicines and even schoolbooks for the kids. They've saved hundreds of lives, maybe thousands. They help these people to relocate, build new villages, whatever. Occasionally one of the Christians steps on a landmine; they also get sick. They don't see their families for months at a time. But the keep going, and they don't care about the religion of those they help: Buddhists, Christians and animists all get the same treatment.

So I am in the curious position of admiring many Christians - especially ones out this way: home-grown bible-bashers I can take or leave - but not believing in God.


----------



## Julia (11 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> Julia, you can take it from me, that if you do indulge in the aforementioned bad language in response to this post, it WILL NOT be a SIN




Thanks, Rafa.  I'm suitably reassured.
I think it might have been being addressed as ma'am that got to me on top of the questionable content of the message.


----------



## Julia (11 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> In the Christian (et al) tradition, people try to do right because they are scared of being chucked in hell. Negative.
> 
> In other traditions, people try to do right just because it is right. Positive. Even atheists and agnostics may live by this concept.



Exactly.   I find the concept that only those who believe in God have any understanding of a moral and ethical philosophy patronising and completely unrealistic.


----------



## nioka (11 May 2007)

The fact that I'm still around and back on ASF today leads me to believe that there is someone up there looking after me. I can not know for sure but I do believe.


----------



## nioka (11 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Exactly.   I find the concept that only those who believe in God have any understanding of a moral and ethical philosophy patronising and completely unrealistic.




That I do believe in as well. It is not necessary to be a believer to lead a moral and ethical life. There are plenty of believers that don't.


----------



## $20shoes (11 May 2007)

Robroy said:


> Anyway, despite all that, I am no Christian-basher. I live in Thailand, and the greatest suffering in this part of the world is by the hundreds of thousands of Burmese who are driven from their homes at gunpoint by their military government (because they belong to the wrong ethnic group mostly).




Robroy, thanks for sharing - very insightful post. You have contributed well to this debate. I'm going to take a copy and of this thread and make my kids read it when they get older. Some little pearls of wisdom here.

You posters continue to show intelligence and tolerance. We really are an example to behold and I hope Osama and Bush are reading this, scratching their chins and thinking "how did we get it so wrong - oh, so loving nature, loving man...oohhh, thats what its supposed to be about". Well, not so easy really, but a nice thought to finish the week.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 May 2007)

$20shoes said:


> 1. Robroy, thanks for sharing - very insightful post. You have contributed well to this debate. ...
> 2. You posters continue to show intelligence and tolerance.



1. Well I sure second that first comment - what a bombshell - if true of course - thanks Rob.
2. Anyone read any AJ Cronin? “Keys to the Kingdom, etc”     “and the highest virtue of all is tolerance”. 


Julia said:


> Exactly.   I find the concept that only those who believe in God have any understanding of a moral and ethical philosophy patronising and completely unrealistic.



Lol Some might even say counter-intuitive 
I'd prefer to have my own set of morals, reasoned out between the 4 walls of my own little fibro house, with a photo of the wife and kids in front of me

than be told by some monogamous leader who lives on the other side of the world (whether Rome or London or I guess Utah for that matter) in the lap of relative luxury, surrounded by beautiful Michelangelo paintings or their UK or US equivalents,  and who keeps changing their mind anyway lol.   Probably goes out every Friday night to celibate. 

(Mental note … “don’t call Julia ma’am”)

Possibly getting off thread, but exploring a bit more the idea that we carry the effects (good and bad) of all our "actions and results" around with us.... (including these alleged "sins")  


> Buddhism :- Good deeds produce good results while bad deeds produce bad results. Karma and Vipaka is your own action and result.



And I’m these paths and I’m these doors
And I’m these footprints through the moors
And I’m these strengths and I’m these flaws
*And I’m effect and I am cause.* :2 twocents

I’m reminded of a talk by of a positive thinker I heard once, and my guess is that a few of you may have heard him - Walter Dickman.  Must've been 20 years ago - but I still remember what he said. 
He said heaps, all about positive thinking etc.
Two things I remember are :-

“If you see a small branch or a rock in the road that is causing traffic difficulties, and it’s relatively easy for you to stop and fix it, do you do so Y/N  - he says yes.
*But the interesting thing is WHY you should do it.*  He says, Not for the other drivers, Not for points in Heaven whatever, but Simply *for your own self image *  He effectively turns it into a selfish act, that you jealously guard you own image of yourself as sacrosanct.  I found that intersesting lol. Maybe you had to be there.  

PS ( I could pretend that this in on thread - maybe say you should look for God in yorself lol - but, that would seriously dent my self image.... 
Miles off thread here, but the second thing I remember was an endless loop he proposed - we all have massive “reserves” of  latent abilities which generally go to the grave with us unused - his proposal then ,  Release your Latent Abilities (RLA), Get “Job Well Done”  feedback,  Release more LA,  etc loops etc.  Here's his website (you have to disclose an email address to enter, but I believe I can vouch for his integrity  http://www.positivepath.net/walterdickman.asp
http://www.nationalspeakers.asn.au/NSW_news.html   National Speakers of Australia


----------



## weird (11 May 2007)

That makes perhaps for a good novel Dan Brown, opps ... I mean Robroy ... one that will not leave the fiction section though ...
http://www.rbcdavincicode.org/constantine.php



> CONSTANTINE
> 
> According to The Da Vinci Code, Constantine "was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too weak to protest. . . . Rome's official religion was sun worship—the cult of Sol Invictus, or the Invisible Sun—and Constantine was its head priest" (p.232, DVC).
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2007)

Dukey said:


> Great thread peoples - most interesting reading various ideas on God and religion.
> 
> 2020 - Great quote from Sitting Bull (or someone?) - I expect most American Indian's spirituality would fall within the realm of Pantheism - though probably one with a 'more shamanistic' bent.
> 
> ...




Dukes my friend...Well well well (3 wells in a row)
I could not have written a much varied post as yours above.

In reply to your views...Yes , I am a share market participant and yes I am contributing to the consumption of the earths life.If I drop out(which I have almost)the wheel will stay in spin (lots of chinese $ Indians $ americanos). So voicing that which everyone knows , though is uneasy to say, brings with it condemnation.One will note that I posted.. `I find good traits to practice ,from a variety of sources`.By no means bound to one set of rules/beliefs.

Yes..I did at one stage believe I would go to hell.Now older, I have broken that fear and am happy to go the path of all life forms.

p.s. 2020..stop moving the bullseye.


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2007)

happytown said:


> well as posted previously i was researching and on the hunt for a god on account of feeling somewhat like i was missing out on something fantabulous
> 
> success
> 
> ...



LOL EXCELLENT!

Though I find the personage of DR thoroughly objectionable, this little discourse is an absolute pearl and quite sums up how I intentionally approach these "spiritual" (or biological for some) matters. I will however, stop short of changing my avatar to a picture of Rumsfeld... I'm sure all will understand. LOL





	

		
			
		

		
	
 <<== meditative and deeply understanding smiley


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2007)

Good jolt that story robroy...walking a mile in the victims shoes is not something I would like to experience.Brings home the fact that personal experience is only comparable.



> Anyway, the only people who give a toss about these guys are Christian missionaries. (The Buddhist Thais don't care about them - they believe it's their karma.) The Christians - a group called the Free Burma Rangers is particularly active - go into the jungle unarmed, carrying food, medicines and even schoolbooks for the kids. They've saved hundreds of lives, maybe thousands. They help these people to relocate, build new villages, whatever. Occasionally one of the Christians steps on a landmine; they also get sick. They don't see their families for months at a time. But the keep going, and they don't care about the religion of those they help: Buddhists, Christians and animists all get the same treatment.
> 
> So I am in the curious position of admiring many Christians - especially ones out this way: home-grown bible-bashers I can take or leave - but not believing in God.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 May 2007)

happytown said:


> There are known knowns.
> There are things we know we know.
> We also know
> There are known unknowns.
> ...



good one happytown - 

THEN of course there are ...
the known forgottens
the forgotten knowns
and of course..
the forgotten forgottens

PS I never did find those Easter eggs I hid for myself this year 

Can I make an observation please 
The poll above has two extremes each classified as "known knowns" 
I wonder If we should all really have voted " unknown unknowns"? lol


george bush said:


> There are things I know you know.
> There are also some things
> that I know you DON'T know.
> But there are also things that
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2007)

> Originally Posted by george bush
> There are things I know you know.
> There are also some things
> that I know you DON'T know.
> ...




Does he feel invisible/trans..parent or is there a deeper wisdom that is hidden from `billy on the street`s eyes.Gored bless us.

Or to quote a `new age dude` that i read about*...I am power*
Focus being on the *I* since no one else is moving the tongue (?)

Who writes the speeches anyway?


----------



## Robroy (11 May 2007)

weird said:


> That makes perhaps for a good novel Dan Brown, opps ... I mean Robroy ... one that will not leave the fiction section though ...
> http://www.rbcdavincicode.org/constantine.php




Hi weird,

IMO best to look into it carefully yourself rather than quoting a single expert. More often than not the experts turn out to have agendas.

I don't think there's anything in the above long bit of text about Constantine that contradicts what I said. He was a Christian, sure - and a sun-worshipper. He had another god or two up his sleeve also. Read the histories for yourself; you will see it all there.

I've never read The Da Vinci Code so can't comment there.

The "aged presbyter named Arius" who said Jesus was a normal mortal was in fact representative of a large segment of the Church before it was purged. According to some scholars (e.g. Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton) these Christians were in the majority. "The Arian Controversy" is the most famous controversy of early Christianty, not a fringe event.

When citing the New Testment as you do, it's good to remember a few things:

It's been subject to mistranslation at times - e.g. the word which described Jesus' mother as a 'young woman' was mistranslated as  'virgin'. (That sure started something big.)

The majority of Christian literature was excluded from the New Testament. Only the books which did not conflict with the power of the emerging church hierarchy, and Jesus' divinity, and the dogma propounded by a certain section of the flock, were retained. The rest were burned and possession of them was sometimes punishable by death.

The four gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but - years after Jesus' death - by later writers who had never met him but who used MML&J's names.

Some of the gnostic gospels (rediscovered in Egypt in 1947), which describe a radically different Jesus from the one we know, were written in the same century in which he lived. None of the books of the New Testament were.

According to document analysts, several books of the New Testament have been doctored to make Jesus look less human and more 'divine'.

Though you will get individual Christians who'd argue the above, none of it is remotely controversial amongst theologians - people who have made it their career to study these subjects.


----------



## weird (11 May 2007)

Robroy, I am afraid I will have to turn the table back here... I only see 'Dan Brown' brush strokes in your arguments ... and they are complete bs .. while they may stand unquestioned in a stock trading forum … try and take them to a religious forum, and you will not see the light of day for factual corrections.

The story of Jesus Christ, is perhaps the most researched and argued one in history ... I find your arguments parroting of others with agenda to only sell books (which you have bought), and  try and refute the original story as told by Matthew, Mark , Luke and John (and by the way the origin of these books is well understood thanks to Biblical scholars ... I probably do not need to add, "no **** Sherlock") .


----------



## Julia (11 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> “If you see a small branch or a rock in the road that is causing traffic difficulties, and it’s relatively easy for you to stop and fix it, do you do so Y/N  - he says yes.
> *But the interesting thing is WHY you should do it.*  He says, Not for the other drivers, Not for points in Heaven whatever, but Simply *for your own self image *  He effectively turns it into a selfish act, that you jealously guard you own image of yourself as sacrosanct.  I found that intersesting lol. Maybe you had to be there.




Now, I find that interesting too, 2020.  I've thought about this sometimes re my own actions and those of others.  A really trivial example is a bloke who walks his dog on the beach and always carries a plastic bag to clean up after his dog.  If the dog does its thing and there are people around, he picks it up and takes it with him, but if he thinks no one is watching he just kicks some sand over it and walks on.

Sometimes I find myself going to quite silly lengths to assure myself I'm on the right track, e.g. going back to Woolworths with a receipt when I later see I've been undercharged!  This is taking honesty a bit too far really.

So, yes, I do think we are motivated to do the right thing not only by thoughtfulness towards other people, and possible karma if we believe in that, but also to reassure ourselves that we really are OK individuals.
I'd be interested to hear others' views on this.


----------



## Robroy (11 May 2007)

weird said:


> Robroy, I am afraid I will have to turn the table back here... I only see 'Dan Brown' brush strokes in your arguments ... and they are complete bs .. while they may stand unquestioned in a stock trading forum … try and take them to a religious forum, and you will not see the light of day for factual corrections.
> 
> The story of Jesus Christ, is perhaps the most researched and argued one in history ... I find your arguments parroting of others with agenda to only sell books (which you have bought), and  try and refute the original story as told by Matthew, Mark , Luke and John (and by the way the origin of these books is well understood thanks to Biblical scholars ... I probably do not need to add, "no **** Sherlock") .




I understand why you're angry, believe me. I went through the process of facing the facts when I was religious, and it wasn't a happy time for me.

I've never read anything by Dan Brown, and have little idea of what TDVCode is all about.

What I am citing is the history as put together by several hundred years of biblical scholarship. These are not for the most part modern authors trying to make a buck with controversial theories - they are mainstream theologians. Most of them are Christians.

I understand that the historical record will be pretty confronting for a Christian who has not been exposed to it before.

However the brave thing to do is to discuss. It's easy to name-call - we can all do that.

If you have objections to what I've said, why on earth don't you raise them? I'd be happy to go into them with you. Jesus himself encouraged openness and understanding as antidotes to hostility, which only comes from fear.

(I understand the fear, believe me - some of this stuff scared the hell out of me when I came across it.)

Anyway, maybe I've made mistakes you could correct. That's how I'll grow. But if I  shoot the messenger, I learn nothing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 May 2007)

weird said:


> http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp
> Tortured for His Beliefs?  In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not””as is commonly supposed””under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.



weird, we have not asked you to explain too many of these cut and pastes, but here's one question - the sort of thing that a barrister would ask you under cross examination 

Q; You say that he was treated surpringly well, why do you add "surprisingly"?


----------



## weird (11 May 2007)

Nice post Robroy, all I can say is have a great weekend.  Cheers buddy.

2020hindsight, not sure if you live in Sydney, but if you do, the weather was excellent last weekend in Dee Why. I'm having a break and going surfing.  Tuning out from forums for a while ....

Kind regards

Dave


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 May 2007)

weird said:


> ..weather was excellent last weekend in Dee Why. I'm having a break and going surfing.  Tuning out from forums for a while ....



but ahh the sea the mighty sea the ever wanton sea
who makes love with each tide like a newly wed bride
and pregnant she ever will be 
PS if you do see me at the beach, I'll be the one carrying on like a kid in church 

PS when I said back there 


> Thought for the day after tomorrow week tuesday : It is conceivable that religion may be morally useful without being intellectually sustainable. John Stuart Mill 1806-1873. (MD, PhD, DSO, VC+bar, OAM, ASX, MABC, DNA, KBE)



 I was actually wrong - when I checked I found his Membership of the Amateur Bowling Club has appararently lapsed, and so MABC no longer applies 

PS enjoy yourself at the beach. 
Desiderata "be at peace with your god whatever you perceive him to be 



> Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
> and remember what peace there may be in silence.
> 
> ....
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 May 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kPzJWuG9RM&mode=related&search= Desiderata MV


> Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.  As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons they are vexations to the spirit.  If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
> 
> Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs ; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.  Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.
> 
> ...



PS these are the kids that this should be directed to 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47wENlAqzKg&mode=related&search=


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 May 2007)

might as well post em now that I've cropped em I guess  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kPzJWuG9RM&mode=related&search= http://www.fleurdelis.com/desidera.htm


> *Written by Max Ehrmann in the 1920s -- Not "Found in Old St. Paul's Church in 1692" *
> Around 1959, the Rev. Frederick Kates, the rector of St. Paul's Church in Baltimore, Maryland, used the poem in a collection of devotional materials he compiled for his congregation. (Some years earlier he had come across a copy of Desiderata.) At the top of the handout was the notation, "Old St. Paul's Church, Baltimore A.C. 1692." The church was founded in 1692. [1]
> 
> As the material was handed from one friend to another, the authorship became clouded. Copies with the "Old St. Paul's Church" notation were printed and distributed liberally in the years that followed. It is perhaps understandable that a later publisher would interpret this notation as meaning that the poem itself was found in Old St. Paul's Church, dated 1692. This notation no doubt added to the charm and historic appeal of the poem, despite the fact that the actual language in the poem suggests a more modern origin. The poem was popular prose for the "make peace, not war" movement of the 1960s.
> ...


----------



## wayneL (12 May 2007)

> ".....the "make peace, not war" movement of the 1960s."




We need a renaissance of that era.

BTW did anyone see The Chasers tonight? Scary!


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> We need a renaissance of that era.
> BTW did anyone see The Chasers tonight? Scary!



Was a song in "Hair" yes? they were the days 
Chasers? - saw it wednesday m8 (repeated tonight I believe).  Don't recall "scary" - but extremely wierd as usual, lol.  I mean if you were walking around Melbourne and saw these idiots tying themselves up with wool  lol. Or muscling in on Channel 9 at the awards night - sprinkling powder on the red carpet lol.  I'm sure they spend half their time in court lol.


----------



## wayneL (12 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Was a song in "Hair" yes? they were the days
> Chasers? - saw it wednesday m8 (repeated tonight I believe).  Don't recall "scary" - but extremely wierd as usual, lol.  I mean if you were walking around Melbourne and saw these idiots tying themselves up with wool  lol. Or muscling in on Channel 9 at the awards night - sprinkling powder on the red carpet lol.  I'm sure they spend half their time in court lol.



The scarey bit was the interviewing of ordinary American Muppets on the street. That was scary!


----------



## Sean K (12 May 2007)

I got back from my wedding about an hour ago, and can not sleep. (highly strung of course  ) so I thought I'd leave my bride blistfully asleep to look at a different roof top.

I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to the thread, by far one of the best I have read on ASF. This puts ASF well apart from the regular stock forum and I thank Joe once again for creating such a beast. 

Now, just how can I get to sleep?

Damn it, I'll just have to push through!!!

Holey moley!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mousie (12 May 2007)

Hey kennas,

Not to worry, it's acceptable after such a meaningful occassion, spoil yourself bad! It's just these 1-2 days after all. Don't do it every now and again; you gotta start watching that liver and kidney more often if you do.

So when're the photos coming?


----------



## Sean K (12 May 2007)

Mousie said:


> Hey kennas,
> 
> Not to worry, it's acceptable after such a meaningful occassion, spoil yourself bad! It's just these 1-2 days after all. Don't do it every now and again; you gotta start watching that liver and kidney more often if you do.
> 
> So when're the photos coming?



We spoiled ourselves a little too much  and I spoiled myself more than Rach.  We go to a family BBQ at Rach's parents at 12, and stay overnight to be whisked to the airport early Sunday to go to Cairns and diving with the fishes. Photos will be on my blog when they come in. Too bigga files for ASF. God, I'm married!!!!!! Rach musn't love me if she can't stay up all night and day with me. LOL  Sleep is overrated. For a while......


----------



## Mousie (12 May 2007)

kennas said:


> We spoiled ourselves a little too much  and I spoiled myself more than Rach.  We go to a family BBQ at Rach's parents at 12, and stay overnight to be whisked to the airport early Sunday to go to Cairns and diving with the fishes. Photos will be on my blog when they come in. Too bigga files for ASF. God, I'm married!!!!!! Rach musn't love me if she can't stay up all night and day with me. LOL  Sleep is overrated. For a while......




Tight schedule there  no wonder you're worried about getting some shut-eye LOL Have a good one, you might just win the sexy eyes competition hands down with that sleepy look


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 May 2007)

kennas said:


> I got back from my wedding about an hour ago, and can not sleep. (highly strung of course  ) so I thought I'd leave my bride blistfully asleep to look at a different roof top



Lol - when you've been living together for the last 5 years, the only difference between a wedding night and another is your level of drunken inefficiency, lol.

We assume you didn't have any arguments  - noone chimed in as Prospector suggested at the cue for "anyone have any reasons?"

I had a mate who got to the reception, and there was a hell of an argument - the wedding cake -  he'd asked for chocolate sponge, and she'd asked for fruit cake, and there was this almighty bunfight - and the priest annulled the marriage there and then


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 May 2007)

I just posted this on marriage thread, but might add it here as well - to get this one half back on thread 


> Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.
> 
> The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: *"The whole is more than the sum of its parts".*
> Reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. Essentially, chemistry is reducible to physics, biology is reducible to chemistry and physics, psychology and sociology are reducible to biology, etc. Some other proponents of reductionism, however, think that holism is the opposite only of greedy reductionism.
> ...




Then there's the theoretical theological makeup of one person :-


> In theological anthropology, holism is the belief that the nature of humans consists of an indivisible union of components such as body, soul and spirit.




I mean you could have the soul saying to the body ...
If I am I because you are you... etc  

PS I never realised there was a difference between the soul and the spirit??

I notice this website :-  Co-evolution 
I like the idea on first impression anyway. 
Might be worth a read ( but right nw the dog is pestering me for a walk here)


> http://www.ecotao.com/holism/
> Nature's Holism has evolved and continues to do so. For a guide through a condensed version of Nature's Holism, go to the synposis and follow the links in the top right corner. The book, Nature's Holism (or ecotaoism ) provides an ecological model as an alternative to the "competitive" theory of evolution. In 2007, the ideas found in Nature's Holism are now 20 years old. For a guide through a condensed version, go to the synposis and follow the links in the top right corner.
> 
> Nature's Holism - ecology and evolution:
> We will examine how species associated within the same habitat or ecosystem evolve ( coevolution ) so as not to destroy the ecosystem upon which they depend for their success and survival. *I will show you a holistic view of nature and ecosystems*. You will see *how the interdependence between long-associated (coadapted) species within an ecosystem affects the ecological structure of natural systems.*


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Now, I find that interesting too, 2020.  I've thought about this sometimes re my own actions and those of others.  A really trivial example is a bloke who walks his dog on the beach and always carries a plastic bag to clean up after his dog.  If the dog does its thing and there are people around, he picks it up and takes it with him, but if he thinks no one is watching he just kicks some sand over it and walks on.
> 
> Sometimes I find myself going to quite silly lengths to assure myself I'm on the right track, e.g. going back to Woolworths with a receipt when I later see I've been undercharged!  This is taking honesty a bit too far really.
> 
> ...



Great examples Julia, especially the Woolies one.  I mean, that sort of thing, taking the receipt back - most people would look at you cross eyed over.  But little do they realise that you are selfishly doing it for yourself lol.  If you can honestly say you are at peace with your conscience, then that has to be a plus surely.  

(Bit like Gilchrist walking really lol - he needs to be given a serious talking to - BUT GILLY, they robbed you with that incorrect LBW last week!!  )

As posted elsewhere, I think the church - and the Christian concept of a sin - makes it too easy when they say "roll up every Sunday folks, and be forgiven for your last set of sins".  (should spend more time on the "Lead us not into temptation" and less on the "forgive me my trespasses") 

Perhaps getting off the subject of God , but here's another example:-

The mum (or dad) who goes on a diet and has her/his small glass of grapefruit and prune juice blend for breakfast (in front of the family) - buy weakens during the day and has a heap of doughnuts or some such (out of sight).  Like, that person would have more self respect if they had the doughnuts in front of the family, and the willpower of the grapefruit juice at smoko  

(Of course the most self respect if they stuck to the bludy diet lol - or exercise program or whatever - staying off the booze etc  - oops now Im starting to lose self respect lol)

PS I think I just cracked the code - Weird is holding up a grain of sand maybe - lol good one. (shell maybe - same result )



> Judaism :-
> a) An intentional sin; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God; (Strong's Concordance :H6588 (פשע pesha', peh'shah). According to Strong it comes from the root H6586); rebellion, transgression, trespass.
> b) a sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion. It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God; (Strong's Concordance :H5771 (avon, aw-vone). According to Strong it comes from the root H5753); meaning perversity, moral evil:--fault, iniquity, mischief.
> c) an unintentional sin, crime or fault. (Strong's Concordance :H2399 (חַטָּא chate). According to Strong it comes from the root khaw-taw H2398, H2403) meaning "to miss, to err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble."
> ...





> In Western Christianity, sin is often viewed as a legal infraction or contract violation, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms, similar to Jewish thinking. In Eastern Christianity, sin is more often viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. *The Bible, however, shows sin to be not following God's moral guidance, but instead humans judging for themselves what is good and evil*.




I have problem with last sentence. - prefer this one  


> Emerging Church, Liberal Theology, and Liberation Theology
> Within the emerging church movement and other progressive forms of Christianity, the definition of "sin" may or may not be central to an understanding of Christianity and its relationship to society. This non-dogmatic formulation of sin is perhaps more characteristic of the post-modern fluid views of the emerging church. Sin in this context can have multiple meanings, including but not limited to *interpersonal sins (harming one's neighbours, friends, or families with negative actions), environmental sins (pollution, overconsumption), structural sins (homophobia and heterosexism, misogyny, racism, etc.), or even personal sins (actions which are harmful to oneself). As a result of this re-interpretation of the traditional concept of sin, new concepts of liberation and salvation are required*.


----------



## new girl (13 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> God? Y/N..........YEP
> got it going ? Y/N........and YEP
> could care less where it ends up? Y/N.........YEP, but to a point
> jumps tall buildings in a single bound? Y/N ........YEP a bit like nemo
> ...





I ADORE GOD!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

one (well strictly two) more question(s), NG 
does god speak to us through our conscience? 
what other possible way is there ?

Heard a beauty on 2CH this morning - different ways to look at things :-

two kids at the window, a storm, big bolt of lightning 
one kid runs and hides, the other tells the parent excitedly 
"Mum ! I think God's trying to take a photo of me!!" 

#26 on poetry thread 


> Tell me your story , my new-found friend, just How have we spent our life?
> Relishing height in each new bound, friend? or Just steering clear of strife?
> Relishing moments of sunshine and warm, - and the LIGHTNING flash - Natures wild language?
> or Relishing praps just the END of the storm? - or maybe - a corn relish sandwich?



Being a Christian radio station , they finish off with the moral " if only we could all face the storms of life with this attitude"


----------



## new girl (13 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> one more question, NG
> does god speak to us through our conscience?
> what other possible way is there ?
> 
> ...




2020  

1. you can ask anything you want, you know that  
2. Through our SOULS I'd say, but some don't have one and others just    ignore it or sit passively thinking about stuff or drink themselves silly
3. through other people but we are too busy hurting them to listen
4. that is a beauty you'r right as usual.
5. I love lightning and thunder for that matter, what about you??


----------



## yogi-in-oz (13 May 2007)

Famous quotes, from famous people:

"Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless"
 ..... Bertrand Russell ... atheist

"God doesn't play dice." ..... Albert Einstein

"Surely God would not have created such a being as man, to exist 
for only a day ... !~!   No, no, man was made for immortality.
..... Abraham Lincoln.

happy days

  paul



=====


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

Bertrand Russell live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUaSO9WDcng&mode=related&search=
Yogi, here's another of his quotes :-


> "Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. What I wish to maintain is that ALL faiths do harm. We may define faith as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, noone speaks of "faith". We do not speak of faith that two and two are four, or that the earthis round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substiture emotion for evidence. We are told that faith could remove mountains, but noone believed it, we are now told that the atomic bomb can remove mountains, and everyone believes it" - Bertrand Russell




Changing the subject to creationism vs science, this poster on youtube is interesting . 

1. He has some rules for posting on his websites etc -  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLcLflraV-8

2. He takes on the creationists on the subject of the evolution of the eye.  Apparently creations have Darwin is often misquoted purely by mischievously only posting half of his full quote.  In fact he points out that Kent Hovind appear to be quite mischievous in this regard. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4&mode=related&search=


3. In “Kent Hovind - Truth in Arguments” he gives further examples. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFm8uCZ6Uoc&mode=related&search=  (This one recommended viewing imo - 2020)


4. Note at the end of that Ali G interviews him .  When I first saw the interview here 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8&mode=related&search=
Lol - Ali G proves evolutionwith one simple question .. "Do you eat bananas?"
Incidentally I initially thought that Ali G was being extremely rude.   But after watching (3) above, I think I know where he was coming from.  I warn you Ali G is a bit boring for the first 5 minutes with his 9 9 9 9 9 etc .  But even there I suspect/ guess / surmise that he is trying to make the point that evolution is not something that has happened in the last 10,000 years (as close to 50% of Americans apparently believe)


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

a few more pictures


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

4 billion years of evolution  - my money's on this guy


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4&mode=related&search= Carl Sagan - speaks about 4 billion years of evolution
> 
> - something like a shrew became the ancestor of all the animals
> apes and humans have a common ancestor...
> ...



PS Just having a beer here, getting used to the idea that that's "granma five-fingers" down there , and also "grandpa protozoan" etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJ3Tjj40P8&mode=related&search= Carl Sagan Speaks

wow -  *this bloke is brilliant    - every word is worth pausing on* 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M97WgCkK6k4&NR=1 Kent Hovind vs. Carl Sagan and the speed of light
and here is an example of what happens when a genius like Sagan takes on some of the stupidity that Hovind comes up with. 

I'm starting to understand Ali G's interviewing style better 


PS here are some posts on a) how clever Hovind is, and b) how to get to heaven, both by a poster called calciumboy   







> a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M97WgCkK6k4&NR=1  Hovind vs. Ross
> Preview of debate between Dr. Kent Hovind and liar Hugh Ross. I sent it to Dr. Hovind and he said "It was hilarious, brother; I love it."
> 
> b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c9MA2cu2BI how to get to heaven


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

Carl Edward Sagan (November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996) 


> Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about many conventional conceptualizations of God. Sagan once stated, for instance, that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. *But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God*. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...* it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity*."[14]
> 
> Sagan is also widely regarded as a freethinker or skeptic; one of his most famous quotations as seen in Cosmos, was "*Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence*." (This was actually based on a nearly identical earlier quote by fellow CSICOP founder Marcello Truzzi, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."[15]The quote is also known, under different wording, as the principle of Laplace — attributed to Pierre-Simon Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827), a French mathematician and astronomer: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."



I had heard him on TV long ago , but forgot.
I now understand the note on that post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJ3Tjj40P8&mode=related&search=
"Sagan kicks humanity down some important knowledge" 
Beautiful words if you can make time to listen to them - 
philosophic
poetic, and
prophetic.
 Also this one... not bad forsight for 1989


> Played major role in Mariner , Viking and other missions to other planets...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2zMa3unSN8&NR=1 Ted Turner interviews Carl Sagan (Part 1 of 5), etc
> strong stand in defence  of this planet , environment, global warming, arms race etc
> 
> Carl Sagan and Ted Turner discuss the issues that are vital to the survival of our species on earth. Sagan explains the benefits of our space program, the fascinating possibility of time travel, and our search for life on other worlds.  Recorded in 1989


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCgt3qb-Kb0 Big Numbers: a Concept Creationists Don't Understand


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 May 2007)

PS a couple more photo from this excellent youtube post by cdk007


----------



## AJ_ (14 May 2007)

Investing in shares a sin?

I dont think it is. It may surprise people, but true christianity is not all about following a set of rules. There are many parables in the bible which talk about good stewardship of money, resources, gifts/talents etc. 
Scholars point out that Jesus discusses money more than heaven and hell combined, or that Jesus talked more about money than anyone else in the Bible. (http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=43&page=585)

I believe that investing, like any other form of business which makes money, if you manage your money well is okay. the issue with money is when it becomes the focus of your life (eg the love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself) 

I beleive that the bible has a lot of wisdom for all aspects of life, including ethics/morals, attitudes, characater building, leadership, relationships, finances etc...


----------



## Rafa (14 May 2007)

yeah, good point AJ...
its interesting the whole idea of SIN... when put to Jesus he replied not so much of what not to do, but rather what virtues to live ones life by...

It started with...
Love God and Love thy Neighbour, as opposed to the 10 Thou shalt not Commandments

Later, he preached, in what was recorded in the Gospels as the Beatitudes

# Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
# Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
# Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. 
# Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. 
# Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 
# Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
# Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 
# Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

As you can see, the above has nothing to do with what is a SIN or not, that was more the result of Christianity becoming Europeanised, (or some might say humanised!)...  And converted into an organised state religion.

I guess this was always bound to happen once politicians got involved... but what they did was not what Jesus preached...   'let those who have not sinned cast the first stone'...

Alas, not many took notice of that... the reason being, it didn't sit well in the mould of organised politicised institutions.

In the end Christs words became a mechanism of control, rather than the pathway to freedom, which was originally intended. The good thing is that now, the Church is being forced to return to the Jesus's original intentions.

It’s sad to see the enormous freedom that Jesus brought to the world, is being taken for granted... and those hard won freedoms are being whittled away by rampant consumerism... which a lot of people think of as being free.

Interesting that most religious teachings (especially those of Buddha and Jesus), pose this very pertinent question..
"Can you really be free if you have material wants?"

PS: hope this is not too much off topic...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 May 2007)

So are you blokes suggesting that sinning is a bit like going short on the market?
sell your soul today, pay for it tomorrow?  

and anyone who ramps gets a big downhill ramp maybe? 

As for sinning by gambling - if you make a motsa, and you give a bit to charity, I can only imagine you'll improve your points on the big tally board held by "Old pella he lib long sky"


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 May 2007)

Anyone had much to do with Cargo Cults?

Where the natives are sure that the planes landing are from their ancestors from heaven, and that the white man somehow has learned the magic words to get them to land on their airports. 

They say you used to see the natives in PNG making these little "airfields" the size of a football field - with slopes varying up to about 30degrees lol, hanging off the side of a mountain top, and whenever the planes came over, they'd call to them to land "Here, Here!!  Bring it to me!! etc).

And you'd be approached and questioned "Please tell me the magic words taubada so that the plane will land on my airport next time" etc. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult


> A cargo cult is any of a group of unorthodox religious movements appearing in tribal societies in the wake of Western impact, especially in New Guinea and Melanesia. Cargo cults sometimes maintain that manufactured western goods ("cargo") have been created by divine spirits and are intended for the local indigenous people, but that white people have unfairly gained control of these objects. Cargo cults thus focus on overcoming what they perceive as undue 'white' influences by conducting rituals similar to the white behavior they have observed, presuming that the ancestors will at last recognize their own and send them cargo. Thus a characteristic feature of cargo cults is the belief that spiritual agents will at some future time give much valuable cargo and desirable manufactured products to the cult members. In other instances such as on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu, cult members worship Americans who brought the cargo. [1]
> 
> Based on the above definition, cargo cult is also used in business and science to refer to a particular type of fallacy whereby ill-considered effort and ceremony takes place but goes unrewarded due to a flawed model of causation. For example, Maoism has been referred to as "cargo cult Leninism".


----------



## new girl (14 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> # Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
> # Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
> # Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
> # Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
> ...




Blessed is Rafa for a beautiful post..yet again


----------



## Captain G (14 May 2007)

Sorry, I have only read a few other posts. But for me and all my life in having many stories told to me, my never ending turmoil and challenge has been - How can a true and loving God exist having allowed the Holocaust?? This is something I will not dwell on, but it was something so calculated, rigourous & systematic, at that industrial scale - condemning 1.5 million children. There have been many others and there will be more. I have heard all the reasonings of God passing onto us a free will etc. But please, No the cost is too great.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2007)

Captain G said:


> Sorry, I have only read a few other posts. But for me and all my life in having many stories told to me, my never ending turmoil and challenge has been - How can a true and loving God exist having allowed the Holocaust?? This is something I will not dwell on, but it was something so calculated, rigourous & systematic, at that industrial scale - condemning 1.5 million children. There have been many others and there will be more. I have heard all the reasonings of God passing onto us a free will etc. But please, No the cost is too great.



Your view is a common one and there is some discussion in the thread about it.

A futile post really if you haven't read the thread. Sorry.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 May 2007)

Just a few Dawkins posts on youtube...- (honest, knowledgeable, tolerant, all those things that a lot of religions are not) 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZX7RyidWvc&NR=1  Richard Dawkins interviewed on Paula Zahn Now
British ethologist, evolutionary biologist, atheist and author of "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins is interviewed on Paula Zahn Now. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&mode=related&search=  Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12TqdF4t9fg&NR=1 Richard Dawkins..Not A Trivial Error  Rechard Dawkins speaking to some groups to include students of Liberty University about religion and such. Basically, he states that if Liberty University has dinasour eggs that are labeled as 3,000 years old, the students should leave and go to a proper University...pretty funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28pNxgD-ldc&mode=related&search= Richard Dawkins - atheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wcG3yoSAdk&mode=related&search= Richard Dawkins describes 'GOD'



> PS here's another post - but I've developed this to its final conclusion (with more about Haggard) on the "videos that send a message" thread - being pretty inflammatory , it might destroy the tone of this placid scene here   :-
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjqUmuMhTsM&mode=related&search= Haggard vs Dawkins .. Its sad to see who accuses whom of arrogance



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2007)

Thanks 2020,

Interesting. Here's another Dawkins video with the liberal Bishop of Oxford. A very constructive and intelligent discussion from both gentleman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2TFVe9LDc


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> Thanks 2020,
> 
> Interesting. Here's another Dawkins video with the liberal Bishop of Oxford. A very constructive and intelligent discussion from both gentleman.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2TFVe9LDc



wowo - fantastic 
Bishop of Oxford :-
"by 1880, european christians accepted evolution
now this.. this.. creation is coming over from america" lol
I'll probably watch it all later - but the ghist is there in the first few minutes, as you say- very constructive. 
Must say, at this point in time, I have only found this particular creationist er ...  rap... (universe only 6000 yeaqrs old etc)  spoken on youtube in american accents 

Enlightened opinions about euthenasia etc  - relationships , incl homosexual relationships.  - interesting .

One suspects that he is a rare bishop this one. 

By comparison, here are some more extracts from one of those Hovind posts. - seriously difficult to get to the end of the talk , so full of absolute garbage. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0 Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth


----------



## new girl (14 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> wowo - fantastic
> Enlightened opinions about euthenasia etc  - relationships , incl homosexual relationships.  - interesting .




WHAT ENLIGHTEMENT are you talking about????? oops the **** meter. sorry Waynel


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 May 2007)

Maybe one question on the poll should read:
GOD is a figment of the imagination that was devised by humans who are immaterial to the greater existence of everything in the universe.

Just because man thinks of god, does that mean it is even a concept?

Maybe god is an imaginary friend for adults.

I think the answer lies with an examination of MOZART.


----------



## nizar (14 May 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Maybe one question on the poll should read:
> GOD is a figment of the imagination that was devised by humans who are immaterial to the greater existence of everything in the universe.
> 
> Just because man thinks of god, does that mean it is even a concept?
> ...




Oh no here we go


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I think the answer lies with an examination of MOZART.



Could be right Snake - At least it's more difficult to imagine WWIII starting over something like that - the Mozartians vs the Beethovenians.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

new girl said:


> WHAT ENLIGHTEMENT are you talking about????? oops the **** meter. sorry Waynel



Since you brought it up:

The sh!te meter registers intolerance of others views, whether they be Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc etc etc etc etc etc. We may be certain of our own position, but in an enlightened society (which this thread has proven Australia is in large part), we must also be cognizant of the validity of others postion, provided it has been well thought out and considered. Disagreement and debate is fine provided it is done with respect, _argumentum ad hominem_ in its various forms (ridicule etc etc) is not.

I am taking a hard line here because these discussions can disintegrate into sh!tfights faster than you can say Jack Robinson.

So I think the rules are pretty clear here, simply respect.

Cheers


----------



## new girl (15 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> Since you brought it up:
> 
> Disagreement and debate is fine provided it is done with respect
> 
> ...




This is too easy 

since YOU brought up waynel

I have a very pretty scale/meter in my house similar to the one in your post, did you take a picture of it or something??

RESPECT, amen brother or should I say V


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

new girl said:


> This is too easy
> 
> since YOU brought up waynel
> 
> ...



I think they must have made a few of them. I got this one down at the local pawnbroker.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

new girl said:


> ....or should I say V



Huh?


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 May 2007)

I just watched most of that hovind you tube thing on the `age of earth`.I thought he had a sharp tongue for makin` mun.Probably on the door with speeches/appearances etc.

I then googled his name and found this below , suppose he needs to evolve a bit more. LOL. 

I thought the interview with the B of Ox. by Dawkins breezed over all the questions.The B of Ox. seems like a nice man anyway. 


Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953), who sometimes refers to himself as "Dr. Dino", is an American evangelist and prominent Young Earth creationist who is serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges. He established the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry in 1989[1] and, prior to his incarceration, spoke frequently in private schools, churches, university debates and on radio and television broadcasts arguing for young earth creationism. Hovind was originally incarcerated at the Pensacola Federal Prison Camp at Saufley Field, Pensacola, Florida, and has been moved to the Federal Correctional Institution, Marianna at Marianna, Florida.[2]


----------



## moses (15 May 2007)

Robroy said:


> Hi weird,
> When citing the New Testment as you do, it's good to remember a few things:
> 
> It's been subject to mistranslation at times - e.g. the word which described Jesus' mother as a 'young woman' was mistranslated as  'virgin'. (That sure started something big.)



Robroy, 

I'm afraid this comment is typical of the pseudo-scholarship of those who don't even bother to read the Bible they criticise.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament are quite explicit about the conception of Jesus; your example of a word being mistranslated as virgin is complete nonsense, although I know where the idea comes from.

The virgin = young woman argument comes from a scholar studying the dead sea scrolls and the text of Isaiah, which is an Old Testament prophecy predating Christ by about 400 years. Pity she didn't bother reading Matthew or Luke. Yes its true, that Hebrew word in Isaiah translated "virgin" means young woman, and not necessarily a virgin. But the Gospel of Matthew, having described the miraculous conception of Jesus to a virgin who had never known a man, explicitly says that this is what Isaiah was talking about in that passage, so we know that the English translation "virgin" in Isaiah was in fact correct. (Text attached below.)

So you're quite wrong to say the New Testament was mistranslated, let alone to imply that a simple mistranslation started something big.

The rest of your remarks about later authorship and theological scholarship etc are equal nonsense, as the gospels were already being quoted in the 2nd century. In fact the number and quality of ancient manuscripts and evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament is about 100 times stronger than any other ancient document. But I won't bore you.

Basically we have 3 options:-

1) The apostles really saw something, the New Testament is true.

2) The apostles were honest but seriously mistaken.

3) the apostles were frauds, the Gospel is a lie.

Thats another subject of course.


Here's the text in question from Matthew 1 (ESV), there is also Luke.

Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 
Mat 1:19  And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 
Mat 1:20  But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 
Mat 1:21  She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 
Mat 1:22  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet (Isaiah): 
Mat 1:23  "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). 
Mat 1:24  When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 
Mat 1:25  but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

Here is another Dawkins interview... with William Crawley this time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr-9N9fEgNA&mode=related&search=

These couple of videos show him to be an entirely reasonable person if dealing with reasonable opposition. I've only seen him being unreasonable, but I have to say, it has been in response to unreasonableness.

Though with my average intellect, I dare to disagree with some of his beliefs, I quite like a lot of what he has to say.

Good interview anyway.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Could be right Snake - At least it's more difficult to imagine WWIII starting over something like that - the Mozartians vs the Beethovenians.



Just taking this theory to the logical next step :-
rather than have the IRA vs the UDR
or the Sunnis vs the Shi-ites
...............
Wouldn't it be nice if the biggest cause of unrest and disagreement between peoples of the world - and the biggest threat to world peace - was at the level of the differences between the
technical ana-Listz's and the fundamental-Listz's.   

btw, here's Hovind on the plot of world population since "creation" 6000 years ago.  Note the significant "correction" at the time of Noah's flood. - nearly as bad as 1989 /87 whatever.  


I mean, world human population 1 billion 2500 yrs ago, 
then presumably after 40 days and 40 nights of rain, population 2. !!  
Gee he must have had a hassle burying the other 999,999,998. 

One thing's for sure, Noah seems to have "weathered" the correction better than his neighbours.

Speaking of corrections (and ugly graphs) :-
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21722341-664,00.html  "stock market may make correction this week " albeit positive outlook longterm etc . (I'm starting to think that the only way my bank balance would mimic that graph - is to keep working till I'm 4000 years.) 
who said all this was off thread


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2007)

new girl said:


> WHAT ENLIGHTEMENT are you talking about????? oops the **** meter. sorry Waynel



Enlightening to hear a bishop accept euthanasia.

And some tolerance towards gays after hearing the likes of Fred Nile quote from the Bible why they won't go to heaven etc. (whatta loada ...)
I heard that it's just as difficult for a gay to go straight, as for a sraight to become gay. (comforting thought for non-gays )

The problem with Haggard - (see "videos that send a message" thread) ,and his being exposed as being gay - is the absolute hypocrisy compared to his acidic "teachings" while he masquerades under some self-styled halo. -especially preaching to kids at one of those Jesus camps - those people should be put on trial for perverting young minds.

BTW, Moses, in that Bishop of Oxford post - he downplays the virgin birth bigtime - for whatever reason, whether he has doubts - or that he wants to  emphasise the resurrection instead whatever.  I realise that Catholics treat the virgin birth as very important of course, but again, we are getting off thread I guess.


----------



## new girl (15 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I've only seen him being unreasonable, but I have to say, it has been in response to unreasonableness.
> 
> I quite like a lot of what he has to say.





Get up and walk Waynle, your sins are forgiven


----------



## BIG BWACULL (15 May 2007)

After God had created Adam he noticed that he looked very lonely. He decided to help.

He said "Adam, I've decided to make you a woman. She'll love you, cook for you, be sweet to you, and understand you."

Adam said "Great! How much will she cost me?"

The answer came back, "An arm and a leg."

"Well," said Adam "what can I get for a rib?"


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Could be right Snake - At least it's more difficult to imagine WWIII starting over something like that - the Mozartians vs the Beethovenians.




Exactly! 

But did god make Mozart special for a reason or was it natural for him to be the way he was? Just like Earth is in the universe.


----------



## Rafa (15 May 2007)

didn't realise WWII started over religion


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> didn't realise WWII started over religion



No but the Crusades did I think 
Question is what will potentially trigger WWIII ?


----------



## constable (15 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> No but the Crusades did I think
> Question is what will potentially trigger WWIII ?




This thread!


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

new girl said:


> Get up and walk Waynle, your sins are forgiven



I think you're trying to play mind games. Unfortunately for you, it is having an effect I'm sure you would rather it not. On forums, sins are never forgiven.


----------



## Rafa (15 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> No but the Crusades did I think
> Question is what will potentially trigger WWIII ?




OIL! If you say any different, you are less intelligent than what i have previously given you credit for  

be interesting to research how many wars were truly started in the name of GOD!
especially some of the more recent ones... 19th, 20th and 21st century.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> OIL! .



Rafa, So what you're saying is that John Lennon should've added another verse ...

"Imagine there's no o-il,   imagine no grease can
no oil wells below us, the brotherhood of man" etc


----------



## disarray (15 May 2007)

not oil, water


----------



## waza1960 (15 May 2007)

There won't be a WWIII Global awareness will prevent it


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 May 2007)

waza1960 said:


> There won't be a WWIII Global awareness will prevent it




Kinda like a nip in the bud thing big waza..yes I agree.


----------



## Rafa (15 May 2007)

haha, nice one 2020

i think oil, water, resources in general are going to be the battle ground of the next century...

after all, unless we find a new colony to exploit (and it may be the moon...) to continue at our current rate of growth, somethings gotta give.

and as for global warming, studies are already showing that possibly up to 1billion people might be displaced... (another potential flash point)... with the main resource in question being land, water, food!


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2007)

Guess I'm just being pessimistic - as Einstein said
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." 

Is religion a factor in war? Again it depends on how we define our terms doesn't it.  I mean I would have thought that this thread includes all Gods - including the God that is referred to when some extremist calls out "God is Great" - then we are in the middle of such a religious war as we speak.  "Jihad" means holy war does it not.  Then you get the extremists on the Christian side - plenty on those Jesus squad videos - where kids are ji-ed up to be prepared to die for Jesus. 

So some questions spring to mind :-
are we saying that the god we invented for ourselves is so much better than the god they invented for themselves? 
if everyone became more religious, is that likely to help?
what about if everyone became less so ?
I know my answers.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2007)

But true Rafa - could be wars over food even , fishing rights - carbon rights I guess   Great show on SBS tonight - George Bush going to the election with a promise to legislate carbon reductions (to "out green" Gore) - only to do a complete back flip after the election - now there is one who is morally bankrupt if ever there was one.


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2007)

George Carlin on the ten commandments:

(It's a p!sstake so don't watch if likely to be offended  )


----------



## Rafa (16 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Is religion a factor in war?




Yes, God is certainly used as a motivating factor during war... just as racism (aryans vs jews), nationalism (numerous examples), ideology (capitalism vs communism), cultural/ethnicity (one black african tribe vs another), etc, etc



> So some questions spring to mind :-
> are we saying that the god we invented for ourselves is so much better than the god they invented for themselves?




Yes... only becuase unfortunately we all like to think the God has the set of beliefs that we have... and since our beleifs are the best, our God is the best. In actual fact, we got no idea what God is, or what his beliefs are, and indeed why things happen... hence, when something bad happens, we all go around crying... "why is this happening, how can God let this happen, blah blah blah    "

I beleive (as i've said this before)... everything happens for a reason, but i'd be buggered if in know what the reasons are... but God does.



> if everyone became more religious, is that likely to help?




Yes, but only if the main virtues of the religions we follow are aligned. In my opinion, how can you go wrong with the religious virtues i outlined my post on the beatitudes. But others, naturally will have different opinions.



> what about if everyone became less so ?




Yes, if everyone has no purpose in life whatsover except to follow MONEY... Capitalism and greed is good.... Alternatively, if everyone became a socialist, communist, white with blue eyes, etc, etc... it removes one potential motivating tool.

But I have no doubt a smart leader will find another


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> Yes, if everyone has no purpose in life whatsover except to follow MONEY... Capitalism and greed is good.... Alternatively, if everyone became a socialist, communist, white with blue eyes, etc, etc... it removes one potential motivating tool.




I don't have too much trouble with most of your post there Raf, (although I don't necessarily agree etc) except for the sentence above.

I have found non-Christians to have equally as much purpose in life ( and equally high morals - on a a par with, if not just as high as  ) christians and other religious believers.   

But then I agree with the removal of the motivation for war . 

BTW,  you know they found the mummified skeletons of Adam and Eve yesterday don't you?

You know how they are sure it was them?
  - no belly buttons


----------



## Rafa (16 May 2007)

nice one   


btw, just to clarify, i didn't mean to say non beleivers have no purpose in life...
rather meant to say... to have a different purpose in life ...

and i used the examples of making money, greed, become a socialist, communist,  etc, etc... i could have added things like helping those in need, stopping violence, ending war, and could go on and on

regardless, everyone needs to have the same purpose, otherwise you have motivating factor for war (commies vs capitalist!)

interesting you state the word morals
what is Morals? and what makes someone's morals higher that someone elses?
are morals related to whats right and whats wrong
is having morals the same as not sinning (thou SHALL NOT), or to live a virtuous life (thou SHALL).

is there a time and place for morals... i.e applied at the micro level (family, society), or the macro level (eg war on iraq, helping the poor, oppressed people, going to africa / asia and risking your own life for people you don't even know)... 

PS: this may or may not be related to the tread topic, i don't know.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 May 2007)

Raf, have to get back to morals later - certainly kept early philosophers busy contemplating that one. 
what is just?
what is just around the corner?
probably best that we don't know 

Here are a couple of youtubes :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpbrFAxV9cc&NR=1  Digitalfreethought's Atheism 101 Part 3 of 6  (there is obviously a set, but this is reasonable summary)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbdvy5jIQw Richard Dawkins Foundation Introduction. 
Dawkins is horrified that 
"the general public prefers irrational books (astrology, magic, extra terrestrials, etc etc - without even going near religious books at this stage of the argument) over books that reflect what we know about the real world"

"that a recent gallop poll concluded that almost half the population of USA believes that the entire universe, sun, solar system, milky way galaxy, and all the other billions of galaxies, all began AFTER the domestication of the dog.

"They believe this because they rate a particular bronze age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world 

"Now as we approach Darwin's bicentennial, the fact that almost 50% of Americans take genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal". 

 "The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feel that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give. They are not just useful, they enrich our lives in the same kind of way as the arts do. Promoting science as poetry was one of the things that Carl Sagan did so well, and I aspire to continue his tradition." - Richard Dawkins  

Research into the psychological basis of unreason.  What is it about the human psychology that predisposes people to find astrology more appealing than astronomy;  at what age are young people most vulnerable to unreason 

Education.  Seek to support rational and scientific education at all ages


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 May 2007)

I suspect that I'm a follower of these blokes.


----------



## happytown (16 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> ...
> 
> Though I find the personage of DR thoroughly objectionable
> 
> ...




wayne
please refrain
from showing disdain
to my saviour ... again  



wayneL said:


> ...
> 
> I will however, stop short of changing my avatar to a picture of Rumsfeld
> 
> ...




your current avatar is far better suited, particularly to this thread, mythologically speaking

and the smiley 






fantastic across the ether



2020hindsight said:


> ...
> 
> THEN of course there are ...
> the known forgottens
> ...




ahh 20's from the ancient revered sacred scripts of the whatchamacallums



Rafa said:


> ...
> 
> # Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
> # Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
> ...




and rafa,

Blessed are the blessed: for they are doubly blessed  

and yes i have revisited the matrix to refresh my soul  

by the way wayne and 20's, this sunday, ABC (Aust) 9.30, Compass, part 1 of a 2 part series 'Root of all evil: the god delusion' - "Professor Richard Dawkins claims that belief in christianity, islam or judaism has stunted the minds capacity for understanding"

cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 May 2007)

happytown said:


> by the way , this sunday, ABC (Aust) 9.30, Compass, part 1 of a 2 part series 'Root of all evil: the god delusion' - "Professor Richard Dawkins claims that belief in christianity, islam or judaism has stunted the minds capacity for understanding.



Fantastic !!  - thanks happytown - though to be honest, youtube is a great substitute for live TV; much of it recorded from original broadcast of the show of course.

Incidentally, Chasers covered some of the superstitious nonsense that Dawkins was referring to tonight. (nothing to do with religion as such, more about hypnotising materialistic objects into believeing that they belonged to us lol - whatta loada ...)

Also next Monday, Denton's "Enough Rope":-


> God On My Side is a film about faith and the places it can take people. Where it took Andrew Denton was to the 63rd National Religious Broadcasters' Convention in Dallas, Texas, in February 2006. More than 6,000 Christian communicators gathered there, at the Gaylord Convention Center, to discuss how best to spread the word of God in this new century, how to take advantage of opportunities presented by the explosion of new technologies and audiences. *By turns serious and comic and sometimes a little disturbing, it examines the cutting edge of evangelical technology, the business of God, the America of the religious right, and what the inescapable truths of the Bible mean for US foreign policy and the Middle East*. Seventy million Americans are born again Christians. A highly organised, politicised and motivated bloc, they provide more than 40 per cent of President Bush's vote. The NRB provides key access to this constituency. With 350 television and 750 radio stations among its members, and an estimated audience of 141 million Americans, the NRB knows it has a powerful voice in the States. Its members not only speak to the heartland of President Bush's America, they are the heartland of President Bush's America. Denton wondered, what would this heartland look like up close? Who are these people? What were the journeys that brought them to faith? With his trademark wit and empathy, Denton's idea was to avoid the clichés, to stay away from the stereotypical, pulpit-pounding televangelists, and focus instead on the foot soldiers of Christianity, the everyday believers running booths on the exhibition floor or workshops in the surrounding rooms. *With an open mind and a determination to take people as he found them, his self-appointed brief was to allow his interviewees the respect and room to express themselves freely, to have their ideas and views heard*. Andrew Denton's first feature-length documentary, God On My Side is a subtle but powerful piece o
> Format: Movie, Closed Captions



Personally I am convinced that a far smaller percentage of Australians than 45% or 51% or whatever (as USA poll came up with) believe that the universe is only 6000 years old, a la creationism.


----------



## Bobby (17 May 2007)

Wow another hindsight post, I can see why 2020 is Broke ~ but happy ?   


Have Fun
Bob.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 May 2007)

holy Dow!! up 100 points again


----------



## Rafa (17 May 2007)

I think if anyone thinks the universe is 6000 years old, is a bloody idiot  


Having said that, whilst the universe is millions of years old... and i accept that, i am still to be convinced that human race simply just happened!... Maybe the God/s put us on this earth 50,000 years ago, as a giant game of Sims.. or Civilisations.... Can anyone say with any certainty otherwise?


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (17 May 2007)

As I myself am only 35 years old, I cannot say for sure how old the Earth and Universe is, as I have not been witness to it's creation or evolution. Neither can anyone else say, if it is 6000 years old, or 6 trillion. 

I am a believer in the Bible account, simply because I am yet to find any evidence that proves otherwise, unlike evolution.

If we all have the same evidence, as we do with fossils and whatever else, we have to remove our biased beliefs, that is, what we want to believe, and just analyze the facts, like a detective in a crime.

Or to use the stock market, our common ground, we all have the same information available to us, we just use different indicators, and thus have different opinions, which is all the stock market is. People with different opinions willing to back it up with money. We can't all be right, as is evident with losing trades, and the 95% of futures traders that go under in their first year. You say it's going up, I say it's going down. Only one of us can be right, regardless of how strongly we believe.

So if we have a bunch of tangible pieces of evidence, we have to be able to look at them objectively, with no pre-formed opinions (presuppositions?), or bias to what our faith-based religion tells us.

It's normal to fear the unknown. What if the Bible is true? In my time as a Christian, I've yet to find a reason to believe it isn't. There is no evidence that I know of to say that it isn't. I think that people put death out of their minds, it's easier to not think about it. The problem is that it is going to happen eventually, whether you think about it or not. It's looming in the future, an unavoidable event for us all. We plan for retirement with all these financial investments, yet a lot of people fail to plan for the real retirement, eternity. 



It's worth investigating with an open mind and heart. Maybe people put it off because they know that if the bible is true, then they're going to have to change, stop drinking, fornicating etc, but it's like a gamble with your eternal life. You can put it off until you're older, but if you die in the mean time you lose.

God gives us all freedom to choose. It's what makes us different from animals, different from angels. It's why He loves us. We are His creation, real creatures with free will. It is each of our own choice to accept God, or reject Him. 
God has mulititudes of angels that worship Him day and night. We are different as humans in that we can choose. 

Here's a link to a page of videos that I'm certain will stimulate your mind. Just be willing to accept something different to what you already believe.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

If I can recommend the two most recent ones, Creation, Evolution and Deception parts 1 and 2.  

Best regards, hope you enjoy watching.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 May 2007)

AP, Just because you can touch the Bible doesn't make it's tangible evidence.   Whereas science is pretty confident that they are spot on with carbon dating etc.  But I have a feeling that this thread is not about to change your ideas  

Maybe if you argued that a "day" is really an epoch or some such (speaking allegorically or metaphorically - or in "macro days" if you prefer ) then you could fudge your way through the argument I guess 


e.g.  Maybe Pleistocene epoch is the "day" that Adam and Eve were made.  BTW, I notice that Wikipedia says that's where dating is heaviest, so maybe Adam and Eve were indeed responsible    Maybe carbon dating is when they invented the lead pencil for writing love letters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene 

And another thing - so many of us going to hell and stoking fires for the foreseeable eternity -  in fact it's probably the real reason for global warming 

PS Re Your comparison to trading on the share market - do you trust the word of the geologists who do those drilling reports for you?  How many of them do you think believe that the stuff they are drilling up and reporting on is only 6000 years old.

PS I notice that short faced bears became extinct then.
These days - with the Dow defying gravity as it is - , all we see around here are... long faced bears? 

PS Won't it be a great day when kids leave year 12 school majoring in Pleistocene - instead of majoring in Plastocene. 

PS I notice that fauna gets a big boost during this epoch as well .  Maybe they should rename it - the "Fauna-cation" epoch !"


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 May 2007)

Looks like there were 6 era for example - "and he rested on the 7th"  - snap!!

Don;t know about sitting on the right hand of God or not, but you'll see Pleistocene (and modern man) up there on the very right hand end of the geological time scale. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
Note good fossils from around 630 millin years ago.
and formation of earth estimated about 4570 million years ago.
To say that the earth is only 6000 years old is to say is like saying that these blokes got it wrong to the extend that they think the distance across the USA is about 18 inches ( or 18 feet or whatever) - seriously wrong. They might be out by a factor of 2 or 3 or even 100 but sheesh... 4,570,000,000 vs 6,000  (out by a factor of just under a million ?) c'mon.


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (17 May 2007)

My apologies there 20/20. By tangible evidence I refer to stuff we find lying around here on Earth, like fossils.

Did you know that they found a fossilized miner's hat down a mine in Tasmania?
There goes the millions of years for a fossil to form theory.

Carbon dating, while I can appreciate your sense of humour, is an inaccurate method. Here's a link to a page that will give some facts on radiometric dating. 

*http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp*

There have never been found any transitional species fossils, as you would expect to find if we did indeed evolve from apes. All that are found, regardless of depth, are species. The Bible (I know, here I go...) says that each species produces after it's own kind
.
An example is that we don't find a half-cat/half-dog.
It's why we can't get a half-ape, half-man. Different gene structure. Each species is created after it's own kind, always has, always will. Like humans, some have missing legs, some have slanty eyes, some have dark skin. Still all are humans, that have adapted to their environment over time, like cockroaches adapt to insecticide and become more resistant to it.
Humans occasionally have birth defects for any number of reasons. Call it an accumulation of sin, the wrong combination of parents, a freak genetic thing, whatever. Some animals are born defective as well. But we still are individual species, that can breed (after their own kind) within our own species.

All the species you see on the planet have existed that way since they were created. Species vary within species, like we have poodles and dobermans, but they are both dogs. They simply have genetic mutations within that species (dog). It is scientifically proven that all dogs came from a common ancestor, the wolf, much like it is proven that all humans come from common ancestors, Adam and Eve/Noah. 

If we did evolve from apes, why are there still apes? There are no ape-man fossils. Only ape fossils, and man fossils, found together at the same levels in fossil layers. Should there not be ape fossils at the bottom, then a graduation of ape-to-man as "time" passes (yes, the evolutionists will have you believe that it takes millions of years for each layer of rock to form in the fossil record). 

Fossils are found facing vertically in layers of rock, existing in multiple layers of rock which supposedly took thousands of years for each layer to form. Evolutionists therefore will have you believe that the carcase stood protruding from the ground for thousands of years while the rock layers formed over and around it. Unlikely, you must admit.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 May 2007)

Just noticed another chatroom where people were really dumb and no-one would admit to definitely "knowing" either way.   what a lot of dummies !


----------



## petervan (17 May 2007)

If I could nominate a GOD I would nominate 2020hindsight for his contribution to this thread, Is there a GOD. Mate I just love your tireless work.You,ve got my vote


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 May 2007)

I've been told that one of my posts back there was altogether wrong, and I therefore wish to post this correction -

After the big flood the population was  8, (not 2) -  
Noah, his wife (past child bearing age)
three sons and their wives.

so I was out by a factor of 4 !-  how incorrect can you be!.  That's nearly as bad as calling those fossils 630 million years old 

Lol - thanx peter - just that I'm allergic to the TV -  (and I seem to have caught some bug from this youtube thing - and wikipedia   

And you see someone like Dawkins trying to set up a charity (!!!) to help educate Americans - I mean - they expect to be classified as a charity because the need to counter this trend of "unreason" is so great.  Obviously won't get that classification while George Bush is around lol. , but you gotta admire him for trying.   Looking forward to his show on SBS Sunday night .  

PS Or does that mean that , if they found fossils of sponges from 630 million years ago - that PROVES that Adam and Eve has a bathtub!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 May 2007)

AnalysisParalysis said:


> *The Bible gives us an infallible account of the entire history of our planet, including it's creation*.
> 
> There is evidence all around us to support the Bible account.  One that I have recently read is how canyons form. The average atheist evolutionist will say that it took millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. However, there is no evidence to support this statement.
> 
> ...



AP, 
You say the Grand Canyon was due to Noah's Flood. 
Here's a slightly more scientific version :-

Just up the road from the Grand Canyon you'll find  Hoover Dam / alias Boulder Dam.  - all part of the Colorado River. Firstly a photo from a plane - then a closeup of the strata that make up the layers of rock.  Don't tell the missus this , lol , but when I took this (that's the missus legs btw ) I was fascinated with the possibility that  each of those layers of rock was possibly once horizontal. i.e. there was lake here, which was constantly laying down sediment, which was somehow tilted, new layers at different angles.  Since then I find that some of the sandstone was windblown, and that might explain that particular area.   Either way,  geology still has a tremendous story to tell through such laying of sedimentary and/or wind blown rocks. 

Up the road at Grand Canyon, the rocks have been cut to give one of "the  most complete geologic columns on the planet".   The geologists make the following observations (including the age of some of the strata now evident in the walls) :- 



> The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years and that the *Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old (with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years). *The result of all this erosion is *one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.*
> 
> ... The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. *Interestingly, there is a gap of about one billion years between the stratum that is about 500 million years old and the lower level, which is about 1.5 billion years old. That indicates a period of erosion between two periods of deposition.*
> 
> ...



So , sorry, I prefer this version than yours 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_river
PS the river no longer reaches the sea 


> The lower course of the river, which forms the border between Baja California and Sonora, is essentially a trickle or a dry stream today due to use of the river as Imperial Valley's irrigation source. Prior to the mid 20th century, the Colorado River Delta provided a rich estuarine marshland that is now essentially desiccated, but nonetheless is an important ecological resource.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 May 2007)

Thanks for some interesting truths on the canyon formation 2020.

Does anyone feel that with more people , more facts , more experience and more general knowledge up to today (18/05/2007) that still,no one knows if there is a god?
If you believe the scientists (if you don`t then defy the earths gravity) then a much clearer `picture` has emerged to the history , and after all it is history that the conjecture is about , of the planet that we live (and die) on.

The ones who have dared ask the questions & prove their theories have , and are , opening doors to truths we have never even thought of.There is a place in this world for a belief in a god (i did when i was dealing with loss) though if you want to experience life fully , then a belief in any religion captivates you. 

P.S. i`m not the devil (but don`t tell anyone)


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 May 2007)

I needed to add that the time taken for these changes to the shape of the earth was over more time than thinking man has legibly recorded.To know the truth in these matters is liberating and comforting as one.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 May 2007)

There is no God.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> There is no God.



And there we have it! The definitive answer from THE authority!


----------



## imajica (18 May 2007)

The concept of 'GOD' forms part of the cultural simulacrum

The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth-it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.

Ecclesiastes

therefore:

Religion is a simulacrum: something that is made 'real' by its believers, not something that is believed in because it is 'real'


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> George Carlin on the ten commandments:
> (It's a p!sstake so don't watch if likely to be offended  )




Wayne - that was brilliant btw  -
of course he too will have difficulty getting into heaven but what the hell.

PS ( one of these days I'll post a short message lol) - when driving around Arizona / Nevada / Utah, you turn on the radio, -a lot of religious stations - "and now for the 9 oclock news , researchers have proved that genesis chap 7 ver 49 sub para (1) (a) (iii) is absolutely true,  and the world is only 6000 years etc ".  and so on for 5 minutes - quite often not a word on another topic.  So you think to yourself, how is it that some tour guide or travel book just told me the complete opposite  

Many there seem to be caught in the conundrum /puzzle / riddle that their dollars come in because they live on this magnificent geological time record, yet many of them still refuse to see it as such.  Maybe they just see "a big valley" lol.  Then there are the Evil Kanevils (?) who see it and say ,  "wow, I bet I can jump that !!" 

PS Met a bloke wanted to put a dam across the Grand Canyon,  - but don't mention it in Tasmania - might give them (him) ideas.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne - that was brilliant btw  -
> of course he too will have difficulty getting into heaven but what the hell.



Suppose for a brief moment that there is a Christian God. If he gave humans a sense of humour, I'm sure he has one himself. I'd say he was laughing at George like the rest of us. lol

I read an article that reckoned the "manna" that the Israelites were eating in the Sinai Desert was in fact magic mushrooms. That would explain a lot of things... burning bushes... conversations with the big fella... tablets with rules written on that nobody else got to see etc etc.

Moses was tripping out man!


----------



## disarray (18 May 2007)

imajica said:


> The concept of 'GOD' forms part of the cultural simulacrum
> 
> The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth-it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
> 
> ...




heh reminds me of the terry pratchett book "small gods". in discworld gods are made real and powerful by belief so the most popular gods are huge and powerful, while there are hundreds of tiny little gods running around who only have a few believers. a good read.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 May 2007)

disarray said:


> heh reminds me of the terry pratchett book "small gods". in discworld gods are made real and powerful by belief so the most popular gods are huge and powerful, while there are hundreds of tiny little gods running around who only have a few believers. a good read.



sounds a bit like Canbera m8  - tell me, do these gods get massive retirement benfits?


----------



## disarray (18 May 2007)

no they pop out of existence once people stop believing in them. no diplomatic postings to rome for them. sounds like a system worth adopting.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> And there we have it! The definitive answer from THE authority!



No avatars of god?


----------



## noirua (18 May 2007)

I felt the poll was quite difficult to vote on as it had no mention of religion or other beliefs. 
It would therefore be possible to believe in God, and not in life after death, or believe in life after death, with no religion. With belief in religion, life after death is a belief. 
Also comments such as "...we are a random quirk of nature" and a few other add ons, tended to bias the poll, imho.


----------



## Mousie (18 May 2007)

noirua said:


> I felt the poll was quite difficult to vote on as it had no mention of religion or other beliefs.
> It would therefore be possible to believe in God, and not in life after death, or believe in life after death, with no religion. With belief in religion, life after death is a belief.
> Also comments such as "...we are a random quirk of nature" and a few other add ons, tended to bias the poll, imho.




noirua,

I believe the reason tech/a created the poll thus was to minimise the influence of each's religious beliefs upon their voting on whether a deity actually exists. I know a single creator-God exist (read my past posts as to why), but nowhere have I stated that I believe in any religion.

The focus is on whether a God actually exist, not any might-be-related consequences of whether a deity exists.

Then again, tech/a can speak for himself.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> Suppose for a brief moment that there is a Christian God. If he gave humans a sense of humour, I'm sure he has one himself. I'd say he was laughing at George like the rest of us. lol
> 
> I read an article that reckoned the "manna" that the Israelites were eating in the Sinai Desert was in fact magic mushrooms. That would explain a lot of things... burning bushes... conversations with the big fella... tablets with rules written on that nobody else got to see etc etc.  Moses was tripping out man!



Lol, God's sense of humour .  what an interesting topic 
If he made us in his likeness, then why not?
If we made him in our likeness, then again, why not?

Or is it a case of having coffee and scones with the boss and his wife, and you're only allowed to laugh when the boss tells the jokes  

or maybe .... I remember Eddy McGuire on "Who wants to be a millionaire" , and someone came on and had told 3 jokes before Eddy could get out one, and lol - Eddy had to set him straight "HEY I TELL the jokes around HERE!" lol. (he was serious too)  

As for the magic mushrooms - that has gotta be plausible surely. 

Maybe those "tablets" haven't been "translated" correctly either


----------



## Happy (18 May 2007)

Did we touch on scientology yet?

What was wrong with Mr Sweeney, developed screechy voice.


----------



## Rafa (18 May 2007)

i would like to hear more on scientology, esp in light of recent events...
anyone here a scientologist?


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 May 2007)

PS speaking of magic mushrooms ,  here's a repost :- (personally I prefer the 1973 version)
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=98528&highlight=superstar#post98528

If you listen carefully to the words of this song, you can definitely pick up a drunken slur in their voices ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRqwlZDvWw8 The Last Supper


> Look at all my trials and tribulations
> Sinking in a gentle pool of wine
> *Don't disturb me now I can see the answers*
> Till this evening is this morning life is fine
> ...



http://www.lyricsdepot.com/jesus-christ-superstar/the-last-supper.html (lyrics)


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 May 2007)

Happy said:


> Did we touch on scientology yet?
> 
> What was wrong with Mr Sweeney, developed screechy voice.




I read parts parts of Dianetics a long time ago.I went to a church of scientology in Perth to find out about being "cleared" of "engrams".
They had me convinced that I was in need of their help and I signed up.That night I discussed this with my friends and they said to be careful of this mob.
I rang them the next day and told them I didn`t want to join and the bloke told me that it was those voices telling not to go and to fight them.He sounded angry and wanted to continue trying to convince me , I became scared so I hung up and never went back.I only wanted to find out some more about Dianetics in the first place but they had my impressionable mind while I was in their presence that day.Long time ago now and looking back I realise that it takes time to build a strong mind. That was my experience.

P.s....I went for a personality test at some place years before then which is when I first read about Dianetics and that Hubbard dude.


----------



## disarray (18 May 2007)

south park do scientology

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DAmEO-oLHzA

this is what they really believe


----------



## Happy (18 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I read parts parts of Dianetics a long time ago.I went to a church of scientology in Perth to find out about being "cleared" of "engrams".
> They had me convinced that I was in need of their help and I signed up.That night I discussed this with my friends and they said to be careful of this mob.
> I rang them the next day and told them I didn`t want to join and the bloke told me that it was those voices telling not to go and to fight them.He sounded angry and wanted to continue trying to convince me , I became scared so I hung up and never went back.I only wanted to find out some more about Dianetics in the first place but they had my impressionable mind while I was in their presence that day.Long time ago now and looking back I realise that it takes time to build a strong mind. That was my experience.
> 
> P.s....I went for a personality test at some place years before then which is when I first read about Dianetics and that Hubbard dude.





Looks like rather unpleasant experience.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I went to a church of scientology in Perth to find out about being "cleared" of "engrams".  They had me convinced that I was in need of their help and I signed up.



Lol - teach you to leave the bush 
When I was a kid, our family was tackled by a couple of Mormons. Used to come to the house and give us "the good oil".  For the first week or two, we were too polite to tell them we didn't want to know.  Gotta feeling my brother was interested in the polygomy bit lol. 

Then the misunderstandings started with all these strange accents ...
"If I sign up and have two wives, that's bigamy"
"No it's not , it big of ME for signing you up." 

Seems that JC was a Jew, and that wasn't good enough, so they'd come up with their idea of a MUCH BETTER spritual leader - some bloke who saw something special (forget what, burning bushes , magic mushrooms, who can remember the mumbo jumbo  - ahh that was it !!!  pink flying elephants (lol)!! ) 
Classic Xenophanes "If horses could draw, they would draw their God's as horses"

NOW - how about we start an AUSSIE religion! - maybe Johnny Farnham can have the batton for the first year at least .  Just gotta think of something clever that he's supposed to have done lol.   

Gotta feeling Cathy Freeman walked on water when she lit the Olympic torch? forget the details. 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=105416&highlight=xenophanes#post105416


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2007)

Happy said:


> Looks like rather unpleasant experience.



The BBC did a show on them:
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o79v1D_J5g

The scientolopaths also made a counterattacking program... links on youtube.

Their policy of fair gaming seems like a case of "they doth protesteth too much" to me.


----------



## Julia (18 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Lol - teach you to leave the bush
> When I was a kid, our family was tackled by a couple of Mormons. Used to come to the house and give us "the good oil".  For the first week or two, we were too polite to tell them we didn't want to know.  Gotta feeling my brother was interested in the polygomy bit lol.
> 
> Then the misunderstandings started with all these strange accents ...
> ...



I'm going to stick up for the Mormons.  Several years ago I was laid up following an accident and worrying about stuff like cleaning the pool, mowing the lawns etc.  A couple of these young chaps called amongst their routine door to door  routine, observed my incapacity and asked what they could do to help.  I said I wasn't at all interested in their religion or even in discussing it with them.  Their response was that that was fine:  they'd still be happy to help.  And they did, willingly and very ably.  I was really grateful .  There was no talk of religion of God or anything along those lines.  They left me their phone number and assured me they'd be back promptly if they could do anything more.  So my heartfelt thanks to two young Americans who were a great advertisement for their beliefs.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 May 2007)

Julia said:


> I'm going to stick up for the Mormons.  Several years ago I was laid up following an accident and worrying about stuff like cleaning the pool, mowing the lawns etc.  ....  They left me their phone number and assured me they'd be back promptly if they could do anything more.  So my heartfelt thanks to two young Americans who were a great advertisement for their beliefs.



thanks Julia,
I'll remember that next time I need the pool cleaned . 
(mind you last time I looked the eels were about 6 feet long and growing, lol) 
But If I need spritual guidance, - I'll take a raincheck thanks   

Another way to look at it would be to enquire what right they have to preach to us - or to anyone     Blind Freddy could predict that they'll be on exemplary behaviour .. that's their job description for chrissake.  

I'm reminded of a case I read about where an American accused of killing his father was sentenced to "go out into the world as a missionary, and spread "the word of God" for a couple of years."  
Whatta loada ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 May 2007)

I realise Julia that you do work with the underpriveleged etc, I just wish that foreign missionaries spent more of their time doing that as well - talking philanthropic work without hint of reward  - which leads to the next question -  why pick Australia as somewhere in need of help (compared to Africa?) or salvation (compared to America?).

A few scenarios (just scattered thoughts):-
a)  foreign missionaries working in countries that are equally "enlightened" as their own, getting a financial footing (you can only do that in first world countries) doing very little for the local poor, without mentioning God (initially)
b) missionaries working amongst the poor and starving of Africa without mentioning God (ever)
c) local churches such as Salvation Army who spend a large percentage of their time collecting and doing charity work amongst the local poor, (who rarely mention God) 
https://salvos.org.au/donate/secure-online-donations/
d) the sects like the Moonies where first world kids were told to go out and collect money on behalf of Moon (who enjoyed multimillionaire lifestyle)
e) sects like Jonestown, - who knows what the truth is there  
"Some people think I have a lot of God in me" 
f) the likes of the Mother Theresa (Christian happily working amongst the poor,  sick and dying of India)- David Livingstone, Albert Schweitzer in Africa etc

As they say, an ant is the best preacher, and he says nothing.

Couldn't help thinking, when we were discussing the various operations on pets in another thread (BradK's dog - and heaps of other dog needing opns) - anything from $1500 to $3000 etc - and I 'm equally guilty of encouraging Brad to go with the operation as well - but the sort of money vets charge sheesh.  

Now (thinking aloud) here's where you could apply your mind to an alternative way to look at it - Difficulty of course is explaining it to the kids who potentially would otherwise never forgive you (until they gain some maturity - after some time dealing with life's realities etc).

An alternative way to sell it to (maybe teenage) kids you can reason with might be ( first draft) 

It's a sad day here for sure kids, that old Betsy has to go
but the world is full of poor kids, and they also need the dough
maybe think about old betsy laying down her life for theirs
as a reincarnate piglet who will lighten up their cares

Or a Yak for a Mongolian ( yak yak  I hear you say )
So a kid can be Napolean for just the briefest day
and his family can have some cheese, and travel into town
and Bets can smile cos kids like these will have the lesser frown.
- and Betsy, them, and you and me will have the lesser frown.
http://www.worldvision.com.au/Smiles/GiftCatalogue/Gifts.aspx?RangeId=5

(I think they call it win-win don't they? ) 
$600 is a lot of yak - and sounds like hard yakka to rake that up, but maybe a piglet - ? anyways - still cheap compared to vets (was my intended point). 

And American religions are incredibly rich institutions (a la Dawkin's tape).:2,000,000,000  cents.  And I just don't understand why they come here to preach to us  (when we're quite capable of preaching to each other I hear you say lol)


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 May 2007)

Just following along a lost trail in the jungle here, vaguely looking for references to God, or results of other people looking for God :-
Livingstone :-   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livingstone


> And if my disclosures regarding the terrible Ujijian slavery should lead to the suppression of the East Coast slave trade, I shall regard that as a greater matter by far than the discovery of all the Nile sources together” — Livingstone in a letter to the editor of the New York Herald.[5]





> Livingstone completely lost contact with the outside world for six years .... Henry Morton Stanley, who had been sent in a publicity stunt to find him by the New York Herald newspaper in 1869, found Livingstone in the town of Ujiji on the shores of Lake Tanganyika on November 10, 1871,[9] greeting him with the words "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?"
> ...
> Despite Stanley's urgings, Livingstone was determined not to leave Africa until his mission was complete. His illness made him confused and he had judgment difficulties at the end of his life. .....[6]
> 
> ...





> Family Life
> While Livingstone had a great impact on British Imperialism, he did so at a tremendous cost to his family. In his absences, his children grew up fatherless, and his wife eventually died of an alcohol related illness. *His one regret in later life was that he did not spend enough time with his children*



didn't spend enough time with his kids? lol - that's the same problem I had lol
did he spend any time with em ?


> David Livingstone (19 March 1813 – 4 May 1873) was a Scottish Presbyterian pioneer medical missionary with the London Missionary Society and explorer in central Africa. He was the first European to see Victoria Falls, which he named in honour of the reigning monarch. ...
> 
> Influences on the young David Livingstone
> David Livingstone's father Neil was very religious, a Sunday School teacher and teetotaller who handed out Christian tracts on his travels as a tea merchant, and who read books on theology, travel and missionary enterprises. This rubbed off on the young David, who became an avid reader, but he also loved scouring the countryside for animal, plant and geological specimens. Neil Livingstone had a fear of science books as undermining Christianity, but David instinctively felt that religion and science were friendly to each other. When he read Philosophy of a Future State by the science teacher and church minister Reverend Thomas Dick, he found the rationale he needed to combine the two, and apart from the Bible this book was perhaps his greatest philosophical influence.[2]
> ...


----------



## Julia (19 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> thanks Julia,
> I'll remember that next time I need the pool cleaned .
> (mind you last time I looked the eels were about 6 feet long and growing, lol)
> But If I need spritual guidance, - I'll take a raincheck thanks
> ...



They were not pushing any spiritual guidance and accepted my refusal to talk about God stuff.  Frankly, I don't think that Blind Freddy or anyone else would have considered their job description to be doing physical yard work for someone they don't know.  
I've made it clear in this thread that I am anti religion, but I do believe in giving credit where it's due.  I haven't seen you having a go at all the other prosletyzers who roll up at the door, but perhaps I've missed it amongst some of your lengthy posts which I've skipped.


----------



## greggy (19 May 2007)

Julia said:


> They were not pushing any spiritual guidance and accepted my refusal to talk about God stuff.  Frankly, I don't think that Blind Freddy or anyone else would have considered their job description to be doing physical yard work for someone they don't know.
> I've made it clear in this thread that I am anti religion, but I do believe in giving credit where it's due.  I haven't seen you having a go at all the other prosletyzers who roll up at the door, but perhaps I've missed it amongst some of your lengthy posts which I've skipped.



Hi Julia,

Speaking about people who roll up at the door, I have nothing against religion, but I get annoyed at the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses mobs who keep on knocking at my door early in the morning on the weekends carrying on about religion.  At least once a month they seem to be coming over.   Despite being polite to them and telling them "No thanks" etc, they often don't seem to get it and continue preaching. Just very annoying indeed.  On top of the "Do not call" register maybe the govt needs to nitroduce a "Do not knock" register.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 May 2007)

ok , lol - I'll make this one brief (er), and people can research the details themselves - if 'n you're interested I guess. (I thought the idea was to share research around here )
For the other point about skipping posts , I'll adopt the philosphy of Nelson, and put the telescope to my blind eye. irate:
Or maybe I'll think like Schweitzer, who was not only an Alsation, but a real terrier as well. :viking: 

Scheitzer:-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer


> Albert Schweitzer, M.D., OM, (January 14, 1875 - September 4, 1965), was *an Alsatian theologian*, musician, philosopher, and physician.
> 
> He was born in Kaisersberg, Alsace-Lorraine (at that time part of the German Empire). After the Allies' victory in 1918, he asked for French nationality according to his Alsacian ancestries, and got it without trouble. ..... He received the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for his *philosophy of "reverence for life"* expressed in many ways but most famously in founding and sustaining the Lambaréné Hospital in Gabon, west central Africa



references to turning pages unread is pure co-incidence 


> Schweitzer considered his work as a medical missionary in Africa to be his response to Jesus' call to become "fishers of men" but also as a small recompense for the historic guilt of European colonizers: "Who can describe the injustice and cruelties that in the course of centuries they [the coloured peoples] have suffered at the hands of Europeans? . . . If a record could be compiled of all that has happened between the white and the coloured races, it would make a book containing numbers of pages *which the reader would have to turn over unread because their contents would be too horrible*."



Finally back on thread  :-


> Philosophy .  Schweitzer's worldview was based on his idea of reverence for life ("Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben"), which he believed to be his greatest single contribution to humankind. His view was that Western civilization was in decay because of gradually abandoning its ethical foundations - those of affirmation of life.
> 
> It was his firm conviction that the respect for life is the highest principle. ....   Friedrich Nietzsche,   Russian Leo Tolstoy.... Some people in his days compared his philosophy with that of Francis of Assisi, a comparison he did not object to. In his book Philosophy of Civilisation , he wrote:
> 
> ...



Finally a (THEORETICAL / Potential) difference between man and apes - with our better brain, we SHOULD have the potential to reason that harmony with nature is better than war with it and each other   Question is are we any better than apes? - some would say we are worse : 2twocents


> ... The historical Enlightenment waned and corrupted itself, Schweitzer held, because it has not been well enough grounded in thought, but compulsively followed the ethical will-to-live. Hence, he looked forward to a renewed and more profound Renaissance and Enlightenment of humanity (a view he expressed in the epilogue of his autobiography, Out of My Life and Thought). Albert Schweitzer nourished hope in a humankind that is more profoundly aware of its position in the Universe. His optimism was based in "belief in truth". "The spirit generated by [conceiving of] truth is greater than the force of circumstances." *He persistently emphasized the necessity to think, rather than merely acting on basis of passing impulses or by following the most widespread opinions.*
> 
> *Never for a moment do we lay aside our mistrust of the ideals established by society*, and of the convictions which are kept by it in circulation. We always know that society is full of folly and will deceive us in the matter of humanity. [...] humanity meaning consideration for the existence and the happiness of individual human beings.
> 
> Respect for life, resulting from contemplation on one's own conscious will to live, leads the individual to live in the service of other people and of every living creature. Schweitzer was much respected for putting his theory into practice in his own life.



here's one for pet lovers - probably a Gabon lion cub in his case  


> He was, for instance, a well-known cat lover, who, although left-handed, would write with his right hand rather than disturb the cat who would sleep on his left arm.



PS I share his opinion concerning "a mistrust of the ideals established by society"  - but as for the rest, I have little or nothing in common with him - hate cats for a start :1 onecent  : )


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 May 2007)

If Schweitzer "persistently emphasized the necessity to think,"
yet didn't want to "disturb the cat who would sleep on his left arm".

why didn't he just:-
a) train the cat to sleep the other way
b) put a mirror up to fool the stupid cat between left and right
c) just get a right handed cat  
d) kick the cat off onto a pillow
e) get a dog, which everyone knows has higher ethical standards than a cat - and would unselfishly and happily coil up at his feet, awaiting any hint that his master needed help so that he could try to oblige 







................................ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Oops looks like I've picked a fight with Mofra for a start lol (and my wife, and my mother in law and... )


----------



## Mofra (19 May 2007)

greggy said:


> On top of the "Do not call" register maybe the govt needs to nitroduce a "Do not knock" register.



Where do I sign? Fantastic idea!


----------



## Julia (19 May 2007)

greggy said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> Speaking about people who roll up at the door, I have nothing against religion, but I get annoyed at the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses mobs who keep on knocking at my door early in the morning on the weekends carrying on about religion.  At least once a month they seem to be coming over.   Despite being polite to them and telling them "No thanks" etc, they often don't seem to get it and continue preaching. Just very annoying indeed.  On top of the "Do not call" register maybe the govt needs to nitroduce a "Do not knock" register.




Hi Greggy,

I couldn't agree more.  I'd rush to sign also.  I'm not sure why my comments about the two young Mormons actually doing something instead of just pushing their religion has been interpreted as my being OK with prosletyzing religious groups.  I particularly dislike the Jehovah's Witnesses for the way they cart little kids around with them.  They call in this area very frequently. I never answer the door.  The dog soon dispatches them.


----------



## drmb (19 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Do you believe in god.



I'm inclined to believe in a divine being and my wife tells me She looks after all of us!


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 May 2007)

FISHERS OF MEN 
If you're introduced to God, with a knowing wink and nod, by a man who comes a-kinocking at your door,
tell him you might look like bream, but the question marks on him, and his brain is undersized against the law.

Ask him what for and since when, is he fishermen of men, why this foreign lead invasion that one finds
makes religion so darned modern, with their just dead saints and god 'n then proceed to pitch their nets for flathead minds. 

As for literal takes of Bible, quotes that largely leave you liable to a challenge that your science is suspicious,
I am more inclined to cry than accept the reasons why such sad science should be nets for human fishes.

If I need help from "My Sire" why on earth would I require, the services of latter day Americans  
While I personally aspire to be just as high or higher, on the ladder of the latter day  Aus- larrikins.


PS Julia
- that's twice you've made me look up dictionary.com for "proselytizing"   - I guess I took you on on that point, because I see it as irrelevant since they have nothing to do but be nice to people.   I accept that you were above coercion on that point  (unproselytizeable ?).    I have (American) friends who are Mormons. Good people, - just that I find it proves Xenophanes to a "tee" when they have to invent an intermediary to God who is American born, rather than some 2000 year old  Jew.  And you have to admit that "god" is "big business" in USA these days - and (if you believe Gallop polls) it's at the expense of knowledge


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 May 2007)

oops 9.30 ABC sunday night Dawkins (not SBS doh)  Root of All Evil? : The God Delusion  Duration: 53 minutes Rating: PG  Documentary 

(and comedy on SBS at 11.15pm) 

 and 9.30 monday night with Andrew Denton


----------



## Julia (19 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> FISHERS OF MEN
> 
> 
> PS Julia
> - that's twice you've made me look up dictionary.com for "proselytizing"   - I guess I took you on on that point, because I see it as irrelevant since they have nothing to do but be nice to people.   I accept that you were above coercion on that point  (unproselytizeable ?).    I have (American) friends who are Mormons. Good people, - just that I find it proves Xenophanes to a "tee" when they have to invent an intermediary to God who is American born, rather than some 2000 year old  Jew.  And you have to admit that "god" is "big business" in USA these days - and (if you believe Gallop polls) it's at the expense of knowledge



2020:  I have zero interest in their religious beliefs.  Such beliefs had absolutely nothing to do with my post.  All I was attempting to say (and now rather wish I had just shut up) was that for once I had the experience of these religious types actually *doing something useful instead of just making a nuisance of themselves.
*
At the time I couldn't have cared less what they believed in.  I was simply grateful for the help.  End of story.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 May 2007)

ok I apologise - anyone would think I never said anything that could be taken to be irrelevant 

Here's something I found on ABC website:-
the sentence I like is in bold.   (woops sentences plural 

That we have evolved from a stupid little 1 cell thing to "thinking beings who can sit back and reflect on the meaning of it all." - and do so on computers communicating through the ether via invisible wiggley things 

(also) if gravity had been different , or if some sets of atoms had not been such a cosy fit together, then life (or at least thinking things) would not have been possible- 

life's bludy amazing, aint it ?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460742.htm


> In Conversation with Paul Davies and Phillip Adams
> 
> Phillip: Throughout our discussions here in the desert, Paul Davies and I have marvelled over the subtlety and beauty of nature. We’ve puzzled over the paradoxes of existence. We’ve celebrated the magic of the cosmos. But whereas we may agree on the scientific facts, we differ sharply on their interpretation. Paul has written several books on the metaphysical implications of science, but does the god that physicists talk about – and they often seem to – bear the slightest resemblance to the popular notions of a god I long ago rejected? And where does science stop and faith begin?
> 
> ...




and personally I still find that dumb caterpillar to be amazingly clever 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWOC8trquFo BBC Worldwide: Attenborough - Caterpillars


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 May 2007)

The biggest problem with believing in a god is that the teachers aren`t open to new possibilities.The same story over and over (some variations) for centuries or thousands of years.Any facts of the universes history is all considered lies and propaganda , the work of the devil.According to revelations.



> When the complex life becomes to intense, and our frustrations on earth rise to high level, we as men of all ages speculate about the end. We're living in such a time. Good people are investing enormous energy in many ways on prophecy, and on predictions of the immediate end of the world.






> Revelation Chapter 20 is central to the millennial controversy, and is perhaps the most disputed text in the Bible. This is the crucial paragraph.* "And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand, and he laid hold on the old dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years should be fulfilled, after that he must be loosed a little **season.* And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given to them, and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon his foreheads or in their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again, until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection. On such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.' Revelation 20:1-6.




Teachings like this from the said St. John The Divine are hard to wrap the ol` noggin around.Dragons are creatures from myth , "And that no man might buy or sell , save "(did someone leave the L out of save)" he that had the mark , or the number of his name"....

 now six hundred , three score and six is not found on anyone at birth and only some toolbags  get it tattooed.So what gives.Thousands of years come and go and all the interpretation/connections that small mind can come up with will come and go.I just don`t like seeing people with blind faith.

Reality needs a good shake up for mine.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 May 2007)

How`s the `ol nostradamus view , talk about enlightenment  

Maybe Dr.? See-ven see little or he or she has already been intro-fracted.lol.

1000 YEARS   -     THE MILLENNIUM

Following are references in Alahoy Books to the 1000 YEARS - the Millennium - as mentioned in the Bible!

Archangel Gabriel!
"Heaven will envelop the millennium and the millennial light shall rule for 1000 years of peace and tranquility."

Nostradamus!
".......upon the final purification of the millennial light into the millennial time of 1000 years of peace, there will be no need for human beings to come back and to regenerate and generate the way they are now. Once the higher enlightenment is reached, the only ones that will come back to this earth will be the ones who are highly enlightened."

Dr See-ven!
"It is very important at this time that the human structure of the cell composure of each one of your bodies is in, what we call, intro-fraction. This means that the pressure that is reversed in the cell structures is going to completely stop the chronological decay of the human body. Therefore, you will go into, what we call, a complete revamping of the DNA in your body that will allow a continuous flow in the electro-magnetic field structures of your cells of continuous rebirthing. What is actually happening then, you are totally in embryo. This gives you the constancy of the transformation of the total potential of this energy from the electro-magnetic cell, from the black hole, from the interaction on the Earth. It also gives you the rebirthing of, what we call, or what your biblical term says, the changing of the new body. When this force field is completely reversed, when the black hole goes into suspended animation in the year 2001, your rebirthing of cells will be in enormous capacity. This will continually preserve the chronological decay into, what we call, a suspended animation. So you are going to be able to preserve this body until 1000 years when the Earth will again go through a change of a reverse propulsion of a black hole. This will come from the Northern Hemisphere instead of attracting, like it did, this way through the Southern Hemisphere."

Dr See-ven
"The stabilization of Mother Earth and especially of its core, is the first primary factor that is affected. This will stabilize, not only the tectonic plates, but will stabilize the entire Earth for the period of 1000 years of the Golden Age where you have a complete change due to the millennial light that will affect mankind."

Princess Osanta!
"The significant changes then of those who will come from these pocket areas later, after the big Battle of Armageddon, will be responsible to repopulate and to get the seed again into the great 1000 years of, what we call, feasting on this Earth."

Appolonius!
"This is what the human consciousness has to do in order for it to reach a millennium. This means a completeness in thinking and the resolution where you allow the reflection to go quickly to the spirit which gives you 1000 years on this Earth of peaceful co-existence."

Valiant Thor from Venus!
"Great changes will take place from the year 2000 to the year 2007 and to the year 2011. You will be getting the final segment of ascension from the years 2011 to 2022. On each segment one master number of eleven will thereafter set the stage proper. "The body will last, in this case, 1000 years as foreseen as the millennium. The millennial light is the guidance of knowledge that takes you into and through all of these stages of interdimensionality to arrive to a superconscious state."

Dr Wah!
"A lot of you will be here to go into, what we call, that 1000 years of change. So when you go into the fifth dimension, you will be recharging your energy field constantly. Upon recharging the chromosomes and the DNA you will constantly build it up into, what we call, its higher elevation. So there is no deterioration. You will live to a span of 1000 years of longevity without deterioration. During this time, you will come into a very strong understanding of the God Consciousness."

Grand Space Commander Stanton!
"A millennial light is an infusion of a massive amount of these good thoughts that come together in, what we call, fission. And the fission is important for stabilization of, what we call, the life form of stability for any planet. So the thought patterns, at this time, are being into their negative form, as you see, the activities of the people on this Earth. Gradually, through the fission that will be coming from the light, which we classify as a millennial light, is the gathering of the flock of conscious change into one millennial time frame of 1000 years."

Grand Commander Lae
"It is so glorious that maybe some of you will not come back to, what we call, Terra, or Earth, to spend that 1000 years in the Golden Age. You will have your wings as mentioned in your biblical book. You will have the strength of the wings of eagles.

"When you have this strength and when you reach out and you flow into these dimensions of the beauty, testing your wings, you will not really want to come back. Each one of you will go into, what we call, your intermolecular space, as the same as the ley lining here on Earth."


----------



## Bobby (21 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> And there we have it! The definitive answer from THE authority!




Well said Wayne, quote ~ & there we have it, the definitive answer :--  

*There is no God*

Yep Snake I'm with you !

Just think about the impossibity of god being created from nothing in the first place.

Bobby.


----------



## PureCoco (21 May 2007)

There is NO GOD.  

Observing people actions and words over many years for 'morals, care and giving'.  Leaves alot to be said for those who are religious or believe in God. Practice what you preach - I think the biggest one is the Church of Hypocrisy.

Personal but one exmaple - ex remarried a  Jehovah's Witnesses and the week he did the child support stopped!  Didn't keep up any contact with his own blood either.  That was 9 years ago.  He did the "I have no money" call - Though a PI and criminal lawyer found him to have major assests, his own business.  His wife running the company and paying his salary $17K per annum - LOL.  I was paid $21.56 a month since that time, and most of it not on time - not alot child support will do.  Raising 2 very bright children (one with autism.  He is now doing his HSC and that is from alot of patience, love and giving). If it doesn't break you it will make you stronger and realistic.  

"I particularly dislike the Jehovah's Witnesses for the way they cart little kids around with them."  quoted from Julia

Yes he did this on his one monthly access visit - great one on one time.  

I manage to do Meals on Wheels, the youngest one on the team, a driver and they constantly need drivers.  I glad I'm the driver and not my assistant who is 86 years, no offence but we get it done faster. My children do their own voluntary work with animals, it has made them into beautiful whole people. 

I am against the mandatory requirements of religious studies at HSC level in so called religious schools - When you have a child wishing to study medicine I find the RE units irrelevant. Even with alternative schooling - they push RE once a week - in non-scripture they put a teacher in charge who hands out sheets on RE for studies, so with strong words to the principle, I put my daughter in the library, she is happy.

Why can't they just teach the kids basics on ethics, care and giving?


----------



## retroaugogo (21 May 2007)

“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” 
 Albert Einstein 

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” 
 Albert Einstein


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 May 2007)

Pure coco... constructive practicality is a lame duck in religious circles and thankyou for bringing this fact to attention.



> I am against the mandatory requirements of religious studies at HSC level in so called religious schools - When you have a child wishing to study medicine I find the RE units irrelevant. Even with alternative schooling - they push RE once a week - in non-scripture they put a teacher in charge who hands out sheets on RE for studies, so with strong words to the principle, I put my daughter in the library, she is happy.
> 
> Why can't they just teach the kids basics on ethics, care and giving?




Yes , it should be an option.When I went to school R.E. was compulsory too.

BUT...The decision should be made between the parent and student.For as I have stated earlier,*religion has a place in societies order too.*


----------



## disarray (21 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> *religion has a place in societies disorder too.*




fixed it for you


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 May 2007)

disarray said:


> fixed it for you




All reports are that you`re a fun gi.


----------



## disarray (21 May 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> All reports are that you`re a fun gi.




well isn't that how religious leaders like their flock? kept in the dark and fed s**t?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 May 2007)

A few quotes:-
"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support" John Buchan

An agnostic's prayer :- "O God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul" Ernest Renan

"The equal toleration of all religions .. is the same as atheism" Pope Leo XIII

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank " Dante Rossette 1828 - 1882.  

"An atheist is someone who believes that what you see is all you get." Lawrence Peter

"I was a freethinker before I knew how to think" George Bernard Shaw

"Most people have some sort of religion, at least they know what church they're staying away from" John Erskine

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain agnostic" Charles Darwin 1809 - 1895

And a stack more from "wisdomquotes"  http://www.wisdomquotes.com/


> Bertrand Russell:  In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell's ninetieth birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party, and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest atheist. "What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you're wrong?" she asked. "I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?" Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue, and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, "Why, I should say, 'God, you gave us insufficient evidence.'"  Al Seckel, in Preface to Bertrand Russell on God and Religion
> 
> Clarence Darrow: I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose.
> 
> ...


----------



## fooman (24 May 2007)

If there is a god he is responsible for religion which has killed millions of believers and non believers so I think he is telling us to believe in evolution and get on with life and forget religion. For us there is only this planet Earth and maybe in the future the universe.


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

fooman said:


> If there is a god he is responsible for religion which has killed millions of believers and non believers so I think he is telling us to believe in evolution and get on with life and forget religion. For us there is only this planet Earth and maybe in the future the universe.



I didn't know where to put this story, but I think it might fit well attached to this comment. I'm sure our wonderful God would not have endorsed this behaviour, but the God of the Middle East obviously does. Sickening.



> *Teen pays ultimate price for love*
> Comment by Paul Kent
> May 24, 2007 07:00am
> 
> ...


----------



## retroaugogo (24 May 2007)

Jesus's response.

John
8:3. And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, 
8:4. And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. 
8:5. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? 
8:6. And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. 
8:7. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 
8:8. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. 
8:9. But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. 
8:10. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? 
8:11. Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Jesus's response.
> 
> John 8.7
> So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.



I think that was actually supposed to infer that we have all sinned, not that we are allowed to stone girls to death for falling in love. I'm sure you knew that.  

The behaviour in the Middle East in the name of religion and God is well within the tradition of Gods work in the region. The God of Abraham was Yahweh, the Paga God of War around Canaan. Moses then used Yahweh as his God to lead the Israleites out of Egypt to the Promised Land. If you have a little read through Exodus you'll find Yahweh was a vengeful, jealous, genocidal diety who supported the slaughter of thousands of innocent people. This is the God that supports girls being stonned to death.


----------



## retroaugogo (24 May 2007)

Actually Yahweh and Jesus are one and the same.The trinity.

Jesus came to fulfil the law and since his arrival we live under grace not law.

If you refer to the passage above when confronted he doesn't contradict the law he adds grace to it.

If Jesus seems like such a contradiction in character to the old testament God last time he came like a lamb to the slaughter.

He won't be appearing as such next time.


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Actually Yahweh and Jesus are one and the same.The trinity.
> 
> Jesus came to fulfil the law and since his arrival we live under grace not law.
> 
> If you refer to the passage above when confronted he doesn't contradict the law he adds grace to it.



Unfortunately, I don't understand the Trinity, but I do understand that the Catholic God is definately not Yahweh. Yahweh is a totally different beast. Yahweh did evolved into God over centuries, but I think they are both simply historical ideas of God projected by humans. They are only as real as your perception will allow, IMO.


----------



## ideaforlife (24 May 2007)

I believe that the non-believers will still decline the existence of God no matter how much evidence there is. 

First, as God has the quality of omnipotence, if we could comprehend all his existence or behavior, then we have to be higher than him; second, part of the quality of God is spiritual and emotional, some people are only willing to use logical part of their brains which will not lead them to him either. 

As long as human being on the earth, there will always be non-believers and believers - as it has always been.


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

ideaforlife said:


> I believe that the non-believers will still decline the existence of God no matter how much evidence there is.



What's your evidence apart from faith, idea?


----------



## BIG BWACULL (24 May 2007)

Heh heh


----------



## retroaugogo (24 May 2007)

kennas said:


> Unfortunately, I don't understand the Trinity, but I do understand that the Catholic God is definately not Yahweh. Yahweh is a totally different beast..




Jehovah (Yahweh)
The proper name of God in the Old Testament 

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12479


----------



## ideaforlife (24 May 2007)

kennas said:


> What's your evidence apart from faith, idea?




Apart from the answers to some of our prayers and plenty of co-incidence (if that's what you'd like to call them), the perfect design of nature.....

Endless things would lead you to God but it's only a matter whether you pay attention to them as evidence or merely believe it's the cause of nature (nevertheless it's also another name of god - the force of nature). As soon as we open our mind to these ideas we would be able to see a much bigger world than currently we can see, smell and touch. 

I read the other day that if people need to see God to believe, then the first thing they should believe is love.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

I would suggest that hate has more to do with religion than love :


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Jehovah (Yahweh)
> The proper name of God in the Old Testament
> 
> http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12479



When you academically study the history of the idea of God, it is very clear that that God Christians worship today has no resemblance to the God of the Old Testament. The idea of God evolved in time to become what it is today. They are now totally unrecognisable. The God of Abraham is even different to the God of Moses. Abraham's God was a nice chap who even dropped by for tea, while Moses' God laid waste to anything He laid His eyes on. It's not physically, or even spiritually, the same being/beast/spirit when looked at objectively in historical terms.


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> I would suggest that hate has more to do with religion than love :



There seems to be in radical fundamentalist Islam at the moment, but I think there's plenty of love out there as well. Some Islamic sects are well into a peacful, loving world, particularly the Sufi order. There is certainly plenty of love in the Christian idea of God, but I think fear is also a notable tool used to encourage punters to go by the Book too.


----------



## spooly74 (24 May 2007)

ideaforlife said:


> Apart from the answers to some of our prayers and plenty of co-incidence (if that's what you'd like to call them), the perfect design of nature.....




Nature designed itself through the process of natural selection.

You should only claim god responsible for the origin of life, if you must.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

Hate/fear its a very fine line. Unfortunately, we're seeing this in our very own country.

If everyone lived by the commandment "Love thy neighbour" without adding things like "As long as he is the same colour as me, or speaks the same language as me, or believes in the same things as me" the world would be a much better place.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 May 2007)

It is ,and will always be ,difficult to introduce new truths  to some groups or individuals.`Hand me down` beliefs passed through books ,parents or word of mouth (some going from recorded time) are ingrained to a large number of people.There is some good stuff in these beliefs/religions and there is some dead set bull dung.If only people could think for themselves more and control `small mind` then life would be better for all .
Thought processes i.e.  reactions, i`m hungry ,i hate him/her ,vengeance, i`m right/you`re wrong, gotta have it, gimee gimee gimee, persecution, etcetera are all part of small mind too.
To master ones own mind is not practiced a lot and hence a reactionary world ,unaware of the content inside that drives them to do wrong or remain blind to better ways and present days.A bit like the tape recorder has a glitch.
Yes ,I have a lot to learn.


----------



## retroaugogo (24 May 2007)

kennas said:


> When you academically study the history of the idea of God, it is very clear that that God Christians worship today has no resemblance to the God of the Old Testament. The idea of God evolved in time to become what it is today. They are now totally unrecognisable. The God of Abraham is even different to the God of Moses. Abraham's God was a nice chap who even dropped by for tea, while Moses' God laid waste to anything He laid His eyes on. It's not physically, or even spiritually, the same being/beast/spirit when looked at objectively in historical terms.




The Kennas that goes to visit his nan is unrecognisable from the one that goes to the footy.And yet you're the same guy.Go figure.

Many people living hate God because he's too tough.Earthquakes,tsunamis,disease etc etc and yet it's the same God that created a scented rose.

How can we fully understand the character of God?


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

I don't hate God, there's nothing to hate

And a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet..  Unless it was a stench blossom or crapweed


----------



## retroaugogo (24 May 2007)

kennas said:


> What's your evidence apart from faith, idea?




I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. 
C. S. Lewis


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> Many people living hate God because he's too tough.Earthquakes,tsunamis,disease etc etc and yet it's the same God that created a scented rose.
> 
> How can we fully understand the character of God?




If there is no god these things would still happen!With or without humans!


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
> C. S. Lewis



retrougogo, your proof is a CS Lewis quote?  

I think I understand though. You can't prove it with customary logical 'proofs' but purely by 'feeling'. 

Unfortunately, there is no coherent, logical, reasonable, objectionable argument to counter the argument of faith against the faithful. Thus, religion survives.


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> The Kennas that goes to visit his nan is unrecognisable from the one that goes to the footy.And yet you're the same guy.Go figure.



No, I am not. My biological and psychological make up is changing by the second. I am a vastly different person to the one I was yesterday in many ways. You should see me now compared to my Yr 7 photo!


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2007)

fooman said:


> *If there is a god he is responsible for religion* which has killed millions of believers and non believers so I think he is telling us to believe in evolution and get on with life and forget religion. For us there is only this planet Earth and maybe in the future the universe.



I would argue most strongly against what have bolded in your comment. Humans alone are responsible for religion, whether or not there is a God.

But if I were God, I would definitely agree with the bit in red. If God wanted us to worship him (using the masculine gender purely for convenience, because I'm sure he doesn't have a gender) surely he would show up somehow and say "worship me this way you dopey bastids!"

And before the religionists point to their scriptures.... puleeeeze... written by men folks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2007)

kennas said:


> No, I am not. My biological and psychological make up is changing by the second. I am a vastly different person to the one I was yesterday in many ways. You should see me now compared to my Yr 7 photo!



You wait till you've been married a few years  
bet you there's absolutely no change   - that goes for after 30 years of marriage as well , lol.

PS I don't recall anyone commenting on either Dawkins ( last Sunday) or Denton (last Monday) - ABC 9.30pm in each case.
Both were terrifying (to me at least).  USA has seriously gone off the deep end !!
And World peace is at stake. (and we should tone down the religion stuff before we start burning each other at the stake).
Dawkins is on again this Sunday - recommended viewing if you want to see the world avoid self destruction.


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> You wait till you've been married a few years  bet you there's absolutely no change



 LOL. You might be right. I have actually already had a run at this marriage game, and I think I was exactly the same at the end. No, hang on. I think I lost some hair, got fat, and lost about $100K.   God was not smiling on me! Not enough faith perhaps.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2007)

Lol, sure thing m8, I know plenty in your shoes then   "From richer to poorer etc"

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=159385&highlight=dawkins#post159385

Re Dawkins  and "Root of All Evil",  (as I posted on Aunty thread) ..

I think the thing that most terrified me was the small group of American "freethinkers" who believe in evolution and who are forced to gather in small meetings - risk of not being employed etc .  (terrifying)

And of course he goes on to point out the connection between faith and current trends to war. (ditto)


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Dawkins is on again this Sunday - recommended viewing if you want to see the world avoid self destruction.



Thanks, I must put that in the diary. I did like 'The God Delusion' although there were a few holes in his arguments at times. Plus, I got the feeling he was as dogmatic about philosophy, as the book bashers are about God. Good read though. All religious people should take the time to read it and open up to the possibilities of no God. Or, many Gods....


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> You wait till you've been married a few years
> bet you there's absolutely no change   - that goes for after 30 years of marriage as well , lol.
> 
> PS I don't recall anyone commenting on either Dawkins ( last Sunday) or Denton (last Monday) - ABC 9.30pm in each case.
> ...




OMG OMG OMG!!!

I saw the last bit of Denton... it's confirmed my worst fears.

Fundamentalist Muslims? Oh man they just have a few Kalashnikovs and a sling shot. Those creepy insane Christian Fundamentalists have the capacity to destroy the planet.

A long time ago I said on this forum that the USA is the most dangerous country on the planet! Many were incredulous that I could say that.

Does anyone believe me now?


----------



## retroaugogo (24 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I would argue most strongly against what have bolded in your comment. Humans alone are responsible for religion, whether or not there is a God.
> 
> If God wanted us to worship him surely he would show up somehow and say "worship me this way you dopey bastids!"




All done by private appointment.

How much fun that meeting will be depends on you.


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> All done by private appointment.
> 
> How much fun that meeting will be depends on you.



I'm looking forward to it. But I don't think the "fun" will depend on whether you are a Christian, Muslim or whatever.

There's something in the Bible about the path least traveled... well I'm slashing through the undergrowth with my machete... creating my own path. I don't trust the one with the welcome sign on it. FWIW


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> All done by private appointment.
> 
> How much fun that meeting will be depends on you.



Oooo, you're going to firey hell Wayne! :evilburn: 

Just where is that in the street directory anyway?


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2007)

kennas said:


> Oooo, you're going to firey hell Wayne! :evilburn:
> 
> Just where is that in the street directory anyway?




I don't know exactly, but it must me somewhere here in Geraldton.  

Can't wait to get out here!


----------



## ajoz (24 May 2007)

*May be the question should be: *Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not a God?
If the dot below is everything that we know. And the space surrounding it (not limited to this page) is everything that we are yet to know, is there a possibility that God may be found in that sphere outside of our current knowledge and understanding...





*.*​






http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

Why spend all your time believing in something that may or may not be there?


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I saw the last bit of Denton... it's confirmed my worst fears....A long time ago I said on this forum that the USA is the most dangerous country on the planet! Many were incredulous that I could say that....Does anyone believe me now?



Wayne, I have to admit, I probably thought you were exaggerating at the time - but now I am firmly of the view that the USA religious fanatics must be ignored at all costs.   If Bush owes 40% of his votes to them, then all the more reason to do so. 

I recall Nellie posting a youtube link on "Religion preying on our youth" - ( https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=78383&highlight=disturbing#post78383  )
but sadly that particular youtube has been taken off.   That was a mind-blowing experience to see those Jesus camps telling kids to die for Jesus etc.    (etc). 

Recent posts on this subject (Jesus camps) have probably been censored (as that one apparently has been) - who knows what they say to kids behind the camera.

The whole thing is based on fables, fellas , fables.  NO ONE has the right to hurt anyone else based on all this mumbo jumbo. 

Such pathetic and disastrous leaders!.  Such misfits preaching to kids!.   We should seriously question anything American for a while.

PS I find the following type of youtube more relevant - certainly we don't want "god" to intervene - with man's obvious inability to interpret what god is saying, that can only lead to disaster. .  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWyJJQbFago


----------



## Sean K (24 May 2007)

ajoz said:


> *May be the question should be: *Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not a God?
> If the dot below is everything that we know. And the space surrounding it (not limited to this page) is everything that we are yet to know, is there a possibility that God may be found in that sphere outside of our current knowledge and understanding...
> 
> 
> ...



This is such an incredibly poor argument for the existance of God that I can hardly breath. ANYTHING can exist around that dot. Even NOTHING. Why call any of it God? Maybe nothing is God. Really!!!


----------



## weird (24 May 2007)

For those interested in further exploring Christain faith there is some available informal short and social courses, such as the APLHA course (Anglican Church)  and also CAFE (Catholic Faith Exploration).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_course

http://www.catholicevangel.org/


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2007)

weird said:


> For those interested in further exploring Christain faith there is some available informal short and social courses, such as the APLHA course (Anglican Church)  and also CAFE (Catholic Faith Exploration).



As you probably guessed weird, if I was free to study what I wanted - I'd study science for at least 365 days a year - maybe I'd study faith on 29Feb on the fourth year.  

Sorry , but particularly after watching Richard Dawkins, I believe ( more than ever) that rational thought is the only course of action that permits any optimism for the future. 

And by the way, we should all admit that not one of us knows that God does or doesn't exist. - hence the crazy result shown in the graph above. 
Darwin was not only a clever man, but was honest enough to admit to being an agnostic


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> As you probably guessed weird, if I was free to study what I wanted - I'd study science for at least 365 days a year - maybe I'd study faith on 29Feb on the fourth year.
> 
> Sorry , but particularly after watching Richard Dawkins, I believe ( more than ever) that rational thought is the only course of action that permits any optimism for the future.



The thing is, Dawkins is not all that rational a lot of the time IMO. He is still a VI


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> The thing is, Dawkins is not all that rational a lot of the time IMO. He is still a VI




without specifics wayne - I can't really comment lol


----------



## weird (24 May 2007)

With a degree in manufacturing systems/mechanical engineering, I am biased also in only wanting to deal with what is 'real' and 'quantifiable'... however take most engineers into a social situation, mathematical formulaes don't really help ... your just the nerd in the corner, with a pocket calculator and an ink stain ...

"Gettin' Jiggy Wit It" doesn't compute but it feels right


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2007)

weird said:


> I am biased also in only wanting to deal with what is 'real' and 'quantifiable'... however ....




weird, I wouldn't have a problem with faith and all its implications - except that it is taking us steadily into WWIII. 

You say it's their faith that's the problem , they say it's your faith that's the problem

Dawkins says you're both to blame
and I think I agree with him 

PS at least you dont think that the earth is only 6000 years old -  like almost 50% of Americans


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> weird, I wouldn't have a problem with faith and all its implications - except that it is taking us steadily into WWIII.
> 
> You say it's their faith that's the problem , they say it's your faith that's the problem
> 
> ...



Do you really think it's about faith?

I don't. Faith is merely the tool used for the powers to obtain canon fodder. It's about OIL/MONEY.

If the west wasn't messing around there, there would never be a problem.

The only truly religious conflict is Palestine/Israel. Even then the genesis of that was the west's meddling.


----------



## weird (24 May 2007)

I agree with Wayne,

Race, religion ,sex  etc are abused and provided as a false means for an individual or even a group of individuals (a government)  to obtain "power" or keep a status quo.

As an example, since war was raised ... let's add the American Civil War to the discussion.

Another example, although perhaps flawed, if a person withholds sex from their partner, to obtain "power" in a situation, sure the other person may be ticked off ... but it shouldn't distract from the overall joys and pleasures from sex itself, although "sex" is what is being used to manipulate.


----------



## retroaugogo (24 May 2007)

Books on atheism garner criticism from unlikely places

By Peter Steinfels 
Published: March 6, 2007

Hey, guys, can't you give atheism a chance? Yes, it is true that "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins has been on The New York Times best-seller list for 22 weeks and that "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris can be found in virtually every airport bookstore in the United States.

So why is the new wave of books on atheism getting such a drubbing? The criticism is not primarily, it should be pointed out, from the pious, which would hardly be noteworthy, but from avowed atheists as well as scientists and philosophers writing in publications like The New Republic and The New York Review of Books, not known as cells in the vast God-fearing conspiracy.

The mother of these reviews was published last October in The London Review of Books, when Terry Eagleton, better known as a Marxist literary scholar than as a defender of faith, took on "The God Delusion."

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds," Eagleton wrote, "and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." That was only the first sentence.

James Wood's review of "Letter to a Christian Nation" in the Dec. 18, 2006, issue of The New Republic began, "I have not believed in God since I was fifteen." Wood, a formidable writer who keeps picking the scab of religion in his criticism and fiction, confessed that his "inner atheist" appreciated the "hygienic function" of Harris's and Dawkins's ridiculing of religion and enjoyed "the 'naughtiness' of this disrespect, even if a little of it goes a long way."
But, he continued, "there is a limit to how many times one can stub one's toe on the thick idiocy of some mullah or pastor" or be told that "Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of really nasty things."

H. Allen Orr is an evolutionary biologist who once called Dawkins a "professional atheist." But now, Orr wrote in the Jan. 11 issue of The New York Review of Books, "I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude that he's actually more of an amateur."

It seems that these critics hold several odd ideas, the first being that anyone attacking theology should actually know some.

"The most disappointing feature of 'The God Delusion,'" Orr wrote, "is Dawkins' failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology" and "no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions."

Eagleton surmised that if "card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins" were asked "to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Africa, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could." He continued, "When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

Naturally, critics so fussy as to imagine that serious thought about religion exists, making esoteric references to Aquinas and Wittgenstein, inevitably gripe about Harris's and Dawkins's equation of religion with fundamentalism and of all faith with unquestioning faith.

"Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that," Eagleton wrote.

In The New Republic last October, Thomas Nagel, a philosopher who calls himself "as much an outsider to religion" as Dawkins, was much more patient. Extracting a theoretical kernel of argument from the thumb-your-nose- at-religion chaff, Nagel nonetheless had to point out that what was meant by God was not, as Dawkins's argument seemed to assume, "a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world." (Eagleton had less politely characterized the Dawkins understanding of God "as some kind of chap, however supersized.")

Nor was belief in God, Wood explained two months later, analogous to belief in a Celestial Teapot, the comic example Dawkins borrowed from Bertrand Russell.

Several reviews went on to carp about double standards.

Orr, for example, noted the contrast between Dawkins's skepticism toward traditional proofs for God's existence and Dawkins's confidence that his own "Ultimate Boeing 747" proof demonstrated scientifically that God's existence was highly improbable.

Eagleton compared Dawkins's volubility about religion's vast wrongs with his silence "on the horrors that science and technology have wreaked on humanity" and the good that religion has produced.

"In a book of almost 400 pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false," Eagleton wrote. "The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history ”” and this by a self- appointed crusader against bigotry."

In Orr's view, "No decent person can fail to be repulsed by the sins committed in the name of religion," but atheism has to be held to the same standard: "Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual fact that (1) the 20th century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before."

Finally, these critics stubbornly rejected the idea that rational meant scientific. "The fear of religion leads too many scientifically minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening reductionism," Nagel wrote.

"We have more than one form of understanding," he continued.

"The great achievements of physical science do not make it capable of encompassing everything, from mathematics to ethics to the experiences of a living animal. We have no reason to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as ways of discovering the truth just because they are not physics."

So what is the beleaguered atheist to do? One possibility: Take pride in the fact that this astringent criticism comes from people and places that honor the honest skeptic's commitment to full- throated questioning.


----------



## Bobby (25 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> Do you really think it's about faith?
> 
> I don't. .




Helllo Wayne,

I do wish you well .


Ive always admired your intellect,  why post a reply to the inconsequentials ?

Bobby.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (25 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I would argue most strongly against what have bolded in your comment. Humans alone are responsible for religion, whether or not there is a God.
> 
> But if I were God, I would definitely agree with the bit in red. If God wanted us to worship him (using the masculine gender purely for convenience, because I'm sure he doesn't have a gender) surely he would show up somehow and say "worship me this way you dopey bastids!"
> 
> And before the religionists point to their scriptures.... puleeeeze... written by men folks.




One needs to look at who constructed the bible for the early Christians under the Romans. Why was it constructed in such a manner?

And once again GOD is a construct of the powers that manipulate the believers. It has no existence or recognition beyond Earth.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> Do you really think it's about faith?  I don't. Faith is merely the tool used for the powers to obtain canon fodder. It's about OIL/MONEY.  If the west wasn't messing around there, there would never be a problem.  The only truly religious conflict is Palestine/Israel. Even then the genesis of that was the west's meddling.



Wayne, 
As you say Palestine /Israel is surely about religion, nothing to do with oil as you say.  Nor was 9/11 about oil.  (One thing leads to another in this deadly game).

But oil was quite likely a big factor in Iraq I guess.  (That and the fact that Hussain laughed at George W's father after the first Gulf War maybe - who knows how these Bushes think?)

When you say "Faith is the tool for powers to obtain cannon fodder" , I think that is pretty much in agreement with Dawkins. (and what I was getting at). If there was no religion, (and instead we considered what we are doing to the earth) then all these wars would go away.  

Is George Bush truly religious / in a moral sense?  i.e. you have to decide is George Bush purely manipulative (without belief, going after oil), or is he also deluded.  And here I think the jury is probably out.  

Anyone who poses for the cameras balancing his Christian halo - and running for the most powerful democratic position on the world. .... but once in power (assuming he was correctly quoted on ABC website) says "I don't give a flying f*#$ what the polls say (we're doing it my way... - paraphrasing)."  has gotta have a hint of hypocrite in him you'd think. 

I agree with your summary of religion and science in your post #63 on "serious question do you believe in the (devil)"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2319

Incidentally, I notice that that thread petered out after 20 posts, and this one is up to 470 plus - which proves that God wants us to talk about him, but the Devil doesn't because he wants to keep under the radar. (yeah right ).  Guess we feel happier talking about the possibility of good guys running the show rather than than bad guys.  

possibility? - some would apparently say 
certainty , 
some probability, 
improbability, 
impossibility etc.

Your post referrd to above read as follows:-


> Bobby, it's one of those topics that a bit taboo. Folks tend to polarize themselves into either
> 
> 1/a purely scientific camp, where any sort of faith/spirituality is regarded as infantile/stupid. This is evident in the article.
> 
> ...



I notice you are still staying out of it lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 May 2007)

weird said:


> ..biased also in only wanting to deal with what is 'real' and 'quantifiable'... however take most engineers into a social situation, mathematical formulaes don't really help ... pocket calculator and an ink stain ...



To me Mother Nature is a good guy, despite her occasional cruelty. - and learning about her is enlightening (listening to Attenborough etc) - but in the end, she's just another name for "the fascinating intricacies of science and life" I guess  

And btw, weird, when I said I would prefer to study science 365 days a year - I meant that compared to taking any leap of faith.  I didn't mean to imply that I would restrict my imagination to what can or can't be proven,  but if it can't be proven, I'm not going to believe it. - and that goes for both the existence and the non-existence of god.   I'm happy to smell the roses along the way, and to toast the moon, and neither you nor I need a calculator for that 

Let's talk rainbows :- some would argue...
we don't have the sense of awe or reverence when we see a rainbow, as does a primitive native, purely because we understand what causes it - we have lost as much as we have gained in delving into the matter"

there's some truth in this, but personally I try to marvel at the inner workings - the concept of refraction -  and still get a buzz.

Then of course there are diffraction gratings.  You know the stuff that bumber stickers are often made of.   I used to cut them into small triangles and put them on a spinning windmill - the colours were indescribably beautiful  
The windmills were solar powered incidentally, - I used to sell em, way back - but lol I spent too much time enjoying the colours, and not enough time selling the bludy things. 

But - suppose you told me that a thin layer of oil on the surface of the ocean also produced colours - no way would I find them beautiful - because they are associated with mans destruction of the birdlife.  - perhaps it's called "science with emotion".


----------



## Rafa (25 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne,
> If there was no religion, (and instead we considered what we are doing to the earth) then all these wars would go away.




2020, normally you talk a lot of sense, but that is pure rubbish... if you really beleive that, then one must seriously question the value of all your posts!

but a handfull of wars, of the hundreds and thousands of wars that have existed are caused on religious grounds...

most are caused becuase of greed and power... almost all use some sort of divisive issue to motivate the populace...

look at all the conflicts in africa... has anything there got to do with religion... !
what about the ones in eastern europe?
heck, what about WWII...?
what about east timor, solomon islands, fiji...?

the motivating factor in those are racism, ethnic cleansing, culture, etc.... brought about mainly becuase one group of people had more power than the other group of people.

i know everyone loves talking about the middle east... its a media darling at present... but if you bothered looking outside that, or indeed go back in history, i'd be surprised if in any more than 2% of the cases, religion was the actual *CAUSE* of war... and moreover, i'd be surprised if in more than 20% of those cased, religion was used as the *MOTIVATING* tool in war!

I am happy to be corrected by you if this is not the case!


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 May 2007)

Raf, maybe you have to read that post / sentence in context, it followed on from discussion of the following and was more about future wars:-
a) Israel / Palestine (religion)
b) 9/11  (religion)
and maybe
c) Iraq. (past war)

Of these Iraq is maybe oil - and maybe linked to a) in that there were big guns being designed  etc, and a few other possibilities discussed there. 

You're probably right, not all past wars were started by religion - just that the next ones look like they will be (imo)


----------



## Rafa (25 May 2007)

thanks for clarifying that 2020...
this is actually something that has bothered me for quite a while...

religion has been around for mellenium... yet purely religious wars seem to be a recent phenomenon besides the odd expection here and there in the middle ages.

i have written previously on these forums about the policy of divide and rule... 

India Pakistan is a classic example of this, where muslims and hindus lived side by side for hundreds of years... yet now are arch enemies after british devised the policy of divide and rule to make it easier for them to govern

Serbia / Croatia is another classic example of two groups who lived together for centuries... yet now are sworn enemies.

many, many more to name...


I think i have one possible explanation

in the old days of kingdoms and emperors, there was no election to decide on who was in charge... it was the king and his army, end of story. 
nowadays, in the age of democracy, and people rights, more power to the masses, politicians need new ways to control the people... 

its suits them that good people can be distracted by such issues, allowing the real villans to hide behind these made up issues.

i think secretly, those in power are loving the growing dawkins clan... very soon they will have another means to divide the populace... the beleivers and the non beleivers!

whats the odds on a war between the two in the next 100 years


----------



## disarray (25 May 2007)

given complete freedom people of differing religions / races have NEVER lived side by side in harmony. the only time they do is when an authoritarian power crushes dissent and forces people to live together.

when islam arrived in india it converted people by the sword (as islam tends to do). hindu / muslim conflict was going on long before the british ever arrived.

religious wars are as old as the bible (old testament anyone??) and are closely tied in with race wars. this is just the human condition so i think you are well wide of the mark rafa with your statement that religious wars are a new thing in human history.


----------



## Rafa (25 May 2007)

disarray said:


> hindu / muslim conflict was going on long before the british ever arrived.



first i've heard of that!


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> ... the beleivers and the non beleivers!  whats the odds on a war between the two in the next 100 years



IF they are both reasonable non-extremists,  (that's a big If if concede) , there's probably less chance even than being started by sex as I think weird hinted at or alluded to  

But stranger things have happened. 
(PS All extremists should be shot !) 

PS Maybe you could argue that the Romans lost their last wars because they were too much into lounging around swimming pools eating grapes with concubines  - so yes , maybe even sex and wars are related.  

PS I'm told that War and Peace also has a love story and a few raunchy scenes - not that I've ever read it 

PS More muslims in India than in Pakistan (now) - and apparently relatively happily coexisting, so you might be right about separation not being the answer


----------



## disarray (25 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> first i've heard of that!




well you learn something every day


----------



## Rafa (25 May 2007)

actually i haven't yet...
all i have is your statement...

do you have anything more than that disarray?


----------



## disarray (25 May 2007)

dude if you want to know something just go google it. the upshot is muslims entered indias north and conquered and killed lots of people to set up their little empire. that is religious conflict.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=muslim+hindu+conflict+history&meta=

dyor, but failing that, just blame whitey. its much easier that way.


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2007)

disarray said:


> dude if you want to know something just go google it. the upshot is muslims entered indias north and conquered and killed lots of people to set up their little empire. that is religious conflict.
> 
> http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=muslim+hindu+conflict+history&meta=
> 
> dyor, but failing that, just blame whitey. its much easier that way.



I think the Hindu/Muslim conflicts were more cultural and ethnic based rather than religious. It's difficult to see the difference sometimes, even in todays Islamic fundamentalst war v the West. Is it religion v religion, or culture v culture. I hesitate to say the later. Up for argument I suppose.


----------



## Rafa (25 May 2007)

google can find you anything you want... fact or fiction  
you only have to look at the websites google brings up when you try and research the israel palestine conflict... each one contradicted the other.

having studied Indian history, i find these claims are recent, and coincide with the rise of hindu fundamentalism and the rise to power of hindu nationalist parties in the late 90's.

they may or may not be true...  

but countries getting invaded by another were common place till not so long ago... find it strange that this is being regurgitated as the start of the 'hindu-muslim' conflict!

I am not sure if the old saying of _'History is written by the winner'_ rings true anymore... more like history is recorded by those who can get their website to the No 1 spot on Google!


----------



## disarray (25 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> google can find you anything you want... fact or fiction
> you only have to look at the websites google brings up when you try and research the israel palestine conflict... each one contradicted the other.




yeah thats the point of research. read both sides of the story and form your own opinion based on the evidence.



> having studied Indian history, i find these claims are recent, and coincide with the rise of hindu fundamentalism and the rise to power of hindu nationalist parties in the late 90's.




being an historian myself i found your claim that muslims and hindus lived side by side in apparent harmony until the british arrived to be incorrect and called you on it. it is historic fact that arab muslims followed the dictates of their aggressive religion and invaded northern india which was at that time hindu. so arabs, indentifying themselves as muslims, fought hindus who resisted = religious war. this refutes your statement that everything was happy until the british arrived. not much grey area there.



> but countries getting invaded by another were common place till not so long ago... find it strange that this is being regurgitated as the start of the 'hindu-muslim' conflict!




it is still common now. in fact it could be argued muslims are continuing their aggression against the west through a passive immigration invasion, seeking once again to bring the caliphate into western europe. you'll find plenty of videos on youtube of european muslim leaders stating this bluntly.

as for this being some "regurgitation" of a hindu / muslim conflict, i don't know how you can look at the historical facts and conclude it is anything other than a religo-ethnic conflict, which had absoutely nothing at all to do with the british empire. your liberal guilt is showing.



> I am not sure if the old saying of _'History is written by the winner'_ rings true anymore... more like history is recorded by those who can get their website to the No 1 spot on Google!




dissemination of information is vital in the battle for hearts and minds. this is nothing new, however the rise of the internet & mass media has given people the ability to be heard whereas before they were not. this is good in that we have more information, and bad in that religious psychos use this as validation for their delusions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 May 2007)

Bobby said:


> Helllo Wayne, I do wish you well .
> Ive always admired your intellect,  why post a reply to the inconsequentials ?
> Bobby.



Hey Bobby 
here's an open letter 

The above post demonstrates only that
a) you are quite capable of complimenting moderators , (gee I nearly said sucking up to them lol) , and 
b) also of insulting other posters for reasons only known to yourself ...

I offer you this chance to redeem yourself, to crawl out of  your insignificance / inconsequentiality ....

you will find a table on post #11  on this thread ...
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6046&highlight=march

now if you have brought it up to date by Sunday night, then that would be great because I may not have time to do so (since I am working both Saturday and Sunday) .

If not I guess I'll try to make time to do so- in due course 

pawn to king four man - your move ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 May 2007)

Dawkins on again tonight, ABC 9.30pm 

the God Delusion :-



> A history of religious conflict.
> The impossibility of disproving the existence of God - something that has become a 'get out of jail free' argument for the inviolability of religion.
> Morality, where it becomes extra-religious; many moral changes and definition (e.g. women's rights, black civil rights) have occured sometimes against the resistance of the religious community.
> The fact that in some countries religion remains an excuse for the subjugation of women's rights.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 May 2007)

great comparison on that Dawkins show between the morality and social interaction of Chimps vs the same for humans ...

"You can think of it as Chimps are DOS, and humans are Windows XP" 

although some of those fundamentalists were back pre-programmable-calculator sheesh.


----------



## Mousie (27 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> pawn to king four man - your move ...




Pawn to king four? Pawn to queen bishop four then 

Sorry can't resist; not joining in the debate in any way, carry on gents/ladies


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 May 2007)

That which is man made is not real outside of this Earth.

Take a look at the universe for what it is (the sun is not the centre just for the dumbos)

The man made concept is null and void in reality.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 May 2007)

Another thing Dawkins mentioned was a case of a doctor at a clinic that terminated unwanted pregnancies - murdered by a "pastor" of some church in USA.   The pastor has since been sentenced to death , and this has been carried out ( I believe I heard it right).    

When he interviewed the pastor's friend (another pastor), he concluded that the friend was equally misguided and of similar persuasion - no question his friend was in Heaven etc - (too bad about the doctor's wife and kids etc).  

In summary Dawkins quoted some Nobel prizewinner (name escapes me) who said 

"Good things are always being carried out by good people 
Evil things are always being carried out by evil people
But to have evil things 
carried out by good people
you need..
religion."


----------



## anne (28 May 2007)

Here's something to make you shake in your boots:

...'the current president of the United States unblushingly reveals that God talks directly to him and uses his Christian name."

Not even the popes and  archbishops of Cantebury have claimed that as far as I know.

What does this mean?

1. George Bush truly is a special guy in God's eyes, more special than just about all God's other devoted followers

2. George Bush is mad

3.  George Bush is playing the religious card for all he can and he probably doesn't believe in God one little bit, but he does believe in winning the support of all those religious votes and will do whatever that takes, and he also believes that his ideas are correct so that the end justifies the means.

4. The author of the book I read this piece in got it wrong (it was from 12 books that changed the world, by Melvyn Bragg.)

Wouldn't it be funny if not only George Bush didn't believe in supernatural god-jesus stuff, but that the popes and the archbishops of cantebury and other religious heads didn't believe in it either!!! They say among themselves "of course we   don't believe those ancient fairy stories, but it's a good tradition that works well to control our flock so who are we to spoil things?"

It's one thing to ask whether we believe in God and the bible story-line; it's another thing to ask whether the so-called     custodians of the religious dogma actually believe in it themselves.  

The bishop from Oxford on Richard Dawkin's show last night sure did have a mighty flexible attitude to which bits in the story that he admitted to believing in.  He wasn't keen on the virgin Mary stuff but was keen on the rising from the dead stuff.  He reckons modern day evidence tells us that the bible( God???) got it wrong on on homosexuality that we need to now correct that view.  

Dawkins was pretty surprised by this bishop's cherry picking approach too. Why don't those guys just come clean?

It's so paternalistic.  Here's a novel idea:  introduce the idea that it's a basic human right to be told the truth and not just fed stuff that authorities think is good for us.

Cheers Anne


----------



## retroaugogo (28 May 2007)

anne said:


> Here's something to make you shake in your boots:
> 
> ...'the current president of the United States unblushingly reveals that God talks directly to him and uses his Christian name."




I'd say with Kevin Rudd being a born again christian that there's a pretty good chance he speaks to Kevin too.

Nice to see God raising up his men.


----------



## wayneL (28 May 2007)

From Wikipedia



> Signs and symptoms
> 
> A person experiencing schizophrenia may demonstrate a variety of symptoms; these may include disorganized thinking, delusions and hallucinations, *in particular auditory hallucinations*


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 May 2007)

http://www.dreamtime.net.au/indigenous/spirituality.cfm
Spirituality amongst Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders


> ...Some Indigenous Australians share the religious beliefs and values of religions introduced into Australia from other cultures around the world, particularly Europe. But for most people religious beliefs are derived from a sense of belonging-to the land, to the sea, to other people, to one's culture.
> 
> The form and expression of spirituality differs between Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. Aboriginal spirituality mainly derives from the stories of the Dreaming, while Torres Strait Islander spirituality draws upon the stories of the Tagai.



Missionaries are lousy listeners 


> So the sad thing about it all was the missionaries didn't realise that we already had something that tied in with what they'd brought to us. They saw different as inferior, and they didn't ask us what it was that we had. And it's very sad because if they had asked... things may have been different today.
> 
> Our people, before the white man came were very spiritual people. They were connected to land and creation through the great spirit, there was a good great and a great evil spirit... And Satan was the great evil one. So there wasn't much difference in what the missionaries brought and what we already had... .
> 
> ...



Missionaries were (often) instruments of Govt policy....(stolen generation etc)


> Since the European colonisation of Australia, Indigenous Australians have had contact with missionaries and their missions. This relationship has been a difficult one. In some instances missions became instruments of government policy, engaging in practices such as forcibly separating Aboriginal children from their families in order to maximise control over the child's education into Christian ways and beliefs. In this way, (some) missions contributed to the suppression of Aboriginal cultural practices and languages.





> What is the Dreaming?
> ... The Dreaming has different meanings for different Aboriginal people. It is a complex network of knowledge, faith and practices that derive from stories of creation, and which dominates all spiritual and physical aspects of Aboriginal life. The Dreaming sets out the structures of society, the rules for social behaviour and the ceremonies performed in order to maintain the life of the land.
> 
> It governed the way people lived and how they should behave.
> ...





> The Rainbow Serpent is represented as a large, snake-like creature, whose Dreaming track is always associated with watercourses, such as billabongs, rivers, creeks and lagoons. It is the protector of the land, its people, and the source of all life. However, the Rainbow Serpent can also be a destructive force if it is not properly respected.
> 
> The Rainbow Serpent is a consistent theme in Aboriginal painting and has been found in rock art up to 6000 years old. The Rainbow Serpent is a powerful symbol of the creative and destructive power of nature. Most paintings of Rainbow Serpents tell the story of the creation of the landscape particular to an artist's birthplace. Some aspects of Rainbow Serpent stories are restricted to initiated persons but generally, the image had been very public. Today, most artists add personal clan designs to the bodies of Rainbow Serpents, symbolising links between the artist and the land.





> The Mimi Spirits
> The Mimi are tall, thin beings that live in the rocky escarpment of northern Australia as spirits. Before the coming of Aboriginal people they had human forms. The Mimi are generally harmless but on occasions can be mischievous.
> 
> When Aboriginal people first came to northern Australia, the Mimi taught them how to hunt and cook kangaroos and other animals. They also did the first rock paintings and taught Aboriginal people how to paint.





> The Tagai
> The people throughout the Torres Strait are united by their connection to the Tagai. ..These stories focus on the stars and identify Torres Strait Islanders as sea people who share a common way of life. The instructions of the Tagai provide order in the world, ensuring that everything has a place.
> 
> One Tagai story depicts the Tagai as a man standing in a canoe. In his left hand, he holds a fishing spear, representing the Southern Cross. In his right hand, he holds a sorbi (a red fruit). In this story, the Tagai and his crew of 12 are preparing for a journey. But before the journey begins, the crew consume all the food and drink they planned to take. So the Tagai strung the crew together in two groups of six and cast them into the sea, where their images became star patterns in the sky. These patterns can be seen in the star constellations of Pleiades and Orion



Let's face it, 
they are just as likely to be correct as any other spiritual belief. 

PS During the Opium Wars in China, (some) missionaries became drug pushers to get the Chinese hooked on opium, and so get the attention of the Chinese emperor, who was shunning the British up until then.  So much for "Christian values".


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 May 2007)

you dont need any watchmaker to engineer these rocks
that swirl around the galaxies to ever changing clocks
should one explode, do up in smoke, collapse to a black hole
the whole thing just adjusts a bit, in some expanding role. (roll?)

you dont need any puppetteer to tell men how to act
it's obvious that chimps do just as well with praps more tact
but if you want to say some "God" designed it more or less, 
..then please agree the man-made part is a God almighty mess.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

PS
As self appointed managers and Chairmen of the board, 
in one hand doctor's scalpel, in the other Caesar's sword,
And ne'er a thought for fish or fowl or reef or polar bear
- just poisoning the planet's well  - and greed for poisoned air.

and making out we're relatives of some imagined lord
who'll smile on us and frown on others, sanctity assured,
and watching on as hell descends, yet asking heaven's share
and filling up our coffers while pretending that we care.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

Mousie said:


> Pawn to king four? Pawn to queen bishop four then    Sorry can't resist;



lol, sorry mousie, I'll resist temptation. Must admit I thought I knew a bit about chess until I went to see Korchnoi play 40 matches simultaneously once.  Average time per move about 10 seconds lol.  Just kept walking around the room, bang, bang bang went the chess pieces .

No-on beat him, but a couple of players managed to get a statemate 

If we're all related to God, then Korchnoi is a much closer relative than I .  
Then again, if we evolved, then maybe I can boast to being a closer relative to the noble chimp .  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Korchnoi

Incidentally, I was in the audience when he played one of the matches against Karpov ..  Lol what a classic... sending out yoghurt, trying to hypnotise each other lol.  What a classic. 


> First World Championship match against Karpov
> In the next world championship cycle (1976-78), Korchnoi narrowly defeated Petrosian again in the Candidates quarter finals, then comfortably won his matches against Lev Polugaevsky and Boris Spassky to emerge as the official challenger to Karpov.[4]
> 
> The World Championship match of 1978 was held in Baguio in the Philippines, and deserves its reputation as *the most bizarre World Championship match ever played*. Karpov's team included a Dr. Zukhar (a well known hypnotist), while Korchnoi adopted two local renegades currently on bail for attempted murder (Source: Karpov -- Korchnoi 1978, by Raymond Keene). *There was more controversy off the board, with histrionics ranging from X-raying of chairs, protests about the flags used on the board, the inevitable hypnotism complaints and the mirror glasses used by Korchnoi. When Karpov's team sent him a blueberry yogurt during a game without any request for one by Karpov, the Korchnoi team protested, claiming it could be some kind of code.* They later said this was intended as a parody of earlier protests, but it was taken seriously at the time.[5]
> ...


----------



## Rafa (29 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> I'd say with Kevin Rudd being a born again christian that there's a pretty good chance he speaks to Kevin too.




Sorry, that is incorrect... Kevin Rudd is from a mainstream Christian church... he's certainly no Bush supporter, unlike Howard and co... who pander to the right wing (fundamentalist christians), hence have the support of family first!


Ok... now, back to the topic...


----------



## Mousie (29 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lol, sorry mousie, I'll resist temptation. Must admit I thought I knew a bit about chess until I went to see Korchnoi play 40 matches simultaneously once.  Average time per move about 10 seconds lol.  Just kept walking around the room, bang, bang bang went the chess pieces .
> 
> No-on beat him, but a couple of players managed to get a statemate




To get a stalemate against Korchnoi even in a simul is _unbelievable_. It's unbelievable not because of the opponent(s)' skills; it's unbelievable Korchnoi would have that happen to him.



> If we're all related to God, then Korchnoi is a much closer relative than I .
> Then again, if we evolved, then maybe I can boast to being a closer relative to the noble chimp .
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Korchnoi




Korchnoi's mastery of chess certainly demonstrated attributes of God manifested through his mental excellence, but relations-wise you gotta ask him to know what he thinks of God 



> Incidentally, I was in the audience when he played one of the matches against Karpov ..  Lol what a classic... sending out yoghurt, trying to hypnotise each other lol.  What a classic.




Gee I wasn't even born then, but speaking of "classics", did you watch the Fischer-Spassky '72 match? I never knew  K vs K '78 took such a fine leaf out of the F vs S '72 book. Apparently one of the camps (I suspect Spassky's) in the '72 match did a thorough scan of the match room for secret cameras and codes and stuff but came up naught save a dead fly  That had me ROTFLMAO for minutes on end when I read it.


----------



## retroaugogo (29 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> Sorry, that is incorrect... Kevin Rudd is from a mainstream Christian church... he's certainly no Bush supporter, unlike Howard and co... who pander to the right wing (fundamentalist christians), hence have the support of family first!
> Ok... now, back to the topic...




You obviously don't understand the meaning of being born again.

In Christianity, the term born again or regenerated is synonymous with spiritual rebirth.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

Come on guys do some research will you.Like Dawkins you don't even understand your enemy.


----------



## Rafa (29 May 2007)

Regardless, 'born again' has connotations with the bible belt of the US...
Rudd is definitely not part of that group....

That group would rather focus on micro morality at the expense of macro morality... i.e. they would vote for someone who is anti abortion, even tho they are resposible for the deaths of many.

Rudd, along with a lot of mainstream church followers, are generally more left wing with social justice being the prime motivator, rather than specific divisive issues that stifle individuals 'freedom of choice', as pandered to by Howard, which has won him the support of Family First.

Thats all I am saying... lest there be any misunderstanding...


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

retroaugogo said:


> You obviously don't understand the meaning of being born again.   In Christianity, the term born again or regenerated is synonymous with spiritual rebirth.



getting down to semantics here retro ...

But I would have thought the new "charismatics" qualify as "born again" religions 
whereas the established religions are "mainstream". confused
In the end, it's probably what the dictionary and/or general public think it means.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-again 


> Born again Christianity
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> (Redirected from Born-again)
> Jump to: navigation, search
> ...






> .... However, the meaning of the term varies among Christian traditions:
> 
> *The Roman Catholic Church *associates "being born again" with baptism. It holds that "Baptism is ... the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost."[2] This is also a belief held by Eastern Christianity, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, among other Christian traditions.
> 
> ...



Since you mention the church as "enemy",  
and you disagree with other religions on this point (and treat it as an important point - which I don't btw), 
this appears to a "war" between multi headed dragons.  (probably goes for both sides)

Certainly I am extrememly worried about the all singing all dancing religions that believe in Noah etc - even some bloke from Qld has started a "Craetion Museum" in USA pushing  Adam and Eve etc .  
I heard that in the car this morning and I gave a 100dB cry "NOOOOOOooooo" !!! - idiotic sheeh.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

Mousie, Spassky vs Fischer was in the height of the cold war days , and that was the mood during their games lol.  Don't recall the details though.  Bobby Fischer was in the news recently was he not? - something about burning US flags or some such (?)

I don;t think he's even allowed back in USA. (?) - things have sure changed in those 35 years, lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer


> in 1972 became the only US-born chessplayer to become the official World Chess Champion......
> 
> Fischer now lives in Iceland, and has also become known for his anti-Americanism, anti-imperialism, and anti-semitism. However, Fischer's inflammatory statements have done little to diminish the professional and popular recognition of his singular achievements on the chessboard.


----------



## Mousie (29 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Mousie, Spassky vs Fischer was in the height of the cold war days , and that was the mood during their games lol.  Don't recall the details though.  Bobby Fischer was in the news recently was he not? - something about burning US flags or some such (?)
> 
> I don;t think he's even allowed back in USA. (?) - things have sure changed in those 35 years, lol
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer




Hey 2020, don't think he publicly burned any US flags but there's lots on Fischer's part which disgraced him, praising the 911 attacks on radio for instance. That was pretty much the final straw for a lot of Americans who'd been admiring him for his amazing ability to play correct moves regardless of the type of position he'd found himself in (and of course for winning the Cold War battle of the intellects against Spassky).

I think he's now living a quiet sort of life in Reykjavik, Iceland (the place where he won the World Championship). He was a US fujitive given residency by Icelanders for his role in placing Iceland on the world map during the match. Maybe now the US will leave him in peace to grow old gracefully. But whatever he does he'll always be remembered for some of the best games ever played in chess.


----------



## retroaugogo (29 May 2007)

"Most other Protestant churches place less emphasis on a conversion experience and rely on the individual's personal statement of belief in and commitment to Jesus Christ as "Lord" and "Savior." While they do not deny the validity of a conversion experience, they would seldom use the term "born again" to describe it".

Yes it tends to be a term more used by evangelicals and some shy away from the term as it has those US bible belt comparisons thanks to the media.

However it was a term used by Jesus to explain a conversion experience.And a conversion experience is necessary.

Jn 3.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit
Jn 3.7 Do not marvel that I said to you,you must be born again.


----------



## retroaugogo (29 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> Regardless, 'born again' has connotations with the bible belt of the US...
> Rudd is definitely not part of that group....
> 
> That group would rather focus on micro morality at the expense of macro morality... i.e. they would vote for someone who is anti abortion, even tho they are resposible for the deaths of many.
> ...




I tend to think that the more conservative mainstream element vote for the Libs.

Faith & Politics (Quotes by Kevin Rudd) 

God is not owned by any political party and never will be. My concern is there's been a de facto slide into a proposition in Australia in the last decade, that the natural party of God is the Liberal party, that God has somehow become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the conservative side of politics.

All I'm saying is it's important for those who come from a social justice tradition, both within politics and for those people who are hard Christians within Christianity to argue strongly the alternative tradition.

 I've simply called for a different Christian voice in politics. The social justice tradition of Christianity has been alive and well and so much of the shaping of the Labor movement over the last 100 years, but in the last decade or so, it seems to have been drowned out increasingly by the conservative forms of Christianity in Australia, a view of Christianity which says it's purely a matter of private personal faith, and as for my interests in the social wellbeing of my neighbour, well that's his business, not mine, and he can go and jump in the lake. So it's time, I thought, to contest that view.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

let's see if we agree on something retro ..
do you agree that the US bible belt are a worry ?


----------



## Rafa (29 May 2007)

the US Bible belt (and the 'born again brigade') is a huge worry, and Bush panders, via words and actions, to that group 

Its leaders like Bush who politicise God that give christianity a bad name. Bin Laden and other fundamentalist muslims on the other side are doing the same thing... 

The beauty of Australia is we don't fire up the same way Americans and muslims can get fired up... especially about God... Hence God is something Howard is using only sparsely... after seeing the way Bush has harnessed it... He has used other things tho...

when he first came to power, he vilified Aborigines... 
then he went onto Asians, aided via Hanson, 
then it was onto the unemployed...
then asylum seekers...
and now its Muslims...

Classic politics ... by highlight differences in people and playing on peoples normal and quite natural fears.

in the background is always the anit-gay, anti-abortion messages, the whole Family Benefits regime which encourages stay at home mums, massive funding to private religious schooling, etc, etc, all which has helped sure up the support of Family First.

We are lucky cause we are Australian...
Bush and bible belt tho is a whole different story 


PS: the above is just commentary on what I see... not an opinion of whether Howard is or isn't a good PM.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> - even some bloke from Qld has started a "Creation Museum" in USA pushing  Adam and Eve etc .
> I heard that in the car this morning and I gave a 100dB cry "NOOOOOOooooo" !!! - idiotic sheeh.



http://abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s1936022.htm


> A former Queensland science teacher has opened what is being described as the world's first Creation Museum, situated in the United States.
> 
> The museum teaches that the Earth is barely 6,000 years old and that God created dinosaurs and humans at roughly the same time.
> 
> ...



( I can't go on lol)
"NOOOOOOooooo,  AAhhhhhhhh" !!!

PS Hovind says that man and dinosaurs co-existed - and in fact that dinosaurs are referred to in the Bible !!!
except that they didn't call them dinosaurs , they called them.....   unicorns (??) - yeah right


----------



## wayneL (29 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> Sorry, that is incorrect... Kevin Rudd is from a mainstream Christian church... he's certainly no Bush supporter, unlike Howard and co... who pander to the right wing (fundamentalist christians), hence have the support of family first!
> 
> 
> Ok... now, back to the topic...



That's good to know IMO.


----------



## stockGURU (29 May 2007)

Some unintentional humour from the creation "scientists" for your enjoyment 

Peanut Butter - The Atheists nightmare!


The Atheists nightmare - The banana! (with Kirk Cameron)


Enjoy!


----------



## ghotib (29 May 2007)

Where on EARTH did you find those clips? What a hoot!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

ghotib said:


> Where on EARTH did you find those clips? What a hoot!!!



lol - ripper
and this one has a few extra notes 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&NR=1  Atheists nightmare debunked. Ray Comfort/Kirk cameron

then there's thisone ...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siVq3bxQ10g&mode=related&search=
"This is a video response to Atheists nightmare debunked. Ray Comfort/Kirk cameron"
lol, not sure whether this bloke is a d***head who doesn't realise it's a pisstake, or
Suurrely, it's a pisstake on a piistake lol


----------



## BREND (29 May 2007)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.




I disagree, do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? God will speak to you.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

Einstein also said ... 

(as for the previous video about bananas - trouble with what's coming out of USA these days, it's almost impossible to know if they're for real or not lol.  - sheesh - such idiocy if anyone believes even 10% of this stuff..  )


----------



## Joe Blow (29 May 2007)

Hey 2020 - Here's how you actually embed the You Tube videos into the post : https://www.aussiestockforums.com/help/bb-codes#youtube

Thought you might find it useful.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

BREND said:


> I disagree, do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? God will speak to you.




Brend, trouble is he speaks to a lot of people, many of whom (you'll surely agree) are loonies 
Joe , I'll  PS take a look - thanx


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 May 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> trouble with what's coming out of USA these days, it's almost impossible to know if they're for real or not lol



ohhh nooooo lol
When i read he was a Kiwi , I thought it HAS To be be a pisstake - but no, he seriously believes that God made the banana to fit his hand - lol.
hahhaaahahhhhahahhhhaaaa 

He's nearly as bad as that Aussie - few posts back - (from Qld - probably related to Jo BP lol) who has opened that museum showing Noah rounding up the dinosaurs lol.

"here, boy, here girl, that's it,  that's it , through this little gate, that's it, up this little plank here - good boy ... "


----------



## retroaugogo (5 June 2007)

Fabulous christian testimony.

Quite long (about 1 hr) but very powerful.


http://www.insightsofgod.com/downloads/Ian_McCormacks_Testimony.mp3


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 June 2007)

gee I feel sorry for anyone who feels somehow compelled (com Pell-ed?) to listen to this stuff and take it on board.   "In God's name" (whatever that means).
Can't people make decisions for themselves?  So enlightening to hear Christian politicians telling these dinasaurs to "button it !!"

(by the way the Anglican Archbishop was almost as bad - but less publicity)  
Galileo would say this is dejavu all over again.
You wonder if a cure for any number of diseases came out of this research, would the "archbishops" deny their use "in God's name"? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1944347.htm


> MPs react to Archbishop 'blackmail'
> *New South Wales MPs have used a debate on new stem cell legislation to attack the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, after he warned parliamentarians against supporting the bill.*
> 
> NSW Emergency Services Minister Nathan Rees accused the Cardinal of blackmailing Catholic MPs.
> ...




By absolute contrast ....this man makes sense..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1944045.htm


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 June 2007)

> The Ends of the Earth
> 
> The angel Uriel guided Enoch in most of his travels. They made several trips to the ends of the earth, where the dome of heaven came down to the surface. For instance, Enoch says:
> 
> I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out...(1 Enoch 33:1-2).





In conversation with a religious man one day he said that I would have *eternal life * if I placed my faith with his god.My experience of life,flesh , blood,bone etc. has revealed that this is not possible.(with all life too)The way he presented his belief that youth is eternal is where I came unstuck.
So with a question of equal confusion (to most) I asked if he would be disappointed when his body has decayed.It was then I saw in his eye a look of  a `true believer`.He believed something that I had no idea about and an answer was not forthcoming , needless to say we differ greatly on reality.


----------



## insider (7 June 2007)

Yes there is a God... He wants you to beat the Taxman!!!

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5631


----------



## weird (7 June 2007)

http://www.jokesnjokes.net/funny.jokes.amusing.humor.laughs/Profession/accountant003.htm

"The Interview

A businessman was interviewing applicants for the position of divisional manager. He devised a simple test to select the most suitable person for the job. He asked each applicant the question, "What is two and two?"

The first interviewee was a journalist. His answer was "Twenty-two."

The second applicant was an engineer. He pulled out a slide rule and showed the answer to be between 3.999 and 4.001.

The next person was a lawyer. He stated that in the case of Jenkins v Commr of Stamp Duties (Qld), two and two was proven to be four.

The last applicant was an accountant. The businessman asked him, "How much is two and two?"

The accountant got up from his chair, went over to the door and closed it then came back and sat down. He leaned across the desk and said in a low voice, "How much do you want it to be?"

He got the job."


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 June 2007)

I sometimes wondered if I would be punished if I spoke my beliefs.These beliefs would be contradictory to religion and I thought I would be tried in the "mental court" for blasphemy.I was fearful.



> Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of one or more gods. These may include using sacred names as stress expletives without intention to pray or speak of sacred matters. Sometimes blasphemy is used loosely to mean any profane language, for example in "With much hammering and blasphemy, the locomotive's replacement spring was finally fitted."
> 
> In a broader sense, blasphemy is irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable. In this broader sense the term is used by Sir Francis Bacon in the Advancement of Learning, when he speaks of "blasphemy against learning".
> 
> *Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the god or gods of their established religions, and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries*.




In different countries maybe more than a "mental court".
But.....like beauty and justice , blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Mousie (8 June 2007)

insider said:


> Yes there is a God... He wants you to beat the Taxman!!!
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5631




That's just lame insider - there're better ways to draw attention to the threads you're interested in! I noticed you did that for the house thread thingy as well...


----------



## insider (8 June 2007)

Mousie said:


> That's just lame insider - there're better ways to draw attention to the threads you're interested in! I noticed you did that for the house thread thingy as well...




Are you kidding me... This thread is always up on the screen! If there's a better way then I'd like to hear it... I'm sure people wouldn't like me to start cross pollinating topics into 'stock related threads'... But Jeez when I saw the topic 'Is there a God'... I thought "damn that's a tricky topic... I'll cross pollinate". Maybe I'll start a new thread called "Is there a God an how to beat the taxman in the one thread"... hence "Two birds with one stone"


----------



## Mousie (8 June 2007)

insider said:


> If there's a better way then I'd like to hear it... I'm sure people wouldn't like me to start cross pollinating topics into 'stock related threads'... But Jeez when I saw the topic 'Is there a God'... I thought "damn that's a tricky topic... I'll cross pollinate". Maybe I'll start a new thread called "Is there a God an how to beat the taxman in the one thread"... hence "Two birds with one stone"




The better way? Keep increasing the quality of the postings...

That other thread is interesting as is; it doesn't need more attention already. Trust me, I follow it; just not posting if I haven't got things to say. Lack of postings doesn't mean it ain't getting attention. My point is if you start making it a habit to "cross-polinate" a bit too often it starts to get a wee bit annoying


----------



## Mousie (8 June 2007)

And commenting on the poll results I realised the 2 "extreme" choices garnered the most responses, and those who know that God exists without question just about edged it. I'm no statistician (well probably an amateur one ) but 2 conclusions I can draw:

1) People who're in business tend to lean towards total conviction as to what they believe in. In fact the 2 choices mentioned have 110 out of 196 total of respondents, which is 56.1%, just over half. The other 4 slightly more ambivalent choices only garnered 43.9% combined.

2) The fact that the "God exists without question" option got the most responses shows that to a sizeable amount of people involved in a results-driven environment, God and striving for money can co-exist.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 June 2007)

Maybe there's another conclusion Mousie, lol
 and maybe Insider is right?
People probably really go to church to talk about houses and how to cheat the taxman


----------



## ghotib (8 June 2007)

Mousie said:


> And commenting on the poll results I realised the 2 "extreme" choices garnered the most responses, and those who know that God exists without question just about edged it. I'm no statistician (well probably an amateur one ) but 2 conclusions I can draw:
> 
> 1) People who're in business tend to lean towards total conviction as to what they believe in. In fact the 2 choices mentioned have 110 out of 196 total of respondents, which is 56.1%, just over half. The other 4 slightly more ambivalent choices only garnered 43.9% combined.
> 
> 2) The fact that the "God exists without question" option got the most responses shows that to a sizeable amount of people involved in a results-driven environment, God and striving for money can co-exist.



And 98% of traders are wrong.  Hmmmmm.


----------



## Mousie (8 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Maybe there's another conclusion Mousie, lol
> and maybe Insider is right?
> People probably really go to church to talk about houses and how to cheat the taxman




What's your conclusion(s) hindsight, be interested to hear it 

Yes, there is a tendency for church-goers to go to church and, apart from the main service where everything God is brought up, talk about anything but God before and after that LOL. But if they do so wholly and exclusively eek: ) they aren't really privy to the real purpose of coming to church, are they?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 June 2007)

Mousie said:


> What's your conclusion(s) hindsight, be interested to hear it



Mousie, Obviously many go for the best intentions and get a positive out of it.  

But as an aside --- 
Just heard the funniest John Clarke and Bryan Dawe skit on ABC radio this morning 
Clarke playing Tony Abbott - going to see Archbishop Pell every second week to get fully briefed on the latest ideas about "independent thought "    funny as.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 June 2007)

Sorry Mousie, you were referring to the graph maybe?
like the result they got on the other website (as posted previously? ) - where those idiots are so confused 

happy hour comment :-   I bet if we all got pissed together, and someone said "c'mon now, be 100% honest now, do you really think you KNOW whether there IS or ISN't etc - " lol
better not go there, I get into enough trouble as it is


----------



## Mousie (9 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Sorry Mousie, you were referring to the graph maybe?




Yes of course I was 

Well if the other site exists  I'll probably hazard a guess they're all from the arts stream of things LOL



> happy hour comment :-   I bet if we all got pissed together, and someone said "c'mon now, be 100% honest now, do you really think you KNOW whether there IS or ISN't etc - " lol
> better not go there, I get into enough trouble as it is




Well they can ask, and I can definitely answer stomach in chest out 

If I can be stuffed answering that is, upon seeing that kind of attitude.

Although I am, I suspect, way very much your junior, I've lived long enough to know the futility of cold and hard selling, thank you very much


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

oh oh 
There's another Jonestown in the making ...  (BUT I haven't see it right thruogH yet) 
Watch Channel 9 , 60 minutes all you Wassies - about half way through the program.    


> "Why would theses children say they would lay down their lives for you "
> "Because they love me !"



sexual abuse etc - 5 years in jail etc .


----------



## Sean K (11 June 2007)

Mousie said:


> Yes, there is a tendency for church-goers to go to church and, apart from the main service where everything God is brought up, talk about anything but God before and after that LOL.



 'Church goers' actually go to hear about Jesus, not God. Jesus is a historical figure, and an example of what may have been the best way people could live in the year 0. Maybe. That's all. Our 'God' in generic terms, is very, very, different to the God of the Old Testament, and the Holy Trinity. Please do some research on The History of God. It's enlightneing!! I am converted!!!! And faithful.


----------



## stockGURU (11 June 2007)

The bottom line is that this is an unanswerable question.

Those who say they believe there is a god can't prove it in any way, except to themselves of course. They believe it for their own personal reasons.

The same applies to those who say they know for sure there isnt a god. This cannot be proven either. They also believe it for their own reasons.

The only truly honest answer to this question is "I don't know".


----------



## Sean K (11 June 2007)

stockGURU said:


> The bottom line is that this is an unanswerable question.
> 
> Those who say they believe there is a god can't prove it in any way, except to themselves of course. They believe it for their own personal reasons.
> 
> ...



Or, under this hypothesis, everything we think is true can be said to be 'my understanding of events' and not the _actual_ truth. Perception is reality.


----------



## Mousie (11 June 2007)

kennas said:


> 'Church goers' actually go to hear about Jesus, not God. Jesus is a historical figure, and an example of what may have been the best way people could live in the year 0. Maybe. That's all. Our 'God' in generic terms, is very, very, different to the God of the Old Testament, and the Holy Trinity. Please do some research on The History of God. It's enlightneing!! I am converted!!!! And faithful.




I took it to be obvious that God to 'church-goers' is in the form of Jesus. On hindsight (apologies to 2020) I should have stated in the passage you quoted me on as: "...God in the form of Jesus" when I refer to church-goers. 

Replace 'God' with 'Jesus' in the passage you quoted me on and everything else I say still stands, for that's what I observed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 June 2007)

kennas said:


> Or, under this hypothesis, everything we think is true can be said to be 'my understanding of events' and not the _actual_ truth. Perception is reality.




Kennas, 
just restricting myself to the "perception is reality " (which - I better explain - followed stockGuru's comment that we should all have said, hand on heart, that none of us were sure - ok? - I mean , you gotta have the context - otherwise you'll have bishops confusing actresses )  but .....

two optional replies to this ..
1. you wanna watch out - some of those mushrooms that come out after rain aren't really mushrooms lol.   
They're magical !! :silly:

2. or are you starting to talk like 
a) Philosophers like Descartes, with his "cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, not sure about anything else". 
b) Einsten, with his virtual warped universe , (and virtually anything else he says as well) 
c) $20shoes (post #71) with his "All in one and one in all" - (no it's not something that you buy at MacDonalds )
d) Philosophers like Robert Zend with his "I have a problem for every solution"
or 
e) anon (some really simple philosophy this one )  "Philosophy is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.  Religion is finding it." - or if you like "A philosopher is any person who doesn't want what he can't get". 

I probably prefer 2e.
But then again ...
f) Plato "Until philosophers are kings cities will never cease from ill , nor the human race" Plato 427 - 347 BC  



> 'Church goers' actually go to hear about Jesus, not God.



PS you're a brave man if you say you can answer for all people of one religion, let alone all religions  
PS I used to go because I was told to lol.   (except they asked me to sing as quietly as possible)  

Rats!! - and I promised someone around here I'd stop posting confusing posts myself !!
Perhaps I'm just a congenital Confusian.


----------



## Sean K (11 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Kennas,
> just restricting myself to the "perception is reality " but .....
> two optional replies to this ..
> 1. you wanna watch out - some of those mushrooms that come out after rain aren't really mushrooms lol.
> They're magical !! :silly:



I think this is the answer to explain why I was on the computer at 2am this morning.  Appologies for anything I said. I can't even remember writing that. What did I mean anyway?.....:hide:


----------



## Sean K (11 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS you're a brave man if you say you can answer for all people of one religion, let alone all religions



I think what I may have meant by 'perception is reality' supports this. Everybodies idea of God is different in some small way. Even people of one religion attending the same church, or temple, being lectured to by the same Iman. This is each individual's reality, based on their perception. I don't think its brave to make that statement.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 June 2007)

kennas said:


> I think what I may have meant by 'perception is reality' supports this. Everybodies idea of God is different in some small way. Even people of one religion attending the same church, or temple, being lectured to by the same Iman. This is each individual's reality, based on their perception. I don't think its brave to make that statement.



ahhh - penny drops  - thanks - spot on    (imho)

gee I nearly made a simple posting there  

But on the subject of perception / attitude :-

Henry Miller's attitude to grass: 
"The moment one gives close attention to anything, even a blade of grass, it becomes a mysterious, awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself"

versus this local gardener bloke in the park (let's call him a reluctant born-again-optimist lol) who drives up and yells - "get outta the way, or I'll run over you with my Victa" !!


> THE RELUCTANT OPTIMIST
> 
> Why is the grass so God-damned green, since I decided to smile,
> Pain in the arze that it grows so keen, and all on account of my dial,
> ...


----------



## Sean K (11 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> But on the subject of perception / attitude :-
> 
> Henry Miller's attitude to grass:
> "The moment one gives close attention to anything, even a blade of grass, it becomes a mysterious, awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself"



 You're going Zen on me now. Awareness definately makes life more magical. And those mushrooms could help that along too.


----------



## Col Lector (11 June 2007)

Then again, for some, lawn mowing is the all encompassing religious experience...


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 June 2007)

kennas , Speaking zen and stuff, A few quotes I'll throw in, for you to throw out as you see fit - or of course to counter with more apt quotes that you might be wrapped in  :-  

The concept of the many coloured glasses, not only smelling the rose, but seeing through rose coloured lenses:- 


> Ralph Waldo Emerson:  Life is a train of moods like a string of beads; and as we pass through them they prove to be many colored lenses, which paint the world their own hue, and each shows us only what lies in its own focus.




The ability to adjust the contrast and the brightness of the TV 


> Paramahansa Yogananda:  Life has a bright side and a dark side, for the world of relativity is composed of light and shadows. If you permit your thoughts to dwell on evil, you yourself will become ugly. Look only for the good in everything so you absorb the quality of beauty.




Spare a thought for Mother Nature who went to the trouble of putting 123 million million million stars up there for us to see - and say you didn't get your money's worth at the fireworks night.  !!


> Ralph Waldo Emerson:   If the stars should appear but one night every thousand years how man would marvel and adore.




The concept of misdirected energies :- 


> Rebecca West: Did St. Francis really preach to the birds? Whatever for? If he really liked birds he would have done better to preach to the cats.






Col Lector said:


> Then again, for some, lawn mowing is the all encompassing religious experience...



lol - spot on again collector,  same goes for gardens 

PS that could explain , while on the matter of mowing, I'm an atheist, and my lawn (and garden) are wonders to behold lol.

the lady next door lectures in horticulture - once came by, and asked could she take a few samples from the garden - I said sure, really chuffed that she found our miserable flowers etc worth the trouble. 
she replied - yep I'm lecturing on diseases , mould and pests, and I reckon you've got every one in the book here.


----------



## Out Too Soon (31 July 2007)

*Re: Is there a GOD? (How Many?)*

I believe that the incontrovertial existence of our conscience, an instinct for judging good from bad proves there is reason to our primitive graspings through our primitive faiths (christianity included).
The fact that otherwise intelligent ppl beleive unquestioningly in current mainstream faiths is an embarrassment for humanity. 
There is GOOD & there is EVIL & shades of GREY, the rest is interesting conjecture.


----------



## Mofra (31 July 2007)

(Apologies to poster on another site who first put this up)

He was born of a virgin on December 25th
His birth was announced by a Star. 
His earthly father was named Joseph.
He was of Royal descent.
At age 12 he was a child teacher in a temple.
At age 30 he was baptised after disappearing for 18 years.
He was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana. His baptiser was later decapitated.
He had 12 disciples, two were named John.
He performed miracles.
He walked on water.
He was called the 'Holy Child'.
He delivered a 'sermon on the mount'.
He was crucified, entombed for three days, then resurrected.
He was known as: The Light, The Way, The Truth, The Lamb of God.
He was 'The Fisher'.
He came to fulfil the 'Law'
He was known as 'The KRST'


Who was this figure?

Hint - I am not Jesus, my legend predates him.


----------



## Woodchips (1 August 2007)

From a scientific point of view, there is no point in constructing a hypothesis about something that by definition you cannot prove. Its a _complete_ waste of time. Not only is the theory impossible to prove, its also impossible to disprove. Go figure. 

But this is actually why Christianity has been so successful. It defines what God is, and places Him well outside the realms of reality so that no one can conclusively refute his existence. It then cleverly constructs a story about good and evil, right and wrong, heaven and hell, and teaches its recruits not to question, but simply to accept on faith. Anyone who questions is made to feel guilty, effectively ensuring that the cycle of stupidity continues. Thats why arguing with a believer is the most unfulfilling activity - because you never actually get anywhere. Their arguments are completely circular. You may as well hit your head on a light pole, or poke yourself in the eye with a burnt stick. Still, you have to give it to the clever bastard that invented it, he definitely knew what he was doing. 

The correct answer to the question should be: "I have no bloody idea, its just as bloody likely as it is bloody unlikely." The true agnostic. 

WC


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 August 2007)

Mofra said:


> (Apologies to poster on another site who first put this up)
> 
> He was born of a virgin on December 25th
> His birth was announced by a Star.
> ...



I give in  - a hermafrodite water walking spider who morphed into a mountain climbing man?


----------



## jonojpsg (1 August 2007)

What an interesting thread!  To add my 2c worth, anyone who thinks that the Bible is a conjob written to keep the masses under control needs to have a look at it's background - it was written by about 40 different guys over a period of about 1300 years, all the books are basically about the same thing, eg God made everything, including us; we stuffed up; he wanted to put us right and ended up having to sacrifice part of himself to do it.

There is more historical/manuscript evidence to support the Bible than any other ancient document, eg if you believe in Julius Caesar, then you have to conclude that the Bible is pretty much on the money.

What you decide to do about it is the real question, eg do you continue to act as if there is no God, or do you acknowledge him and include him?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (1 August 2007)

Mofra said:


> (Apologies to poster on another site who first put this up)
> 
> He was born of a virgin on December 25th
> His birth was announced by a Star.
> ...




I think you need to do some more research on Mithras from source scholars rather than internet soapboxes. Start with David Ulansey.


----------



## Bluesky (1 August 2007)

the barry said:


> he wore a number 5 geurnsy and ran about in the geelong jumper.




And now his son wears the number 29 for the mighty cats.
Do we call him Jesus now?


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 August 2007)

Without a thinking mind there is no god.The reason for life is to perpetuate life , no more and no less.

Why the evolution of thinking?No one knows!

It certainly is not `in tune` with nature.



p.s. from another stupid human but I know no other way.


----------



## Trader Paul (2 August 2007)

Hi folks,

What if the Christians are right, though ... ???

What if Jesus IS the only way to everlasting life ... ???

What if the way, that we live our lives here on earth, 
actually DOES determine our destiny, beyond death ... ???

For some, it would seem like cheap insurance to believe in God 
... just in case, Jesus IS the way to everlasting life ... yes???

have a great day

  paul

P.S. ..... where are you going, when you die ... ???


----------



## stockGURU (2 August 2007)

Trader Paul said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> What if the Christians are right, though ... ???
> 
> ...




What if the Muslims are right?
What if the Buddhists are right?
What if the Hindus are right?
What if the Jews are right?
What if none of them are?

A lot of 'What if's' there Paul.

Ultimately nobody knows or can know the answer to what happens when we die. It's all a guess.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 August 2007)

To believe in anything beyond the senses of sight,hearing,touch,smell and taste requires imagination.

Anything intangible is (by the imaginative or not knowing) justified through an imaginative process.What is not proven is imagined and what is imagined is not proven.

With imagination, humans try  to explain the inexplicable.


----------



## Sean K (2 August 2007)

> What if the Christians are right, though ... ???



Right that the Earth was created in 7 days? That Moses parted the Red Sea? That you can't have sex before marriage? That you can't use condoms? Or that JC was born to a women who never had sex? 



> What if Jesus IS the only way to everlasting life ... ???



 Everlasting life? Exactly what is that! Please explain. Life where exactly? In the clouds? Where exactly do you go? Give me a GPS coordinate.



> What if the way, that we live our lives here on earth,
> actually DOES determine our destiny, beyond death ... ???



I live according to my cultures laws the best way I can, which allows me to be the best person I can be in this life, and achieve happiness and contentment for myself and those around me. Exactly what is beyond death? St Peter waiting at the Pearly Gates? 



> For some, it would seem like cheap insurance to believe in God
> ... just in case, Jesus IS the way to everlasting life ... yes???



Cheap insurance it is NOT! I can't start with the pain and suffering religion and specifically Christainity has caused to people over the centuries. 



> P.S. ..... where are you going, when you die ... ???



 My ashes will be distributed in the ocean, my memories will live on in those who knew me. Nothing else. Once that's in perspective I can concentrate on THIS life, and make the most of it. 


The onus of proof is on the claimant, these rediculous statements only prove you have NO claim.

And yes, I know the answer to all of this is to have Faith. The usual way Christains get out of having to seriously consider all the unanswerable questions.


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Cheap insurance it is NOT! I can't start with the pain and suffering religion and specifically Christainity has caused to people over the centuries.



... and they put the bite on you for 10%.

Jolly expensive! 

See Pascal's wager


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2007)

stockGURU said:


> What if the Muslims are right?
> What if the Buddhists are right?
> What if the Hindus are right?
> What if the Jews are right?
> *What if none of them are?*



What if God doesn't give a toss anyway?


----------



## Sean K (2 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> What if God doesn't give a toss anyway?



He certainly hasn't seemed to give a toss over recorded time. What's with the earthquakes and stuff?


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2007)

kennas said:


> He certainly hasn't seemed to give a toss over recorded time. What's with the earthquakes and stuff?



That'd come under yin and yang I 'spose.

It just IS.


----------



## Mofra (2 August 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I think you need to do some more research on Mithras from source scholars rather than internet soapboxes. Start with David Ulansey.




Actually the answer I was offering was the latter interpretations of the legend of Horus, but there are similarities between legends such as Mithras, Dionysis, Jesus etc.

David Ulansey sound interest (for further research), I know a few have been decribing the efforts Acharya S as a little misguided so cheers for new angle.


----------



## Rafa (2 August 2007)

kennas said:


> He certainly hasn't seemed to give a toss over recorded time. What's with the earthquakes and stuff?




i don't see why he shoud give a toss about us anyway...
its not like we've done him any favours 

half don't beleive in him and do what they want, and the other half use his name to do what they want


----------



## jonojpsg (2 August 2007)

kennas said:


> He certainly hasn't seemed to give a toss over recorded time. What's with the earthquakes and stuff?




Let's see - God creates the universe.  Given his infinite creative and intelligent resources, he creates it with specific and extremely fine tuned physical laws that help keep it all together.

This means, if you stand on the top of a tall building and jump off, you will fall to the ground and die.  It doesn't make God nasty, vindictive, evil, bad, whatever you want to call it, it just means that you need to be careful when standing on top of tall buildings.  

Obviously earthquakes are a bit different as you have no control over them, but hey you don't have any control over what the guy in the car in front of you is doing either, and if he hits the brakes hard at 100km/h you're toast.  That's life.

God gives enough of a toss to send Jesus - which you can't argue with as there is ample proof that he existed and was who he said he was.


----------



## Sean K (2 August 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> Let's see - God creates the universe.  Given his infinite creative and intelligent resources, he creates it with specific and extremely fine tuned physical laws that help keep it all together.
> 
> This means, if you stand on the top of a tall building and jump off, you will fall to the ground and die.  It doesn't make God nasty, vindictive, evil, bad, whatever you want to call it, it just means that you need to be careful when standing on top of tall buildings.
> 
> ...



Jesus was probably a man, nothing more. Probably a very good one, but nonetheless, a man. I have no proof. Yours are manusrcipts written by men 100s of years after Jesus died and was resurrected...proof...old fiction fairytales to explain away the unexplainable and to create a set of laws for people to live in harmony of the day. God sent him? Why not just appear himself? As far as earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc go, isn't he omnipotent and omnipresent? Why create an inferior planet, with inferior people, that he has to manipulate all the time with His devinity? The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe as Galilelo proved, and imprisoned for, and just how does God control the entire multiverses? Multi! How? Golly, don't get me started.....


----------



## Pat (2 August 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> God gives enough of a toss to send Jesus - which you can't argue with as there is ample proof that he existed and was who he said he was.



There is ample proof jesus existed, but no proof to indicate that god had sent jesus...


----------



## stockGURU (2 August 2007)

George Carlin on Religion 
*Warning - Some Offensive Language*


----------



## Bluesky (2 August 2007)

My opinion - I think that religion was man made, why?
To divide us into groups. So we can think we are more superior than others. What does that lead to - arguments, fighting, war and so on.
I believe jesus did exist but only as a human like u and i with nothing extraordinary about him. If god created us then where did god come from?

I have plenty more to say on his subject.
But gotta read and make some money coz i dont see god or jesus making me money to live on.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Jesus was probably a man, nothing more. Probably a very good one, but nonetheless, a man. I have no proof. Yours are manusrcipts written by men 100s of years after Jesus died and was resurrected...proof...old fiction fairytales to explain away the unexplainable and to create a set of laws for people to live in harmony of the day. God sent him? Why not just appear himself? As far as earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc go, isn't he omnipotent and omnipresent? Why create an inferior planet, with inferior people, that he has to manipulate all the time with His devinity? The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe as Galilelo proved, and imprisoned for, and just how does God control the entire multiverses? Multi! How? Golly, don't get me started.....



With you completely, Kennas.  The believers, however, will tell you that it is our sin which has caused God's wrath and the punishment of dire events, e.g. earthquakes.  And when you ask how a loving God can allow little children to be violently abused, they will say that God gave man free will and God has no control over how said paedophiles have used that will.


----------



## Joe Blow (2 August 2007)

Thought I would re-open this poll so those who haven't already voted can do so if they would like.


----------



## Enoch (2 August 2007)

Julia,

God did a lot of good things so that evil people can be brought to justice.

Job 37v7

"God sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work"

I believe this would be each and everybody's individual fingerprint.

Interesting this was supposedly one of the first books of the bible ever written many years BC. How was it that the writer new of the "individual fingerprint" back then and how it could be used to show the evil works of a man.

Believe me no body wants the chance to ask God more than me the questions you raised and to simply ask God why bad things happen?

However I believe God is a merciful God and God wants people to seek him out which is a simple act of faith. If bad things didn't happen then no one would need to seek him out and yes God did give man free will to choose.

"Its the honour of kings to search out a matter."

All the best.

Take care
Enoch
One day I will get my chance.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 August 2007)

One of the major drawbacks of people "quoting" the bible is their interpretation of the "quotes".No one sees the words written , instead they are replaced with `connections` to other happenings.

How many ways can a quote be interpreted.As many minds that read it I suppose.

To question the validity and relevance is to be a non-believer.Reality steps aside.
Can any words be spoken and accepted as truth?


----------



## Woodchips (3 August 2007)

Enoch said:


> Julia,
> 
> God did a lot of good things so that evil people can be brought to justice.
> 
> ...




Oh yes suddenly everything is clear! What the?!  

Never seen so much crap squeezed into one post. How you got DNA fingerprinting technology out of that quote ill never know. What about the other hundred thousand criminals that got away with murder _before_ DNA fingerprinting technology was invented, why were they allowed off the hook? What possible reason could God have for waiting until the 20th century to introduce DNA fingerprinting technology? 

For an all powerful merciful God, he sure has a round about way of doing things. 

WC :


----------



## Enoch (3 August 2007)

Woodchips,

True what you said why did God leave it so long before these things were revealed and to be honest I don't know.

Again I have a lot of questions to ask God.

My point was simply to make people think about the possibility the bible is true. 

If its not talking about how everybodies hands/finger prints are different what is it talking about?

Another favourite of mine is Isaiah 40 v 22.
"It is God who sitteth on the circle of the earth"

Apparently they didn't realise the earth was a sphere (round shape) for thousands of years after this passage was written.



Take Care
Enoch


----------



## Sean K (3 August 2007)

Enoch said:


> Another favourite of mine is Isaiah 40 v 22.
> "It is God who sitteth on the circle of the earth"
> 
> Apparently they didn't realise the earth was a sphere (round shape) for thousands of years after this passage was written.
> ...



No, ancient people believed the Earth was disc shaped, like the moon and the sun, but NOT a solid sphere. Again, drawing a neat conclusion from what is an innocuous quote saying very little of importance, or relevence, to anyone, or anything, in the world today.


----------



## Sean K (3 August 2007)

Julia said:


> With you completely, Kennas.  The believers, however, will tell you that it is our sin which has caused God's wrath and the punishment of dire events, e.g. earthquakes.  And when you ask how a loving God can allow little children to be violently abused, they will say that God gave man free will and God has no control over how said paedophiles have used that will.



Yes, Julia, the believers will say this, and it provides an easy answer to the difficult questions of life, and life's calamites, but we know better in the 21st century. 

It is now universally accepted, even by Christains, that the universe was most probably not created in 7 days by the hand of God, and even less probable that he created man from mud, nor woman from Adam's rib. Human's evolved like all other animals through natural selection. There was never any granting of 'free will', we are just another animal trying to survive on the planet. We just happen to have evolved into this unique creature that can sympathise along with other wonderful things. Like love and be evil. Every human has the potential to do good and evil, because of our unique psychological makeup and the hormones driving us, which can be significantly out of balance in some. Evil people are just out of balance in some way.

As far as the creation on the universe goes, no one knows exactly how it happened, but the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe over time is the pretty standard theory. Maybe God caused the Big Bang, but he probably did not carefully mould an infinate number of stars and planets and delicately place them into space spinning them about so that they circled one another, and decide to make them have slight flaws, that would lead to disastrous results. The planet is an ever evolving structure and organism that is fragile, and in a constant state of flux. Eathquakes, lightening, cyclones, are not created by God to punish us, they are a natural phenomonon caused by the Earths constant disequalibrium. The planet has changed dramatically over time, and still is changing. For example, the Earth's tectonic plates are still moving and an earthquake is caused by a sudden release of stored energy in the crust, causing the tectonic plates to shift and slide against each other, causing all sorts of damage. This event is not masterfully done by a vengful God, to punish nasty humans. It's nature. 

Let's get into the 21st century, instead of clinging on to myths and legends to explain away the unknown and life's calamities.


----------



## ghotib (3 August 2007)

Enoch said:


> My point was simply to make people think about the possibility the bible is true.
> 
> If its not talking about how everybodies hands/finger prints are different what is it talking about?



Maybe the hand seal ("mudra") of Indian Hindu and Buddhist tradition? 

According to my 3 minutes Web research, they are specific gestures that have some relationship to the Chinese zodiac and to ninja (i.e. Japanese?) skills. Which means that 3 minutes and one search has turned up some thousands of years and well over half the world's population who use the idea of sealing and the hand with no reference to the bible. 

Which might mean nothing at all, but does suggest we could think about the possibility that the Hindu and/or Buddhist texts are true. 

Actually that's not what I'd suggest at all. I think it's much more useful to try and prove that what you believe is NOT true. If you succeed, then you'll have new and valuable information: that you need to keep looking for the truth. If you fail, then you have information that might be persuasive to other people.  Depending on your standard of proof, of course. 

Belief is a state of mind; as proof of what the mind believes it's irrelevant.

Ghoti


----------



## Rafa (3 August 2007)

well said Kennas...

I certainly thank God for all the good things that happen to me...
I have never once looked at a disaster and said... 'Why is God doing this to me'... Tho i know a lot of beleivers who have... Likewise, a lot of non believers point to disasters to question God's validity.

I have asked for a few things in prayer... somel have been delivered... some not.... Almost always its a direct relationship to how much i have really prayed for it. 

Some things get delivered even when i didn't pray for them... like this latest crash , but then, maybe some of you bears have been praying for it...   who knows

All i know is, i'll be damned if someone tells me God is benevolent, or God is judgemental, God is this, or God is that, God exists, or God doesn't exisit...  etc, etc... 

GOD EXISTS FOR ME... Thats all I know.


----------



## Julia (3 August 2007)

It's just fine with me that those who choose to do so believe in a God.
I simply don't know.

But it's not fine with me when the believers push their beliefs into other people's lives.  A friend of mine was repeatedly raped by her father from the age of about 6 until she was a teenager.  As an adult she attempted to deal with the physical and emotional damage done to her.  A psychologist she consulted was a disciple and told my friend that what had happened was God's way of building her character and she should be grateful!!!!

Here is a dilemma on which I'd be interested to hear others' views.
I have a very dear friend who is about to undergo surgery for an illness where the surgery will almost certainly be palliative at best.  She is agnostic though was brought up a Catholic and I suspect that ingrained stuff remains with her when the crunch comes as it has.  When I asked her what I could do to support her she surprised me by saying "say a prayer for me".
So I guess she's doing what many people do in a situation like this and reaching out for any hope that might exist.

So, given that I am not truly a believer in the power of prayer, should I offer up some sort of appeal to a God which might be caring for her, or is this the height of hypocrisy?


----------



## Ageo (3 August 2007)

Julia said:


> So, given that I am not truly a believer in the power of prayer, should I offer up some sort of appeal to a God which might be caring for her, or is this the height of hypocrisy?




Julia, do you believe that once loved ones pass on you will never see them again?


----------



## tech/a (3 August 2007)

> should I offer up some sort of appeal to a God which might be caring for her, or is this the height of hypocrisy?




People Like you and I just dont know.
We'd like it to be so.
All logic tells us that at best its faith.
Yet we live our lives to the best of our abilities and to an accepted standard which like it or not has some groundings in religon.

To your question.
I'm sure you'd do anything you could to help your friend and as she has asked that you "Say a prayer" for her then say a prayer I think you should.

So will I.

AGEO
I'm afraid yes.
Ive never seem any of my friends or relatives!
As for anything else--no one has yet proven anything
so all we can do is hope---yet all logic fails for me,
as for the life of me I cant remember anyone before I was born.

We will all know soon enough!


----------



## Rafa (3 August 2007)

tech/a... great response.

Julia, in the end it comes down to belief... both yours and your friends.
So... yes, I would do as tech/a suggest...

I have just said a prayer too, but i conclude all prayers with
"If it is possible, let this chalice pass from me... But let your will be done, not mine"

or words to that effect...


----------



## Ageo (3 August 2007)

tech/a said:


> People Like you and I just
> AGEO
> I'm afraid yes.
> Ive never seem any of my friends or relatives!
> ...





tech the reason why i asked such a question is because i believe people dont just die and you never see them ever again. To me they are up there watching over you and things happen in life sometimes that logic cannot explain (thats where faith comes in). Its not so much religion but spirituality.

What about those poor parents that have had their kids pass on before them? do you not believe that they will see them later on?

Too me having some sort of faith will get you through times like you have never experienced before.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (3 August 2007)

Logic and faith are not polar opposites. Logic itself is not testable by anything external to itself. There is no way to  test the veracity of logical arguments and conclusions without recourse to logic. The very act of arguing for or against a system of logic necessarily invokes logical principles. One trusts in logic in a very circular way. It is an internally consistent system. The decision to trust logic is itself an non-logical and untestable decision.


----------



## dhukka (3 August 2007)

Ageo said:


> tech the reason why i asked such a question is because i believe people dont just die and you never see them ever again. To me *they are up there *watching over you and things happen in life sometimes that logic cannot explain (thats where faith comes in). Its not so much religion but spirituality.
> 
> What about those poor parents that have had their kids pass on before them? do you not believe that they will see them later on?
> 
> Too me having some sort of faith will get you through times like you have never experienced before.




Just wondering where up there is? Must be awful crowded up there by now, what with all the dead people and such. Anyway next time I take a flight I'll keep my eye out for these watchers.


----------



## spooly74 (3 August 2007)

dhukka said:


> Just wondering where up there is? Must be awful crowded up there by now, what with all the dead people and such. Anyway next time I take a flight I'll keep my eye out for these watchers.




Yep, it`s getting very crowded.

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf


----------



## tech/a (3 August 2007)

I reckon Ive read everything from Lobsang Rampa to NDE's.
From Regressive hypnosis to Pastlife analysis.

I'd really love all those escerteric writings and research to be spot on.
I'd love to think and find that there is another place for all of us after death.
That there is actually a spirit and not just a mass of chemicals and DNA which give and extinguish life.

Have a read of Heaven and Hell by Emanual Swedenborg.

But I'm afraid that all I can see is a race who are just as lost as they were from the beginning of mankind. Few answers and more questions.
More sophistocated in approach and determined in will but none the less forever reliant on FAITH.

So to your question.
Those I have lost are always with me---their effect on who I am varies.
When Im gone I to will be with my kids on a level only a father/mother can be.
They have me in them through DNA and life experience with me.So to will those who I have touched through life in various ways.

Will we all meet again.
I just dont know.
What form could it take--well we can conjure up all sorts of beliefs.
In the meantime while I fill in the time between life and death,I live this gift to the fullest---I may never know it again.




> Must be awful crowded up there by now




bit of trivia.

If I was to pack all 6 billion people in a cubic box how big would it be.

X by X by X----the answer blew me away!


----------



## Uranium (3 August 2007)

I am sure you have heard this and i believe it is in the bible(correct me if i am wrong) "And God created man in His own image,"
If this was the case god being man or women he or she would have a navel or belly button therefore would have been born by two parents one women one man so were they gods and what about their parents and so on.?
The bible is full of questions like this one. If the bible (a book) tells us that their is a god and their is no other evidence than this  would you believe that their is  truly a god?
Dom


----------



## dhukka (3 August 2007)

tech/a said:


> bit of trivia.
> 
> If I was to pack all 6 billion people in a cubic box how big would it be.
> 
> X by X by X----the answer blew me away!




What do we assume the dimensions of the average person are taking into consideration women men and children? Say 120cm tall 30cm wide, 30 cm deep?


----------



## tech/a (3 August 2007)

I worked on 1400mm X 500mm x 250mm average.


----------



## Ageo (3 August 2007)

Uranium said:


> I am sure you have heard this and i believe it is in the bible(correct me if i am wrong) "And God created man in His own image,"
> If this was the case god being man or women he or she would have a navel or belly button therefore would have been born by two parents one women one man so were they gods and what about their parents and so on.?
> The bible is full of questions like this one. If the bible (a book) tells us that their is a god and their is no other evidence than this  would you believe that their is  truly a god?
> Dom




The bible is man made so its something from another person. Spirituality is 1 on 1. Anywayz there is never going to be an answer on this subject but i agree with Tech.


----------



## dhukka (3 August 2007)

tech/a said:


> I worked on 1400mm X 500mm x 250mm average.




1400 x 500 x 250 = 175,000,000 x 6,000,000,000 = 1,050,000,000,000,000,000


cube root of 1,050,000,000,000,000,000 = 1,016,396.4 (rounded)

That's just over a km each side. Doesn't sound right.


----------



## Rafa (3 August 2007)

i got that too... somethings not right! 

regardless, hope its a bit more roomy than that for me, assuming i make it there of course


----------



## dhukka (3 August 2007)

dhukka said:


> 1400 x 500 x 250 = 175,000,000 x 6,000,000,000 = 1,050,000,000,000,000,000
> 
> 
> cube root of 1,050,000,000,000,000,000 = 1,016,396.4 (rounded)
> ...




On second thought it does sound right. If a box were 1km high and the average person was 1.4m then you could stack just over 716 people on top of each other before hitting the top. side by side (.5m) you could stack 2,000 and back to back 4000 (.25m) 2,000 x 4,000 x 716 = 5,728,000,000.


----------



## Rafa (3 August 2007)

of course its right dhukka...
MATHS DOESNT LIE....

(now there is a loaded statement )


----------



## wayneL (3 August 2007)

We know there is a God because he told GW Bush to invade Iraq.


----------



## Julia (3 August 2007)

Ageo said:


> Julia, do you believe that once loved ones pass on you will never see them again?




Ageo, I honestly don't know.  When my grandmother died I had a strong sense of ongoing connection to her, but that can easily be attributed to the sense of loss I felt and that if I had some sort of belief that she was still "with me" in some sort of undefined way, then that was a comfort.

If I had to express a view, I think I'd say that this concept is pretty much like that of religion, i.e. that it is something we create to add meaning to our lives, and to make death less frightening.  If we have a concept of some sort of ongoing spiritual existence (which makes no objective sense) then I guess this goes to a sense of meaning as our lives end.

My late father, although utterly scornful of religion, maintained a strong belief in a spiritual existence.  I suggested to him that when he died he should send me "a sign"!  Well, he has been dead for five years now and I'm still waiting for that sign!  

When I look at a box of ashes which are the product of a cremation, I simply can't visualise some sort of spiritual being having escaped the fire.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2007)

Just some stuff to set the mood
You may not believe this, but I'm told there was dust (and flies) around when Jesus was preaching 

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Heaven On Their Minds (2)
Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Hosanna ( 7)
Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Gethsemane (14)
Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) The Crucifixion (21)
PS my own thoughts ....fwiw
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=187233&highlight=conjecture#post187233


----------



## Woodchips (3 August 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Logic and faith are not polar opposites. Logic itself is not testable by anything external to itself. There is no way to  test the veracity of logical arguments and conclusions without recourse to logic. The very act of arguing for or against a system of logic necessarily invokes logical principles. One trusts in logic in a very circular way. It is an internally consistent system. The decision to trust logic is itself an non-logical and untestable decision.




That just sounds like philosophical crap to me mate.  

The decision to trust logic is based on the historical observation that without it people become susceptible to all kinds of propaganda with potentially disastrous consequences. It is a tool that teaches the individual to _question_ and _think_ about an argument before taking it on board thus enabling the individual to see through arguments based on _emotion_ rather than _fact_. No doubt, if you try and apply the method to itself you will encounter all kinds of circular and paradoxical anomalies. But it was never intended to be used in that way. It reminds me of people who think they're being clever by applying the democratic ideal of free rights to the act of voting and concluding that under a democracy the right to vote should be optional. Same sort of thing, the idea wasn't intended to be applied to itself. So instead of losing yourself a pointless abstraction why not try to help some of the poor bastards on this forum who still believe that world was created in 7 days?

WC


----------



## binginbarrel (4 August 2007)

There are no dimensions to house 6 billion people.
Eternity has no boundaries

He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end: quotes himself as  the "I am"

Can't have a navel because he is not flesh like we are.

If you see his face you will die, must be powerful ay?

Om canti canti om!


----------



## Sean K (4 August 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Logic and faith are not polar opposites. Logic itself is not testable by anything external to itself. There is no way to  test the veracity of logical arguments and conclusions without recourse to logic. The very act of arguing for or against a system of logic necessarily invokes logical principles. One trusts in logic in a very circular way. It is an internally consistent system. The decision to trust logic is itself an non-logical and untestable decision.



No they're not. Logic is about valid, testable, inferrence and demonstration using reasoning through probabilities. It absolutely can be tested externally through rhetoric which is one of the cornerstones of formal logic in the pursuit of truth. Formal logic is actually the basis for modern computer science. Faith is to _believe without reason_. You can't get too much polar opposite than that. Just where did you get that from Tradesim.


----------



## BREND (4 August 2007)

nomore4s said:


> I agree with this.




Sometimes God speaks to me through His words in the bible, how can bible be manipulative tools?


----------



## Sean K (4 August 2007)

BREND said:


> how can bible be manipulative tools?



Because you can take it literally, as metaphor, or twist it around to make it mean anything you like. Like that silly comment about God standing on a disc, interpreted to mean that one of the authors of the bible knew the earth was a sphere.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (4 August 2007)

kennas said:


> No they're not. Logic is about valid, testable, inferrence and demonstration using reasoning through probabilities. It absolutely can be tested externally through rhetoric which is one of the cornerstones of formal logic in the pursuit of truth. Formal logic is actually the basis for modern computer science. Faith is to _believe without reason_. You can't get too much polar opposite than that. Just where did you get that from Tradesim.



0

Kennas,

"It absolutely can be tested externally through rhetoric which is one of the cornerstones of formal logic in the pursuit of truth."

Logic cannot be tested without recourse to itself. Logic 101. Try establishing a test for logic that does not appeal to any of the first principles. Defining faith as "believe without reason" is anachronistic and limiting as there are more definitions of faith that that. I have faith in logic. By that I mean I have a complete conviction that logic works as a method of discovering truth. Even this has little meaning without further qualification, for instance which version of "truth": utilitarian, correspondence or coherence. I do not believe in logic without reason. But I also acknowledge that logic is limited by itself. If you wish to tightly define faith in the way you have, then I would be forced to agree with you. However, there is no reason to accept that "faith" can only (or even should)  be defined as you propose so I maintain my statement that logic and faith are not polar opposites. 

Woodchips,

"But it (logic) was never intended to be used in that way."

Its limits must be acknowledged. If one does not accept the limits of logic then one is displaying blind faith by refusing to accept its actual boundaries.

"So instead of losing yourself a pointless abstraction why not try to help some of the poor bastards on this forum who still believe that world was created in 7 days?"

Because I find it amusing that non-believers (of whatever religion) can be as fundamentalist and illogical in their non-belief as many believers (of whatever religion).


----------



## Sean K (4 August 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Logic cannot be tested without recourse to itself. Logic 101. Try establishing a test for logic that does not appeal to any of the first principles. Defining faith as "believe without reason" is anachronistic and limiting as there are more definitions of faith that that. I have faith in logic. By that I mean I have a complete conviction that logic works as a method of discovering truth. Even this has little meaning without further qualification, for instance which version of "truth": utilitarian, correspondence or coherence. I do not believe in logic without reason. But I also acknowledge that logic is limited by itself. If you wish to tightly define faith in the way you have, then I would be forced to agree with you. However, there is no reason to accept that "faith" can only (or even should)  be defined as you propose so I maintain my statement that logic and faith are not polar opposites.



Aren't we talking about 'faith' in God. You are. This is a very narrow field and that is the topic. Not faith in logic or faith in Essendon getting into the finals, etc, etc. Also, logic is tested against other people through objective, rational analysis, where people can sometimes be persuaded to change their perspective, in any direction, and this is TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE, and part of the beauty of rhetoric. If your argument is better, it's accepted. Faith on the other hand, is absolutely dogmatic, and to have a different opinion has you burnt at the stake, amongst other interesting ways to go out, for not agreeing with the higher power.


----------



## jonojpsg (4 August 2007)

Kennas,
The Bible was written by a number of guys, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the facts, eg they were there!  The first manuscripts are dated around 70AD so about 40 years or so after Jesus lived, died and rose again.  That would be like say, a 70 year old writing about something that happened when they were 30 - pretty reasonable I would have thought as far as history goes.  Luke was a doctor, so in my mind an emininently capable person to write a solid biographical account, which his book is.

Also, while I agree totally that Bible passages can and are taken out of context, if you look at the Bible in its entirety, which is the way it is supposed to be read, then all passages make sense and fit within the big picture.  

Julia,

I would say a prayer if I were you;  God listens to every prayer, not just those of "believers".  He says "Ask and you will receive, Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened" Matthew 7:7

Also, the universe had to be made with physical laws to govern it, how else would it hold together the way it does?  I don't know whether earthquakes are a result of our sin, but I do know that paedophiles are definitely a result of sin!  There is nothing in evolutionary theory that explains why we would defile our children with unspeakable acts - does it happen with any other species - I don't think so!   The fact that God is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient just means that he knows what's going on, can and does hold the universe together with his power, and is able to be beside every person caring about them and waiting for them to turn to him.  He isn't going to step in and stop every accident or tragedy because what would be the point in creating us with free will, or in his image?  If he intervened every step of the way, he may as well not have created in the first place.

Sin is our choice - we can turn from it with Gods help.  Tragedy is our opportunity to show that we can be like the people that God wants us to be, compassionate, caring, generous, etc.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (4 August 2007)

Kennas,

To play the devil's advocate, why must "faith in God" (however God is defined) be a case of "believe without reason"? What is the imperative linking these two? A person can have reason to believe in whatever God if their experiences and rational thoughts have presented evidence to empower belief unless and until they encounter a defeator of their reason(s). Such a belief becomes irrational if and only if that person comprehends and accepts a defeator but then chooses to cling to the belief anyway. For instance, for you to have faith in God would be to "believe without reason" as it is seems apparent that you have experiences and rational thoughts empowering your belief that there is no God(s). The same is not true for everyone.


----------



## Sean K (4 August 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> There is nothing in evolutionary theory that explains why we would defile our children with unspeakable acts - does it happen with any other species - I don't think so!



Jono, At this stage, I wont analyse your comments any further than this, because I think this is an important issue, and a very significant one to Christain people. Ask any of the brothers, or Catholic priests, who have been outed recently across the globe for mishandling their alter boys and girls, and parishoners wives.....the list goes on...

Acts of pedophilia, or desires of it, are not 'sin', they result from our most basic human instincts. That is; to procreate, to feel powerful, and to control. I could expand on these basic disires of the human being, that are in many other animals, but I would bore the masses. 

As far as other species raping younger members of their group, please watch National Geographic channel for a week or so. Or, visit a game park in Kenya.


----------



## Sean K (4 August 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Kennas, To play the devil's advocate, why must "faith in God" (however God is defined) be a case of "believe without reason"?



Prove it to me.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (4 August 2007)

Kennas,

Back to front...you are the one making the claim that faith in God must be "believe without reason". I am asking *you* why this has to be the case.


----------



## Sean K (4 August 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Kennas,
> 
> Back to front...you are the one making the claim that faith in God must be "believe without reason". I am asking *you* why this has to be case.



'Believe without reason' is the standard definition of 'faith'. You could probably google it, or look it up the dictionary, and it will be there. So, I am not making that claim, it's a universally accepted definition of what faith is. Have you got another I could look at?

To expand on this slightly, if I come up with a concept about the origin of the universe, do you think it would be my duty to prove it to be true, or for you to prove it not to be untrue?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (4 August 2007)

Kennas,

I'm aware of the multiple dictionary definitions of faith. I'm also aware that "Believe without reason" is *one* of those definitions but certainly not THE standard definition.I would like to know why you think there is a necessary link between "faith in god(s)" and "believe without reason". Surely you don't mean to imply that because you do not find reason to believe, ergo no-one can have reason to believe in whatever God they look to?


----------



## Sean K (4 August 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Kennas,
> 
> I'm aware of the multiple dictionary definitions of faith. "Believe without reason" is *one*. I would like to know why you think there is a necessary link between "faith in god(s)" and "believe without reason". Surely you don't mean to imply that because you do not find reason to believe, ergo no-one can have reason to believe in whatever God they look to?



 Prove me your God.....

If you can not, then you have faith in it, as I must. 

Reason implies impirical evidence, or logically acceptable argument to the majority of those having sifficient intellect to make decisions independently.


----------



## spooly74 (4 August 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> Also, the universe had to be made with physical laws to govern it, how else would it hold together the way it does?




The universe is not held together. 
It is rapidy expanding and accelerating apart.

In May 2008, scientists will have more answers to the nature of our Universe when they recreate the BIG BANG.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (4 August 2007)

Kennas,

I'm not interested in discussing any particular concept of God. I'm simply questioning the underlying assumption that "faith in God" = "believe without reason". It seems to me that our fundamentally different approaches to epistemology will only result in ongoing disagreement on just about everything. You seem to be more of an empiricist and I'm more of a rationalist. So let's just agree that we won't agree then.

(And puh-leeaaassse don't respond with "See. You can't prove it".... because my questions have nothing to do with god(s) and everything to do with   paradigmatic assumptions.)

I approach it all from a framework that says people can have warrant for beliefs and be rational in their beliefs unless a compelling defeator overturns a belief. Not everything needs to be empirical. Which is my original point that even logic is externally untestable and requires faith.


----------



## Mofra (4 August 2007)

BREND said:


> Sometimes God speaks to me through His words in the bible, how can bible be manipulative tools?




In other words, how can the written word, edited by humans with vested interests, be a manipulative tool?

You don't think literature (even fictional proporting to be factual) can be manipulative?


----------



## dhukka (4 August 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> Kennas,
> The Bible was written by a number of guys, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the facts, eg they were there!  The first manuscripts are dated around 70AD so about 40 years or so after Jesus lived, died and rose again.  That would be like say, a 70 year old writing about something that happened when they were 30 - pretty reasonable I would have thought as far as history goes.  Luke was a doctor, so in my mind an emininently capable person to write a solid biographical account, which his book is.
> 
> Also, while I agree totally that Bible passages can and are taken out of context, *if you look at the Bible in its entirety, which is the way it is supposed to be read, then all passages make sense and fit within the big picture. *




Even the mindless rantings of revelations?


----------



## Julia (4 August 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> I don't know whether earthquakes are a result of our sin, but I do know that paedophiles are definitely a result of sin!  There is nothing in evolutionary theory that explains why we would defile our children with unspeakable acts - does it happen with any other species - I don't think so!   The fact that God is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient just means that he knows what's going on, can and does hold the universe together with his power, and is able to be beside every person caring about them and waiting for them to turn to him.  He isn't going to step in and stop every accident or tragedy because what would be the point in creating us with free will, or in his image?  If he intervened every step of the way, he may as well not have created in the first place.



I guess what I am questioning is not just the perverted behaviour of paedophiles but how a "loving God" can allow little children to be so damaged ?


----------



## tech/a (4 August 2007)

Hmm

From The beginning to now.
Billions of years
From Dinosaurs to Human life
Millions of years
From Human life to concepts of "God"
1000s of years.
From concepts of "gods" to religion
A few 1000 years.

How is it that the human race can be so *arrogant* to think that it has the ANSWER to everything in an INVENTED "god/s".(The fables or truths grew from somewhere and someone).

In the scheme of existance of our dimension and even further in ALL dimensions (Of which science has proven 12) the human race is as significant as a single grain of sand in all the sands of the planet earth.

This species believes that its god/s created all.
*We over estimate our place I suspect.*


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2007)

Folks,

You've all got the dude in the sky meme. That's only one perception of what God is, out of an infinite possibility.

Open your minds.

Cheers


----------



## Woodchips (4 August 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> ...I'm simply questioning the underlying assumption that "faith in God" = "believe without reason"...
> 
> ...You seem to be more of an empiricist and I'm more of a rationalist...
> 
> ...I approach it all from a framework that says people can have warrant for beliefs and be rational in their beliefs unless a compelling defeator overturns a belief. Not everything needs to be empirical...




Tradesim,

Yes mate, it is possible to come to the conclusion that a God exists through rational thought, but to do so requires an objective approach to the question of whether or not a God exists in the first place. *To have faith means to believe without question.* To conclude that a God exists through faith jumps from the question to the conclusion without any rational thought processes whatsoever. And reason is essentially the capacity for rational thought. So I would argue that although it is possible to *believe* in God with reason, it is not possible to *have faith* in God with reason. And that is essentially the problem with mainstream religion, it teaches people to have faith in the existence of a God rather than allowing its followers to arrive at the conclusion themselves through the process of rational thought. Keep in mind that even though a purely rationalist approach does not have to involve empirical evidence, it does require an element of objectivity and consistency in thought. 

However, when it comes to an explanation of the physical world around us empiricism is the most reliable and objective method around. Rational thought must accept factual/empirical analysis _if it is available_. So if mainstream Christians were truly rational in their beliefs, they would dismiss many of the fallacies presented to them in the bible on account of clear and concise factual analysis. But once again, they choose to believe in these stories on faith which precludes any attempt at rational thought.

So im not sure what they taught you in Phil101 but as far as im concerned faith and reason are completely incompatible.

WC


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (4 August 2007)

Watched these short, 8 minute videos on Revelation. Good viewing. All lines up with scripture, although the Sabbath keeping part could be debatable. 

http://www.worldslastchance.com/videos.php

Let me know what you guys think. You're a fairly intelligent bunch. Watch them without any bias. All of bible prophecy has come to pass so far. There's no reason why it would stop now.


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 August 2007)

If you had never seen a strawberry. I took you to a strawberry bush, picked a ripe strawberry, gave it to you to smell, touch, look at and finally taste.
I then told you that is a "strawberry".
Would everyone agree on that? Yes.Why, because the identification of strawberry is accepted by the majority of people on the planet as truth.

But is this truth, and besides the reason that the majority agree so, or is it simply truth via agreement.


----------



## Julia (4 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> Folks,
> 
> You've all got the dude in the sky meme. That's only one perception of what God is, out of an infinite possibility.
> 
> ...




I bet George Dubya sees the "dude in the sky".  Therefore it must be true, as you suggested earlier!
(sorry).


----------



## AnalysisParalysis (5 August 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> If you had never seen a strawberry. I took you to a strawberry bush, picked a ripe strawberry, gave it to you to smell, touch, look at and finally taste.
> I then told you that is a "strawberry".
> Would everyone agree on that? Yes.Why, because the identification of strawberry is accepted by the majority of people on the planet as truth.
> 
> But is this truth, and besides the reason that the majority agree so, or is it simply truth via agreement.




It may be because no-one has disagreed. It's the only thing we've seen that is called strawberry.


----------



## Ageo (5 August 2007)

Julia said:


> I guess what I am questioning is not just the perverted behaviour of paedophiles but how a "loving God" can allow little children to be so damaged ?




Julia have you ever thought that God doesnt direct us in what to do but has given us the power of choice in our actions? 

Einstein once said imagination is more important than knowledge as knowledge is limited but imagination is unlimited. When you imagine and visualise how can you do it at such great lengths? to me God (or whatever you might believe in) has the eyes to see at such lengths. When times get tough how can one still believe that they can pull through? to me that answer is faith because faith is true without fact (unlike science). Some things can be answered for and thats where science comes in but some things cant and how do you answer those?


----------



## Sean K (5 August 2007)

Ageo said:


> When times get tough how can one still believe that they can pull through? to me that answer is faith because faith is true without fact (unlike science).



Ageo, what you're saying there sounds more like belief in oneself, and family and friends, not belief in anything extraterrestrial. That is where I will be looking when I need comforting; to my inner being, and close friends and family. I suppose, if you don't have those things, then looking towards God is what most will do. It's probably the answer to why so many inmates convert to this or that religion. Because they no longer have any other support.


----------



## tech/a (5 August 2007)

AGEO

Why is it that this species needs to believe there is something tangible which created all---something it can associate with--In its own image.

Why is it not possible that *ALL simply IS *and will always be and always has been.

No beginning--no end---no creator and no armageddon ALL will simply continue in whatever form it takes in infinite form and infinite in time.


----------



## Sean K (5 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Ageo, what you're saying there sounds more like belief in oneself, and family and friends, not belief in anything extraterrestrial. That is where I will be looking when I need comforting; to my inner being, and close friends and family. I suppose, if you don't have those things, then looking towards God is what most will do. It's probably the answer to why so many inmates convert to this or that religion. Because they no longer have any other support.



PS, It's also why religion targets young people for conversion. Because they can't think for themselves, and are searching for answers. It's much harder to convert a stable 30 something.


----------



## AussiePaul72 (5 August 2007)

Julia said:


> I guess what I am questioning is not just the perverted behaviour of paedophiles but how a "loving God" can allow little children to be so damaged ?




Hi Julia ....not sure if my comments will make things any clearer or not but felt it worth while adding! I'm not a scholar by any means but do believe in God and am a Christian (which doesn't make me perfect or even close...lol)
The way i see it ....God created a perfect world for us to live in but unfortunately the human race chose their way over Gods. I don't think we have any right to blame God for the terrible things that happen in our world. As a race we have a lot to answer for.
However, its not all doom and gloom in my mind ... I believe we all have a choice as to what we believe and hence what happens after this life on earth.
I've read bits and pieces on this thread and think it is great to talk about peoples beliefs and think it is great to see how open people are.
I have to say that i have questioned my beliefs at times, most recently when i went through a marriage seperation and then divorce. However, I have been truly blessed in so many areas of my life .......and my faith is what has got me through the hardships!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 August 2007)

might as well post a link to a poem I guess
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=187233&highlight=jesus#post187233
in summary I believe Jesus had some great ideas - applicable to this life - and that 's the part we should concentrate on (imo)

and making his points with the tales of the dove
as well as his dove-tail joints

whenever I set an optimistic target in the carpentry shed, the family chip in ... " yeah yeah, the last miracle maker was a carpenter too" 

Sure I agree with Wayne that the wider picture/ discussion should involve a broader concept of god - whatever he/she may look like


----------



## barney (5 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> Folks,
> 
> You've all got the dude in the sky meme. That's only one perception of what God is, out of an infinite possibility.
> 
> ...





Agree Wayne, 

Life on earth (in all its forms) is "proof" that life/ living beings exist ........... I require no "faith" at all to percieve that a "higher life form" can exist elsewhere/other dimensions/whatever/wherever .............. It is actually illogical to assume we are the only "life" in the universe .............. 

My concept of God/s ............ (theres got to be more than one!! ......... reproduction is a required trait of any living being, right??) ........... is simply a "living entity" who is far more advanced than we are ............   I actually get on pretty well with "God" ............. and I don't go to church!! ........ and I drink copious amounts of amber fluid at times ................. :bier: 

Maybe I'll burn in hell for having a distorted view :2evil: .............. but the way I look at it, if "God" is prepared to burn me up in hellfire for all eternity, then he isn't the kind of God I would want to acknowledge in the first place ...........    

Too many things we don't understand about life ........... Its important to be open to alternatives ............... Thats my Sunday "sermon" ........... Please place some money (preferably notes) in the plate as you leave   ................ Have a nice weekend all.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 August 2007)

Noun 1. theologist - someone who is learned in theology or who speculates about theology (especially Christian theology)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theologist


> theologian, theologiser, theologizer
> ...
> Doctor of the Church, Doctor - (Roman Catholic Church) a title conferred on 33 saints who distinguished themselves through the othodoxy of their theological teaching; "the Doctors of the Church greatly influenced Christian thought down to the late Middle Ages"
> 
> ...



Actually was looking for Thorreau. (Thoreau?)
She had a great theory (based on study of the Dead Sea Scrolls) about Judas being the leader of the "pro-action" Jewish group to fight the Romans, and Jesus countering with his "beat em by forgiving them" philosophy - more research required on my part


----------



## Woodchips (5 August 2007)

barney said:


> I require no "faith" at all to percieve that a "higher life form" can exist elsewhere/other dimensions/whatever/wherever .............. It is actually illogical to assume we are the only "life" in the universe ..............Please place some money (preferably notes) in the plate as you leave




And that, if you go back and read my previous post, is an example of belief in God with reason (however accurate). Very different to belief in God through blind faith. I don't personally agree with everything you said but at least you're trying to rationalise your beliefs, well done. Here, here's six cents .

WC


----------



## tech/a (5 August 2007)

So who created the other Billion or So planets and Stars?

OUR God/s?
Could our God/s be nothing more than Aliens?
2000 years ago lighting a match would have been god like.

I really cant believe that people believe we are the center of Gods/Religion as a species (The Human Race) relative to the infinite everything thats out there that we cannot even comprehend let alone understand.


----------



## barney (5 August 2007)

Woodchips said:


> And that, if you go back and read my previous post, is an example of belief in God with reason (however accurate). Very different to belief in God through blind faith. I don't personally agree with everything you said but at least you're trying to rationalise your beliefs, well done.
> 
> Here, here's six cents
> 
> WC




Hi Wood,    Six cents !!!  I need notes  ....... I have a business to run .......... This is a "church" remember  ...........

Actually I'm not that cinical about churches really (my parents still attend, and it works for them)

Bottom line here is I guess, ............... Those who choose to believe in God (Christian or otherwise), are unlikely to change their view based on others opinions, and vica versa for those who don't believe ........

I'm happy to stay open minded about things I don't really understand .......... I do know that I've had some "interesting" experiences along the way ......... and not while under the influence of amber fluid either ................................. 

For example ........... I know that angels exist ............... Cause my wife is one!!! :engel:


----------



## dhukka (5 August 2007)

tech/a said:


> So who created the other Billion or So planets and Stars?
> 
> OUR God/s?
> Could our God/s be nothing more than Aliens?
> ...




This gets to the crux of why religion lost it's place as the source of legitimacy in western society centuries ago. A couple of thousand years ago it would be easy to accept that Earth was the Universe as we had no knowledge of other planets let alone other solar systems. We actually thought the world was flat, that the sun rose and fell in the sky. 

From there it is not hard to believe in a place called heaven somewhere up there beyond what was known. It couldn't be verified by getting in a 747 and taking a look. Nor could we drill to the center of the earth and find Satan's little hideout. 

For any religion or myth to survive it must keep up with what society knows about the world. We know there is no heaven or hell - at least in the sense the bible would have us believe.


----------



## springhill (5 August 2007)

I believe in the existance of GOD but refuse to follow the man made concept of religion, it is nothing more than a hoarding, money making exercise designed to control the will and thoughts of man, for the good of the few. Religious organisations are among the most corrupt and hypocritical "companies", because thats what they are, in history. I have no objections to the foot soldiers that work on the ground because they work out of kindness and the good of their fellow man. As for the guys in the ivory towers, throughout history, they are amongst the most evil that walk the earth, and i wouldnt piss on them if they were on fire . Kindness and humanity should be the one true religion, no matter of race, faith or disadvantage


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 August 2007)

yogi-in-oz said:


> Famous quotes, from famous people:
> 
> "Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless"
> ..... Bertrand Russell ... atheist
> ...



http://www.whatthebleep.com/scientists/

Yogi - There are several of Einstein's quotes that some (you?) might argue work for "the believers" - in the first quote he's arguably on about lateral thinking - but whether he's thinking of "mystical" or "warped space / relativity theory spin offs" if open for conjecture... the second quote is pretty clear though...



> The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. - Albert Einstein
> 
> The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science. - Albert Einstein



But your Einstein quote above (about dice) has been discredited.  -  as per Hawking's quote below :-


> *Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen. - Stephen W. Hawking *




A few others - covering pretty much the full spectrum - obviously I'm with the technocrats on this  - assuming I'm allowed to be a technocrat who loves mother nature that is ...



> Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity...and I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein
> 
> Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein, in The New Convergence
> 
> ...




We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. - T. S. Eliot 

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.- Oscar Wilde 

All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become. - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. - Martin Luther King, Jr. 

I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. - William Faulkner, Nobel Prize acceptance speech 

The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself. - Archibald MacLeish 

Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. - Chief Seattle 

That which the dream shows is the shadow of such wisdom as exists in man, even if during his waking state he may know nothing about it... We do not know it because we are fooling away our time with outward and perishing things, and are asleep in regard to that which is real within ourself. - Philipus Aureolus Paracelsus 

Quit thy childhood, my friend, and wake up! - Jean-Jacques Rousseau 

Curiouser and curiouser! - Lewis Carroll 
Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. - Lewis Carroll 

Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. - Carl Gustav Jung 

Suddenly, from behind the rim of the moon, in long, slow-motion moments of immense majesty, there emerges a sparkling blue and white jewel, a light, delicate, sky-blue sphere laced with slowly swirling veils of white, rising gradually like a small pearl in a thick sea of black mystery. It takes more than a moment to fully realize this is Earth…home. My view of our planet was a glimpse of divinity.  - Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut and founder, Institute of Noetic Sciences 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei 

The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.  - Aart Van Der Leeuw 

Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion. - Democritus of Abdera 

Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on. - Winston Churchill 

All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw 

The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes. - William James 

The spirit down here in man and the spirit up there in the sun, 
in reality are only one spirit, and there is no other one.  - The Upanishads 

To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge. - Copernicus 

Perhaps in time the so-called Dark Ages will be thought of as including our own. - Georg C. Lichtenberg 

When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always.- Mahatma Gandhi 
etc 

just some light Sunday afternoon reading, ...jumbled snippets of stuff that originated in the grey stuff between the ears of men .... brains which evolved from that first one cell protozoan in some primeval mud somewhere  - 2020


----------



## Woodchips (5 August 2007)

barney said:


> Actually I'm not that cynical about churches really (my parents still attend, and it works for them)




Barney, interesting how you say that it _works_ for your parents, its a good way of putting it. Thats exactly how I think about it, as a kind of cultural practice  that *works* in that it provides people with a source of pleasure. The fact that people are so willing to take on the existence of God in blind faith suggests to me that it is in *the act of believing* from which people derive their pleasure - confirmation of the existence of a God is actually irrelevant. People from all different cultures seem to derive a sense of safety in believing that there is a greater purpose, somebody or something watching over them.   



barney said:


> Bottom line here is I guess, ............... Those who choose to believe in God (Christian or otherwise), are unlikely to change their view based on others opinions, and vica versa for those who don't believe



........

That shouldn't necessarily be the case - once again the thing that distinguishes rational believers to those that believe purely on faith is that for the former, the existence of a God is still open to question. Rational believers can still be convinced otherwise, faith believers generally cannot.  



barney said:


> I'm happy to stay open minded about things I don't really understand .......... I do know that I've had some "interesting" experiences along the way ......... and not while under the influence of amber fluid either .................................




Yes, my mum has had similar experiences and she is a believer, interesting though that I haven't. People that believe in ghost etc.. often say that you have to be willing to believe in it in order to experience it. But imo if something is real you should be able to experience it regardless of whether you believe in it or not. For example, if it is windy outside, you will still experience its presence whether or not you believe it is there. If you have to believe in something before being able to experience it, then my feeling is that your imagination is playing a big part _in that experience_. Imagination and reality are very different things.

cheers mate

WC


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 August 2007)

So ... after 643 posts there is  god via agreement and there is no god via agreement.Seems the three letter word is still in the balance.


----------



## wayneL (5 August 2007)

> Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. - Chief Seattle



<irony>Those "red" men certainly came out with some outstanding quotes for simple "savages". </irony>

Makes me think they knew sumpin' about spirituality the whitefella misses in large part, and extremely remorseful for what we did to them.

I sometimes go to a on of there message boards and talk, even today with all their problems (similar to our indigenous folk) they "got" something we don't.


----------



## Ageo (5 August 2007)

In a nutshell whatever works for you......


----------



## tech/a (5 August 2007)

Ageo said:


> In a nutshell whatever works for you......




Yes I guess so.
One of the more compelling arguements!


----------



## Pat (5 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> and extremely remorseful for what we did to them.



I too feel this way, about many cultures. Makes me think of our mentality then, and now... 
To worship mother nature seems more refined to me. I believe god is the energy within us all. Including plants and furry little animals.


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

Pat said:


> I too feel this way, about many cultures. Makes me think of our mentality then, and now...
> To worship mother nature seems more refined to me. I believe god is the energy within us all. Including plants and furry little animals.



Pat, have you heard of a guy called John Seed, and Deep Ecology? If not, I think it might interest you. I first read about him in a book called The Future of God by Samantha Trenoweth where she interviews 10 of the worlds spititual leaders from all faiths, from Catholicism to Indigenous beliefs. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in God and religion actually.

Anyway, John Seed was one of the people interviewed. It was what I felt closest to at the time.

Deep Ecology


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Pat, have you heard of a guy called John Seed, and Deep Ecology? If not, I think it might interest you. I first read about him in a book called The Future of God by Samantha Trenoweth where she interviews 10 of the worlds spititual leaders from all faiths, from Catholicism to Indigenous beliefs. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in God and religion actually.
> 
> Anyway, John Seed was one of the people interviewed. It was what I felt closest to at the time.
> 
> Deep Ecology



Hate to tread on your toes Kennas, but eco-philosophy is probably my main area of study.

If you are really interested in Deep Ecology, it's Arne Naess that you want to read. 

This philosophy is closely related to the gaia hypothesis, and has its origins in Spinoza's system (ecocosm) and his argument for god's existence.

But all three positions rely on one of only 2 "valid" arguments for "god's" "existence". So they are arguing a similar position, from different perspectives, whilst relying on the same basis. Not that I am condoning, or supporting this position; quite the contrary in fact.

I will come back to this later.

P.S. I honestly didn't think you would even take any notice of Deep Ecology Kennas...


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Hate to tread on your toes Kennas, but eco-philosophy is probably my main area of study....
> 
> I will come back to this later......
> 
> P.S. I honestly didn't think you would even take any notice of Deep Ecology Kennas...



'Main area of study'. Interesting!! I haven't looked into it any more than the book I mentioned before, and a few articles here and there, so I defer to your knowledge.....

From what I understand, I probably have a greater affinity to this spiritual idea of life on Earth, than any other 'religion', or philosophy of life. I think this comes from my most basic belief of humankind, in that we are just another animal species evolving on the planet. Just another critter trying to survive. Unfortunaley, we are destroying the Earth, and it's only a matter of time before the Earth strikes back!

In regard to your 'surprise' of my interest in Deep Ecology, well, perhaps I haven't represented myself well enough through these threads....


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> In regard to your 'surprise' of my interest in Deep Ecology, well, perhaps I haven't represented myself well enough through these threads....



Well, I can't see why anyone who had an understanding of Deep Ecology could invest in Uranium for instance...


----------



## Ageo (6 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Well, I can't see why anyone who had an understanding of Deep Ecology could invest in Uranium for instance...




Umm because whether you like it or not the world is going to use Uranium for power use and if thats the case why not benefit from it financially?

(sorry for being off topic)


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

Ageo said:


> Umm because whether you like it or not the world is going to use Uranium for power use and if thats the case why not benefit from it financially?
> 
> (sorry for being off topic)



There are two words in my sentence you clearly haven't read.


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Well, I can't see why anyone who had an understanding of Deep Ecology could invest in Uranium for instance...



Do you have an understanding of Deep Ecology?


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Do you have an understanding of Deep Ecology?



Yes.


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Yes.



Do you ever wear leather?


----------



## moneymajix (6 August 2007)

I couldn't answer the poll with the choices offered.

I suspect we are all God or part of God (different expressions or manifestations of God or whatever you want to call it).


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Do you ever wear leather?




Only when I ride. Learnt that lesson..


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Only when I ride. Learnt that lesson..



No leather shoes, belts, seats in your car, never eaten an egg, your block of land wasn't cleared of trees, no concrete that you step on during the day, never take transport that uses coal, use gas, lights powered by the national grid... etc, etc....endless list. I have an affinity to Deep Ecology but unless I disgard my culture, my family, my friends, and life as I know it, I can not live it. So, I choose to live in my culture, and I invest in uranium stocks (now and then), which allows me to live the best life that I can in the culture I was born in to.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> No leather shoes, belts, seats in your car, never eaten an egg, your block of land wasn't cleared of trees, no concrete that you step on during the day, never take transport that uses coal, use gas, lights powered by the national grid... etc, etc....endless list. I have an affinity to Deep Ecology but unless I disgard my culture, my family, my friends, and life as I know it, I can not live it. So, I choose to live in my culture, and I invest in uranium stocks (now and then), which allows me to live the best life that I can in the culture I was born in to.



No I don't have leather shoes, belts or seats and the leather jacket I wear while riding is second hand.

But I think you are missing the point. Arne Naess says that being a part of the world means acknowledging that in order to live, you are inevitably going to do some damage to the environment that supports you. The key is to recognising this; that is not to say excusing it.

Continuing to give money to uranium miners appears to be a failing in the recognition of the wider implications it will have i.e. use in a possible meltdown, use in weapons or radioactive dumping in third world nations. All three being environmentally disasterous. It is the giving up of material gains that are at the expense of the environment that is key to Deep Ecology. And once again that is not to say you can't have material gains at the same time as a benefit to the environment. No-one is forcing anyone to invest in certain areas. I'm sure I'm not the only ethical investor on this site. 

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> No I don't have leather shoes, belts or seats and the leather jacket I wear while riding is second hand.......... No-one is forcing anyone to invest in certain areas. I'm sure I'm not the only ethical investor on this site.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chops.



Haven't you got investments in O&G?


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Haven't you got investments in O&G?




Yes, but I pick and choose which ones carefully and generally stay away from oil. I would never invest in WPL for instance due to its track record, socially and environmentally.

As to gas, I don't have a problem. It's actually advocated by the department at uni as the solution to the transition between coal and renewables over the next 50 years.


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Yes, but I pick and choose which ones carefully and generally stay away from oil. I would never invest in WPL for instance due to its track record, socially and environmentally.
> 
> As to gas, I don't have a problem. It's actually advocated by the department at uni as the solution to the transition between coal and renewables over the next 50 years.



So, you obviously don't drive a car, or you don't travel by car?? Or public transport? And you don't have a house with any steal in it? Maybe you live in a grass hut? 

I am not saying that we should ever try to escape the use of the Earths riches, but those that say they are absolutely committed to this, or that, need to think about all that they do. Maybe you have, so good for you. I certainly haven't! This computer I'm using if full of contradictions....But I recognise it for a start....


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> So, you obviously don't drive a car, or you don't travel by car?? Or public transport? And you don't have a house with any steal in it? Maybe you live in a grass hut?
> 
> I am not saying that we should ever try to escape the use of the Earths riches, but those that say they are absolutely committed to this, or that, need to think about all that they do. Maybe you have, so good for you. I certainly haven't! This computer I'm using if full of contradictions....But I recognise it for a start....



I have to drive, I don't get a choice given my type of work and the fact I live in Perth. If I lived in Melbourne I wouldn't drive though.

I'm surprised you are so defensive about this. I didn't expect that. I agree with you in a lot of ways. I have had big arguments with people about environmental matters such as the ones above. "Ban mining, erect solar panels", is one shortened argument I react badly to. Especially explaining to them the effing materials needed to make such things.

I am not a Deep Ecologist, I don't think it is practical, but if you do understand it, it will change your outlook. I have a cut off point with certain things. Uranium, coal and oil without strict safeguards and procedures are mine. And that is the result of deep ecological questioning for instance...

To me, if you haven't amended anything you are doing after learning through or about deep ecology, then I'm not sure if you have taken on anything at all.

Perhaps time for an ethical investing thread?


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Perhaps time for an ethical investing thread?



I'm surviving by having money in a ethical investment fund!  That has investments in BHP.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> I'm surviving by having money in a ethical investment fund!  That has investments in BHP.




WTF??? Hahaha.

Oh well, at least we can laugh hey?


----------



## Pat (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Pat, have you heard of a guy called John Seed, and Deep Ecology? If not, I think it might interest you. I first read about him in a book called The Future of God by Samantha Trenoweth where she interviews 10 of the worlds spititual leaders from all faiths, from Catholicism to Indigenous beliefs. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in God and religion actually.
> 
> Anyway, John Seed was one of the people interviewed. It was what I felt closest to at the time.
> 
> Deep Ecology



Never heard of John Seed but am familiar with the philosophy. I personally don't read into it to much, I guess I have my own religion and beliefs derived from other religions and personal experience. My father is big on spirituality etc, he's from Quito would you believe.
Humans have been given a gift, from Mother Nature, which enables us to manipulate our environment to an extent. Slowly we are learning how to use this gift to benefit ourselves now and in the future.... the web metaphor. We should wear leather shoes, because we can, as long as it does not do irreparable damage to the web. The Web is strong, one day nature will find its equilibrium. Will we be around to see it?
Something to consider... the earth is just a strand in the web of life.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 August 2007)

Pat said:


> Never heard of John Seed but am familiar with the philosophy. I personally don't read into it to much, I guess I have my own religion and beliefs derived from other religions and personal experience. My father is big on spirituality etc, he's from Quito would you believe.
> Humans have been given a gift, from Mother Nature, which enables us to manipulate our environment to an extent. Slowly we are learning how to use this gift to benefit ourselves now and in the future.... the web metaphor. We should wear leather shoes, because we can, as long as it does not do irreparable damage to the web. The Web is strong, one day nature will find its equilibrium. Will we be around to see it?
> Something to consider... the earth is just a strand in the web of life.




pats post promted me to say this....

Throughout the world there is a perpetuation of anger/violence and revenge.Yes.From individual to groups.I see harnessing the mind as `the greatest obstacle` for humans to overcome.This will not happen any time soon .Why?No one has an understanding of how the mind works.Worse than that is as the `problem children` (the ones with destructive thoughts) grow up ,that is the cycle perpetuating.

The society control here is to punish these problem children ,without reversing or removing the destructive thoughts.These children grow up and pass these abberations to their children and others along the way.Perpetuating the cycle of and by violence and destruction.They grow up to be leaders of nations (some with their plans to destroy disguised).

As simply as it takes one bomb to kill many people it takes one destructive mind to do it.One punch of a kid at school shatters that childs confidence and perception of the world.So it is in the adults world too.Perpetuating that bitter cycle.

God isn`t going to change this.It is only ourselves ,the human species, that can harness mind.Sadly most are oblivious (blind in one eye), ignorant (punishment solution) or helpless victims to "wrongs". 

Truthfully,I don`t see us humans as `using` mind with any great benefit or balance to nature.Quite the opposite.Wanting more is the reason why.


----------



## Pat (6 August 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> pats post promted me to say this....
> 
> Throughout the world there is a perpetuation of anger/violence and revenge.Yes.From individual to groups.I see harnessing the mind as `the greatest obstacle` for humans to overcome.This will not happen any time soon .Why?No one has an understanding of how the mind works.Worse than that is as the `problem children` (the ones with destructive thoughts) grow up ,that is the cycle perpetuating.
> 
> ...



Sadly this is a possibility, the human civilisation may not survive this technological adolescence. Our ways need changing.
In saying the above Wysiwyg, it only takes one positive thought or action to change an individual. When Steve Irwin Passed, very sad, Foxtels Animal planet showed one advert that struck me on an emotional level.... Something along the lines of, " if we can teach people about nature etc, they will learn to love it, and want to protect it". Not the exact wording but enough to get the drift. If we are teaching our kids this today, then tomorrow will be a better day.
Slowly we are waking up, it's never too late.... though some say "Time is the fire in which we burn". Can we change quick enough to harbour the society we live in today?


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2007)

Ageo said:


> ahh u mean Deep Ecology?
> 
> Isnt that another word for "Obsessive Greenee"?
> 
> Dont tell me your anther tree hugging hippi? If you are you definately need a god



God doesn't like trees? WTF?

My God is certainly different to your God.


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2007)

Ageo said:


> ahh u mean Deep Ecology?
> 
> Isnt that another word for "Obsessive Greenee"?
> 
> Dont tell me your anther tree hugging hippi? If you are you definately need a god



Here's what your God has to say.



			
				God said:
			
		

> Revelation 11:18
> The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for *rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great”” and for destroying those who destroy the earth*."


----------



## Pat (6 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> God doesn't like trees? WTF?
> 
> My God is certainly different to your God.



All gods are one, the same. We all have different perspectives. I would say that one side of god hates trees, I'd hope so, one fell on my home during the central coast, Newcastle storm.


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2007)

Pat said:


> All gods are one, the same. We all have different perspectives. I would say that one side of god hates trees, I'd hope so, one fell on my home during the central coast, Newcastle storm.



Of course, my point was rhetorical.


----------



## Pat (6 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> Of course, my point was rhetorical.



Hmmmmmm, we segregate ourselves?


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2007)

Pat said:


> Hmmmmmm, we segregate ourselves?



I don't know where you're going with that comment... but it appears that we do.

This is not a good thing though. (IMO)


----------



## Pat (6 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> I don't know where you're going with that comment... but it appears that we do.
> 
> This is not a good thing though. (IMO)



Wasn't going anywhere really, just came to thought. Certianly not a good thing in this respect.... Could this be a reason for humanities troubles?


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2007)

Pat said:


> Wasn't going anywhere really, just came to thought. Certianly not a good thing in this respect.... Could this be a reason for humanities troubles?



Most certainly it is. But it is not that folks have different beliefs and customs. There are instances of cultures and religions happily living side by side for extended periods.

The trouble is the dogmatism with which beliefs are held. For instance, Ageo presumes Chops "needs" God... and presumably his catholic version of God, because he holds the environment important enough to try and preserve.

This is clearly dogma and doesn't actually make a lot of sense. I would argue that conservation is a far more spiritual pursuit than the rape and pillage of the landscape for profit (note the exclusion of the word "religious"). But by logical extrapolation, Ageo feels that a man of religion should NOT also be a conservationist.

Do you see where I am going? In other words, my initial comments were the use of irony to expose a nonsense.

Cheers


----------



## Ageo (6 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> God doesn't like trees? WTF?
> 
> My God is certainly different to your God.





lol i was referring to that being a greenie is different to maintaining our environment. (and please lets not turn this into a greenie argument). But perhaps Deep Ecology is different (from what ive read) it just "sounds" like a obessesive greenie title. 




> Revelation 11:18
> The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great”” and for destroying those who destroy the earth."




My God didnt say that, humans did


----------



## Pat (6 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> Most certainly it is. But it is not that folks have different beliefs and customs. There are instances of cultures and religions happily living side by side for extended periods.
> 
> The trouble is the dogmatism with which beliefs are held. For instance, Ageo presumes Chops "needs" God... and presumably his catholic version of God, because he holds the environment important enough to try and preserve.
> 
> ...



You mean *faith*. 
"The most potent element of human existance is faith". Can't remeber where i heard that.
I, 100% agree, conservation is much more refined than the other. I wish it seemed logical to everyone.


----------



## Julia (6 August 2007)

Ageo,

To suggest that deep ecology equates with being an ultra greenie or something like that is to oversimplify the philosophy.

ABC Radio National has for some years run a programme called "New Dimensions" which few people hear because it is broadcast at 1am on I think a weekend.  In the last couple of years the focus has become more broad but for many years before that it was specifically described as a programme about deep ecology.  Some of it was interesting and some of it was imo pure b/s.

If you are interested in accessing some of the deep ecology back issues you could contact the programme's producers via the following link:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/newdimensions/


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2007)

Pat said:


> You mean *faith*.
> "The most potent element of human existance is faith". Can't remeber where i heard that.
> I, 100% agree, conservation is much more refined than the other. I wish it seemed logical to everyone.



No I don't mean faith all.

The word "faith" has a number of connotations that are unacceptable to me.


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2007)

Ageo said:


> My God didnt say that, humans did



So you reject the bible as the word of God? If so, by what compass do you suggest "Obsessive Greenies" find God?

I find there is extreme dissonance in you arguments. This is why you obviously feel you must accuse others of smoking hash and use pejorative labels.

I suggest you go back to the drawing board and figure out what your philosophy on life actually is.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 August 2007)

yep, and I can CONFIDENTLY say that the answer on this matter of "faith" lies somewhere between these two quotes :- 



> 1. Understanding is the reward of faith . Therefore seek not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe that thou mayest understand" - Saint Augustine 354 - 430






> 2. Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile !
> Kurt Vonnegut Jr ..... - 2007




Another of Vonnegut's quotes ... lol
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Kurt_Vonnegut/


> Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand
> Kurt Vonnegut



PS I lost ... a lot of money today ,,, so excuse me please, I'm just trying to cheer myself up lol


> Humor is an almost physiological response to fear.



Further to that quote by Chief Seattle ... (back there)..


> 1492. As children we were taught to memorize this year with pride and joy as the year people began living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America. Actually, people had been living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America for hundreds of years before that. 1492 was simply the year sea pirates began to rob, cheat, and kill them.



"When the white man came, we had the land and they had the Bible.
Now they have the land, and we have the Bible"  (chief what's-his-name)


----------



## Sprinter79 (6 August 2007)

Being spiritual is not just about being religious.

Faith is not just restricted to religion.

Having a philosophy of life that is your own is more important than what screwy bloke in the sky you follow.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 August 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Being spiritual is not just about being religious.
> 
> Faith is not just restricted to religion.
> 
> Having a philosophy of life that is your own is more important than what screwy bloke in the sky you follow.



"with my conscience for a compass
I set off into the unknown
confidently advancing 
in the direction of my dreams"  
- must have been pissed when I wrote that lol



> "God does not want you to be Moses - he wants you to be yourself!.  On the Day of Judgment, he'll want your excuses for not achieving this " - anon (forgot to record the author of this one - ahh ok - I find I plagiarised / adapted that from Walter Kaufmann )


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I see harnessing the mind as `the greatest obstacle` for humans to overcome.This will not happen any time soon .Why?No one has an understanding of how the mind works.Worse than that is as the `problem children` (the ones with destructive thoughts) grow up ,that is the cycle perpetuating.



Hey Wys, does this quote of Vonnegut's fit your philosophy praps ? 


> There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.


----------



## doctorj (7 August 2007)

Ladies, Gentlemen, religious zealots, aetheists and everyone in between, please take a deep breath.  Arguments will never ever be resolved online.  You will never be able to convince anyone of anything they don't believe.  You are not your arguments and you are not any less of a person if others don't agree with you.  There is nothing to be gained by attempting to convince anyone of anything.  There is no endgame in this thread aside from it being closed.

Some people in thread have just received warnings and infractions and to those people, please take this opportunity to step back from the thread and reconsider your approach and tone.  To everyone else please see this as a warning to tone it down a tad.  State your ideas, support them and dissect that of others.  At no point is swearing or making personal attacks welcome or appropriate here at ASF.

We have a great community and I think the fact a thread like this can go on as long as it has without mod intervention is evidence of that.  Lets see the mature conversation continue.


----------



## Sean K (7 August 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Being spiritual is not just about being religious.
> 
> Faith is not just restricted to religion.
> 
> Having a philosophy of life that is your own is more important than what screwy bloke in the sky you follow.



I'm undecided whether being spiritual can be anything but a type of religion. Depends on your definition of religion maybe? Is being spiritual believing in a higher unseen power in another dimension? Or, is it being in touch with your true deeper self? So, depends which angle you take perhaps...

I agree there are different types of faith, but I'm not too sure that the concept of faith we are talking about in this thread can be related to anything but religion. Faith in your football team winning might fit into the Essendon Supporter Support thread, but it's a different type of faith. Faith in the current context is still a belief in something without reason.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 August 2007)

kennas said:


> I'm undecided whether being spiritual can be anything but a type of religion. Depends on your definition of religion maybe? Is being spiritual believing in a higher unseen power in another dimension? Or, is it being in touch with your true deeper self? So, depends which angle you take perhaps...



The answer I think you can find in the etymology of the word "spirit". But here's a clue, it might have something to do with _pneumonia_. 

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2007)

kennas said:


> I'm undecided whether being spiritual can be anything but a type of religion. Depends on your definition of religion maybe? Is being spiritual believing in a higher unseen power in another dimension? Or, is it being in touch with your true deeper self? So, depends which angle you take perhaps...



spir·it·u·al      /ˈspɪrɪtʃuəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spir-i-choo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.	of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2.	of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.
3.	closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor's spiritual heir in linguistics.
4.	of or pertaining to spirits or to spiritualists; supernatural or spiritualistic.
5.	characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type than her rowdy brother.
6.	of or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious nature.
7.	of or pertaining to sacred things or matters; religious; devotional; sacred.
8.	of or belonging to the church; ecclesiastical: lords spiritual and temporal.
9.	of or relating to the mind or intellect.
–noun
10.	a spiritual or religious song: authentic folk spirituals.
11.	spirituals, affairs of the church.
12.	a spiritual thing or matter.

The word has a pretty broad meaning going by the above dictionary definition.

fwiw, I know people who "I" consider to be spiritual, even if they don't believe themselves to be, or even believe in God at all. So my use of the word could be a little more abstract than the above definition. So you're right, meaning subject to angle.



kennas said:


> I agree there are different types of faith, but I'm not too sure that the concept of faith we are talking about in this thread can be related to anything but religion. Faith in your football team winning might fit into the Essendon Supporter Support thread, but it's a different type of faith. *Faith in the current context is still a belief in something without *reason.



Agree. But I wouldn't say they believe without reason, just that the reason may not be experiential or logical. For instance, " I believe because The (fill in favourite scriptural text) said so.


----------



## Sean K (7 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> Agree. But I wouldn't say they believe without reason, just that the *reason may not be experiential or logical*. For instance, " I believe because The (fill in favourite scriptural text) said so.



Yep. I think Wiki sums it up pretty well: 



> Faith is based upon the interpretation of the intangible (feelings, emotions, etc.) instead of the physically tangible


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> The answer I think you can find in the etymology of the word "spirit". But here's a clue, it might have something to do with _pneumonia_.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chops.



Interesting:

    c.1250, "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from O.Fr. espirit, from L. spiritus "soul, courage, vigor, breath," related to spirare "to breathe," from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow" (cf. O.C.S. pisto "to play on the flute"). Original usage in Eng. mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the L. word translates Gk. pneuma and Heb. ruah. Distinction between "soul" and "spirit" (as "seat of emotions") became current in Christian terminology (e.g. Gk. psykhe vs. pneuma, L. anima vs. spiritus) but "is without significance for earlier periods" [Buck]. L. spiritus, usually in classical L. "breath," replaces animus in the sense "spirit" in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Gk. pneuma. Meaning "supernatural being" is attested from c.1300 (see ghost); that of "essential principle of something" (in a non-theological sense, e.g. Spirit of St. Louis) is attested from 1690, common after 1800. Plural form spirits "volatile substance" is an alchemical idea, first attested 1610; sense narrowed to "strong alcoholic liquor" by 1678. This also is the sense in spirit level (1768).


----------



## Ageo (7 August 2007)

I see someone removed my post (perhaps my hobby seemed uncalled for).

Anywayz Wayne to put it a nice way im not here to tell you otherwise, or in fact telling anyone that they need a god. The net is a place where one person can say something and another 1 takes its completely the wrong way. 

Im a huge believer in conservation and do my part to help, 

It was simply a tongue in cheek comment before to see if it would stir anyone up.

The main important factor is "be happy" its only cyber chat 

p.s Thanks Julia for the heads up


----------



## Pat (7 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> No I don't mean faith all.
> 
> The word "faith" has a number of connotations that are unacceptable to me.



Unacceptable Connotations?
It is faith Wayne.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2007)

I think this is similar to / along the same lines as (but still different from) one previously posted by Mofra as follows...



Mofra said:


> He was born of a virgin on December 25th
> His birth was announced by a Star.
> His earthly father was named Joseph.
> He was of Royal descent.
> ...




 There are a stack of these posts... I found em interesting anyways - so much from the bible was around in the days of the Egypians it isn't funny.  

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+truth+about+the+jesus+myth
The Truth About The Jesus Myth Part 1 (or 6)


> Jordan Maxwell tells the Naked Truth about religion, the bible and the zodiac



a lot of interesting origins of quotes and sayings in the bible.
"A Men"  from the Egyptian "Amen Ra" (= the sun) - as said in Egyptian temples.

the single eye 
the lamb of god ("talk about an old concept ! - virtually all the ancient religions had a lamb of god that took away the sins of the world) 
Dalai Lama based on the lamb (?)
Horus of Egypt = Jesus of Nazareth 
(both baptised by water, many many other comparisons / similar stories )
Set = Satan
etc etc for 10 minutes


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 August 2007)

I haven`t researched this toob pic. for facts yet but it does remind me of when I was in primary school and the teacher wanted to demonstrate the changes made with (interpretation) of a simple sentence.With about 30 kids in the room the first was told the sentence and then passed to the next etc. and then to the final kid.

I suppose the outcome is obvious to all that have experienced this.

p.s. wonder why the Egyptian gods didn`t take off.Too many horror glyphics prolly.Or too many gods full stop.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 August 2007)

I just went to the city library (lol) and found this story about `ol mate horace.Poor fella , looks like he may have had a spit with the locals and come out on top.Now a legend  after taking out the locals `ol mate horace sought the head of uncle Set (now that is dead Set).




> The worship of Horus was brought from the outside by neighboring tribes who invaded and then settled into Egypt. He was their god of war, but was quickly absorbed into the state religion, first as a son of Ra, then changing to become the son of Osiris. He was the protector and guide to the pharaoh and later pharaohs were believed to be his avatar on earth. Horus was also the patron of young men and the ideal of the dutiful son who grows up to become a just man.
> 
> The most popular story of Horus is the one in which he grows to manhood to avenge the death of his father Osiris by battling against his cruel uncle Set. In many writings, he is said to continue to battle Set daily to ensure the safety of the world.




So the moral of the story is don`t mess with Horace because he is easily up Set.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 August 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I just went to the city library (lol) and found this story about `ol mate horace.



lol, - library - forgotten what / where that is.
wikipedia  has a few as well  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
depending which website you believe, "Horus" seems to be a catch-all , and several gods can all use his "trading name"
also this bloke :-



> http://touregypt.net/godsofegypt/horus.htm Ra-Harakhte  A combined god of Horus and Ra, he was the *god of the sun *and took it on its daily path across the sky. He is represented as a falcon or a falcon-headed man wearing the solar disk and the double crown. Sometimes he is pictured wearing the atef crown and the uraeus



you wonder if "god of the sun" evolved into - in time "son of god" maybe a bit of dyslexia creeping in .  (stranger things have happened ) 
DNA - national dyslexic association, as they say.


----------



## tech/a (8 August 2007)

> DNA - national dyslexic association, as they say.




Actually its ADN.
Have a quick check of your DNA.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2007)

Tech, no doubt you saw Unc Festives post  :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=154467&highlight=santa#post154467


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2007)

Christian cult
Mother nearly drops baby  - yeah right 
looks like a good way to accidentally break a baby's neck to me  



> Some false prophet uses his magical powers to cure a baby with Cerebral Palsy. The mother then screams and faints (almost dropping the baby), while the baby looks around wondering what the hell just happened





There Is A Place Called Hell
cripes - this causes strong emotions 
.............
 mainly sympathy for this poor man lol
(goes on for a while )
I challenge anyone to get to the end of this one lol


----------



## barney (9 August 2007)

Hi there 2020,  I watched it to the end !!! .......... Wanted to see how much money he was going to ask for   ............. tempted to write to the email address just to see how many books etc they would try and sell me ...... Getting cynical in my "old" age ................ These type of preachers do God a disservice ............ Lets assume there is a God ..........  I cant imagine a God of love and peace would turn round and burn you in hell for eternity under any circumstances ........ that would seem a tad hypocritical .......... considering Jesus was anti-hypocrites ...........


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=roy+zimmerman


> funny songs about ignorance, war and greed ….songs available at www.royzimmerman.com. Here, he performs the song at the Skeptics Society conference.



 "Creation Science 101" by Roy Zimmerman

 "Abstain With Me" by Roy Zimmerman

 "Jerry Falwell's God" by Roy Zimmerman

"Defenders of Marriage" - Roy Zimmerman


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2007)

barney said:


> Hi there 2020,  I watched it to the end !!! .......... Wanted to see how much money he was going to ask for ........... Getting cynical in my "old" age .....



barney - howdy man 
yep - you mention words like cynical - zimmerman does too - plus "sceptical"
you use  hypocritical - so does he 
I posted more on "favourite lyrics" as well - more political than religions :-
e.g. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpeBe_KOmLI&mode=related&search=  "Saddam Shame" by Roy Zimmerman

one clever dude. 

PS  Here's a serious one ( believe it or not - lol) a trans-sexual - makes more sens than the post you were referring to. 

firstly , Haggard, (what a load of bs he is / was) 
then 'Sister Paul' ( previously Larry) 
 Friends of God -- Ted Haggard and Sex


> when challenged that evangelicals are "haters" - that he's intolerant about gays ...
> 
> we say moral purity is better than immorality
> we say telling the truth is better than telling a lie -
> ...



Family Values: Ted Haggard, his Male Prostitute and Meth

Sister Paula on Rev. Ted Haggard - 
As I say - she/he makes more bludy sense than Haggard.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2007)

Dawkins makes a pretty good case for turning one's back on "faith"
in the interests of not giving religious extremists a "briar patch" to hide in (paraphrasing) 
He is also terrified for americans (thanks god for zimmerman ) 
:: Richard Dawkins : Interview (2006) ::
An interview with Richard Dawkins at NPR (National Public Radio)
Sorry the following is a repeat of previous post 
Haggard vs Dawkins


> Ted Haggard, recently disgraced leader of the Evangelical church, has a face-off with the Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. Its sad to see who accuses whom of arrogance



"Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual" by Roy Zimmerman


----------



## barney (9 August 2007)

Some funny and interesting stuff there 2020 ....... Have to say that I still believe there is a greater life force than man, due to some of the unusual happenings I've experienced over time ............. but some of the so called "men of God" that preach fire and brimestone are pretty unsavoury types and do more harm than good to society in general.  Cheers M8.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2007)

barney said:


> Some funny and interesting stuff there 2020 ....... Have to say that I still believe there is a greater life force than man, .....  Cheers M8.



I also believe in a life force m8   gotta feeling these quotes ( which I scribbled / copied as a much younger man) are based on a book I found on Wordsworth, and also on Paul William's "Das Energi".  
http://paulwilliams.com/Das.html

"In the poetry of Wordsworth, the pleasure taken in the forms of the natural world, especially in rural scenes , is almost invariably associated with the thought of universal nature conceived of as an orderly system." etcetc (since then it's become a bit more disorderly lol) 



> "If we make a list of words for God, we will have a list of words, we will not have God.  Energy flows through all things.
> 
> "When we draw lines - between black and white, young and old, our side and your side, - maybe we should learn to draw in vanishing ink.
> Babies draw no lines.  Children by nature draw lines with disappearing ink.  Only adults who do not choose otherwise are guilty of the lines in our society , and of teaching these lines to children.
> ...




just something to think about over a beer 



> "Man that creature who belives his purpose is to control and conquer Nature must remember the obvious - that he is part of Nature himself.
> 
> Beware - Be Aware.   walk rather than take a vehicle, eat natural food where possible rather than canned,
> *use an axe rather than a chainsaw. * (??)



use an axe rather than a chainsaw. ?
 - lol - well, back then there were lots of trees around ok!  sheesh, imagine choosing a quote like that to commit to print!


----------



## BIG BWACULL (10 August 2007)

I like the invisible ink quote mate spot on 

God Loves Blondes

A blonde finds herself in serious trouble. Her business has gone bust and she's in dire financial straits. She's so desperate that she decides to ask God for help. She begins to pray..."God, please help me. I've lost my business and if I don't get some money, I'm going to lose my house as well. Please let me win the Lotto."

Lotto night comes, and somebody else wins it. She again prays..."God, please let me win the Lotto! I've lost my business, my house and I'm going to lose my car as well."

Lotto night comes and she still has no luck. Once again, she prays..."My God, why have You forsaken me? I've lost my business, my house, and my car. My children are starving. I don't often ask You for help, and I have always been a good servant to You. PLEASE let me win the Lotto just this one time so I can get my life back in order."

Suddenly there is a blinding flash of light as the heavens open. The blonde is overwhelmed by the Voice of God Himself..."Sweetheart, work with Me on this... Buy a ticket"


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 August 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> God Loves Blondes
> ...Voice of God Himself..."Sweetheart, work with Me on this... Buy a ticket"



m8 if god loved blondes so much, then why did he make em such an easy target of jokes?  
sheesh, I'll probably get beaten up by a blonde tomorrow lol.

the blonde goes for a walk - comes to a river - wants to get across, but doesn't know how.
then  aha  - she sees another blonde on the other side, beauty
so she calls out  "hey , how do I get to the other side?"
the second blonde calls back " - what!? - you're already there!!"


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 August 2007)

interesting website ...
http://www.parisavenuechurchofchrist.org/Sermons/Is It REASONABLE To Believe in God.htm
seems to challenging people to think before they rely on faith 



> 1.  Ancient Greek Sylligism....“From nothing, nothing comes; Something is, therefore something eternally was”




Then this one , which is all about logic


> http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Syllogism   syllogism, a mode of argument that forms the core of the body of Western logical thought. Aristotle defined syllogistic logic, and his formulations were thought to be the final word in logic; they underwent only minor revisions in the subsequent 2,200 years. Every syllogism is a sequence of three propositions such that the first two imply the third, the conclusion. There are three basic types of syllogism: hypothetical, disjunctive, and categorical.
> 
> The hypothetical syllogism, modus ponens, has as its first premise a conditional hypothesis: "If p then q"; or "p, therefore q".
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 August 2007)

The ability of human beings (a self-defined identity) to `communicate` with greater influence than the rest of living things is a stupid game.As we see `imaginings` manifested at a faster and faster rate the stupidity of this so called `intelligence` is becoming more apparent.Nothing to do but go with this happening or .......... what?Back to running around in the scrub with zero human connections!
This `stupid game` of mind is just plain lunacy...it don`t make sense.Shifting daily in and out of various stages of consciousness , justifying our stupidity and soap boxing the craziness (like I`m doing) of it all.
The greatest ignorance (or not knowing , just hoping) of all ,is in looking outside ourselves for reason or explanation.

O.k thankyou , off my box and back in my pigeon hole. :aliena:


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 August 2007)

John Denver- The Lord's Prayer (injun style )
 Mario Lanza - Lords Prayer


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 September 2007)

Just reading the `Why won`t god heal amputees`website and came across these passages involving baby Jesus and the perceived threat he was in those days.Note there is a few dreams and whispers in the story so see it as you will.The bit I found disturbing was the killing of all the babies by Herod ....wik says.....



> Herod (Hebrew: הוֹרְדוֹס Hordos‎, Greek: ἡρῴδης), also known as Herod I or Herod the Great (73 BC – 4 BC in Jericho), was a Roman client king of Judaea. Herod is known for his colossal building projects in Jerusalem and other parts of the ancient world, including the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, sometimes referred to as Herod's Temple.
> 
> In Christian scripture, Herod is known for the Massacre of the Innocents.




So was Herod "great".Certainly not if he ordered the massacre (but did he?)

Matthew says ......

2:1  Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, 

2:2  "Where is he who is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him." 

*2:3  When Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. *

*2:4  Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he asked them where the Christ would be born.*

2:5  They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written through the prophet, 

2:6  'You Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are in no way least among the princes of Judah: For out of you shall come forth a governor, Who shall shepherd my people, Israel.'" 

*2:7  Then Herod secretly called the wise men, and learned from them exactly what time the star appeared. *

2:8  He sent them to Bethlehem, and said, "Go and search diligently for the young child. When you have found him, bring me word, so that I also may come and worship him." 

2:9  They, having heard the king, went their way; and behold, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the young child was. 

2:10  When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. 

2:11  They came into the house and saw the young child with Mary, his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Opening their treasures, they offered to him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 

*2:12  Being warned in a dream that they shouldn't return to Herod, they went back to their own country another way.*

*2:13  Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him." *

2:14  He arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt, 

2:15  and was there until the death of Herod; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called my son." 

*2:16  Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was exceedingly angry, and sent out, and killed all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all the surrounding countryside, from two years old and under, according to the exact time which he had learned from the wise men. *

2:17  Then that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, 

2:18  "A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; She wouldn't be comforted, Because they are no more." 

*2:19  But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, *

2:20  "Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for those who sought the young child's life are dead." 

2:21  He arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 

2:22  But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father, Herod, he was afraid to go there. Being warned in a dream, he withdrew into the region of Galilee, 

2:23  and came and lived in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." 

Now it appears from the script that Herod was not a man of love and peace but was an insane parnoid schizophrenic .Mental illness was then and is now.And people simply just don`t know how to deal with it.Mainly because mental illness is not like the flu or a broken bone.On a tangent but the mind can still do evil nowadays as back then.Is it forever????


----------



## imajica (10 September 2007)

whether or not GOD exists in the absolute sense is irrelevant - as an entrenched cultural entity - the effect of religious doctrine and practice has played a determining hand in shaping the modern world both socially and culturally. something doesn't necessarily have to be proven to 'actually' exist to have an effect that mimics the very likelihood that it does


----------



## stockGURU (10 September 2007)

Some people think Google is God. 



> » PROOF #1
> 
> Google is the closest thing to an Omniscient (all-knowing) entity in existence, which can be scientifically verified. She indexes over 9.5 billion WebPages, which is more than any other search engine on the web today. Not only is Google the closest known entity to being Omniscient, but She also sorts through this vast amount of knowledge using Her patented PageRank technology, organizing said data and making it easily accessible to us mere mortals.
> 
> ...




http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org


----------



## noirua (10 September 2007)

If believing in god makes you happy, then do so. If believing in god makes you feel unhappy, then don't.

If you'r in company with people who believe in god, and you don't, then pretend you do.  If you are in the company of people who don't believe in god, and you do,  pretend you don't. 

If you want to believe in god one day and not the next, then, that's OK too. If you want to believe in god and not believe in god, both at the same time, such are the uncertainties in life, no problem, that's OK too.

Only god has the right to say what is and what is not, so, ignore everything everyone on this earth says, however, if there is no god, then, ignore them all anyway. 

So basically, it is a matter of tossing a coin really, as half the earths' mankind would be correct and half would be wrong. However, If the coin stands on its side, what a dilemma, no not really, afterall, you could then toss the coin again. 

You can believe in god without having a religion of course. If you live in a country where they get all bitter and twisted if you don't believe, then, it's probably better to leave the country.

Some people use religious beliefs to build up their own standing. If you see someone like this, then, they see themselves as god. Perhaps that's why so many people die in the name of religion, however, it does keep people who are in poverty, believing they are in that state so as to be born into a better life next time round, or, be rewarded in heaven. 
God, if there is a god, is the only one with the right to say, so, if any one else does the talking, that's right, ignore them.

In the end of course, IGNORE ME Also, as well as everyone else.


----------



## mit (10 September 2007)

noirua said:


> If you'r in company with people who believe in god, and you don't, then pretend you do.  If you are in the company of people who don't believe in god, and you do,  pretend you don't.




I believe in live and let live but I don't agree with this statement. We luckily live in a society that allows people to believe what they want without a problem. It is different in the US. People are taught that Atheists are evil, have no morals etc. etc. A blatant attempt to keep people believing by fear.

This caused most Atheists to hide themselves from their family and friends. Only recently, has their been a movement by US atheists to out themselves and become public. So more and more theists are finding that their neighbour or co-workers are atheists and are not immoral, actually usually the opposite as this is the only life we have.

This works the other way as well. If the only public religious people you see are those fundamental evangelists that tell you that science is an anti-god conspiracy and that we will all go to hell for doing what comes naturally, well you are going to think all religious people are kooks.

However, if the moderate theists come forward and say that they don't think the Bible is literal and have more understanding of other people, well you may not agree with their religion but you are more comfortable with their position.

MIT


----------



## nioka (10 September 2007)

noirua said:


> If you'r in company with people who believe in god, and you don't, then pretend you do.  If you are in the company of people who don't believe in god, and you do,  pretend you dont.




That's a cop out. Everyone should have the courage of their own convictions and be prepared to admit to them. There is no need to press the point and accept that others may have differing opinions.


----------



## Julia (10 September 2007)

nioka said:


> That's a cop out. Everyone should have the courage of their own convictions and be prepared to admit to them. There is no need to press the point and accept that others may have differing opinions.




In principle, I agree, but I can also see what Noirua was getting at, I think.
i.e. that sometimes it's just not worth upsetting people by contradicting their stated beliefs.

I have a couple of friends who sincerely believe in God and I don't see why it's necessary to be rude enough to tell them their justification for so doing is pretty thin.  It's not to them.  And it's not so hard to just let them say what they want without necessarily agreeing with them.  Who knows?  They might be right.

A discussion on a public forum like this is entirely another matter.
I just don't think it's worth damaging a friendship by taking an aggressive stand on something which is unlikely to come up all that often anyway.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 September 2007)

noirua said:


> If believing in god makes you happy, then do so. If believing in god makes you feel unhappy, then don't.
> 
> *If you'r in company with people who believe in god, and you don't, then pretend you do.*  If you are in the company of people who don't believe in god, and you do,  pretend you don't.
> 
> If you want to believe in god one day and not the next, then, that's OK too. If you want to believe in god and not believe in god, both at the same time, such are the uncertainties in life, no problem, that's OK too...




I was wondering if that policy could be extended ... and whether there's a limit??

*"If you're in company with people who believe in dog, and you don't, then pretend you do"?? *- ok I guess. 
If you're in company with people who believe in cat, and you don't, then pretend you do.  - so far so good ...

ahhh - reminds me m8, lol - I went out for a few drinks with a Senior member of a Main Roads Dept in Newcastle once - talking bridges as usual. 
anyway we end up in a gay bar at midnight.

sorry , - your formula isn't universally applicable lol.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 September 2007)

> If you'r in company with people who believe in god, and you don't, then pretend you do. If you are in the company of people who don't believe in god, and you do, pretend you don't.



ADVICE TO A SON SHOULD HE ACCIDENTALLY END UP IN A GAY BAR

if you find that the bar’s smiling at you intently
there’s no need to force a smile back
and don’t stroke your mate's back insipid or gently 
just give it a bludy great whack.....

but ...   I'll BET you the answer will NATURALLY spring
to your mind, neither crude nor provocative...
just think of Paul Robeson – gee  that man could sing !!!
..........
watch your voice go down an octave.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 November 2007)

From an eternal point of view, belief in a god is part of the human race evolution and will be (or is?) a blip on the time scale.With our mortality set at  about 80 to over 100 years on average and with our gradually developing (once again in a time perspective) intelligence it will come to be that myths and beliefs will be replaced by knowledge and fact.The diehards will cling desperately to a belief of course for truth and fact to an ancient belief is embarrassing.
They vow (narrow mindedly i.m.o.)  to carry it on and truth or fact mean nothing to the ignorant.

Simple nature or a man made reasoning!


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> .... it will come to be that myths and beliefs will be replaced by knowledge and fact....




gday m8 

you're probably right -  whilstever he continues to be so difficult to either prove or disprove, God will continue to evolve (like everying else)


----------



## jonojpsg (21 November 2007)

Funny how arrogant it sounds when we talk about how our belief in God actually affects whether he exists or not?!  Surely the existence of the universe is proof enough - how else did it/we get here?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> Funny how arrogant it sounds when we talk about how our belief in God actually affects whether he exists or not?!  Surely the existence of the universe is proof enough - how else did it/we get here?



jono
but if you can't accept that the universe "always was" (in whatever form)
then why do you accept that god "always was"?
what's the difference? 

Maybe there are two twin gods, and one becomes spirit for a while while the other exists as mud and matter and starstuff -   then every now and then there's another big bang, and they swap roles. (?)  - like handing over the baton if you like.


----------



## BHP (21 November 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> Funny how *arrogant* it sounds when we talk about how our belief in God actually affects whether he exists or not?!  Surely the existence of the universe is *proof* enough - how else did it/we get here?




Hmmm... So your logic then is because the universe exists there must have been a creator. Question. Who created the creator?

The existence of the universe does not prove God exists. It is simply the conclusion you jump to. I don't know how the universe came to exist, and probably never will know, but I am not going to be *arrogant* enough to argue that God created it when really you just don't know.

The existence of something is *proven* once it is observed/touched/measured. Until someone can provide proof that God exists then God is nothing more real than the Easter Bunny.

In fact the universe was probably created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/


----------



## Tysonboss1 (21 November 2007)

Yes there is a god,...

It's name is OIL and he comes by the barrel.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Yes there is a god,...
> 
> It's name is OIL and he comes by the barrel.



maybe two gods tyson...
one's crude
and one's refined


----------



## Pat (21 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> maybe two gods tyson...
> one's crude
> and one's refined




Happy god and revengeful god


----------



## Rapture (21 November 2007)

jonojpsg said:


> Funny how arrogant it sounds when we talk about how our belief in God actually affects whether he exists or not?!  Surely the existence of the universe is proof enough - how else did it/we get here?




So does the existance of a universe = the existance of a GOD ? 

That's it ?? 

You don't feel that being higher intelligent beings there is a little more thought/analysis required ? 

Sounds like the classic "it is because I said so" rational . Hasn't education led us to take the "but why ?" approach.. 

Let me ask you another question then ... By saying that God exists are you also saying the the Bible is true ?


----------



## moneymajix (21 November 2007)

Hello!


----------



## Aargh! (21 November 2007)

Whilst I don't normally openly criticise ones beliefs in front of them I find it very difficult to understand ones justifications for believing in a god or religion.
I guess it comes down to the fact that its a human trait to have to justify life, love, death, etc. I think it is a weak and medieval thought to believe that something/someone is controlling creation and creations just because we don't have definitive proof otherwise.
The idea that the universe was created is ludicrous. Why make up some extravagant story about a supreme being? I think we need to look at the time period these thoughts became staple to answer this. Religious groups had enormous power and would do anything to keep it. 
I'm surprised with the number of people in this thread believe in god. I would have thought that all here were reasonably-logically thinking individuals (with the collective aim of this forum) would stand back and questions what is force fed to a large number of us. 
Surely we all can understand evolution. We see it every day of our lives, it might  not be to the extent us forming into horned, red skinned, pointy tailed beings but more to the tune of learning from mistakes we make.  
The one with the most control over our own lives is ourselves.


----------



## Rapture (21 November 2007)

I agree Aargh.. 

Religion was/is but a means of controlling the masses . If we go back and look at history, religion has been the source of many evils.. Take, as an example, the Medieval ( only because you used this example) prosecutions .. anyone who questioned The Church was silenced . At the root of most wars and terrorism lies religion ...

Religion breeds fear . And out of fear comes control.  Control of your current life in exchange for the promised eternal life of milk and honey in the Kingdom of God - 

... but if I stop and think about it if it's a land of promised Longs ......  then I might just convert :


----------



## skint (21 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> maybe two gods tyson...
> one's crude
> and one's refined




Some of your best work right there 20/20


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

lol - not original m8  


> Cheney - he’s like a barrel of oil –
> both crude and yet refined, lol




 "Dick Cheney" by Roy Zimmerman

 "Let's Go After the Buddhists" by Roy Zimmerman


----------



## MS+Tradesim (21 November 2007)

BHP said:


> The existence of something is proven once it is observed/touched/measured. Until someone can provide proof that God exists then God is nothing more real than the Easter Bunny.[/URL]




When was the last time you observed/touched/measured an idea?



> Hmmm... So your logic then is because the universe exists there must have been a creator. Question. Who created the creator?




People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
1) The universe created itself
2) The universe is uncreated
3) Something/someone created the universe

1) is impossible. It would need to exist prior to itself in order to create itself.
2) has been shown wrong. The universe had a beginning. 
3) hence, something/someone created the universe

While this does not prove God, it shows the universe had a creator. Some entity brought it into existence. Who created the creator? This is the old parlour trick of infinite causal regresses which are just logically impossible. Something somewhere exists causelessly, timelessly and is the ground of being for all things which begin to exist. The fact that at least one thing exists proves that there is an uncaused entity somewhere. Some scientists, not liking the idea of God, have posited a multiverse of billions of universes. Hey presto! A god to fill in the gaps. We'll just call it a multiverse, wave a cloth and hope no-one notices it is not a scientific hypothesis because it CANNOT be tested by the methods of science as one cannot get outside this universe in order to check out its feasibility. So whether or not you like it, ultimately everyone makes certain basic assumptions about reality which are untestable and unprovable. Pick one. Just don't consider yourself more logical, rational or enlightened because you picked a different one to someone else.



> Rapture wrote:
> 
> At the root of most wars and terrorism lies religion ...




Really? We won't discuss Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin and so on cause they show the unbelievers can be pretty horrible too.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

sadly these are a bit bumpy (and some are off topic - others earlier were on topic of course)  - but brilliant nonetheless 

 "Saddam Shame" by Roy Zimmerman

 "Thanks For the Support" by Roy Zimmerman


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> When was the last time you observed/touched/measured an idea?
> 
> People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
> 1) The universe created itself
> ...



what the heck?

observed :- people as I drove past today
touched :- the files at work  today
measured:- the diameter of a piece of steel today - I can tell you it exists

as for parlour tricks - here's a bit of Grecian logic to consider...


> 1. Ancient Greek Sylligism....“From nothing, nothing comes; Something is, therefore something eternally was”




Then this one , which is all about logic



> http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Syllogism syllogism, a mode of argument that forms the core of the body of Western logical thought. Aristotle defined syllogistic logic, and his formulations were thought to be the final word in logic; they underwent only minor revisions in the subsequent 2,200 years. Every syllogism is a sequence of three propositions such that the first two imply the third, the conclusion. There are three basic types of syllogism: hypothetical, disjunctive, and categorical.   etc


----------



## MS+Tradesim (21 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> what the heck?
> 
> observed :- people as I drove past today
> touched :- the files at work  today
> measured:- the diameter of a piece of steel today - I can tell you it exists




Observe, touch or measure an idea.

As for the rest, there doesn't seem to be a point, so I'm not sure.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Observe, touch or measure an idea.
> 
> As for the rest, there doesn't seem to be a point, so I'm not sure.




well if you're saying "God" is an "idea" that cannot be proven , touched, observed, or measured , i'd agree with you . 

As to whether there's a point (there), I think that's what the thread is about, and I think the jury is still out.  (but hey - they'd quickly rally if you produced any of that evidence you talk about).


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 November 2007)

Humans have turned one thing into another.Bauxite to aluminium and hydrocarbons into plastics for example.These things don`t grow on trees but with certain combinations of what is found in nature, then a new thing is created.Is the knowledge of mind a hint at what is possible creation ways.



> Two separate teams of researchers from the United States and Japan have announced they have *re-programmed *skin cells into cells that mimic embryonic stem cells.





p.s. good post that earlier mstradesim.Highly unlikely someone though. 



> People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
> 1) The universe created itself
> 2) The universe is uncreated
> 3) Something/someone created the universe
> ...


----------



## MS+Tradesim (21 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well if you're saying "God" is an "idea" that cannot be proven , touched, observed, or measured , i'd agree with you .
> 
> As to whether there's a point (there), I think that's what the thread is about, and I think the jury is still out.  (but hey - they'd quickly rally if you produced any of that evidence you talk about).




Read the post I referred. Apparently a god can't be proven because he/she/it cannot be touched, observed or measured. The illogic of this claim is apparent when one realises there are many things that exist which cannot be touched, observed or measured. Science cannot be touched, observed or measured for example. It is an idea. But it seems to be worshiped by many here.


----------



## BHP (22 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> When was the last time you observed/touched/measured an idea?.




Are you saying that God is an idea? this is precisely my point. God is not real, just an idea. Ideas can be measured, see further below.



> People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
> 1) The universe created itself
> 2) The universe is uncreated
> 3) Something/someone created the universe
> ...




3) is you jumping to conclusions. You  have not made a valid argument at all. Why does "the Universe exists" = "God created it"? 



> While this does not prove God, it shows the universe had a creator. Some entity brought it into existence.




It shows nothing of the sort.



> Who created the creator? This is the old parlour trick of infinite causal regresses which are just logically impossible. Something somewhere exists causelessly,




Oh its a trick is it. I thought it was a reasonable question. Is it your argument that God can exist causelessly but the universe cannot? If so why?



> Some scientists, not liking the idea of God, have posited a multiverse of billions of universes. Hey presto! A god to fill in the gaps. We'll just call it a multiverse, wave a cloth and hope no-one notices it is not a scientific hypothesis because it CANNOT be tested by the methods of science as one cannot get outside this universe in order to check out its feasibility. So whether or not you like it, ultimately *everyone makes certain basic assumptions about reality which are untestable and unprovable*. *Pick one*.




I think you have done a very good job of proving my point. Every argument or theory about the creation of the universe is as valid as any other, including the God argument, so why believe in that particular one?

Why do you have to pick one??

You have picked one based on blind faith. I refuse to pick one until i see proof.



> Just don't consider yourself more logical, rational or enlightened because you picked a different one to someone else.




Quite the contrary. Reread my original post. I do *NOT* think i am more logical, rational or enlightened than anyone else. I specifically stated that I *DON'T* know how the universe came into existence and will probably never know. What i object to is people telling me it was God when they have nothing to back it up. It could have been God, a multiverse, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever, who knows? 

This I think is the crux of the whole God debate. Some people can accept not knowing others cannot.



MS+Tradesim said:


> Read the post I referred. Apparently a god can't be proven because he/she/it cannot be touched, observed or measured. The illogic of this claim is apparent when one realises there are many things that exist which cannot be touched, observed or measured. Science cannot be touched, observed or measured for example. It is an idea. But it seems to be worshiped by many here.




 Again, are you saying God is an idea? In any case ideas can certainly be measured. Ideas occur in the brain as a series of complex electric impulses that can be measured.

Science is basically knowledge. It can also be measured in the brain, in a book, in a computer, a drawing etc.

Please name some of the "many things" that cannot be touched, measured or observed.

I know this debate can be quite emotive so please do not take my comments in a personal way, I am simply trying to debate this topic.


----------



## Rapture (22 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Science cannot be touched, observed or measured for example. It is an idea. But it seems to be worshiped by many here.




Ahhhh .... but Science involves logical thinking , not just accepting  . It makes a logicall progression to its conclusion , offering explanations on the way . It doesn't need to fill the gap with a GOD .  Scientist are more interested in natural explanation rather than the supernatural . 

GOD's existance, on the other hand ,  is due to theists not able to  explain various phenomena such as the origin of the universe , the existance of living matter . There was no logic reasoning behind the existance of a GOD appart from it ( meaning the Universe... living mater ... )  exists therefore it must be the hand of GOD . 

To use Plato's words , to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation . 

I'd rather worship something that can offers me results rather than demand my blind faith .


----------



## Pat (29 November 2007)

Aargh! said:


> Whilst I don't normally openly criticise ones beliefs in front of them I find it very difficult to understand ones justifications for believing in a god or religion.
> I guess it comes down to the fact that its a human trait to have to justify life, love, death, etc. I think it is a weak and medieval thought to believe that something/someone is controlling creation and creations just because we don't have definitive proof otherwise.
> The idea that the universe was created is ludicrous. Why make up some extravagant story about a supreme being? I think we need to look at the time period these thoughts became staple to answer this. Religious groups had enormous power and would do anything to keep it.
> I'm surprised with the number of people in this thread believe in god. I would have thought that all here were reasonably-logically thinking individuals (with the collective aim of this forum) would stand back and questions what is force fed to a large number of us.
> ...



There is a difference between god and religion. Because you believe in god does not mean you believe in religious mumble jumble.



MS+Tradesim said:


> When was the last time you observed/touched/measured an idea?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It has not been shown that the universe had a beginning, scientists have guestimated to a few milliseconds after a guestimated big bang. Not everything needs a beginning, human misconception.
The universe has always been and always will be. The universe and every element within is god.
Maybe the universe expands and contracts every so many billion/trillion/googolplex years???


----------



## onemore (29 November 2007)

Question: Is there a God

My answer :Not sure
I do think thou that we live a life in a physical state then go on to live in a non physical state.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (30 November 2007)

BHP said:


> Are you saying that God is an idea? this is precisely my point. God is not real, just an idea. Ideas can be measured, see further below.




Really? How do you know God/a god is not real? An idea cannot be measured. All you can measure/observe is the way in which a brain records or processes information. You can even observe the way an idea plays out in real life. But the idea itself is an entity. An idea can exist independently of a brain or it could not be recorded or communicated. 



> 3) is you jumping to conclusions. You  have not made a valid argument at all. Why does "the Universe exists" = "God created it"?




Is you not reading closely. I did not say God created it. (3) states something/someone created it. That does not constrain it to any particular god or even a god - merely an entity capable of bringing this universe into being. That I ultimately accept that entity as God is further down the chain after reasoning from the fact that "Something created the universe" to the question "What kind of properties would a universe-creating entity possess?"



> Is it your argument that God can exist causelessly but the universe cannot? If so why?




As already stated there are only 3 possibilities. 1 and 2 are ruled out, leaving 3. If you can think of some alternative to 1, 2 or 3 please share it. The universe cannot exist causelessly because it had a beginning. Even if someone accepts a multiverse (translation: god of the gaps) than one is accepting the multiverse in some way caused this universe. Not everything needs a cause. Only things that begin to exist need a causal explanation. To posit a multiverse is no more an explanation that to posit a god. Either must be accepted on faith because there is no way to get outside this universe to see what else is going on. If you are happy with "I don't know" then fine.



> I think you have done a very good job of proving my point. Every argument or theory about the creation of the universe is as valid as any other, including the God argument, so why believe in that particular one?




Ockhams razor. Don't multiply entities beyond that which is sufficient to explain. And a personal God better explains other data such as the existence of consciousness and self-aware entities who are able to ask "What? Why?"



> Why do you have to pick one??




I'm not saying you do. I'm sure you can go through life perfectly happy with a kind of agnosticism.



> You have picked one based on blind faith. I refuse to pick one until i see proof.




Actually no. I have picked one after considering as much information as my brain can handle and process. Blind faith would be closing my eyes, going "Eenie, meenie, minie, mo" and then obstinately believing whatever option was selected. If you don't wish to add more emotiveness to the discussion then restrain from perjorative terms like "Blind faith" which is no more than an uninformed value judgement as you have no idea how much thought another has put into their worldview.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (30 November 2007)

Pat said:


> Not everything needs a beginning, human misconception.




Nope. Everything that begins to exist needs a causal explanation. Inescapable fact.



> The universe has always been and always will be.




Not possible. If that were the case then all energy available to do work would already have been used and the universe would now be either a compressed energyless point or a cold, dark space-time continuum.



> The universe and every element within is god.




How is this not religious mumbo jumbo?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (30 November 2007)

Rapture said:


> To use Plato's words , to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation .




Really? To say "the multiverse did it" is not to explain anything but to wave the hand and offer an excuse for not having an explanation. Yet many in the scientific community consider it a live option even though it is scientifically untestable. 

God (or a god) either exists or does not exist irrespective of anybody's belief about it/them. Waving your hand and saying the magic words "Abracadabra!" no more dispels God than theists believing in god causes it to exist.

BTW, logic is not the possession of science. Both logic and philosophy precede science and are necessary for doing it. Ignoring this fact is the very reason so many go beyond what science can explain and declare that "Science has dispelled god". God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.


----------



## ithatheekret (30 November 2007)

Science is theory , accepted until proven wrong or a disaster ceases the economic worth sought . The technologies of today are it's banners .
So too , is global warming , the expansion of warfare and many other advances put to use against whomever the maker or owner likes .
It has no morales .

Belief in God is a faith . Usually endowed with morales .

Both have been used to attack ones fellow mankind , but both can't be totally right . 
The manipulation of both have ensured that , the church groups with their perverse conduct , the science groups with their theories and blundering mistakes .

The science group fear the believer or hold them in contempt , due to the input and barriers in place , usually a product of morales . Many of the faith group fear the unmoralistic approaches in science or the ways in which they achieve them .




The choice is yours .


----------



## MS+Tradesim (30 November 2007)

Hopefully, my final post in this thread:

It is very easy to discuss all this abstractly. I've spent years studying philosophy and religion in both formal and private settings. I've been an atheist. I'm now a believer. There are others who have gone the opposite direction. I am now far more interested in the practical outcome of belief or disbelief.

I now find for me that the important questions are....

Am I a better person?
Am I less selfish?
How can I positively impact others?
How can I use my wealth to get the best bang for my buck in terms of funding organisations working to eradicate poverty, preventable disease, sex slave trade, education and development in third world nations, worthwhile causes in Australia etc?


----------



## mark70920 (30 November 2007)

ithatheekret said:


> Science is theory , accepted until proven wrong or a disaster ceases the economic worth sought . The technologies of today are it's banners .
> So too , is global warming , the expansion of warfare and many other advances put to use against whomever the maker or owner likes .
> It has no morales .
> 
> ...





Belief in God is a faith . Usually endowed with morales .

Belief in God is usually taught by parents to their children as an absolute.
So when you look at anything outside this you need to suspend your belief system to be able to contemplate that your parents may have been mistaken. 
It just easier to look for things that support what you were taught. Like the Intelligent design theory, which has more holes in it than swiss cheese , but it makes educated believers feel better about their sceintific pursuits.
Morales are only a loose set of rules follow by the faithfull , they can be suspend and ignore for the greater good of the faith at anytime eg Crusades , holy wars,Jihad,Inquisitions,witch trails etc etc etc.
We may one day realise helping each other comes with it own rewards here in the real world and we don't need the carrot of a heavenly after life to do the right thing.


----------



## ithatheekret (30 November 2007)

Perhaps I should have said Faith can be mirrored to an espirit de corps


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> 1. I've been an atheist. I'm now a believer. There are others who have gone the opposite direction.
> 
> 2. I am now far more interested in the practical outcome of belief or disbelief.



1. I'm one that has gone in the other direction
2. like you, (and Richard Dawkins) I am also interested  in the practical outcomes of these beliefs - and there's a heap of evidence in his lectures that suggest that belief can lead to big problems - total scientific blindness for a start.
3. PS MST if you've studied this for years, you would have come up against this on day 1 

... at least as far as classical religious teachings go.

Hey if you accept that evolution is factual,  that the entire religion thing is based on a form of superstition, but that there are practical benefits to "god" despite his being intellectually unjustifiable - then that's different - we'd agree.


----------



## Nyden (30 November 2007)

Oh, how I wish I believed in a god. Or an afterlife for that matter, wouldn't be as terrified as I am  

Question to ASF'ers, does lack of belief in god, or for that matter - an afterlife, make the prospect of death all the more frightening? Just disappearing, ceasing to exist.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

Nyden said:
			
		

> Just disappearing, ceasing to exist.




Nyden - as willie would have put it ...

"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. "

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi...d=is+rounded+with+a+sleep.+sir,+i+am+vex'd;#w


----------



## Nyden (30 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Nyden - as willie have put it ...
> 
> "We are such stuff
> As dreams are made on, and our little life
> Is rounded with a sleep. "





Well, to burst your bubble - dreams can be explained scientifically, they're not magic :

Then again, I don't even remember the last time I dreamt 

Am I to assume you're religious? Can I ask - how do you manage to just ignore science, & logic? I mean; one begins to doubt the existance of Santa at a young enough age, what keeps "god" alive in your daily life?


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

Nyden said:


> Well, to burst your bubble - dreams can be explained scientifically, they're not magic :
> 
> Then again, I don't even remember the last time I dreamt
> 
> Am I to assume you're religious? Can I ask - how do you manage to just ignore science, & logic? I mean; one begins to doubt the existance of Santa at a young enough age, what keeps "god" alive in your daily life?




Am I to assume that you are one of that cult of dyslexics - used to meet at the cemetery to worship Santa  

PS I am a pantheist - Mother Nature will do me just fine - but in the end, she expects us to respect the planet she's given us to look after ..

And also as the self styled Lords of Creation , our responsibilities go beyond the selfish interests of mankind 

PS I think you are misunderstanding Willie there - but no biggie 
You realise of course he is talking about a hypothesis that we have been (and will be) asleep for an eternity in both directions - apart from "our little lives" :2two cents

so no , you're  not bursting bubbles. lol.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=82450&highlight=poisoning#post82450

PS I find science fascinating - but also confusing almost humourous in its weirdness at times 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88164&highlight=apples#post88164


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I am a pantheist - Mother Nature will do me just fine -* but in the end, she **expects us to respect the planet she's given us to look after ..*And also as the self styled Lords of Creation , our responsibilities go beyond the selfish interests of mankind




G`evening, i don`t think nature `expects` us to respect the planet.Why nature allowed the expansion of thought and (for want of a better word) intelligence in the first place is unknown and certainly not self preserving but more self destructing.

So it makes me wonder why thought has been allowed to continue when life does not need thought to exist.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> G`evening,
> 1. i don`t think nature `expects` us to respect the planet.
> 
> 2. Why nature allowed the expansion of thought and (for want of a better word) intelligence in the first place is unknown and certainly not self preserving but more self destructing.
> ...



gday wys

I'll start with 3...(easiest in my way of thinking anyway)
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=219493&highlight=galileo#post219493



> "I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." ibid., p. 226
> --Galileo Galilei (1564--1642)



I'm with this old fashioned theory  (400year old )

PS I agree with you that we have the power to reason , let's use it !  (not sure I understand why it should be self destructing)


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

from a previous post ...

I also believe in a life force -  gotta feeling these quotes ( which I scribbled / copied as a much younger man) are based on a book I found on Wordsworth, and also on Paul William's "Das Energi". 
http://paulwilliams.com/Das.html

"In the poetry of Wordsworth, the pleasure taken in the forms of the natural world, especially in rural scenes , is almost invariably associated with the thought of universal nature conceived of as an orderly system." etcetc (since then it's become a bit more disorderly lol) 


Quote:
"If we make a list of words for God, we will have a list of words, we will not have God. Energy flows through all things. 

"When we draw lines - between black and white, young and old, our side and your side, - maybe we should learn to draw in vanishing ink.
Babies draw no lines. Children by nature draw lines with disappearing ink. Only adults who do not choose otherwise are guilty of the lines in our society , and of teaching these lines to children.

"The lines between right and wrong, good and evil, are the only lines worth drawing. Honesty is such a line, We must test all the options and learn truth - discarding wrong as panning for gold washes away dirt. It is the process of elimination that reveals the true metal.

"How can we draw a line between ourselves and God, when our souls are part of God? when Nature lives in us? "  

just something to think about over a beer 


Quote:
"Man that creature who believes his purpose is to control and conquer Nature must remember the obvious - that he is part of Nature himself.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

But I agree wys - the personification of god or nature is totally "optional"-

but (IMO)
whether or not nature is involved , in the end "morality" demands  that we look after the planet and the others in the third world and the animal kingdom and wildlife generally who also rely on it (IMO).



			
				Wysiwyg said:
			
		

> So it makes me wonder why thought has been allowed to continue when life does not need thought to exist.



survival of the mentally fittest? - I dont know either, lol


----------



## Julia (30 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Hopefully, my final post in this thread:
> 
> It is very easy to discuss all this abstractly. I've spent years studying philosophy and religion in both formal and private settings. I've been an atheist. I'm now a believer. There are others who have gone the opposite direction. I am now far more interested in the practical outcome of belief or disbelief.
> 
> ...



Your posts suggests that before you became a believer, you had not formulated the above set of questions to ask yourself.  Is this right?
Do you not think it's possible to be, e.g. less selfish, positively impact on others, and use your wealth responsibly without believing in a God?


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

............
wizard of id on the subject of the meaning of life


----------



## MS+Tradesim (30 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> 2. like you, (and Richard Dawkins) I am also interested  in the practical outcomes of these beliefs - and there's a heap of evidence in his lectures that suggest that belief can lead to big problems - total scientific blindness for a start.




Do you think disbelief naturally lends itself to a positive and helpful way of life? Hmmm....Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and no doubt more. It is ridiculous to argue that because some believers despise science and act atrociously, then all belief is wrong. There is nothing remotely logical or sensible about that claim. Unbelief has more than its share of atrocity but I would be embarrassed and displaying irrationality to use that as an argument that therefore unbelief should be rejected. And Dawkins is not a poster child for progressive discussion between different worldviews. I'd suggest spending more reading time with guys like Michael Ruse or Quentin Smith. Dawkins is about as intellectually inspiring to a well-read theist as Answers-in-Genesis is to a thoughtful unbeliever. Fundamentalists of any persuasion generally shut down dialogue.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-02/fundamentalists.html


----------



## MS+Tradesim (30 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Your posts suggests that before you became a believer, you had not formulated the above set of questions to ask yourself.  Is this right?




No. Sorry for not wording it more clearly. What I meant was that in terms of reflective thought I now prefer to spend more time on these issues than in abstract thinking and discussion on whether or not God exists. 



> Do you not think it's possible to be, e.g. less selfish, positively impact on others, and use your wealth responsibly without believing in a God?




Of course it's possible. Not only possible but actual. I know of people who have no belief in God or at least are agnostic yet are models of generosity and compassion.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> But I agree wys - the personification of god or nature is totally "optional"-
> 
> but (IMO)
> whether or not nature is involved , in the end "morality" demands  that we look after the planet and the others in the third world and the animal kingdom and wildlife generally who also rely on it (IMO).
> ...




Yes, dealing with the situation in front of humanity now is more practical than asking/contemplating why.I have to admit i care more for animals and plants than many humans. (including my own selfishness implant) 

On the quotes thing i think Steven King sums up the best.Thanks for good discussion/reasoning on the subject hindsight 2020

ps it is going to rain in the s.e. of Queensland `cause the ants are going munyuck on water and food particles around the house.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Do you think disbelief naturally lends itself to a positive and helpful way of life? Hmmm....Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and no doubt more. It is ridiculous to argue that because some believers despise science and act atrociously, then all belief is wrong. There is nothing remotely logical or sensible about that claim. Unbelief has more than its share of atrocity but I would be embarrassed and displaying irrationality to use that as an argument that therefore unbelief should be rejected. And Dawkins is not a poster child for progressive discussion between different worldviews. I'd suggest spending more reading time with guys like Michael Ruse or Quentin Smith. Dawkins is about as intellectually inspiring to a well-read theist as Answers-in-Genesis is to a thoughtful unbeliever. Fundamentalists of any persuasion generally shut down dialogue.
> 
> http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-02/fundamentalists.html



m8 - I am so so sick of people telling me how intellectually deficient Dawkins is - 
 I still wait for one twig of evidence that something he said is wrong. 

of course generalisations are dangerous. 
corollaries don't automatically follow.
because one atheist (perhaps Pol Pot etc) is 'wrong' in many directions doesn't mean another is wrong , or monotheists are correct.

what's your opinion of Hovind?
now there is an ignorant bore of the first order. (IMO)
and so easily proven to be wrong on almost everything he says.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Of course it's possible. Not only possible but actual. I know of people who have no belief in God or at least are agnostic yet are models of generosity and compassion.



I'm pleased we agree that religion is irrelevant to whether or not someone is capable of doing a good deed.

Now to explore motives - here's Einstein on that topic  



> A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. *Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death*."
> --Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> what's your opinion of Hovind?
> now there is an ignorant bore of the first order. (IMO)
> and so easily proven to be wrong on almost everything he says.




 Kent Hovind - Truth in Arguments

Ali G has him figured ...
 Science, evolution, and creation: Ali G vs Kent Hovind


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 December 2007)

Proof  (for those who like this sort of reasoning)

 The Argument from Beauty  (challenged by Richard Dawkins)


----------



## MS+Tradesim (1 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> m8 - I am so so sick of people telling me how intellectually deficient Dawkins is -
> I still wait for one twig of evidence that something he said is wrong.




http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803



> what's your opinion of Hovind?
> now there is an ignorant bore of the first order. (IMO)
> and so easily proven to be wrong on almost everything he says.




Hovind...hmmm. Not my idea of a dinner party guest.


----------



## jessicaroy (1 December 2007)

tech/a said:


> Do you believe in god.




Of course, I do. Who else would I blame for my failures then?


----------



## wayneL (1 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> m8 - I am so so sick of people telling me how intellectually deficient Dawkins is...



Jeez mate, your sounding a bit like a... disciple?

Come now; Dawkins is an intelligent theorist and hypothesizer, but a monopoly on the ultimate truth he ain't got. As MS's links show, some of his hypotheses can be shown to be total rubbish.


----------



## Sean K (1 December 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Hopefully, my final post in this thread:
> 
> It is very easy to discuss all this abstractly. I've spent years studying philosophy and religion in both formal and private settings. I've been an atheist. *I'm now a believer*.



Believer in what MS+T? Please define your God for us. I don't think I've heard about your God yet, and I'm very interested in learning about another one. Cheers, kennas


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 December 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
> http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803
> ...




Ok you give no specifics (despite the fact that that was the point of my complaint), so I guess I'm expected to read em all to try to find out if there's any substance

from your first link ...



> The God Delusion is an extended diatribe against religion in general and belief in God in particular; Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (whose recent Breaking the Spell is his contribution to this genre) are the touchdown twins of current academic atheism.



don't see much evidence there ... plenty of emotive claims of course



> 1 Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet.  He and Dennett both appear to think it requires considerable courage to attack religion these days; says Dennett, "I risk a fist to the face or worse. Yet I persist."  Apparently atheism has its own heroes of the faith—at any rate its own self-styled heroes. Here it's not easy to take them seriously; religion-bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party's candidate at a Republican rally.



This is nonsense - Dawkins has interviewed atheists in USA bible belts who are ostracised!! meet like a mob of social outcasts .  plenty of you tube on that .   



> Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer.



No argument from me there - 



> (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science;



maybe less science than his other books - of which there are many - science at a detail which this critic wouldn't even begin to understand probably (not saying I could either - I'm not a University professor - and Oxford after all is hardly a mug's school for also-rans) 



> it is mainly philosophy and theology (perhaps "atheology" would be a better term) and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects. As the *above quotation *suggests, one shouldn't look to this book for evenhanded and thoughtful commentary.




So we are to take your "above quotation" as correct and move on to the next level of this logical stairway to the truth in the matter ...



> In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding.



But is it true or not .....   I have already posted his comments on "the God of the old testament" elsewhere.  

Does this critic (or anyone here) doubt what he says?



> (Could it be that his mother, while carrying him, was frightened by an Anglican clergyman on the rampage?) If Dawkins ever gets tired of his day job, a promising future awaits him as a writer of political attack ads.




wowo lol so scientific here lol.   
About the same level of wit and humour as Hovind 

I guess I check out another of those links ... 

Incidentally, :topic rumour only, but probably more factual than anything I'll read on that first link .......heard it on ABC radio yesterday, Adam Spencer - 

Hitler's great great grandmother was a Jewish maid apparently.  Spencer concludes that she was either  a terrible grandmother, or a terrible maid, but certainly something seems to have pissed off young Adolf along the way


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 December 2007)

MS here's one for you to read ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins



> Dawkins is an outspoken antireligionist, atheist, secular humanist, and sceptic, and he is a supporter of the Brights movement.[1] In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog", Dawkins' impassioned advocacy of evolution has earned him the appellation "*Darwin's rottweiler". *[2]




Maybe I just like rotties


----------



## MS+Tradesim (1 December 2007)

No, I didn't give specifics because I generally don't do homework for other people. Of the first link I offered, you appear to have quoted a few soundbites from early in the piece. Well, yes, the first 4-5 paragraphs are really just overall impressions that Plantinga has about Dawkins book. But if you read and digest the whole article you will find some more overt interaction with some of Dawkin's main premises, and those arguments are developed in great detail and sophistication elsewhere in the literature. For instance, if you really actually want to grapple with the supposed problem that evil creates for theists then read _God, Freedom and Evil_ by Alvin Plantinga.

As I've elsewhere stated the unbelievers I take seriously are guys like Michael Ruse and Quentin Smith (just for example, there are also others). But you will not move me, or in fact any thinking theist, by approvingly pointing to Dawkins. Dawkins is about as convincing as Hovind. Why is that so surprising? Do you have a prior commitment to Dawkins? Or to reasoned thought? If reasoned thought, then read reasonable atheistic/agnostic/theistic/whatever thinkers.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 December 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Dawkins is about as convincing as Hovind. Why is that so surprising? Do you have a prior commitment to Dawkins?



MS, I'd be amazed if more than 5% of people around here agreed with you that Dawkins and Hovind are equally convincing.  

If you insist on that line, (when one is shown to be wrong at almost every quote, and the other yet to be specifically faulted) - then I consider your recommendations of what more to read etc to be pretty optional reading .

Apart from that I have already agreed with you that god is an idea that cannot be touched, observed or measured. 

And I've agreed that a person doesn't have to believe in God to do a good deed but I like Einstein's judgment that it's more noble to do it out of generosity rather than a hope of eternal heavenly reward

I disagree with your previous post :-



MS+Tradesim said:


> People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
> 1) The universe created itself
> 2) The universe is uncreated
> 3) Something/someone created the universe
> ...



It proves nothing. - and I could care less how long you have studied philosophy or anything else ...

But to finish on an agreement .....



> So whether or not you like it, ultimately everyone makes certain basic assumptions about reality which are untestable and unprovable. Pick one. *Just don't consider yourself more logical, rational or enlightened because you picked a different one to someone else*.




spot on . ....   untestable, unproven (just some take the guesswork further than others)   

......faith, hope, 

......and hopefully a bit of charity thrown in  

..... ideally for unselfish motives  

As someone said, "A philosopher is a blind man looking for a black cat in a darkened room on a pitch back night.    A religious man finds it."


----------



## gilbo (1 December 2007)

I don't think there is any other subject on Earth that gets people's hackles up, or more entrenched, than this one. As the survey is indicating, people's opinions tend to be polarised which is against the trend for responses on most other questions. That's why this one is such a corker to debate!

Personally I hope that God doesn't exist - because if He/She/It is so powerful and still let's the things happen that do, then we're all in trouble.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (1 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> MS, I'd be amazed if more than 5% of people around here agreed with you that Dawkins and Hovind are equally convincing.
> 
> If you insist on that line, (when one is shown to be wrong at almost every quote, and the other yet to be specifically faulted) - then I consider your recommendations of what more to read etc to be pretty optional reading .




I must say I am inspired by your resilience in continuing to exclaim that Dawkins is yet to be specifically faulted. If the previous reviews did not cover enough *specific faults* in Dawkins thinking then I'm happy to provide more.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/review_god_delusion.html#adf
http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_goddelusionreview2.htm
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/202/story_20279_1.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/goddelusion.htm

Now the populist argument that less than 5% of people around here would probably find Dawkins more convincing than Hovind may or may not be true.  Even if it were, it would still be a divergence because I did not make any particular claim about what the majority of people around here think about Hovind and/or Dawkins.

I said, and stand by what I said:

_"As I've elsewhere stated, *the unbelievers I take seriously are guys like Michael Ruse and Quentin Smith* (just for example, there are also others). But you will not move me, or in fact any thinking theist, by approvingly pointing to Dawkins. Dawkins is about as convincing as Hovind. Why is that so surprising? Do you have a prior commitment to Dawkins? Or to reasoned thought? If reasoned thought, then read reasonable atheistic/agnostic/theistic/whatever thinkers."_

I think this will be my last post then. If you do reply, I'll leave you to have the last word.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 December 2007)

gilbo said:


> Personally I hope that God doesn't exist - because if He/She/It is so powerful and *still let's the things happen that do*, then we're all in trouble.




Hi gilbo, my pseudonym is wysiwyg which is my general outlook on things, also allowing for the occasional paralax error . 
I will assume you mean the wrong human things (bold type) and suggest that this is the fear tactic employed by religions to win the minds of people.Hence the "apocalyptic literature" in the book of revelations.There is not one shred of evidence proving that when life ends the life source continues or is saved, by solely believing that it is.Power via fear is everywhere and the most potent manipulative tool used by humans.I think you`ll agree.A question could be, why try to convert people to a belief in something if not seeking control?


----------



## Miner (1 December 2007)

Of course there is a GOD . He lives near my home and lives furthest from the Church 

Regards


----------



## weird (1 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> why try to convert people to a belief in something if not seeking control?




Why have forum rules?  Do they exist soley for the ego of the forum owner to have control over his subjects (the members of the forum)?


----------



## weird (1 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> suggest that this is the fear tactic employed by religions to win the minds of people.Hence the "apocalyptic literature" in the book of revelations.




From Catholic Encyclopedia, 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm



> From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the Seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The Seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude.




Also, http://www.curledup.com/apocalyp.htm



> There are several books akin to Revelation in the Old Testament - Daniel, parts of Ezekiel, Judith, and others. This apocalyptic literature is full of symbolism, using code words or names to hide the real message from persecutors. If the persecutors of the faithful came across this subversive writing, they would either not know what it meant or think it was something from the past. This provided protection for those who understood the writing’s symbolism and codes. So the Book of Revelation is not a prophecy for the twenty-first century Christian, as some preachers would say.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (2 December 2007)

I wrote:



> Now the populist argument that less than 5% of people around here would probably find Dawkins more convincing than Hovind may or may not be true.




Should be something more like: _The "appeal to the majority" argument that less than 5% of people around here would find Dawkins and Hovind equally convincing may or may not be true._ 

Probably no-one cares but rereading my original post I confused myself and felt it needed rewording.


Wysiwig asked:



> A question could be, why try to convert people to a belief in something if not seeking control?




In general, I think people try to convert not because they are seeking control, but because they think the belief to be true and therefore worthy of believing. Why believe anything if one does not think that belief corresponds with the way things really are "out there"? For example, Dawkins clearly believes that "belief in god" is a dangerous delusion and he is so convinced of that he is trying to persuade others to think similarly. Is Dawkins seeking control of others? Or does he think his belief is true and therefore worthy of attempting to persuade others to see his perspective?


----------



## roland (2 December 2007)

GOD is a belief system created by people who require a reason for being and have trouble accepting the thought of nothingness upon death.

The belief in GOD has been exploited and profitted upon for as long as people have needed to have this belief system to be available.

The belief in GOD is normally indocrinated at an early age based upon geographic and social circumastance of birth. Environmental conditioning and change affects the belief and can alter perception and change of this belief.

GOD takes many forms in peoples minds again based on environmental conditioning and peronal experience and study.

The natural human survival instinct helps to reinforce the GOD belief - the more difficult your environment, the more people secumb to this belief system.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in a GOD, in many cases it is life saving and gives people hope in desperate times. The power of positive thinking is beneficial to human health, if the belief in GOD is strong enough and is supported by others then this adds to the positive thinking, similar to placebo drug tests proving the power of positive thinking and realted health benefits.

Peoples belief in GOD is generally guided by published writings setting out particular rules and guidlines written many years ago and distorted over time through misinterpretation and language changes without any allowance for cultural changes, intellectual growth, evolutionary changes, technological advances and advabces in scientific knowledge.

Since GOD is a human perception, no one is right or wrong in their belief. In all of the time of humanity GOD has never been proved or disproved and until the proof is resolved there will always be conflict. 

The power struggle between religious leaders and religious extremists will continue and as the balance of power changes through technology prowess, military capability, people power, natural resource control and political dominance we will see religion being a major force in this world of ours.

GOD or not, we are yet to see the full force of this belief.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 December 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> In general, I think people try to convert not because they are seeking control, but because they think the belief to be true and therefore worthy of believing. *Why believe anything if one does not think that belief corresponds **with the way things really are "out there"?* For example, Dawkins clearly believes that "belief in god" is a dangerous delusion and he is so convinced of that he is trying to persuade others to think similarly. Is Dawkins seeking control of others? Or does he think his belief is true and therefore worthy of attempting to persuade others to see his perspective?




Hi, (reference to bold type)  people `believe` for all different reasons.I`m scared, i`m lonely, i`m confused, i`m suffering, i need help, why am i here, what is the meaning of life, i need to be fathered/mothered, the world is going to end, i seek immortality, i seek peace of mind, i need protection, i need to repent my wrongs, i need to cleanse my mind, turn over a new leaf, need some direction in life, want to learn new morals, heellllppp.

There are good morals in every doctrine/belief system that all humans should abide by but the bonding of mind need not be necessary.(i think)

and some Lucretius from way back then .... 




> To the wide waters, touch to corporal things,
> Intangibility to the viewless void.
> But state of slavery, pauperhood, and wealth,
> Freedom, and war, and concord, and all else
> ...




in the end we will become non-existant, for life has a beginning and an end.


----------



## weird (18 December 2007)

Pascal's Wager, more fitting perhaps for this type of forum 



> 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....
> 
> ..."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.
> 
> ...


----------



## moneymajix (18 December 2007)

Hello!


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2007)

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



....  something like this maybe?


----------



## treefrog (21 December 2007)

poll questions are poor choices since to be a disbeliever (athiest) or believer you must first know who or what god is and no one does know (beyond reasonabel doubt either way)
recall a little quote that goes like " it is impossible for a religious person to think logically, because if you are capable of logical thought there is only one conclusion.........the religious will have to guess what that is."


----------



## MS+Tradesim (21 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> poll questions are poor choices since to be a disbeliever (athiest) or believer you must first know who or what god is and no one does know (beyond reasonabel doubt either way)
> recall a little quote that goes like " it is impossible for a religious person to think logically, because if you are capable of logical thought there is only one conclusion.........the religious will have to guess what that is."




I thought this was going to be a logical argument for a moment.

You want logical thinking? Here...
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 December 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I thought this was going to be a logical argument for a moment.
> 
> You want logical thinking? Here...
> http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm




Sorry to butt in but it can`t go without noting that this chappy `jumped` to a conclusion about what being created in the image of a god means.




> Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God.  *This means, among **other things*, that he created us with the capacity for achieving knowledge””
> knowledge of our environment by way of perception, of other people by way of something like what Thomas Reid calls sympathy, of the past by memory and testimony, of mathematics and logic by reason, of morality, our own mental life,God himself, and much more.




Q. How would he know what being created in the image of a god is?
Q.2 If there were no creation of a god what would be the difference?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (22 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Sorry to butt in but it can`t go without noting that this chappy `jumped` to a conclusion about what being created in the image of a god means.




wysiwyg, you better reread the WHOLE line of thought and keep that quote in its context. This chappy did not jump to any conclusion. 



> Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God.  This means, among other things, that he created us with the capacity for achieving knowledge””knowledge of our environment by way of perception, of other people by way of something like what Thomas Reid calls sympathy, of the past by memory and testimony, of mathematics and logic by reason, of morality, our own mental life, God himself, and much more.[6]  And the above evolutionary account of our origins is compatible with the theistic view that God has created us in his image.[7]   So evolutionary theory taken by itself (without the patina of philosophical naturalism that often accompanies expositions of it) is not as such in tension with the idea that God has created us and our cognitive faculties in such a way that the latter are reliable, that (as the medievals like to say) there is an adequation of intellect to reality.
> 
> But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution.  And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to
> furnish us with mostly true beliefs.




He is saying "According to theistic thought X, Y and Z. But if naturalism is true then A, B and C."


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 December 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> wysiwyg, you better reread the WHOLE line of thought and keep that quote in its context. This chappy did not jump to any conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> He is saying "According to theistic thought X, Y and Z. But if naturalism is true then A, B and C."




Sorry, but since Thomas Reid,mathematics, logic by reason are introduced into the sentence, then `This means` tells me they are his thoughts/interpretation of "created in the image of God" and not a general theistic view. 



> And the above evolutionary account of our origins is compatible with the theistic view that God has created us in his image




This sentence refers to the first paragraph of I The Argument.Even there his `compatible` is subjective.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 December 2007)

> Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God.




Then could this be believed ... "So man created God in his own image, in the image of man created he him; male and female created he them."


----------



## MS+Tradesim (22 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Sorry, but since Thomas Reid,mathematics, logic by reason are introduced into the sentence, then `This means` tells me they are his thoughts/interpretation of "created in the image of God" and not a general theistic view.




This is not just his view, but is the general theistic view as argued for by scholars and philosophers from the three main theistic traditions for centuries and millenia. These traditions, and I'm talking about the thinkers and scholars in the traditions, have always maintained that reason, logic, maths etc flow from the mind of God. On what basis can you possibly claim this is not a general theistic view? Because many street level believers don't use logic and reason? So what? Nor do many street-level non-believers. But attacking a worldview on the basis of inadequacies of populist versions is just a form of straw man burning.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (22 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Then could this be believed ... "So man created God in his own image, in the image of man created he him; male and female created he them."




It could for true for some/many. On the other hand it has no compelling force as an argument except to those who already disbelieve. That thought is not a defeater for rational belief.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> poll questions are poor choices since to be a disbeliever (athiest) or believer you must first know who or what god is and no one does know (beyond reasonabel doubt either way)
> recall a little quote that goes like " it is impossible for a religious person to think logically, because if you are capable of logical thought there is only one conclusion.........the religious will have to guess what that is."



treefrog , I'm guessing the answer is something akin to Vonnegut's quote 

.. "all those who believe in telekinetics, raise my arm"


----------



## bunyip (21 February 2008)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Going by the stats in this survey it would appear that believing in God and trading on the market are polls apart
> 
> How dare you believe in god and make squillions
> 
> ...




Someone buys a stock for 4 and sells it to me for 5. I sell it to you for 6 and you sell it for 7 to someone who keeps it for a month then sells it for 8.
Can you tell me who lost in this situation, because someone else won?

As for the view that creating personal wealth conflicts with being godly....I'm not sure if you hold this view yourself or you were just kidding around.
But many people do hold such a view, and it's completely wrong. Just as it's wrong to let the love of money rule your life to the detriment of all else.


----------



## szandor (21 February 2008)

I find  slightly amusing the relatively high percentage of people know there is a god,no question.Really?So you've obviously got proof then,i'd love to see it


----------



## roland (21 February 2008)

szandor said:


> I find  slightly amusing the relatively high percentage of people know there is a god,no question.Really?So you've obviously got proof then,i'd love to see it




I think that you will also find that this poll would be similar to any poll, where only people that have an interest (dare I say a passion) would bother to respond.

It's a bit like having a complaints department, and also a compliments department in a department store - which department would get the most calls? (even though we know most people are satisfied)


----------



## bunyip (22 February 2008)

szandor said:


> I find  slightly amusing the relatively high percentage of people know there is a god,no question.Really?So you've obviously got proof then,i'd love to see it




Me too. 

If there's a god, then the obvious question is 'How did he or she or it get here in the first place - who or what created this god"?
I once put this question to a man of the cloth, and his answer was "It's not a question of how was God created. God always just 'was'."

Seemed like a pretty hollow sort of answer to me.

Not only do I find it utterly amazing that people, without any proof whatsoever, believe in God. I also find it amazing that otherwise intelligent people can accept as gospel truth some of the outlandish claims and stories that are part of the overall God story.

Take, for example, some of the biblical stories that are fed to kids in Sunday school and in religious instruction at school. 
Jonah and the whale is one of them. 
If my memory serves me correctly, Jonah displeased God in some way, and for his sins was made to live inside a whale for quite some time. Not only would this have killed Jonah, but it would have also killed the whale, since whales are plankton eaters whose stomachs and digestive systems are not equipped for processing humans. Yet both Jonah and the whale emerged unscathed from the experience.

Or the story of Noah's Ark. 
God wanted to wipe out all the sinners of the world, so, being the nice bloke he is, decided to get rid of everyone, sinners or not, by drowning them. Everyone except Noah and his missus (I don't recall if their kids were spared or not). 
All the animals and living creatures of the world were to get the chop as well, except one breeding pair from each species so that they could repopulate the world once God was finished drowning all their mates.
Noah, acting under direct instructions from his boss, God, got busy building a boat called an ark. And once he'd built his boat, his next job was to catch a male and a female of every species of animal and creature, and put them on his boat for safe keeping while God made it rain for 40 days and nights to produce a flood of such magnitude that even the flood stricken residents of Mackay would have been impressed if they'd been around at the time.
We can only guess at the impressive dimensions of a vessel that was large enough to house the hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of animals that were to live on it  for the next 40 days and nights. We can only speculate on the amount of fodder needed to feed these animals. We can only speculate on the great variety of food needed to satisfy the diverse dietary requirements of these animals. We can only speculate on how Noah kept these animals separated so they didn't kill each other.
We can only speculate on how Noah managed to catch them all, feed them all, load them on to his boat, or build the boat in the first place. We can only speculate on how Noah managed to gather all this food, load it on his boat, and store it for safe keeping. Or how he managed the rather large task of feeding the animals their daily rations.
We can only speculate on how, once the flood was over and Noah grounded his boat and released the animals, the animals managed to survive and breed in sufficient numbers to repopulate the world. Seems to me that many animal species would have been killed out immediately, due to lions needing to hunt for their food, etc etc. One single pair of antelopes or zebras wouldn't keep a couple of hungry lions going for too long. And once they were killed, no more zebras or antelopes to repopulate.

Anyway, no need for me to go on.....you get the idea. The whole Noah's Ark story was obviously invented by someone whose policy was 'Never let the truth stand in the way of a good yarn".
The amazing part of all this is that Christians, well some of them anyway, actually believe this far fetched tale. It was told and retold to me as fact when I was a child in Sunday School, and retold to me again by the Christian minister who came to our school every Wednesday for religious instruction classes.
About two years ago on TV, a bunch of Christian believers declared they'd found the remnants of Noah's ark. The TV news reported the story as if it was indisputable fact.


----------



## MRC & Co (22 February 2008)

^^^^^^^^

ha ha, of course you cannot beleive biblical myths!  How about the part of them rewriting the bible to restate what Jesus claims, that he will return to earth in his disciples lifetimes!  Then he didnt, so they rewrote it!

Or the fact that the Romans who were oppressing his people were barely mentioned in the Bible?  Messiah was a term meaning king, worldly king, saviour of the Jews, not some kind of godsend.  Or reading Revelations, Heaven sounds an aweful lot like a GIANT castle!  Who cares what the walls and the gates are made out of?  Isnt that being materialistic?  And couldnt a plane fly over and bomb "heaven"?  Since it appears apparent to me it is on earth but protected by giant walls.  ha ha, WTF.

How about the other books of Judus, Tom etc?  Where did they go?  

Bible is a bunch of hocus pocus, infact, I read that Jesus own brother was a traditional jew and that the immaculate conception was not real.  The battle about Jesus "true" life story between he and who was it? (but apparently Jesus spoke to him from beyond the grave, yet he barely knew Jesus in his human lifetime) raged on and on until Jesus own family lost out and the stories about "jesus life" were circulated.  Read a lot about this out of interest, but a while ago now.

I beleive there is a god out there, but I dont beleive in relgion.  Not that anybody really knows. Just have to try get all the facts and decide for yourself.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 February 2008)

day 1 - let there be light
day 4 (I think) - let there be the sun.  

not very scientific in those days . 
Apparently it was a coincidence that the sun just happened to pop up each day just as god got out of bed with his torch.


----------



## wayneL (22 February 2008)

szandor said:


> I find  slightly amusing the relatively high percentage of people know there is a god,no question.Really?So you've obviously got proof then,i'd love to see it



Supposing you saw _xyz_ occurrence, something which was not witnessed by anyone else and didn't leave any other physical evidence. eg You saw thylacine while bushwalking in Tassie.

You'd know that they still existed, no question, yet you'd have no proof.

I'm not building an argument for or against God, that's up to each individual, but just to show the weakness of that particular argument.

Cheers


----------



## korrupt_1 (22 February 2008)

YES there is.

I asked him to get me out of the $h!t$ and he did a miracle for me


----------



## szandor (22 February 2008)

'Religion' in its many various forms over thousands of years was created by the people in power to control the mass population and its been doing it ever since.Through documentation and other evidence it is believed the bible was written 300 years after jesus' death(thats if he ever existed at all,interstingly jesus is not mentioned by any significant historian of the day,and keep in mind this is a guy that walks on water and performs miracles),which was commissioned to be written by the roman emperor Constantine,it is based on an ancient egyptian religion with a very similiar 'storyline',instead of jesus this character was know as isis,born to a virgin mother,on the 25 th december,killed and resurected etc etc,sound familiar?
 Oh yeah,did i forget to mention that christians believe the world to be 12,000 years old,and that evolution didnt happen?How can intelligent people really believe this rubbish?


----------



## wayneL (22 February 2008)

szandor said:


> 'Religion' in its many various forms over thousands of years was created by the people in power to control the mass population and its been doing it ever since.Through documentation and other evidence it is believed the bible was written 300 years after jesus' death(thats if he ever existed at all,interstingly jesus is not mentioned by any significant historian of the day,and keep in mind this is a guy that walks on water and performs miracles),which was commissioned to be written by the roman emperor Constantine,it is based on an ancient egyptian religion with a very similiar 'storyline',instead of jesus this character was know as isis,born to a virgin mother,on the 25 th december,killed and resurected etc etc,sound familiar?
> Oh yeah,did i forget to mention that christians believe the world to be 12,000 years old,and that evolution didnt happen?How can intelligent people really believe this rubbish?



Agreed, it's tosh.

But you have the dude in the sky meme. There could be another reality nobody has even thought of. Then again there might not. Then again a living cell spontaneously creating itself from mud, sourcing energy, eliminating waste, and procreating, all by chance would seem absurd too if we're really thinking about it.

Both require a leap of faith, your choice.


----------



## Buddy (22 February 2008)

Dont know if this has been said way back in this thread but I cant be bothered trolling back through 40 pages of this thread...................

Of course there is a God. And he/she (God) has a sense of humour. Why else would most of the world's (easy & cheap) oil be located in the middle east? That proves it to me.


----------



## Dukey (22 February 2008)

korrupt_1 said:


> YES there is.
> 
> I asked him to get me out of the $h!t$ and he did a miracle for me




korrupt - care to elaborate on your miracle so we can consider/discuss - or are you just pulling our collective appendages.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> Agreed, it's tosh.
> 
> But you have the dude in the sky meme. There could be another reality nobody has even thought of. Then again there might not. Then again a living cell spontaneously creating itself from mud, sourcing energy, eliminating waste, and procreating, all by chance would seem absurd too if we're really thinking about it.
> 
> Both require a leap of faith, your choice.




I still get a smile when I hear creationists trying to explain the fossil record.


----------



## MRC & Co (22 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> Agreed, it's tosh.
> 
> But you have the dude in the sky meme. There could be another reality nobody has even thought of. Then again there might not. Then again a living cell spontaneously creating itself from mud, sourcing energy, eliminating waste, and procreating, all by chance would seem absurd too if we're really thinking about it.
> 
> Both require a leap of faith, your choice.




Exactly, either way, its a leap of faith.  I like the part on another reality!  I have often thought this too, I mean our "scientists" also find it extremelly hard to explain dark matter, dark energy (can our dimensions even see some of these things?) and what are black holes?  Defy the laws of physics.  I dont think our brain can even really comprehend the Universe and hence there could well be another reality that nobody has even thought of.  Just understanding "space time" blows my mind! 

Szandor, what are you talking about?  Jesus was documented in many other texts of the time.  A lot of gospels that never even made the bible documented him, as do other religeons.  

As for the Roman texts, he would not have been a large figure to them, how many others were crucified at the time?  He was probably one along the road of thousands!  Its not like he was behind the walls, leading the siege rally against Titus and Vespasian!


----------



## bunyip (22 February 2008)

I once spent a few months corresponding by email with a bloke from the Gold Coast. Our correspondence was based on the Forex market, which we both had an interest in and were just starting to trade at the time. Turns out this bloke was something of a religious fanatic, although I didn't know it at first. But like many religious people, he gradually began bringing Christian references into his posts. I challenged some of his beliefs in this area, but as far as I was concerned our main focus remained the Forex market....the religion theme was very much secondary from my perspective. But not from his. His posts became more and more religious and less and less about trading. 
He started questioning my own beliefs about God and religion, asking questions that I considered personal and none of his business. 
Then one day he claimed that he was looking forward to his death, because that would be the beginning of his new life where he'd go up to Heaven and sit at the right hand of God his father, and help him run his kingdom. And that the same privilege could be mine or anyone else's, if we chose to be decent people by acknowledging God as our lord and saviour, and following his teachings in our day to day lives.

So I thought to myself, OK, time to try this bloke out a bit, really challenge his thinking, see if he can come up with any solid argument to support his beliefs.
So I fired off an email to him which read approximately as follows.....

_*Jim - You've stated that you'll be heading for heaven in the next life, where you'll sit beside God and help him run his kingdom. And that I and anyone else who so chooses, can do the same, providing that we commit to a life of declaring God to be our lord and saviour, and living decent day to day lives in accordance with his teachings.
But there's something that puzzles me. In the last several thousand years there must have been millions upon millions of decent people whose lives were so exemplary that they earned God's favour. Presumably (if what you believe is correct) these millions and millions of decent people must already be up there in heaven, helping God to run his kingdom. Now, this poses a couple of interesting questions.
1. Isn't God's 'government' going to be rather cumbersome if there are millions of people on the committee, all putting forward their suggestions?
2. Isn't the place going to be uncomfortably crowded with all those millions of folks living there?
3. With so much competition for God's attention, won't you have trouble getting close enough to him to even manage to say G'day God, let alone advise and consult with him on matters relating to the running of his kingdom?

I'm not trying to offend you here Jim....the above are sincere questions that have been going through my mind, and I really would be interested in hearing your views on this.*_

Maybe Jim thought I was offensive and unworthy of a reply. Or maybe he just didn't have any answers to give me, but didn't want to admit it.
In any event, I never heard from him again.


----------



## wayneL (22 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I still get a smile when I hear creationists trying to explain the fossil record.



Who is a creationist and who is explaining the fossil record? I am simply an inquirer.

I am referring to the very first cell. When you think of what a single cell does to survive, it's very complex. Then you think about this thing duplicating itself. 

How?

I'm interested in answers from one so wise.


----------



## Julia (22 February 2008)

Isn't it possible to be black and white about religion but still agnostic about some sort of spiritual dimension?

I'm completely opposed to organised religion and agree that it exists to (a) provide a means of control by zealous fundamentalists, and (b) provide a sense of structure and meaning for people who need the comfort of thinking there is a defined moral code, and also to stave off the fear of death.
Much nicer to think, like Bunyip's Forex correspondent, that this present existence is just the precursor to something much more wonderful.

But, just as I don't know that there is a God, I also don't know that there isn't.  I wonder about the people who say they do know.  Absolutely understand that they believe.  Not the same as knowing. But to them it is and that's all that matters.

Anyway, I doubt that I'm the only one who has a bet each way.  When I've been in the s**t from time to time, I have been known to mutter "If you're actually there, God, if you can get me out of this, then I will seriously consider believing in you!"

The results of these entreaties have been mixed so I'm no further ahead!


----------



## Sean K (22 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Isn't it possible to be black and white about religion but still agnostic about some sort of spiritual dimension?



It might depend on the semantics in the use of the terms 'religion' and 'spiritualism' Julia. There's probably some cross over in the definitions that encapsulate both concepts.

Spiritualism is certainly part of religion, but perhaps ‘religion’ doesn’t necessarily have to be part of an individual’s understanding of their spiritualism. It’s certainly not part of mine. 

Fundamental belief in any religion, lock stock and barrel, is bunk as far as I’m concerned. Quite profoundly idiotic, actually. (IMHO of course) 

Perhaps you need to make up a decent definition of spiritualism? 

But, from what I understand of the concepts, I'd have to say yes to your question.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> Who is a creationist and who is explaining the fossil record? I am simply an inquirer.
> 
> I am referring to the very first cell. When you think of what a single cell does to survive, it's very complex. Then you think about this thing duplicating itself.
> 
> ...



Wayne if you're not a creationist, then the comment wasn't directed at you. 

btw, So long as you don't say that
a)  the "creationism-bible-version" and
b) 'evolution' (including the idea that we are all "flukes of the universe, no less tan the trees and the stars") ..

are "leaps of faith" of equal magnitude.


----------



## roland (22 February 2008)

Can the belief in God co-exist with a belief in evolution? 

From a scientific evidence point of view, there certainly is a very good argument for the evolution of humans from what we term as cavemen, or Neandethals.

I suppose we could ignore trying to work with unrealistic time frames like "God created the world in 7 days" (maybe to God, a day is really a lot longer). Maybe the "7 days" could be more like a few million years, measured in our terms.

If God created the first male (Adam from the bible) in his own image, and we do believe in evolution i.e. evolving from apes - then what does that make God to be?


----------



## peric1 (22 February 2008)

God exists if you want him to exist...it may be that the notion of a God is actually just a figment of your imagination, who really knows?
Do i believe that a God exists? Yes
Why? because i really dont think we are on this planet for a joy ride to create the evils that we do and then just die. We all have our own place on earth and the sooner people become accepting of themselves, then they can become accepting of others...maybe thats what everyone actually needs to do in order to find God, actually accept themselves before they are able to accept others, including a God
i will admit that at this point in time i really dont care about religion so much, but i still find that a lot of my own beliefs do find their roots in christian teachings...but i guess this is to be expected being raised a catholic right?


----------



## bunyip (22 February 2008)

roland said:


> Can the belief in God co-exist with a belief in evolution?
> 
> From a scientific evidence point of view, there certainly is a very good argument for the evolution of humans from what we term as cavemen, or Neandethals.
> 
> ...




No no no Roland....not 7 days. Such was God's capacity for hard work that he needed just 6 days to complete the job, then on the 7th day he had a spell.


----------



## roland (22 February 2008)

peric1 said:


> God exists if you want him to exist...it may be that the notion of a God is actually just a figment of your imagination, who really knows?
> Do i believe that a God exists? Yes
> Why? because i really dont think we are on this planet for a joy ride to create the evils that we do and then just die. We all have our own place on earth and the sooner people become accepting of themselves, then they can become accepting of others...maybe thats what everyone actually needs to do in order to find God, actually accept themselves before they are able to accept others, including a God
> i will admit that at this point in time i really dont care about religion so much, but i still find that a lot of my own beliefs do find their roots in christian teachings...but i guess this is to be expected being raised a catholic right?




This is actually a very good take on the subject peric1. I think the biggest problem are the organisations, individuals, companies etc. that are using religion and the belief (or fear if you don't believe) in God to facilitate their own desires for wealth or power.

I guess it depends on how you define God. If God is a being that sits above the earth and keeps an eye on what's going on like in the movies - then I think that is extremely hard to believe.

Way back when God was something that really affected our lives, like the Sun or some other natural things that made our crops grow, or influenced our environment or climate - then one would want to believe and give thanks when things were rosey - God then was very believable - and you could even see "him"

We even used to have many Gods, almost one for every variable in our lives, how many did the ancient Greeks or Egyptians have?

If you define God as a belief, then of course God exists. Trying to disprove or prove a belief or an individuals thought (call it imagination if you like) is hopeless.

God is going to be different to each and every individual. People, organisations, companies, churches or religious fanatics who try to quantify God using someone elses thought, belief, rule, written word, law or whatever will, in my opinion, most likely be wrong.


----------



## bunyip (22 February 2008)

constable said:


> lol, bit like the tassie tiger, the yeti, bunyips and pixies at the bottom of my garden!




Hey - steady on there Constable......you're not seriously casting doubt on the existence of bunyips, I hope!

I know at least one bunyip who is very much alive!


----------



## roland (22 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> Hey - steady on there Constable......you're not seriously casting doubt on the existence of bunyips, I hope!
> 
> I know at least one bunyip who is very much alive!




isn't a bunyip something that falls from the trees in the dead of night whilst you are camping in the bush, making a hell of a thump and scaring you to death ?


----------



## wayneL (22 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne if you're not a creationist, then the comment wasn't directed at you.
> 
> btw, So long as you don't say that
> a)  the "creationism-bible-version" and
> ...




I've heard some pretty fanciful theories from the scientific community from time to time.

But people of your ilk continue to pound "creationism-bible-version" in your argument against any open minded seekers of truth. While you people do that, the argument is disingenuous, as there are very few (if any) young earth creationists involved in the discussion.

It is, dare I say, a straw man of monumental proportions.

We all know the agenda of religion is one thing, but serious discussion on the topic of the origins of life is quite another, While muppets continue to blur the two concepts, it is impossible to take evolutionists seriously in any genuine discussion. 

Their's seems to be an emotional, rather than scientific imperative. The argument technique and urgency to proselytize is telling.


----------



## roland (22 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> I've heard some pretty fanciful theories from the scientific community from time to time.
> 
> But people of your ilk continue to pound "creationism-bible-version" in your argument against any open minded seekers of truth. While you people do that, the argument is disingenuous, as there are very few (if any) young earth creationists involved in the discussion.
> 
> ...





Wow wayneL, either I am pretty stupid - or you are expressing yourself on a level that most here would have trouble understanding. Like  me, there are probably others that are just 4th form (year 10 I think they call it now).

From the tone of the response I am assuming you are disagreeing with the quote you provided ?????


----------



## bunyip (22 February 2008)

roland said:


> isn't a bunyip something that falls from the trees in the dead of night whilst you are camping in the bush, making a hell of a thump and scaring you to death ?




In aboriginal legend, a Bunyip is a frightening creature that inhabits billabongs and can be heard moaning in a most spine-chilling manner in the dead of the night. No way would any of the old style aboriginals go near a billabong or water hole of any description after dark.


----------



## roland (22 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> In aboriginal legend, a Bunyip is a frightening creature that inhabits billabongs and can be heard moaning in a most spine-chilling manner in the dead of the night. No way would any of the old style aboriginals go near a billabong or water hole of any description after dark.




Your wife or girlfriend must be suffering from lack of sleep or have the fortitude of a seasoned bear trader!


----------



## wayneL (22 February 2008)

roland said:


> *From the tone of the response I am assuming you are disagreeing with the quote you provided ?????*




Not in and of itself, but in the context it was used. i.e To regress the argument to Science vs The Bible.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 February 2008)

talking about strawman arguments 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist


----------



## bunyip (22 February 2008)

roland said:


> Your wife or girlfriend must be suffering from lack of sleep or have the fortitude of a seasoned bear trader!




My wife doesn't lose any sleep on account of my moaning in the dead of night. Matter of fact she's usually the cause of it!


----------



## wayneL (22 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> talking about strawman arguments
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist



And how is this relevant to the current discussion?

It ain't! Nobody here is arguing for creationism as per the definition above.

Now FFS, stop cluttering up the thread with irrelevancies!


----------



## Sean K (23 February 2008)

Unfortunately, I miss a lot of the sparring these days because I can't see all the posts, and the time zone sucks....


I ask this VERY serious question however.....

Has ANYONE held up 'God', yet........

No one......

No, you cannot hold up God, you can only provide a concept, or a 'belief'. This is not even 'understanding', because an 'understanding' requires evidentiary proof. In fact, there are now so many different variations and manifestations of God, that to say there is 'a GOD' is monumentally absurd. 

This discussion needs to go down another line I suspect.

Why do we need to ‘create’ a God?

That is the question, worth answering, IMVHO.

And, this will lead us to our God...


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2008)

kennas said:


> Unfortunately, I miss a lot of the sparring these days because I can't see all the posts, and the time zone sucks....
> 
> 
> I ask this VERY serious question however.....
> ...




Many eastern philosophies say that "Is there a God" is entirely the wrong question. 

Lao Tzu basically says; forget trying to figure all that crap out, just concentrate on your own mind/actions.

That is certainly more useful.


----------



## bunyip (23 February 2008)

kennas said:


> Unfortunately, I miss a lot of the sparring these days because I can't see all the posts, and the time zone sucks....
> 
> 
> Why do we need to ‘create’ a God?
> ...





Why do we need to 'create' a god? We don't need to at all, but some people just can't seem to understand this. 
We need to create a belief in ourselves so that we can make our own way in life, make our own choices, choose our own actions. A belief in ourselves can give us considerable fortitude in times of trouble, it can be our biggest ally when the chips are down. By believing in ourselves we can make considerable progress in life in our chosen endeavours and pursuits.
If a belief in a Christian God was an essential prerequisite to achievement, then Christians would be the only people who ever achieve anything of note.
Obviously there are many people of different religions, as well as many with no religion, who have made noteworthy achievements in their lives.

I do, however, see one very clear advantage of Christianity, in that its ten commandments lay out some firm rules for living a life of decency and integrity, with due consideration for others. If every person on this planet was to live his or her life in accordance with these rules, the world would be a much better place. Crime would disappear, it'd be safe to walk around our cities again, even at night, even if you were female, nobody would ever break into your house or try to pinch you wife or husband, wars would cease. And so on and so on.
It's never going to happen, of course. But wouldn't it be nice if it did!


----------



## roland (23 February 2008)

Any guesses, or statistical facts on what percentage of the world believes in God?

For something that may or may not exist there is one hell of a following.


----------



## bunyip (23 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> Many eastern philosophies say that "Is there a God" is entirely the wrong question.
> 
> Lao Tzu basically says; forget trying to figure all that crap out, just concentrate on your own mind/actions.
> 
> That is certainly more useful.




My thoughts exactly.

Never heard of Lao Tzu. Clearly he's a practical man of considerable intelligence. 

I'll do a Google on him, see what information I can dig up. Anyone with that level of common sense is worthy of further investigation.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

Why do we believe in God
and why do we need to believe in God. 
This one from post #171 or #172. 
It's a "feel good" thing.

And sure some people end up in a predicament where they are stronger because of their religion - or conversely would be weaker without it - doesn't mean to say it is right.  Simply shows that the human mind is susceptible to suggestion, even self-hypnosis - and with a pack mentality needs "big Alpha". (imo)

 Proof for Creator is in Creation 



> ...
> 1. people of your ilk continue to pound "creationism-bible-version"
> 2. in your argument against any open minded seekers of truth. While you people do that, the argument is disingenuous, as there are very few (if any) young earth creationists involved in the discussion.
> 
> ...




1. I don't pound it - I simply mention and respond to the fact that 50% of Americans believe in this young earth creationism.  Hell don't shoot me I'm only the messenger.  That's alarming surely. (probably partly explains why we get interested in who is gonna lead the US into the next 4 years). 

2. I think over the course of this thread I have looked at this thing from as many different directions as anyone else.  I used to be an altar boy- (for chissake? - lol).  Had to gong the bell 3 times with the "holy, gong, holy, gong, holy, gong - heaven and earth are full of thy glory" stuff.   

3. I won't argue with you that the agendas of religion are many and varied.  

4. And I won't argue with you that "it is impossible to take (young earth) creationists (oops)  seriously in any genuine discussion". 
Trouble is that 50% of Americans believe in it.  - And (the good news) there is thread around here that found that in Aus, we are much more enlightened.  

Why do Americans believe adamantly in the God-of-the-Bible-word-for-word?  That has to come down to some sense of denial.


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2008)

bunyip said:


> My thoughts exactly.
> 
> Never heard of Lao Tzu. Clearly he's a practical man of considerable intelligence.
> 
> I'll do a Google on him, see what information I can dig up. Anyone with that level of common sense is worthy of further investigation.



Writer of the Tao Te Ching. It's not known whether he was one person, or a composite.

Taoism has of course formed itself into a religion with various sects, but I like what I call "philosophical" Taoism, viz, the Tao Te Ching. So full of wisdom and common sense, yet at the same time, enigmatic. This way, each will take away what makes sense to him/her and probably something completely different to the next person. There is no doctrine, it's totally cool IMO.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

By the way, back there I guessed that (whereas 50% of Americans might believe in young-earth-creationism) the number in Aus would be less than 5%.  In fact it was 5.4% - I admit I was wrong.   



			
				MS+Tradesim said:
			
		

> Dawkins is about as convincing as Hovind. Why is that so surprising? Do you have a prior commitment to Dawkins?





			
				2020 said:
			
		

> MS, I'd be amazed if more than 5% of people around here agreed with you that Dawkins and Hovind are equally convincing.




Just as long as we agree that Hovind (#171 or #172) and the "Kiwi banana man" are off with the pixies.  
- stockguru's post #513 also refers. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230584&highlight=hovind#post230584

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8203&highlight=evolution


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=163052&highlight=scientists#post163052

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230439&highlight=hovind#post230439

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=163105&highlight=bananas#post163105

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=156100&highlight=bananas#post156100

PS I meant to say #771 not #171 back there - apologies.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

I guess we can give our own reasons why we are religious, or agnostic, or atheist etc. Then there are some real gems out there in youtube-land. 

Not sure if anyone has heard DOUGLAS ADAMS being interviewed - such a funny bloke (Author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).   Turns out that Dawkins switched him from Agnosticism to Atheism.  He explains why he is the latter rather than opt for the "wishy washy option" (in his words) of being an Agnostic (or a wishy washy Anglican for that matter).  

 DOUGLAS ADAMS: AMERICAN ATHEIST INTERVIEW 

When Adams died young, in 2001, Dawkins gave this eulogy for his friend (who incidentally had introduced him to his wife).



> "I once interviewed Douglas on television , for a programme I was making on my own love affair with science. I ended up by asking him “What is it about science that really gets your blood running?” , And here is what he said , again impromptu, and all the more passionate for that.





> “The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity and richness and strangeness that is absolutely awesome.  I mean the idea that such complexity can arise not only out of such simplicity , but probably absolutely out of nothing, is the most fabulous extraordinary idea.  And once you get some kind of inkling of how that might have happened – it’s just wonderful.  And… the opportunity to spend 70 or 80 years of your life in such a universe is time well spent as far as I am concerned”





> That last sentence of course has a tragic ring for us now. It has been our privilege to know a man whose capacity to make the best of a full lifespan was as great as was his charm and his humour and his sheer intelligence.  If ever a man understood what a magnificent place the world is, it was Douglas.  And if ever a man left it a better place for his existence, it was Douglas.  If would have been nice if he’d given us the full 70 or 80 years.  But by God we got our money’s worth from the 49!.




:topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CziXZEoPg3c&feature=related  Douglas Adams - 1/6  (set of 6 - not that I've seen em all)  
amusing stuff for a rainy day


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

Yet another look at Pantheism - you'd be in good company 
Einstein, Hawking, Sagan  

http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm?gclid=CKblzK2J2pECFQ2QggodbSmLeA



> Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.
> 
> So what's the difference between atheism and pantheism? Pantheism adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives  on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement. It's a form of spirituality that is totally compatible with science. Indeed, since science is our best way of exploring the Universe, respect for the scientific method and fascination with the discoveries of science are an integral part of World Pantheism.
> 
> ...



Pantheist Atheists:-


> Lucretius
> [To Venus as Nature, mother of all things:]
> You alone govern the nature of things. Without you nothing emerges
> into the light of day,
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> Who is a creationist and who is explaining the fossil record? I am simply an inquirer.
> 
> I am referring to the very first cell. When you think of what a single cell does to survive, it's very complex. Then you think about this thing duplicating itself.
> 
> ...



https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=85175&highlight=zoan#post85175

Of all my distant relations, First was the miracle son,
I get to exercise 10 zillion body cells, Proto the Zoan had one; 
Funny how fashions have shifted, Proto you son of a gun, 
He didn’t get to have one raw emotion, I write strange ditties for fun 

(ps "FFS" omitted because it adds nothing to most polite conversations) 
http://mcwdn.org/Animals/Ameba.html


----------



## roland (23 February 2008)

Hey 2020hindsite, not meaning to be disrespectful - but you are tending to be overtaking this forum with copying quotes and references from all over the net.

How about your own opinions rather than inundating us with quotes from all over the internet.

Would really love to hear what's on your mind - most of us are pretty good with Google as well.


----------



## Julia (23 February 2008)

roland said:


> Hey 2020hindsite, not meaning to be disrespectful - but you are tending to be overtaking this forum with copying quotes and references from all over the net.
> 
> How about your own opinions rather than inundating us with quotes from all over the internet.
> 
> Would really love to hear what's on your mind - most of us are pretty good with Google as well.



Completely agree.  

2020.  You actually stopped this for about a week and it was bliss to be able to read through a thread without having to scroll down through endless U-tube video pictures.  I've in the past asked if you would be kind enough to just post a reference to any U-tube video you think is relevant (?) so we can at least choose whether or not to click on that link.  

As Roland says, we are all reasonably able to decide what we want to look up via Google or U-Tube and your constant force feeding is really irritating, especially when some of it at least is less than relevant to the actual topic being discussed.

I'm sorry if you find this request offensive.  That's not my intention.
But I am really pleading with you to stop cluttering up otherwise interesting threads with all this stuff.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

roland said:


> Hey 2020hindsite, not meaning to be disrespectful - but you are tending to be overtaking this forum with copying quotes and references from all over the net.
> 
> How about your own opinions rather than inundating us with quotes from all over the internet.
> 
> Would really love to hear what's on your mind - most of us are pretty good with Google as well.



Roland, You're not being disrespectable m8 
I have given them before ( we are up to post #800 odd lol), can't expect you to check back. 

Here's a poem I wrote pretty much sums it up.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=82450&highlight=christian#post82450

Let's say I'm a pantheist - fancy word (in my case) for a lover of Mother Nature - where you get your Words worth   Made a point of checking out Lakes District in UK when I was there many years back now. 
"And I have felt a presence that disturbs me with the joy of elevated thought".  

I really liked that website I just found for "World Pantheism". (I'm also learning all the time ok? - I also enjoyed hearing Dougals Adams - and agreed with most of what he said - if I hadn't've agreed I'd probably have said so).

Followers include Sagan, Hawking , even Einstein etc - good enough for them good enough for me. 

Einstein is often misquoted btw as being religious o rrather that he believes in God.  - but he has clarified specifically that he does not believe in God as such, unless God is loosely used for Nature / merging into laws of physics etc. 

On social front, that website on Pantheism acknowledges that people get strength from religion- and merges a bit of "religion" with atheism - (you'd have to read that post) - to get the best of both worlds. 

Religious commandments? I just wish there was more emphasis on "lead me not into temptation" and less on "forgive us our trespasses".  Leads to mountains of hypocrisy if you ask me.  I believe that "an honest woman is the noblest work of "god", and an honest man is a close second".  Let the ladies come first as they say 

I believe Jesus lived, gave some great gigs up on the Mount etc - made a lot of sense with the principle of forgiveness.  Trouble is only the Amish seem to practice his teachings if you ask me.  More chance of an atheist following Jesus teachings than Fred Nile if you ask me. 

And sure I believe people get strength from religion - the moslem prisoners were the most difficult to brainwash in Korean war days (so we were told in the Army anyways lol- then again we were told a heap of bull**** as well). 

I happily use a concept of Heaven to comfort someone who has lost a relative etc. Heck if they believ in it you'd be cruel not to encourage them in that moment of grieving.  But I have nil zilch expectation of actually ending up in Heaven - or Hell for that matter.    Heaven is now here on Earth imo.

I initially thought that religion was responsible for most of the wars, but having started a thread to investigate exactly that i.e. the cause of many wars, I probably reckon it's at most 50%.  Still, some present wars that would "go away" without the concept of "my god is better than yours" might include the Israel / Palestinian situation, Pakistan / India hostilities that flare up every now and again - Irish situation - where the UK army used to get warservice credits for service on home soil!! . Although the origins to the rish situation are religion, they go back such a long way that you'd have to say it's probably cultural these days I guess.

Certainly I'm very symapthetic to Dawkins - prodigious author, speaks in understandable terms, fantastic educator,   Professor for Public Education in Science or whatever -  who is trying to educate the USA away from the Adam and Eve thingo - "meme" or whatever, although I notice that Dawkins doesn't like the term meme much now.   The US Bible Belt - and indeed right across the USA have decided to go backwards on the science education vs religion thing.  And it doesn't look good for the world's biggest superpower to be dumbing down like that.  (imo).  

Watch this if you're interested in that lead.   check out from the 4m30s mark to the end (8m 50s).  They believe they came from Adam and Eve.    
 

I can't stand Hovind.  I love Carl Sagan.  I can't stand the ridiculous nonsense that the bible gives ideas about use of the pill, and condoms - hence imo the Pope is directly responsible for massive man and woman-slaughter (if not damned nearly murder).   Likewise homophobia allegedly found in the pages of the Bible.  - absolute bs imo. 

Extremism in the moslem faith has obviously gone off the deep end, what with people thinking they blow themselves up and end up with 70 odd virgins in heaven forever sheesh.  

I spent many years in Asia , and I have a saffron Buddhist robe round here somewhere (and the odd poem yet again) .  Tons of respect for Buddhists - until they start branding some kid the reincarnation of some Super Duper Dalai Lama etc etc 

But as for loving nature ... I sure do, always have 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=90703&highlight=jaywalk#post90703



> Don’t follow me, I'm lost,
> Especially when I stand in ferns, Just where the creekbed gurgling turns, The soulfood that my heart so yearns
> And I am left engrossed.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Completely agree.
> 
> I'm sorry if you find this request offensive.  That's not my intention.
> But I am really pleading with you to stop cluttering up otherwise interesting threads with all this stuff.



Julia try reading that bit about Pantheism. 
Imagine I specially posted it for you, ok?
Knowing as how you can't get youtubes etc .


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

Joe, 
Julia doesn't like scrolling down past embedded youtubes.
Do we have your permission to give a simple one line link to a youtube?
Or do you prefer the full embedment. ?  thanks


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Roland, You're not being disrespectable m8
> I have given them before ( we are up to post #800 odd lol), blah blah blah



What folks are saying 2020 (I think) is that they want a diversity of views, rather than wading through a great bulk of one persons view.

For instance, your definition of pantheism is very narrow. It is actually a broad church and encompasses such religious systems as hinduism and shintoism (I believe), as well as the non theistic version.

Also, attaching great names to the school of thought does nothing to add credibility. Einstein for instance has had his whole body of work shot to pieces by later scientists... and who know if they are even right? All that does is engender people to follow others thought, instead of some original thinking of their own.

A lot of people now call themselves atheists based on smart guy Dawkin's writings. Followers? What makes them different to the "faithful"?

Diverse views spark genuine thinking and lead people to find their own truth... and grant then that ferchrissake instead of trying to "sell" them on Dawkinsite atheism. He is just a searcher like all of us. His truth might not be the truth. I for one think he's an outright tosser, no better than Hovind.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

well I just found that website - as posted back there - 
- it is well worth a read. imo. 

http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm?gclid=CKblzK2J2pECFQ2QggodbSmLeA
it's called "world pantheism". 
It's a very loosely defined "religion". 


> Pantheism adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives  on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement. It's a form of spirituality that is totally compatible with science. Indeed, since science is our best way of exploring the Universe, respect for the scientific method and fascination with the discoveries of science are an integral part of World Pantheism.


----------



## roland (23 February 2008)

I think the topic is too broad anyway. It brings in religion, creation, meaning of life, evolution etc


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 February 2008)

> Watch this if you're interested in that lead. check out from the 4m30s mark to the end (8m 50s). They believe they came from Adam and Eve.




Well, we have few choices as to how human came to being.Fob James shows wisdom beyond his years 
	

		
			
		

		
	





	

		
			
		

		
	
 and his ego gets a warm rub from the audience as he exposes his (no not genitals  ) small mind.


----------



## roland (23 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well I just found that website - as posted back there -
> - it is well worth a read. imo.
> 
> http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm?gclid=CKblzK2J2pECFQ2QggodbSmLeA
> ...




There you go again 2020, copying websites again. I'm out of here, let me know when you have some of your own thoughts and opinions to post and I'll have a look.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

roland said:


> There you go again 2020, copying websites again. I'm out of here, let me know when you have some of your own thoughts and opinions to post and I'll have a look.




roland  pppft
lemme try this in monosyllables
try 
looking 
back 
to 
post 
#849

and don't do what seems to be becoming a common problem i.e. 
...responding to the last post only


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

petervan said:


> If I could nominate a GOD I would nominate 2020hindsight for his contribution to this thread, Is there a GOD. Mate I just love your tireless work.You,ve got my vote



thanks peter lol


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> thanks peter lol



Now you're a Bronte clone?

OMG, that was literally nearly 500 posts ago!!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> Now you're a Bronte clone?
> 
> OMG, that was literally nearly 500 posts ago!!!!




well I needed some support lol
and I've got a good memory for compliments 

to be honest I was searching for old posts to refer to - and found that - but no biggie 

I was really searching for this one
there are 10^21 stars out there (accoding to NASA)
 that means that for a full moon - (just went out to check - I get enthusiastic ok?) 
about the size of your little fingernail at arms length 
that behind that small moon / fingernail there are 

guess ! 
a) 15 million stars (about)
b) 15 billion stars (ditto)
c) 15 trillion stars... ?

try 
d) 15 thousand million million (15E15) stars !

And each of them has many planets say 6 times that again. (all these numbers very rough) 
and that just behind one little fingernail. !

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970115.html

PS I personally think that NASA really mean planets when they say stars - but heck as if it makes any difference to the point lol

and we have the gall to suggest that Earth is somehow the only one that "God is interested in"
 absolute ...mmm not-very clever - if you ask me. : 2twocents

PS Area of sphere = 4.pi.r^2
radius arms length about 600mm
area of moon or fingernail about 10x10mm - say 8mmx8mm square to be conservative

ps g'day Bronte


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

roland]How about your own opinions rather than inundating us with quotes from all over the internet[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=wayneL said:


> 1. What folks are saying 2020 (I think) is that they want a diversity of views, rather than wading through a great bulk of one persons view
> 
> 2. ...your definition of pantheism is very narrow. It is actually a broad church and encompasses such religious systems as hinduism and shintoism (I believe), as well as the non theistic version.
> 
> ...




1. I think you'll find you misquote roland there, in that he complained I hadn't given my opinion. 

2. ...ok - I made it clear that the title was not the important thing, but if you prefer I'll call myself a "naturalistic paganist", (one of the alias's given), who happens to believe all that stuff written on World Pantheism. 

3. "attaching great names to the school of thought does nothing to add credibility."   tough call - I think you'll find that less than 5% agree with you (who is more credible that Sagan pray tell)

4. "Einstein for instance has had his whole body of work shot to pieces by later scientists... "  maybe I can agree with your point 4 , but this point 3 just isn't true - certainly not "his whole body etc".  His relativity holds up to any criticism as far as I know.  Just that he couldn't sort out the microstuff - nor a unified equation.  And he was wrong about quantum mechanics, when he said "god doesn't roll dice for instance".  
The sort of stuff discussed here (not that I've read or understand it all)
http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

Heck we are talking about arguments which are not likely to affect this argument about God. - pure conjecture as it is. 

I repeat (for emphasis and to avoid this becoming an argument of who knows more physics that the other, or who guesses the correct person to quote) "we are talking about arguments which are not likely to affect this argument".  

But just playing around there with that topic .. 



> Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory : more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa



Douglas Adams (funny dude - youtube back there somewhere) says that the answer is "42" - then explains "now to work out the question".  - And he adds " Quantum Mechanics states that you can't know both the question and the answer.  

Heisenberg on Schrodinger's Wave Theory: "What Schrödinger writes about the visualisability of his theory [...] is crap."  

I'm sure Schrodinger is equally complimentary in his comments on Heisenberg. 

5. "and who know if they are even right? All that does is engender people to follow others thought, instead of some original thinking of their own."  I disagree - sorry Wayne, but I am more likely to be influenced by Sagan than I am by you. 

6. "What makes them different to the "faithful"?  ok They are "thinking discerning faithful."  If the others  are also "thinking discerning faithful" , then no probs. (eg Archbishop of Canterbury as you posted once  - a youtube in conversation with Dawkins you'll recall - indeed where you complimented Dawkins I believe) . - just as long as they 
a) agree that they are going beyond what can be proven, or alternatively 
b) offering that proof for review.  

7. I would say that Dawkins hasn't even been read by most before they cross him off as atheist extremist.  Sure he has expressed it pretty forcefully in the God Delusion - probably offended the 1.5% of people who believe the old testament - but he's right on every (important) thing he says as far as I can see.  There's a thread out there where noone can fault him on anything major (yet) - Although recently I think I posted something on that thread where I disagreed with him. 

8. "He is just a searcher like all of us. His truth might not be the truth. I for one think he's an outright tosser, no better than Hovind."  Here we go with the personal insults again .   I suggest that if there was a science competition between him on the one hand - and you , me, Hovind, and everyone else on this chatroom put together on the other - and we dicussed anything about evolution or the science behind religion - then I know where my money would be.  Tell you what , I'd be going short on our team lol.  

In conclusion here's the typical stuff that Einstein and Heisenberg argued about.
Now I may be wrong, but I don't think that it is gonna affect any of us here - nor what we believe about whiether we want to take a large or a small leap of faith on the question of an imagined god


----------



## Julia (24 February 2008)

And then there's Benny Hinn, a true servant of The Lord, I guess.
 Here's an extract from today's 'Sunday Mail'.

"Prosperous pastor Benny Hinn flew into Brisbane a multimillionnaire.  He left, 28 hours and three shows later, an estimated $800,000 richer.

The Queensland capital was a goldmine for the flamboyant televangelist who left with cash, cheques and the bank account and credit card details of more than 50,000 Australian fans.  Some attendees, who travelled from as far away as Hong Kong and Perth, handed over gold earrings and wedding rings instead of cash.

......

He travelled aboard his $36 million Gulfstream jet to Auckland, part of a 27 stop world tour expected to generate more than $10 million.
The 105,000 Australians who attended Pastor Hinn's shows in 1998 were believed to have donated more than $1 million.  Brisbane attendees at his February 15 and 16 shows were urged to give as much as $10,000 each.  Conservative estimates place the Australian donations, minus merchandise sales, at $800,000.

Pastor Hinn says he is accountable to God and authorities which oversee not-for-profit organisations.

........."

Pretty sad when people are so desperate they can be taken in by charlatans like this.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

Julia said:


> The Queensland capital was a goldmine for the flamboyant televangelist who left with cash, cheques and the bank account and credit card details of more than 50,000 Australian fans.  ...
> 
> He travelled aboard his $36 million Gulfstream jet to Auckland, part of a 27 stop world tour expected to generate more than $10 million.
> 
> ...




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=221846&highlight=televangelists#post221846


> no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people




yep Dawkins nailed it again 

Ps If he is accountable to God, I wonder who audits the accounts?


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

Roland - 
You needn't respond to the homework you set me back there lol ( repeating what had already been posted) 
(although it would be courteous) 

But , hey, stretch your mind to try to visualise this one ..



2020hindsight said:


> there are 10^21 stars out there (according to NASA)
> - that means that for a full moon - about the size of your little fingernail at arms length -
> that behind that small moon / fingernail there are
> 15 thousand million million (15E15) stars !
> ...




15,000,000,000,000,000 stars !
maybe
90,000,000,000,000,000 planets !

just behind the full moon. !

btw, is that 90 pentillion?


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

Another way to think about this (sheesh)

Let's say a human hair is 0.1mm diameter
hold it at arm's length (say 600mm) - 
look at the end of the hair ( area = 0.0078mm^2)

Then if there are 1E21 stars in a sphere (assuming equally distributed - exceedingly approx)

Then the area of said sphere is (4 x 3.142 x 600^2) = 4.52 million mm^2

Then (on average) behind that single hair 

there are  (1E21 / 4,520,000 * 0.0078) = 

1,700,000,000,000 stars !
maybe
10,000,000,000,000 planets !
(10 quadrillion planets)

just behind that single strand of hair !

the mind boggles.  (E&OE ) 

PS for all you people who complain, I contend that this is on topic.


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 3. "attaching great names to the school of thought does nothing to add credibility."   tough call - I think you'll find that less than 5% agree with you (who is more credible that Sagan pray tell)



This is the only point worthy of address amongst the irrelevant waffle/\

I'm happy to be in a 5% minority, because 95% of people are followers. This is why religious systems started in the first place, Christainity, Islam, Buddhism.... Atheism. Sagan, though obviously intelligent and eloquent, is still subject to emotional and cognitive biases which guides all of our decision making.

The only truly intelligent position is agnosticism, as the agnostic is open to further discussion. Outright Atheism, ah la Dawkins, is emotionally based. We see that very clearly with his emotional outbursts and disingenuous and faulty logic at times. We see that with you too and your overzealous and irrelevant (by continuously focusing on new earth creationism) posting on the matter, a case of "He doth protest too much".

It's like you're trying to prove it to yourself.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> This is the only point worthy of address amongst the irrelevant waffle/\
> 
> I'm happy to be in a 5% minority, because 95% of people are followers. This is why religious systems started in the first place, Christainity, Islam, Buddhism.... Atheism. Sagan, though obviously intelligent and eloquent, is still subject to emotional and cognitive biases which guides all of our decision making.
> 
> ...




Wayne you have yet to fault Dawkins

You dismiss Sagan out of hand (yet elsewhere you praise him) 

you are all over the place like a dog's breakfast 

and if you don't mind - please give me some examples of the faulty logic of my arguments


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne you have yet to fault Dawkins
> 
> You dismiss Sagan out of hand (yet elsewhere you praise him)
> 
> ...



/\This very post is faulty logic, as it is inaccurate. Also in the monumental straw man argument that young earth creationism is somehow relevant to the current discussion. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy, therefore faulty.

Baboom.


----------



## Julia (24 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne you have yet to fault Dawkins




Oh, for heaven's sake, 2020, in just his previous post, Wayne clearly stated the objection he has to Dawkins.  And that's not to mention perfectly clearly outlined objections in previous posts.


----------



## imaginator (24 February 2008)

Yes there is a God, and he is alive in you as your Higher Self. I'm not a Christian, but a Buddhist who studied Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism and Buddhism.

William Blake said "God is man awake(enlightened about his true nature), Man is God asleep(the eastern concept of ignorance of one's true nature)".

The bible is an analogy. Adam the generic man fell asleep in Eden (the land of eternity) and he dreams. That is the fall of man from being Gods and turned into man (5 senses man). So man as Adam dreams the dreams of life (refer The Matrix & Truman Show).

We are all our own god in our life. Whatever we believe we can achieve, we achieve. Whatever we say we can't achieve, we can't. Also comes the power of our mind to manifest things (see "The Secret") which furthers proves that man has within him the creative spark of God, the power of his own thoughts.

God is not a person. You are part of god, and he is in you learning and experiencing your life experiences. One day you may look at your life and be aware that whatever experience you had, you attracted it with your creative power of your own thoughts, and actions. One day in our search for God we will realise that God is actually the nearer than near, He is Us. In within us. Our true nature of pure potentiality. In the scripture, God told Moses, "my name is "I AM". Who says I am? You. Me. Everyone. 

Circumstances are the creatures of man. Man is not the creature of circumstances.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 February 2008)

imaginator said:


> The bible is an analogy. Adam the generic man fell asleep in Eden (the land of eternity) and he dreams. That is the fall of man from being Gods and turned into man (5 senses man). So man as Adam dreams the dreams of life




Hi, found your thoughts interesting but when reading this paragraph I thought immediately of the old and powerful saying from one of those Eastern religions :- 

No dreams, only dreaming.

However this :- 


> One day you may look at your life and be aware that whatever experience you had, you attracted it with your creative power of your own thoughts, and actions.




I have heard and read this "you attract experiences" many times and cannot align any experiences that i have attracted.I think it`s an unfounded and unproved teaching.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> /\This very post is faulty logic, as it is inaccurate. Also in the monumental straw man argument that young earth creationism is somehow relevant to the current discussion. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy, therefore faulty.
> 
> Baboom.




lemme see 
I think you are saying you dont respect Sagan yes?


----------



## imaginator (24 February 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi, found your thoughts interesting but when reading this paragraph I thought immediately of the old and powerful saying from one of those Eastern religions :-
> 
> No dreams, only dreaming.
> 
> ...




Hi 
Well probably you have not been paying much attention to your thoughts, or have not experiemented with creating/attracting something into your life after you start to think about it consistently and believe you are going to get it. (refer "THink and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill, or "The Secret" or "Power of Your Subconscious Mind" by Joseph Murphy) You can buy these books from amazon.com. You should try it, because it is something you will not believe if you have not noticed it yourself or done it deliberately before. I only believe it after I keep on experimenting with it for about 10 years. The first few times you succeed in this experiment, you will jump with joy (and try to tell everyone it's amazing and it's true and how they should watch "the Secret" dvd or read Think and Grow Rich etc). 

On a lighter side, Have you ever suddenly thought about someone and meeting them in the most unexpected place/time or get an unexpected phone call from them? Have you ever thought about something and wanting to tell it to a friend, and only have your friend suggest the same thing to you, but without you actually telling them?

This world/life we live in has a dreamlike quality from the perspective of our Higher Self(god) who is dreaming it. Hence, the creative powers of your thoughts to create/attract/manifest.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 February 2008)

Thanks imaginator, I respect your belief.

A while back i came to an understanding that my thoughts were just a life time accumulation of other peoples thoughts ... rearranged.

I`m off, take care.


----------



## imaginator (25 February 2008)

Also, I forgot to mention that God should be a god of experience, instead of a god of hearsay, theory, teaching or ritual. God is the existence of the universe and you, the very core of existence itself, therefore to know God is to be able to experience god. We experience God by being the god of our own life and creator of our own circumstances.

 When we start to think good, feel good, and do good, our life changes into good. That is "Sow and ye shall reap" in Christianity or karma taught in Hinduism and Buddhism. Karma is in effect teaching us, you create what you give out, because you are a creator of your own experience.


----------



## wayneL (25 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> lemme see
> I think you are saying you dont respect Sagan yes?



2020,

You seem to have trouble with English comprehension.

Would please quote my most recent comment re Sagan, and analyze the same. In your own words, explain how you came to this conclusion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> 2020,  You seem to have trouble with English comprehension.
> 
> Would please quote my most recent comment re Sagan, and analyze the same. In your own words, explain how you came to this conclusion.




yes , but you say he is emotive ( and me - thanks for the compliment of putting me in the came category).

and then you say you are prepared to ignore him when it comes to your own "philosophy". (and that we should (DYOR).  I would consider listening to him excellent research. 

If we are talking about the philosophy that Hamlet refers to in the line "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy Horatio", 

then it's all very well for some of us to guess at a god - just so long as we accept (until proven otherwise) that this god exists in our minds , and only in our minds. 

And for me, if I listen to those elegant and fantastically inspiring docos of "Cosmos" - (or Attenborough for that matter) - touching as they do on so many aspects of God / Nature / whatever - and consistent with my experiences thus far whether in life or in the microscopic bit of scientific study I've had compared to him / them

and if I hear Sagan even as he was dying of cancer still constant with his theme that the Heavens are real, but Heaven is clearly a fairly ridiculous optimistic guess

then not only do I happily believe what he says 
but I would be a foolish hypocrite to believe something else that was significantly inconsistent with what he says (that's just my opinion). 

And that goes for Sir David Attenborough
and others.  

(PS At the risk of getting you off track with strawman etc - you are the only one mentioning creationism here at least for the last 10 posts approx btw - converserley Hovind can easily be shown to be an idiot).


----------



## wayneL (25 February 2008)

Don't fob the question 2020, answer it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 February 2008)

PS YOu say I make a strawman argument
and constantly refer to creationism.

Here's proff that you are indeed doing this.

In post #849 I reply to Roland request to outline what I think on the matter.  Part from one comment that I dislike Hovind (in a fairly long post I thnik you'll agree) - I don;t mention creationism ( on a quick re-read of same.

HAVING SAID THAT.
I don;t see how you can say that the bible and t's versions of creation are irrelevant to a discussion of God - WHETHER OR NOT I mentioned them in the last 20 posts.    Surely Bibles and religions and gods are linked -!  somewhere - some would say almost synonyms ! 




> Don't fob the question 2020, answer it.



Since I don;t know the question , (apart from the miriad answers that I've given - and by the way the fact that you ignore 7 of the 8 points I detailed back there on your post (which because you are a mod I am not permitted to say "please answer mine" - maybe if I add "sir" might help ?

I'll just say  

42 lol


----------



## wayneL (25 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS YOu say I make a strawman argument
> and constantly refer to creationism.
> 
> Here's proff that you are indeed doing this.
> ...




You're wriggling 2020, evasion via verbosity. Let's hear an answer.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 February 2008)

I post this at the risk of boring everyone stupid.
It's an attempt to find out how a simple post about pantheism ended up a guessing game about what the question is to some minor matter in some post.   If you wish just cut to the chase i.e. the last bit. 

Wayne, in reply I find this a very weird argument. You seem to want to argue about minor points in an argument , trees if you like, but imo you are missing the wood.



			
				2020 said:
			
		

> Yet another look at Pantheism - you'd be in good company
> Einstein, Hawking, Sagan
> http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm...FQ2QggodbSmLeA





			
				roland said:
			
		

> 2020, ...Would really love to hear what's on your mind -





			
				2020 said:
			
		

> I really liked that website I just found for "World Pantheism". (I'm also learning all the time ok?)  Followers include Sagan, Hawking , even Einstein etc - good enough for them good enough for me.





			
				wayne said:
			
		

> Also, attaching great names to the school of thought does nothing to add credibility. ..... All that does is engender people to follow others thought, instead of some original thinking of their own.





			
				2020 said:
			
		

> 3. "attaching great names to the school of thought does nothing to add credibility." tough call - I think you'll find that less than 5% agree with you (who is more credible that Sagan pray tell)





			
				wayne said:
			
		

> I'm happy to be in a 5% minority, because 95% of people are followers. ..... Sagan, though obviously intelligent and eloquent, is still subject to emotional and cognitive biases which guides all of our decision making.





			
				2020 said:
			
		

> You dismiss Sagan out of hand (yet elsewhere you praise him)





			
				wayne said:
			
		

> This very post is faulty logic, as it is inaccurate. Also in the monumental straw man argument




well one of us is using straw man argument thas for sure 



			
				2020 said:
			
		

> I think you are saying you dont respect Sagan yes?





			
				wayne said:
			
		

> Would please quote my most recent comment re Sagan, and analyze the same. In your own words, explain how you came to this conclusion





			
				2020 said:
			
		

> you say you are prepared to ignore him when it comes to your own "philosophy". (and that we should (DYOR). I would consider listening to him excellent research.





			
				wayne said:
			
		

> Don't fob the question 2020, answer it.




Not sure I know which question - unless it's a pretty trivial one of my allegedly misquoting Wayne maybe ? somewhow? 

Anyway
I still think Sagan is excellent research.
If you think I misquoted you - then we can agree to disagree.
If you don't like World Pantheism - then we strongly disagree.


The good news end of this post ( as far as I'm concerned anyway). 
I would happily spend the rest of my life pursueing scientific truth on this matter - and trying to avoid too many leaps of faith.   This is not to say I won;t keep an open mind - but I want to try to stick with facts.  And there are trillions of them I don't know and hope to one day. 


Here are a few of the "members' of this "loosely defined and totally informal religion".

They meet at science symposiums etc  
And based on what I've seen , David Attenborough and the late Douglas Adams. (who I still think is one funny dude).


----------



## Julia (25 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I post this at the risk of boring everyone stupid.



Hmm, just might be a bit late for that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Hmm, just might be a bit late for that.




Guess we have the choice of your rapier wit Julia
or the beautifully expressed wisdom of Sagan 



> A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
> Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.




PS I seem to have screwed up the link that website (in the recent post). This is the correct one 
http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm?gclid=CKblzK2J2pECFQ2QggodbSmLeA

PS And Julia , my religion 
"*World Pantheism, Revering the Universe, Caring for Nature, Celibrating LIfe*." 
- gee I like that concept.


----------



## wayneL (25 February 2008)

20

The point is, that you misrepresent what I say for your own ends (whatever that is). While you do that, it is a semantical pissing contest rather than a genuine discussion. You even hoist yourself by your own petard in the lengthy and pointless and confused post #881 , and don't even realise it. 

My referring you back to a seemingly trivial point is to see whether I could drag the discussion on a relevant track. Alas, no. Instead you chose to indulge in very amateur verbal card tricks. (You know the type, so clumsily done that everyone can see how you've done it... rolled eyes all round).

Meanwhile everyone else who would like to add some very sensible points get pissed off and tunes out.

I'm going to make a very strong suggestion that you have had your say on what thinking you have chosen to follow, and to let somebody else have a go. Maybe we could get the likes of Imaginator and Wysiwyg back.


----------



## wayneL (25 February 2008)

imaginator said:


> Yes there is a God, and he is alive in you as your Higher Self. I'm not a Christian, but a Buddhist who studied Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism and Buddhism.
> 
> William Blake said "God is man awake(enlightened about his true nature), Man is God asleep(the eastern concept of ignorance of one's true nature)".
> 
> ...




That was a very cool and interesting post Imaginator. I'm sure many would love to hear more of your views. I would.


----------



## imaginator (25 February 2008)

Thanks Wayne!

If you are interested, read books by Neville Goddard. You can find his book in Amazon. His writings deal with using imagination to create/attract/manifest/change circumstances and about scripture inner meanings.

Peace be with you!


----------



## Julia (25 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Guess we have the choice of your rapier wit Julia
> or the beautifully expressed wisdom of Sagan



No wit involved, 2020.
I was completely serious.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 February 2008)

Julia said:


> No wit involved, 2020.
> I was completely serious.



I could (smilingly) agree with you


----------



## spooly74 (2 March 2008)

*Synthetic life 'advance' reported *



> An important step has been taken in the quest to create a synthetic lifeform.
> 
> A US team reports in Science magazine how it built the entire DNA code of a common bacterium in the laboratory using blocks of genetic material.
> 
> ...




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7203186.stm

It would seem that we are not too far away from creating new life in the lab.
The argument for 'science cannot explain life' ..... therfore there must be a GOD will need some tweaking now, although this advance will lend itself nicely to the ID argument . . . . back on the merry-go-round.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 March 2008)

good one spooly 
This article similar - from last October (same topic - in fact linked) 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7041353.stm


> The race to create life version 2.0 is under way.
> And rumours abound that closest to the finish line in constructing a lifeform in the laboratory is US genome-entrepreneur Craig Venter's research team.
> 
> The J Craig Venter Institute scientists are aiming to craft a "minimal genome"- the smallest group of genes an organism needs to survive and function - and insert it into an empty cell.
> ...




They don't claim to be there just yet but ...:-



> But building life from scratch, .. is a challenge that some synthetic biologists have decided to take on.
> 
> If you can build the biological parts, they argue, then creating something that meets the criteria for life - has a metabolism, replicates and evolves - is surely the next step.




PS Kirt Vonnegut quote (I think) :- 
Making life in a lab is easy - Just give me an attractive lab assistant.   

PS mankind has spent the great majority of his evolutionary history as bacteria.


----------



## noirua (2 March 2008)

Someone said "there is no god, but the fear of no god".


----------



## spooly74 (2 March 2008)

noirua said:


> Someone said "there is no god, but the fear of no god".




Depends on what your beliefs offer.

I grew up being told that an eternity in the kingdom of heaven awaits.
Now I don`t know if it`s an eternity with all my friends and fam, or an eternity bathing beauties in paradise, but eternity as a concept scares me.


----------



## skint (2 March 2008)

LOL
I haven't had the time to look in on the ASF religion, politics etc.. threads of late. Surprise, surprise when I do, I find 20/20 and Julia are still at it. "You two, if I have to stop the car..!"


----------



## Julia (2 March 2008)

skint said:


> LOL
> I haven't had the time to look in on the ASF religion, politics etc.. threads of late. Surprise, surprise when I do, I find 20/20 and Julia are still at it. "You two, if I have to stop the car..!"




Hello Skint,
Actually, I think at present we are being quite restrained!  Perhaps you need to read back a few pages more.

Thanks for the funny mental picture.  I'm sure 2020 doesn't fancy being stuck in the back of a car on a long journey with me any more than I do with him.  But, on the other hand, with you as a referee, Skint..........


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 March 2008)

Thanks for the funny mental picture.  I'm sure 2020 doesn't fancy being stuck in the back of a car on a long journey with me any more than I do with him.  But, on the other hand, with you as a referee, Skint..........[/QUOTE]
I spy with my lill eye, something beginning with God!

Hey dad - whadda we want ICECREAM !
whendawewantit? - NOW!


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 March 2008)

imaginator said:


> Hi
> Well probably you have not been paying much attention to your thoughts, or have not experiemented with creating/attracting something into your life after you start to think about it consistently and believe you are going to get it.




Yes imaginator, of course i do every day.My intention to make things happen (*within my sphere of control*) is not through attraction but a conscious decision to do so.My will.My need.My desire.



> On a lighter side, Have you ever suddenly thought about someone and meeting them in the most unexpected place/time or get an unexpected phone call from them? Have you ever thought about something and wanting to tell it to a friend, and only have your friend suggest the same thing to you, but without you actually telling them?




Yes there has been a coincidence or two and this is another parlour trick the alternative thinking crowd have.I say this because i have been through the new age stage of seminars, courses, tapes, books and mind fuxxx and am dam sceptical of the whole scene.What they don`t tell you is you only get what you want if other people let you.

So all the nice thoughts, plans , wishes and goals mean nothing when someone, family, group or system determines the outcome.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 March 2008)

I agree wys, 
someone who believes in god might say "anything we believe we can do, we CAN do, with Gods's help".

someone who believes in the power of the mind might say "anything we believe we can do, we CAN do".

(not much difference at the end of the day I guess, but was God necessary?)

Some 'religions' can teach you to meditate, sometimes with special mantra given you by some long haired bloke.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi
Harvard Uni investigated all such meditation techniques - called it "the Relaxation Response" - and the only mantra you need is some easy repetitive word like "one" 

(equally christians might use "lamb of god" etc)


----------



## imaginator (3 March 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes imaginator, of course i do every day.My intention to make things happen (*within my sphere of control*) is not through attraction but a conscious decision to do so.My will.My need.My desire.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




WYSIWYG,

Hi no we cannot mentally force someone to do something. You cannot force someone to give you money, their house etc. But usually the intention is very important. Your higher self almost always disallows you to use such influence for lesser purposes. It is your inner conscience guiding you.

But if your conscience is good behind the intent, then coupled with the right method you can do some things such as making people like you, or having an outcome you desire. Eg, once I wanted to rent a room for $215 including bills to a student, when he came, he bargained to $190 and said he wants to share the bill with me. Due to time constraint, I agreed, which I later regretted. But for a few nights i stated my clear intent(to myself) that he should pay his fare share of rent. 3 days later when he came to sign the contract, he said "There is something i need to tell you. Can I pay you $215 including bills?" puzzled, i asked him why, he said his mum told him he should! So he did what I originally intended him to.

Another case many years ago when I came to Sydney to look for a job, I intended to have $55,000 salary. But at that time i was only making $35,000 in Melbourne, most of the Sydney job agents told me the highest I can get "in the market" was $40,000 - 45,000. But for many days I intended  $55,000 at a minimum I would accept. One day while planting this thought and intention in my visualisation time, I felt the thought getting stronger and suddenly I felt a sense of release, and a strange knowing that "it is done". The next day I was so eager and positively waiting for phone call. At 11am the call came from a Sydney agent saying he wanted to arrange an interview. So the next week I went to Sydney for 4 days just for interviews. During the 4 days I kept visualising the agent congratulating me on the phone saying "congratulations, he would like to offer you $55,000". I never told this agent I wanted $55,000, I only told him above $50,000. At the end of the 4 days, he called me saying a company is willing to offer me, and asked me how much I wanted. I said "at least $50,000" now thinking my original $55 may be really too high. But he called back 2 minutes later saying the same words I heard in my mind "Congratulations, he would like to offer you more than $50,000. He wants to give you $55,000.Coincidence you still think for him to offer me what I originally intended and visualised everynight and think it is his own idea?

If it were coincidence, I wouldn't be able to repeat it. But I did repeat it, not once, but in fact 2 times! Last year I was only earning $60,000, and I wanted a job that pays me at least $80,000+super. I went to interviews and one of the director offered me $60,000 on the spot. I was unimpressed and said i will think about it as another company was offering me $66,000 already. He then said "Ok how about $66,000". Feeling even more unimpressed by his low offers, I said "i will think about it" again. The next day I rejected his offers via the agent. The agent called me again the next day saying "I must be the last person on earth you are expecting a call from" (since I rejected his offer the day before). He said "I have instructions from that director to get you into his office no matter what. Name your offer." Again I was reluctant to, thinking if their opening offer was $60,000, they surely can't afford $80,000. But that evening, another call from the agent said "ok this is their best proposal for you. $80,000 + super. And another gift bonus of $5000 if you sign the agreement."

ANOTHER COINCIDENCE? I didn't tell him my original intention of $80,000 + super and he offered me thinking it's his own idea.

I did it again this year, with a $90,000 + super(I got it as I intended AGAIN), while most offices were offering me $80,000, and the market was only $70,000. They gave me $90,000, even the recruitment agent was surprised!

The thing is, if you apply for it and think your skills is not worth $x anyway, then you can't get it for sure in reality. But what I did was, although the market was only offering $70,000 for people of my years of experience, I had the confidence in my skill and contribution at the back of my mind, and attract the company who needed someone like me and my skill and who can pay me what I want.

So Mind can influence minds on a subjective mental level. Ideas are flowing at the level of subconscious and it passes from one to another, the other picks it up and if the supply and demand matches them, they will act accordingly thinking it is their own idea. But all the while you know you are the one who originated that thought intent.

I'm sure I cannot go to any company I choose consciously and make them offer me a job and salary of $xyz, if they have no need for my skills. But I can with my intended outcome get what I want, from who? I don;t know, mind will arrange for me.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 August 2008)

wayneL]  Suppose for a brief moment that there is a Christian God. If he gave humans a sense of humour said:


> Lol, God's sense of humour .  what an interesting topic
> If he made us in his likeness, then why not?
> If we made him in our likeness, then again, why not?
> 
> ...




 Arj Barker - Great Debate - Does God Have a Sense of Humour

so - "Moses burns up the desert in his triumph" ? - kosha ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 August 2008)

http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/bible/articles/humor.html



> Does God Laugh?. The answer is yes. He Laughs. But not as expected.
> 
> "But You, O Lord, shall laugh at them; You shall have all the nations in derision." Psalms 59:8
> 
> ...


----------



## pennywise75 (13 August 2008)

Does the church approve of a life dedicated to trading? is it immoral? honest? evil? 

If i put maybe 10% of profits in the collection tray.. would that save my soul?

If god created us in his own image.. why are we so flawed in design?


----------



## nunthewiser (13 August 2008)

Yes one would think trading falls under the "thy must not covet the neihbours good " act


----------



## creditscore (13 August 2008)

spooly74 said:


> *Synthetic life 'advance' reported *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




good point...we can not prove physically that God exist but we know that God is there..believing is seeing..


----------



## Hatchy (13 August 2008)

3 veiws of a secret said:


> Having watched people die in front of my eyes, there's always that strange moment of aura when the person gasps his last breath. I have always wonder in that final moment of salvation does the person accept his religion and his creator. On a similar vein to think of all the stars in our universe is greater than all grains of sand on earth is a shattering thought as to why are we so special.
> Philosophy is not my strength, but we all have to serve somebody. Everybody lives on HOPE.




You must be in healthcare also - the first time you see someone have their last breath is truly horrendous isn't it? Then it just makes you think a lot more about life and death. I hope I never grow numb to it. Holding the hand of someone who should have more than 25 years left to live as they say "I don't want to die" - and then.... lifelessness, now that's reason to believe life is worth living to the fullest. 

Absolutely as has been said in this thread quite a few times, nobody can prove whether God exists or not.  

I'm not ready to risk that God doesn't exist.


----------



## nunthewiser (13 August 2008)

Hatchy said:


> .
> 
> Absolutely as has been said in this thread quite a few times, nobody can prove whether God exists or not.
> 
> I'm not ready to risk that God doesn't exist.





and that is a fair call ....... i respect that post even tho i have no godly tendencies , at least ya didnt shove the ole god is real crud down my throat , thankyou


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 August 2008)

Hatchy said:


> You must be in healthcare also - the first time you see someone have their last breath is truly horrendous isn't it? Then it just makes you think a lot more about life and death.



repost ...


> I have seen the eyes of dying men, their eyes filled with confusion. I do not think they were asking why they are dying, but why they had ever lived... - who knows where madness lies - perhaps to surrender dreams - maybe too much sanity is madness - but maddest of all - to see life as it is, and not as it should be."
> .. Don Quixote de la Mancha, Knight of the Woeful Countenance,
> .........
> just before he charges the windmill with his shaving basin over his head.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 August 2008)

pennywise75 said:


> If god created us in his own image.. why are we so flawed in design?




Could you be more specific about the flaws in design please?I think mind is faulty in processing information, imagination, memory, observation et cetera.
Am interested to see if the flaws can be defined.

If we observe all other nature it operates on a simple survival process.The strong, fast, camouflaged, cunning, largest and other abilities survive.


----------



## pennywise75 (14 August 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Could you be more specific about the flaws in design please?I think mind is faulty in processing information, imagination, memory, observation et cetera.
> Am interested to see if the flaws can be defined.
> 
> If we observe all other nature it operates on a simple survival process.The strong, fast, camouflaged, cunning, largest and other abilities survive.




Turn the tv on if you want to see a flawed race, death, hate and the Olympics .... and please dont tell me its all just a "test"

I can only think of one species that destroys its habitat rapes the land of it resources, the locust. 

Even the physical...   

we have hair growing on our chest... why?? 
Why do we sleep?

I believe in the Darwin theory to some degree, but this theory doesnt explain everything ... in my view there is room for some sort of higher power.. but i dont think its some white dude that needs a bath and shave 

BUT .. my book of thoughts is never closed and i do not mind being proven wrong 


[/LIST]


----------



## tech/a (14 August 2008)

> If god created us in his own image.




*I think the closer truth is Man created GOD in his own image.*


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 August 2008)

tech/a said:


> *I think the closer truth is Man created GOD in his own image.*




that floored me


----------



## Sean K (14 August 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Could you be more specific about the flaws in design please?



Nine in 10 people will have a back problem.


----------



## Sean K (14 August 2008)

tech/a said:


> *I think the closer truth is Man created GOD in his own image.*



Yes, God with a capital g, is in our image, but that's a relatively modern idea. The pagan gods, from where Yahweh came, were a motley crew, each having various attributes. The oldest of the gods, Apsu and Tiamat - who made all the other gods, were the fresh and salt water. From these Sumarian gods the Babylonian and Assyrian gods developed and eventually developed into the Greek and Roman gods, and we know they are sort of half human and animal. Then check the Egyptian gods. Yahweh became the god of Abraham, over all the other tribes chosen gods in Canaan/Mesopotamia, for unknown reasons, but at the time he was just the god of the sky. Once Abraham made his covernant with Yahweh to honour him and foresake all the other gods, Yahweh then started to develop attributes of all the other gods. One very important aspect that Yahweh took on was the god of war. He became an extremely powerful being and would assist Abraham and later Moses to destroy all in their path. Even still, at this time, the world was pagan, but as the tribes of Israel became more powerful due to the assistance of Yahweh, He (now with a capital H) took on all the other functions of all the others gods. He became the one God! If the Iraelites, coming out of Egypt had have failed in taking Canaan after their 40 years in the Sinai, God knows what we would be worshipping now. Maybe Apollo....

So, God exists, but as a myth originally created by the Sumarians in about the 13th century BC.  

Rant over.


----------



## pennywise75 (14 August 2008)

Question:
should I tell my kids there is no dude dressed in red and white who breaks into familes houses to give them presents?

lying to kids from birth .. isnt that were the rot starts?


----------



## pennywise75 (14 August 2008)

kennas said:


> Yes, God with a capital g, is in our image, but that's a relatively modern idea. The pagan gods, from where Yahweh came, were a motley crew, each having various attributes. The oldest of the gods, Apsu and Tiamat - who made all the other gods, were the fresh and salt water. From these Sumarian gods the Babylonian and Assyrian gods developed and eventually developed into the Greek and Roman gods, and we know they are sort of half human and animal. Then check the Egyptian gods. Yahweh became the god of Abraham, over all the other tribes chosen gods in Canaan/Mesopotamia, for unknown reasons, but at the time he was just the god of the sky. Once Abraham made his covernant with Yahweh to honour him and foresake all the other gods, Yahweh then started to develop attributes of all the other gods. One very important aspect that Yahweh took on was the god of war. He became an extremely powerful being and would assist Abraham and later Moses to destroy all in their path. Even still, at this time, the world was pagan, but as the tribes of Israel became more powerful due to the assistance of Yahweh, He (now with a capital H) took on all the other functions of all the others gods. He became the one God! If the Iraelites, coming out of Egypt had have failed in taking Canaan after their 40 years in the Sinai, God knows what we would be worshipping now. Maybe Apollo....
> 
> So, God exists, but as a myth originally created by the Sumarians in about the 13th century BC.
> 
> Rant over.




I often wonder if all these gods are kinda todays versions of our "super heroes"
Maybe .... someone found an old old version of a comic.. and thought it was real .. then comes a legend

Actully Kennas I would really like to research more about Pegan gods.. where would one start tho?


----------



## CAB SAV (14 August 2008)

As the priest playing a round of golf in the movie "caddyshack" said-
There is no god.
He should watch Hawthorn & see the new messiah- Buddy


----------



## wayneL (14 August 2008)

Well this thread has been resurrected from the dead, surely that is proof of God. :


----------



## tech/a (14 August 2008)

pennywise75 said:


> Question:
> There is no dude dressed in red and white who breaks into familes houses to give them presents?




*Gettt---Outtt!!!*

Kennas Yes I agree Many gods suffered the same fate,Damned if you do damned if you dont!

So I'll alter my observation to.

*I think the closer truth is Man created GOD/S in his own imagination!*


----------



## pennywise75 (14 August 2008)

CAB SAV said:


> As the priest playing a round of golf in the movie "caddyshack" said-
> There is no god.
> He should watch Hawthorn & see the new messiah- Buddy




I thought god was a balding dude who played for the cats ...

"buddys not the Messiah, his just a very naughty boy"


----------



## Sean K (14 August 2008)

pennywise75 said:


> Actully Kennas I would really like to research more about Pegan gods.. where would one start tho?



You can google it and find some good stuff.

The best single source is probably Wikipedia which you could surf around all day, and has some good external links.

Start with the 'Enuma Elis', and then 'Mesopotamian Mythology'.

It'll eventually take you through the entire history of God. 

I've been writing a piece on 'The History of God' at the moment, and it's absolutely fascinating stuff! Be in my blog when I can make an adequate leap as to why Abraham takes Yahweh as his one supreme god. Has something to do with his uncle and the Levite tribe. The Levites liked Yahweh for some reason. And coincidently, Moses is a decendant of the Levites...


----------



## pennywise75 (14 August 2008)

tech/a said:


> *Gettt---Outtt!!!*
> 
> Kennas Yes I agree Many gods suffered the same fate,Damned if you do damned if you dont!
> 
> ...




sorry?


----------



## Sean K (14 August 2008)

tech/a said:


> *I think the closer truth is Man created GOD/S in his own imagination!*



We've got a pretty bloody good imagination too when you look at what we were worshipping 5000 years ago! 

And, maybe moreso now.

I think more gods makes more sence!! 

Although, indigenous people worshipping rocks and trees has me a little bamboozelled.

Perhaps it's just what the gods *represent* that matters!! hmmmmm


----------



## derty (14 August 2008)

If God was a superhero...


----------



## nunthewiser (14 August 2008)

ROFLMAO . ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT hahahahahahahh thankyou very much thats just put a shizzle in me dizzle onya ........


----------



## Sean K (14 August 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> ROFLMAO . ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT hahahahahahahh thankyou very much thats just put a shizzle in me dizzle onya ........



That is sensational.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 August 2008)

If there is a god, it does not use words.

In the beginning we knew little.Some people need hope and faith in their lives and the books provide it.It gives people purpose in their lives.Something to hold onto.Something to defend.Safety in numbers.An occupation.

Nature, seen and unseen, is the reality we need to understand and be harmonious with.


----------



## CoffeeKing (16 August 2008)

Seek and ye shall find for the truth is out there...  

Don't know who said it, do you look for it with your eyes open or close them and search within?

If what your looking for "wants" to be found, then you will find it somewhere.

How much you want to find it depends on how and where you look...???

I think it was "Moses" fault when he broke the 10 commandment tablets


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> If there is a god, it does not use words.
> 
> In the beginning we knew little.Some people need hope and faith in their lives and the books provide it.It gives people purpose in their lives.Something to hold onto.Something to defend.Safety in numbers.An occupation.
> 
> Nature, seen and unseen, is the reality we need to understand and be harmonious with.





All gods fail to alter the psyche of humans.Indigenous people all over the planet did not know of a Christian god and it is only in the last couple of hundred years that a Christian god philosophy has been introduced to many of them.

Their lives remained unchanged for thousands of years.Therefore it is an idea and an idea only.


----------



## weird (3 September 2008)

This is semi-related to this thread, there are a few threads around this topic but this seems to be a current one. Anyhow there are some interesting recorded debates around at the moment, that are worth watching for anyone that is following this. What ever opinion you have, I think it is important to respect each others point of view, and have an open mind.

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

http://media.smh.com.au/?rid=40913&sy=smh&source=undefined


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> If there is a god, it does not use words.
> 
> ... Some people need hope and faith in their lives and the books provide it.It gives people purpose in their lives.Something to hold onto.Something to defend. ...



well we all need a crutch from time to time wys.


----------



## white_crane (3 September 2008)

no.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> no.





Can this be proven?


----------



## CAB SAV (3 September 2008)

Can the believers out there please give me an idea of what their heaven would be like for me.
Here is my profile-
Born at 8.00am died few minutes after delivery.
not christend. Only child, parents went to hell.
How will I spend eternity


----------



## white_crane (3 September 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Can this be proven?




no.

Can it be proven that God does exist?

no.


----------



## LittleMak (3 September 2008)

The only reason people today (or the past) believe in god or jesus is because they are told about it from birth. Just like Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy its all fantasy except people keep believing in god, Jesus, Alah, Buddah etc because others do. 

If somehow you were never told about a god or jesus ever (from birth) would you believe in one....from experience? Even if you did experience something phenomenal would you believe in a god from just somehow knowing or seeing? or is it because you were told that there is a god which created a belief and gives you the only answer and explanation beyond something we will never be able to truely classify, name or understand.

Does a schizophrenic phychopath killer who believes that killing people is the right thing to do, does he/she go to a so called Hell with the devil? even if in his/her world and mind he/she has done nothing wrong? does a so called seperate higher god judge him/her accordingly and punish?


I think we will never know where it all started but all we can do is believe in what we see and experience for ourselves from evidence here and now and not from just stories from the past.

David Attenborough talks about God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Y-5CR-_hw

Human Evolution (Sir David Attenborough)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze_KdWpaA3s&feature=related


LM.


ps. Also check out 'What the Bleep do we know' on DVD.


----------



## wayneL (3 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> no.
> 
> Can you prove that God does exist?
> 
> no.



:sleeping:

I thought we'd progressed past this point in the discussion.

God/whatever can't be proven.

God/whatever can't be disproven.

Ergo, we are all "believers".


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2008)

Genesis 6:11 says ... 



> Gen 6:11  ¶ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.



What has changed nowadays?Much time has passed and they are waiting for a natural catastrophe (as a sign) or the  destruction of the planet through sick mind. 


> Gen 6:12  And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.



Again it is mind.You don`t create a universe and stuff up with one life form.


> Gen 6:13  And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.



What a terrible thought. 


> Gen 6:15  And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
> Gen 6:16  A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.




Now that is reeaallly stretching imagination.Both god saying something like that and the impracticality of an event.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2008)

white_crane said:


> no.
> 
> Can it be proven that God does exist?
> 
> no.



I agree white crane, and I reject any inference that there is equal probability of yes or no. 

i.e. Argument could go like this 
Can we prove that multiple gods exist -  no
Can we prove that multiple gods don't exist -  no
equal probability ?

PS Of course it would have made more sense if that poll came out as follows   :-


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 September 2008)

Can we prove we aren't reincarnated  -  no
Can we prove we are -  no
equal probability ?


----------



## noirua (3 September 2008)

Does it matter whether you believe in God or not?  You end up dead anyway.
Some live short lives, only one day, another maybe 122 years. If you think that you go to heaven because you lived 1 day and not if you did wrong things in 122 years, are you not a fool??????????????


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Can we prove we aren't reincarnated  -  no
> Can we prove we are -  no
> equal probability ?





Highly unlikely 2020.Goes to show you can imagine anything and have many followers.


----------



## wayneL (3 September 2008)

weird said:


> This is semi-related to this thread, there are a few threads around this topic but this seems to be a current one. Anyhow there are some interesting recorded debates around at the moment, that are worth watching for anyone that is following this. What ever opinion you have, I think it is important to respect each others point of view, and have an open mind.
> 
> http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/
> 
> http://media.smh.com.au/?rid=40913&sy=smh&source=undefined




Great watch weird, thanks.

IMO the pro God debaters always kick an own goal and hand victory to Dawkins on a silver platter by arguing for their own "religion" and therefore the biblical model of God.

Easy pickings for someone as intelligent as Dawkins. The "Christian/Jewish/Islamic God is in trouble from the get-go on pure logic grounds, was created my man in his own image, as others have pointed out. Trying to represent the Bible as an accurate historical record is.... well, 
	

		
			
		

		
	






	

		
			
		

		
	
!

I've heard some other cool scientists who could have a worthwhile generic and scientific debate with Dawkins, without quoting Luke whatever:whatever. 

It's kind of annoying for someone like me who rejects the man made God of the bible and wants to be free to consider a host of possibilities.


----------



## Greg71 (3 September 2008)

If reincarnation were true, wouldn't you remember your past lives? $20 invested in the year 1600 would now be worth a bit compounded.


----------



## wayneL (3 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Can we prove we aren't reincarnated  -  no
> Can we prove we are -  no
> equal probability ?



Probability cannot be determined in such a question.


----------



## Pat (3 September 2008)

CAB SAV said:


> Can the believers out there please give me an idea of what their heaven would be like for me.
> Here is my profile-
> Born at 8.00am died few minutes after delivery.
> not christend. Only child, parents went to hell.
> How will I spend eternity



Heaven and Hell... religous BS to me.

Even if there is nothing after death (or before birth) there can still be a god... a creator!



I posted this in another thread... (Big Bang theory and matters astronomical) perhaps science/math will explain all one day 

Regardless, I worship mother nature


----------



## Ilori (3 September 2008)

Just as valid to ask is there an Easter Bunny or a Tooth Fairy 

How come god never turns up when needed? Because he doesn't exist.

How come god never demonstrates a simple miracle to prove he's there? Because he doesn't exist.

How come we need to have "faith" that he exists? Because he doesn't exist - faith (ie. irrational believe) is all they have.

How come "god works in mysterious ways"? Because he doesn't exist - have to find a way to explain unanswered prayers - so they say he's mysterious  Yeah, right - how about "no-one home"?

Why do little children die in unfair ways? Because there is not god! If the believers still claim he exists - then he's a monster. Allowing little children to die is absolutely inconsistent with anything good - two ways to go - god either does not exist OR is a cruel ruthless monster - take your pick.

Certainly we can all be "god fearing" eventhough he doesn't exist - fear because he has caused countless wars and death and destruction over centuries.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Probability cannot be determined in such a question.



ok in the qualitative sense - equal chance ? maybe. 
Imo, the (scientific) case against is stronger than the case for.


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ok in the qualitative sense - equal chance ? maybe.
> Imo, the (scientific) case against is stronger than the case for.



There is no scientific case as god/whatever is specifically excluded from "science", hence there is no methodology devised to test reincarnation.

Ergo, probability of reincarnation is not determinable.

Your opinion is far away from scientific process and far away from open minded inquiry.


----------



## noirua (4 September 2008)

Ilori said:


> Just as valid to ask is there an Easter Bunny or a Tooth Fairy
> How come god never turns up when needed? Because he doesn't exist.
> How come god never demonstrates a simple miracle to prove he's there? Because he doesn't exist.
> How come we need to have "faith" that he exists? Because he doesn't exist - faith (ie. irrational believe) is all they have.
> ...



I suppose, if the existance of God was an absolute certainty everyone would be praying away and doing good deeds, all the time.  What a nonsense that would be?


----------



## Sean K (4 September 2008)

Ilori said:


> Just as valid to ask is there an Easter Bunny or a Tooth Fairy
> 
> How come god never turns up when needed? Because he doesn't exist.
> 
> ...



All nice thoughts, but unfortunately God believers have devised cunning and ingenious answers to all of them, mostly surrounding the concepts of 'free will' and 'faith'. 

An absolute classic believer theory is that the stronger the faith you have the better believer you are. Ergo, if you believe in even the most incredible stories the myth books throw at you (eg, the Earth was made in 6 days, Eve was made from a rib, or there are 200 virgins waiting for you in heaven if you blow yourself, along with a few other random humans, to smitherines) thau shalt definately go to heaven! And, you'll probably even be able to do over a few alter boys before the big man smacks you on the wrist. That's just free will...


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2008)

kennas said:


> ...or there are 200 virgins waiting for you in heaven if you blow yourself, along with a few other random humans, to smitherines) thau shalt definately go to heaven!



I wonder what happens when you've shagged them all? Do you get to keep them, or are they no good now that they're not virgins?

What does a woman get if she blows herself up? 200 virgin guys?


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> There is no scientific case as god/whatever is specifically excluded from "science", hence there is no methodology devised to test reincarnation.
> 
> Ergo, probability of reincarnation is not determinable.
> 
> Your opinion is far away from scientific process and far away from open minded inquiry.




Perhaps you should be directing your concerns to tech/a 
He after all chose the terminology above


> "God's existance is equally probable and improbable"



Whilst it is closer to the mark that knowing for certain that he/she/it does or doesn't exist, I still think the very fact that the "dimensions" of this "God-to-explain-all-the-unknown-things" 

has been steadily decreasing as science expained more and more.  

Heck you can go back to Galileo , but even today, science continues to take back the unknown from religion.   (surely). 

Hence I believe the trend is that God is less probable than he used to be in the time of Galileo  -   and if he was 50-50 then, she is probably 99 - 01 now (imo)


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Perhaps you should be directing your concerns to tech/a
> He after all chose the terminology above
> 
> Whilst it is closer to the mark that knowing for certain that he/she/it does or doesn't exist, I still think the very fact that the "dimensions" of this "God-to-explain-all-the-unknown-things"
> ...



The Biblical *G*od is less probable... probably not probable at all in all probability.

But that says nothing about *g*od. Perhaps science is discovering god and helping to discard the one created in man's image.

Just a non-scientific speculation.


----------



## refined silver (4 September 2008)

Ilori said:


> Just as valid to ask is there an Easter Bunny or a Tooth Fairy .




How come god never turns up when needed? Because he doesn't exist.
 He does. Always.

How come god never demonstrates a simple miracle to prove he's there? Because he doesn't exist.

1. Miracles will never prove to those don't want to believe or follow. Jesus did many miracles yet some towns refused to believe or follow. 
2. When telling the story of the rich man and Lazarus, when the rich man was in hell and wanted to go back and warn his relatives, Abraham told him "they have Moses and the prophets" the rich man persisted "No father Abraham; but if someone goes back from the dead, they will repent." But Abraham said "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets neither will they be persuaded even if one rises from the dead.
3. How many countless prayers to God have been prayed from hospital beds that if God heals them they will follow him. Yet even after healing these prayers are totally forgotten?

How come we need to have "faith" that he exists? Because he doesn't exist - faith (ie. irrational believe) is all they have.
1. It is just as much a faith position that God does not exist (and more irrational). 

How come "god works in mysterious ways"? Because he doesn't exist - have to find a way to explain unanswered prayers - so they say he's mysterious  Yeah, right - how about "no-one home"?

1. Because with a brain the size of an asparin, compared to an Infinite God you are not going to understand why He does everything. 

Why do little children die in unfair ways? Because there is not god! If the believers still claim he exists - then he's a monster. Allowing little children to die is absolutely inconsistent with anything good - two ways to go - god either does not exist OR is a cruel ruthless monster - take your pick.
1. Is it your little child or you just throwing stones?
2. Your logic relies on the assumption that a child that dies is in a worse place. The Bible contradicts this.
3. There is a Day coming when all wrongs will be put right and all evil righted, God has promised. That Day is Judgement Day.

Certainly we can all be "god fearing" eventhough he doesn't exist - fear because he has caused countless wars and death and destruction over centuries
1. In the 20th Century, atheism and secular humanism were the philosophies underlying more death and destruction than any religious philosophies.
2. Hence the ultimate cause of wars is human selfishness, greed, envy, anger and so on. Religion can be a cover for this.


----------



## Sean K (4 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> How come god never turns up when needed? Because he doesn't exist.
> He does. Always.
> 
> How come god never demonstrates a simple miracle to prove he's there? Because he doesn't exist.
> ...



SR, Did you really write this?

The books of the cults of Abraham were written years, nay, centuries after the fact. One was written on the account of an Angel talking to Muhammad in his dreams while delerious hiding in a cave in the desert over years. It was then translated orally to his uncle who put his spin on it. The New Testament, well, I was actually reading it tonight and what a load of bollocks.

Your entire justification for refuting the post are fairytales. 

Just your first point:



refined silver said:


> How come god never turns up when needed? Because he doesn't exist.
> He does. Always.





How, where, when, in what form, what did he say, what did he do, how did he get here? if he was, how was he looking after that child in the Sudan at the same time, my friends dying of cancer didn't meet him after his prays. Why did he save some of the miners trapped in the cave and disregard the others? Divine intervention of course. The ones that died must have been bad Christians, or 'God works in mysterious ways'....righto. Could go until the cows come home....but it's late.

Your response will be, 'it's Gods will', or 'he works in mystereous ways', or 'they forgot to turn up for their cracker every Sunday morning'. etc etc.


----------



## refined silver (4 September 2008)

kennas said:


> SR, Did you really write this?




Hi Kennas, yep, I wrote it.



> The books of the cults of Abraham were written years, nay, centuries after the fact. One was written on the account of an Angel talking to Muhammad in his dreams while delerious hiding in a cave in the desert over years. It was then translated orally to his uncle who put his spin on it.




True, Moses wrote the first five books of Bible, another 39 authors over 1500 years wrote the rest, from shepherds, to kings, across centuries, cultures, and countries. They wrote on history, God, the meaning of life, philosophy, ethics etc. Yet there is One author over the individuals.

The Koran is a very different book, received in very circumstances as you note.



> The New Testament, well, I was actually reading it tonight and what a load of bollocks.




Your call.



> How, where, when, in what form, what did he say, what did he do, how did he get here? if he was, how was he looking after that child in the Sudan at the same time, my friends dying of cancer didn't meet him after his prays. Why did he save some of the miners trapped in the cave and disregard the others? Divine intervention of course. The ones that died must have been bad Christians, or 'God works in mysterious ways'....righto. Could go until the cows come home....but it's late.
> 
> Your response will be, 'it's Gods will', or 'he works in mystereous ways', or 'they forgot to turn up for their cracker every Sunday morning'. etc etc.




Re-read my point about tiny, finite, mortal man trying to argue with or question the Creator who is Infinite in knowledge and wisdom. And also about Judgement Day.

As to the character of this God, can He be trusted, he revealed this most fully in the person of Jesus Christ. Eg. "He who has seen me  has seen the Father". (Jesus speaking). Again its your call whether to trust or not.


----------



## Pat (4 September 2008)

Does the existence, or the nonexistence of god change anything? (presuming we are not aware regardless (this is our present situation)).

There is an episode of Futurama called "Godfellas". By far the best explanation of god's "plan" I have seen. Brilliant IMO.

I urge anyone with a sense or humour to watch it...
http://www.tv.com/futurama/godfellas/episode/125571/summary.html
(can't find the episode )


----------



## Sean K (5 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> True, Moses wrote the first five books of Bible,



Not sure about that one.

Some scholars believe the Old Testament was written over about 10 centuries, between the 12th and 2nd c BC (by memory), and further revised until a final copy hit the printing presses around 4-500AD. 

So, there were probably various writers of all of the books of the Old Testament. The final five books decided to be included as the Pentateuch or Torah, are attributed to four sources, nd the authors labelled; Yahwist (J), the Elohist (E), the Deuteronomist (D) and the Priestly (P) source. The J and E are labelled as such for the way they refer to God, as either Yahweh, or Elohim. I find this interesting because the Elohim around this time are actually a pantheon of gods residing in a town called Ugrit on the coast of modern day Syria, but that's another story.

So, it might have been the story of Moses, but his story was converyed by a number of scribes over a number of years. I daresay some poetic lisence went into it and I damn well hope so.


----------



## Sean K (5 September 2008)

Pat said:


> Does the existence, or the nonexistence of god change anything? (presuming we are not aware regardless (this is our present situation)).



Walk around the Middle East today, or 16th century Spain, with a sign strapped to you saying 'God/Allah does not exist'.

Good luck...


----------



## Kauri (5 September 2008)

I just had a quck chat wit him... and thank G..   it was on Skype... and he showed me what he tought of our ... uummm.. opinions??

Cheers
...........Kauri


----------



## weird (5 September 2008)

Just some random thoughts, let's compare this argument to "Is there a GOD?", to another question, "is the stock market random ?"

Let's say a "Professor" produces this fantastic paper, with supported statistical analysis, or even 'evidence', that supports yes, the market is indeed random. 

Now considering this is a stock market forum, most punters here 'believe' there is possibly an edge that could be obtained, by following FA or TA, or trade management that could beat random.

Okay, lets further add to this, a mate of a mate, has been written up in the "intergalactic trader's advantage", which reports regularly of traders that have beaten the market consistently, millenium after millenium. The funny thing is that regardless of who the trader being written up is, there are soon books or naysayers which bluntly state these results were fabricated, or that there was a particular state in the market at the time, which prospered these results ... heck everyone was rolling in palaces when these guys raked it in.

So, based on this, the market completely random theory ... lets make up our mind - well there is some pretty impressive evidence in that Professor's paper (however I believe another Professor just brought out a paper, with a completely opposite view ... check out Intergalactic Space-craft terminal top bookseller list - everyone is reading it while traveling to the moon, she is also a prestigious uni professor!), but also we have conflicting 'evidence' or stories about some reported individual successful traders (although there are contrary books or reports from others that say these results were completely fabricated or just luck ... heck statistics will support that too).

Heck, I forgot to mention forums ... anyhow make up your mind ... whether because we now live in an "information age", it makes it any easy to have, support, and keep a particular view - I don't know - it certainly makes it easier to rip into everyone else's.


----------



## Pat (5 September 2008)

kennas said:


> Walk around the Middle East today, or 16th century Spain, with a sign strapped to you saying 'God/Allah does not exist'.
> 
> Good luck...



You could say the same about 'the great general' Kim Jong-il and North Korea. Certainly not a heavenly figure there.

I'm just saying that this god/s debate has been going on for... well... ever, and regardless of the outcome nothing will change. If EVERYONE agreed that god does or doesn't exist, or on one god, life, planet earth and the stars remain the same.

Belief in god and religion is just too 'bitter sweet' for me to see any real logic.


----------



## Sean K (5 September 2008)

Pat said:


> You could say the same about 'the great general' Kim Jong-il and North Korea. Certainly not a heavenly figure there.
> 
> I'm just saying that this god/s debate has been going on for... well... ever, and regardless of the outcome nothing will change. If EVERYONE agreed that god does or doesn't exist, or on one god, life, planet earth and the stars remain the same.
> 
> Belief in god and religion is just too 'bitter sweet' for me to see any real logic.



Pat, my point is, that your comment is from a non believer or at least an agnostic, and not a 'true' follower. 

For a great percentage of the planet, life without God would cease to exist. 

Looking into the crystal ball there may well be a day when there is conflict between the believers and non believers to determine our future, and change the shape of moral fundamentals. It may be a bloody fight consuming the world. It's a way off though, God/Allah/Brahma is pretty well entrenched right now.


----------



## Pat (5 September 2008)

kennas said:


> Pat, my point is, that your comment is from a non believer or at least an agnostic, and not a 'true' follower.



Exactly right. I don't follow a religion. God to me.... not sure, I'm open to all positive suggestion. I respect the hand that feeds me.

I still see no logic in religion. To me, Carl Sagan summed it up in the book Contact with Eleanor's (I think thats her name) thoughts on God. (Sorry can't provide quote's, the book is at my mum's ) 



kennas said:


> For a great percentage of the planet, life without God would cease to exist.
> 
> Looking into the crystal ball there may well be a day when there is conflict between the believers and non believers to determine our future, and change the shape of moral fundamentals. It may be a bloody fight consuming the world. It's a way off though, God/Allah/Brahma is pretty well entrenched right now.



Agree that fanatics may 'lose' there will to live, but life goes on. I think society as we know it may cease to exist. I'm yet to be convinced humans are capable of living in peace without any religious input, so I can't say the world would be a better place without belief in God or religion.


----------



## refined silver (5 September 2008)

> kennas said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure about that one.
> ...


----------



## motorway (5 September 2008)

Interesting comment in

http://www.worldscibooks.com/economics/5819.html

You can download chapter 1
which this is from..



> 3. Overconfidence and irrationality
> “Extensive evidence shows that people are overconfident in their judgments” (Barberis and
> Thaler, 2003). From entropy law, any biological system, as a non-equilibrium system, faces
> constant dissipation of energy. Endless efforts are required to maintain a non-equilibrium system.
> ...


----------



## refined silver (5 September 2008)

motorway said:


> Interesting comment in
> 
> http://www.worldscibooks.com/economics/5819.html
> 
> ...




Hi motorway,

That's actually spot on. 

If you start with totally naturalistic pre-suppositions, ie that we are only a product of time, chance and matter, these are the conclusions you must come to. Most people don't realise how stark the choice is.


----------



## Sean K (5 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> Again, same story, liberal scholars, not because of evidence but because of their presuppositions, using the flimsiest of evidence come up with the 4 source Yahwist (Y), Elohist (E), (D) and (P) theories. Much recent archeological  and literary research totally undercuts many of the arguments used against Moses authorship of the first 5 books.



Ok, your 'recent archeological and literary research' absolutley trumps my 'some scholars'. Case closed.

There is actually no archeological evidence that proves a few hundred thousand people trampled across the Sinai following Moses. Nada. Not even a clay pot. 

Only Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews hold on to this myth. And anyone else indoctrinated at an early enough age, that they refuse to see logic. 

I'm not sure if you've read any historical books on the subject, other than the bible, but I can recommend one, The History of God, by Karen Armstrong. Yes, I'm logic bashing. I'm sorry.


----------



## tcoates (5 September 2008)

Is there a God?

I honestly do not think that you will really determine an answer here. 

Is there a God? (31,000,000 search results from Google)
Does God exist? (831000 search results)

For those of a religious background, the answer is Yes. For those that who are not, the answer would be Yes/No/Maybe.

We live in a scientific age, where people want some scientific proof of existence. Articles from one commentator or another won't (?) convert another persons beliefs. Just as much as you might shout NO, there are others (like David123) who will shout YES. So I won't try and covert you either 

Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith it a personal, investigative decision for each one of us - a matter of faith (or not).

Tim


----------



## jonojpsg (5 September 2008)

kennas said:


> Ok, your 'recent archeological and literary research' absolutley trumps my 'some scholars'. Case closed.
> 
> There is actually no archeological evidence that proves a few hundred thousand people trampled across the Sinai following Moses. Nada. Not even a clay pot.
> 
> ...




Hey kennas, 
couple of points - first, there wouldn't necessarily be archaelogical evidence of a couple of hundred thousand people tramping across the Sinai if they were tramping the whole time?  Don't know anything really about archeology though 

and second, even if there wasn't evidence that Moses led the Jews across the Sinai, this still doesn't effect his authorship of the Pentateuch.


----------



## fimmwolf (5 September 2008)

> Originally posted by imajica
> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.





 +1

I couldn't phrase that better if I tried.


----------



## Sean K (5 September 2008)

jonojpsg said:


> Hey kennas,
> couple of points - first, there wouldn't necessarily be archaelogical evidence of a couple of hundred thousand people tramping across the Sinai if they were tramping the whole time?  Don't know anything really about archeology though
> 
> and second, even if there wasn't evidence that Moses led the Jews across the Sinai, this still doesn't effect his authorship of the Pentateuch.



I'm not sure if they just tramped for 40 years. I don't know anything about archeology either, just what I've seen on Indiana Jones... lol

Remember also, they were chased by most the entire population of Egypt according to Exodus, I think. I few million extra tramping...

Yep, he could have written it all, there's no difinitive answer, you just have to make your own judgement on the available information. 

Some of the things he says happened in the books make me question their authenticity. That's my judgement.


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2008)

tcoates said:


> For those of a religious background, the answer is Yes. For those that who are not, the answer would be Yes/No/Maybe.
> 
> We live in a scientific age, where people want some scientific proof of existence. Articles from one commentator or another won't (?) convert another persons beliefs. Just as much as you might shout NO, there are others (like David123) who will shout YES. So I won't try and covert you either
> 
> ...



The big problem I have with the debate is that on one side we have folks trying to prove/have faith in the Biblical style God, and on the other, folks who believe science disproves the Biblical style God. (in western society anyway)

I think as far as the Biblical Style God goes, the atheists have it in a cakewalk.

But... we humans tend to polarize ourselves in debate and disregard the infinite number of possibilities in between. There are emotional reasons for this. We humans make emotional decisions and then enlist logic to back up our decision.

Removing the emotion (guilt, hurt, fear, whatever) as much as possible, leaves the mind to consider all sorts of possibilities. The LHC at CERN is a massive opportunity to learn new stuff about the creation of the universe (not said in the religious sense) and cause a new evolution of thought, in whichever direction the person wants to take it.

The potential of CERN is in reinforcing my own particular take on things. i.e. a "natural god" absolutely unlike anything in the "scriptures".

OPEN MINDS - it's exciting!


----------



## Sean K (5 September 2008)

> Originally posted by imajica
> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.






fimmwolf said:


> +1
> 
> I couldn't phrase that better if I tried.



There is another theory about belief in supernatural beings, gods, and why we form religion that I've been reading about recently and it's an evolutionary adaption theory. I've been writing some stuff on it, but it's on my own computer back home.

It's very difficult to summarise, but this news piece is a good start:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## refined silver (5 September 2008)

kennas said:


> I'm not sure if you've read any historical books on the subject, other than the bible, but I can recommend one, The History of God, by Karen Armstrong. Yes, I'm logic bashing. I'm sorry.




Yes, I've read historical books on the subject but not hers. Why not? When you totally disagree with someone's premises, of course you will disagree with their conclusions.

Armstrong follows modern liberal "comparative religions" theory which suggests all religions evolved from common source, and all ideas of "god" are simply human projections from the culture of that time. She gathers data to support her theories and rejects any which contradict. She is an ultra-liberal  member of the Jesus Seminars who totally reject the biblical picture of Jesus, and have regular seminars to make a "Jesus" in their own image, voting on which bits of the gospels they think authentic or not. Of course this changes as fashions change. She also denies the Bible teaches any clear theology or relevant ethics. Of course 1000s of scholars would strongly disagree with her views, her evidence and her conclusions.

Read her if you like, but don't pretend she is the only word or the authoritative word on the subject.


----------



## Sean K (5 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> Yes, I've read historical books on the subject but not hers. Why not? When you totally disagree with someone's premises, of course you will disagree with their conclusions.
> 
> Armstrong follows modern liberal "comparative religions" theory which suggests all religions evolved from common source, and all ideas of "god" are simply human projections from the culture of that time. She gathers data to support her theories and rejects any which contradict. She is an ultra-liberal  member of the Jesus Seminars who totally reject the biblical picture of Jesus, and have regular seminars to make a "Jesus" in their own image, voting on which bits of the gospels they think authentic or not. Of course this changes as fashions change. She also denies the Bible teaches any clear theology or relevant ethics. Of course 1000s of scholars would strongly disagree with her views, her evidence and her conclusions.
> 
> Read her if you like, but don't pretend she is the only word or the authoritative word on the subject.



Of course many people who have blind faith will disregard a scholary historical account on the history of the idea of God.  



> When you totally disagree with someone's premises, of course you will disagree with their conclusions.



I'll read anything on the subject to not close myself off to the potential factual truth. 



> Of course 1000s of scholars would strongly disagree with her views, her evidence and her conclusions.



Well, we can add Refined Silver as one. Got a seconder?


----------



## refined silver (6 September 2008)

> kennas said:
> 
> 
> > I'll read anything on the subject to not close myself off to the potential factual truth.
> ...


----------



## Sean K (6 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> > If you want research, evidence and facts, try "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison. As an agnostic as well as a lawyer and journalist, he set out to disprove the historicity of the Resurrection by a thorohttps://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gifugh investigation of all the the evidence, non biblical included, he was forced to the opposite conclusion.
> >
> > Kennas, you actually seem unaware of the evangelicals vs liberals divide in biblical, theological, and historical scholarship. Both sides have scores of PhDs, run multitudes of their own scholarly journals, run university depatments and faculties, and so on.
> >
> ...


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

In drunken stupor, i've come to the conclusion, any debate regarding god or similar, is illogical, or at least the logic in doing so is flawed.


----------



## Sean K (6 September 2008)

Pat said:


> In drunken stupor, i've come to the conclusion, any debate regarding god or similar, is illogical, or at least the logic in doing so is flawed.



God is the logic to describe the illogical.


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2008)

Pat said:


> In drunken stupor, i've come to the conclusion, any debate regarding god or similar, is illogical, or at least the logic in doing so is flawed.




That's why it's fun.


----------



## Pat (6 September 2008)

kennas said:


> God is the logic to describe the illogical.



Hmmmmm... I bet there's a word for that. I really should read that dictionary.


----------



## Sean K (6 September 2008)

Just to step back a little.



refined silver said:


> As to the character of this God, can He be trusted, he revealed this most fully in the person of Jesus Christ. Eg. "He who has seen me  has seen the Father". (Jesus speaking). Again its your call whether to trust or not.




Can God be trusted?

Here are a few contradictions that raise some questions:

1. God encouraged reproduction. Gen.1:28.
1a. He said it was an unclean process. Lev.12:1-8 (Note that bearing a daughter is more unclean than bearing a son)
2. God preferred Abel's offering to Cain's. Gen.4:4, 5.
2a. God shows no partiality. 2 Chr.19:7; 2 Sam.14:14.
3. God asks Cain the whereabouts of his brother. Gen.4:9.
3a. God is everywhere and sees everything. Prov.15:3; Jer.16:17; Jer.23:24.
4. God renamed Jacob and called him Israel. Gen.35:10.
4a. God forgot the new name. Gen.46:2
5. God instructs the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians and plunder their enemies. Ex.3:22; Deut.20:13-17.
5a. God prohibits stealing or defrauding a neighbor. Lev.19:11,13.
6. God details sacrificial offerings. Ex.20:24; Ex.29:10-42; Lev.1:1-17; Num.28:1-31.
6a. God says he did not order sacrifices. Jer.7:22
7. God was with the people. Ex.3:12.
7a. God was not with the people. Ex.33:3.
8 God chose Saul. 1 Sam.9:16.
8a. God repents for choosing Saul. 1 Sam.15:35.
8b. God doesn't need to repent. Num. 23:19. 
9. God prohibits the making of idols. Ex.20:4; Deut.5:8, 9.
9a. God commands idols to be made. Ex.25:18; Num.21:8, 9.
10. God prohibits the killing of the innocent. Ex.23:7.
10a. God approves the killing of the innocent. Num.31:17; Josh.6:21; 10b. Josh.7:24-26; Josh.8:22-25; Josh.10:20, 40; Josh.11:15; 1 Sam.15:3.

I've taken these few examples from 101 Contradictions in the Old Testament.

Haven't checked them all, but am starting to...

In God we Trust?

The US really should take that off their currency..

(And, if Moses wrote The Old Testament, how did he make so many errors? The Skeptics Annotated Bible goes into more detail on a plethora of contradictions in the Books of the Cult of Abraham)


----------



## James Austin (6 September 2008)

The issue I have with the god debate, “does/ does not exist?”, is that mind is *just not qualified to answer* the question.

Mind’s nature is linear, dualistic, conceptual, and therefore by nature, limited.

Consequently, if you argue, “yes God does exist”, you are either: 

A] guessing (believing!), 
B] hoping, or 
C] have had a mystical experience; 
(** it is only via the mystical experience that the limited mind is transcended and the question “does God exist?” can be answered unequivocally.)

If, conversely, you argue, “no, God does not exist”, you are *responding completely rationally*, because you are using the mind, which by its nature, is limited in a linear, dualistic, conceptual fashion, and therefore cannot have direct experience of what is conceived of as non-linear, non-dualistic, non-conceptual.

So, 
it is only by stepping out of the mind/ beyond the mind, that the question, “does God exist?”, can be answered honestly. This is the mystical experience; where mind temporarily disintegrates or is transcended. 

But who has the time to cultivate such an experience. Just a select few, throughout history, have either had a spontaneous mystical experience or spend a life time cultivating one via, meditation, contemplation, prayer etc.  

The rest of us, if we claim God to exist, are usually just guessing or hoping.

The others, who argue “no”, are being completely rational; given the tool they are using, the mind, is not qualified to answer the question.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## LittleMak (6 September 2008)

Would this boy believe in Jesus Christ or God? Would he know about Jesus or allah, buddah etc? 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bites--run-police-escaping-Moscow-clinic.html


IMO Gods and religions are just human made conclusions trying to give some explanation to the unexplainable.

The more we observe nature and the universe either through science or experience we start to see that there is sooo much more unexplainable occurences happening beyond human consciousness and life that its not all just a big stage for us insignificant beings to be judged for a invitation to Heaven or hell.


----------



## refined silver (6 September 2008)

kennas said:


> > Here are a few contradictions that raise some questions:
> > .....
> > I've taken these few examples from 101 Contradictions in the Old Testament.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sean K (6 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but if you read only one side you can be comfortably reinforced in your own views, without ever having to consider the alternatives. .



I wouldn't dare to presume that this would apply to you.


----------



## roland (6 September 2008)

seems like the poll here is around 50/50 - certainly not what one would consider a great investment - more of a hit or miss gamble

better set tight stops on this one, or maybe pick a more prospective long shot


----------



## Greg71 (6 September 2008)

Those contradictions are entertaining, I must admit. However, they must be taken in context. 

God's instruction to not steal from a neighbor was after they left Egypt. The ruling was for the way Israelites were to treat each other, not other nations. 

Anyway, on a positive note, the bible also contains hundreds of prophecies, written hundreds of years before Christ (the last book of the old testament was written 400 years B.C.), *all* of which were fulfilled in his lifetime, including the place of his birth. 

How can that be argued?


----------



## Greg71 (6 September 2008)

roland said:


> seems like the poll here is around 50/50 - certainly not what one would consider a great investment - more of a hit or miss gamble
> 
> better set tight stops on this one, or maybe pick a more prospective long shot




I'd recommend a straddle for this trade.


----------



## refined silver (6 September 2008)

As for contradictions, its not just general sayings and accepted bits of wisdom, I also bet it wouldn't take more than 5 minutes to come up with contradictory bits of supposed trading wisdom.

I'm not trying to create fights, but I get tired of seeing thread after thread where people seem to continually slag off God, the Bible, and Christians as backward, moronic, evil, etc. I ignore it most of the time, but sometimes it deserves answering. 

Although Christians are often accused of trying to ram things down people's throats, the survey at the top of this thread is illuminating in that people on the forum seem fairly split down the middle in belief in God, and yet generally the posts by mockers far outweigh those from believers. This would tend to suggest that its the non-believers who are far vocal and outspoken in their religious beliefs.


----------



## Sean K (7 September 2008)

Greg71 said:


> God's instruction to not steal from a neighbor was after they left Egypt. The ruling was for the way Israelites were to treat each other, not other nations.



Just from other Israelites? Sure?

If so, pretty immoral isn't it? Or racist?

If not stealing applied to anyone, after the Israelites left Egypt and the Sinai and back into Canaan, they went on a path of destruction killing thousands of innocent people and pillaging everything they could.

_Deuteronomy Ch 3:

3. So the LORD our God delivered into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people; and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.

4. And we took all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we took not from them; threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.

5. All these were fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars; beside the unwalled towns a great many.

6. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying every city, the men, and the women, and the little ones.

7. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey unto ourselves. _


Not just stealing, but genocide.

Nice God that one.


----------



## Greg71 (7 September 2008)

You've got to look at the big picture, like looking at the XAO then 
working your way down to the actual stock.

The old testament is a history of God's people under the old covenant, the Israelites. 

The reason God seperated a nation was:

1. To demonstrate his existence to mankind (i.e. other nations feared the Israelites because they knew that the living God was with them), and 

2. It was necessary for God's ultimate plan of bringing Jesus into the world to die on the cross, thus providing *all* of mankind a way back to God. We were seperated from him by sin when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, thus man's continual fall to what we have today.

All the prophecies through the old testament about the coming Messiah (God's people, the Israelites, expected a king to rule over them and crush everyone else, like a Roman Ceasar type of king), told how he would come through the lineage of a certain tribe within the nation, plus all these other things. It provided a way for the people to know the real Messiah when he arrived. He would fulfill all the prophecies and it would more or less be impossible for an imposter to fool everyone.

So, it is through Jesus that we all (all nations) are now able to become one of God's *new* covenant people (where the Israelites were exclusively his people under the old covenant, the Mosaic law). This is done by being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the final, perfect sacrifice for sin (the old covenant required animal's blood to be shed on an altar by a priest etc.).

As far as genocide goes, these people occupied the land God promised to the Israelites. They wouldn't have given it up without a fight. Again, part of God's ultimate plan for mankind. The Israelites just followed instructions, destroying nations that for the most part worshipped false gods (idolatry), which is something that angers God.

Israel weren't stealing when they conquered cities in the promised land. The land had to be purged of heathen nations, as the land was holy unto the Lord. Keeping the spoils of war was common practise back then. It's just another way God demonstrated to us (and surrounding nations) that the living God is the one to be worshipped, not some statue. You want to worship a statue? Your choice. But God's people had the instructions on how to please God, which is why he was with them when they obeyed.

The 10 commandments contained some general guidelines like don't steal, don't murder etc, which if disobeyed, result in crime, killing etc. They are like moral guidelines we as humans on this planet, can use as a basic guide for living. If we didn't have them, we wouldn't know that God doesn't like stealing, killing, etc. Another way the Israelites were used by God to perform his will on Earth.

You'll also notice that in times when Israel strayed from the covenant (the Mosaic law), that God punished them severely, like when a king would build altars to other gods or the people disobeyed or whatever. Even in the wilderness God was teaching them obedience, like when they whinged because they were sick of eating manna. God gave them quail, then struck thousands of them down as punishment. 

God punished the Israelites many times throughout their history, as a father punishes his children for doing things wrong, to teach them to do right. When they obeyed, God gave them victory in battle etc., when they disobeyed, they would lose.

It would have been impossible for Israel to do what they did without some supernatural assistance. As we can look back at it today by simply reading our bible, we are able to work out that the God of the bible (i.e. not Isis of Egypt, Krishna, Buddha or Allah etc.) is the only real, living God. How can we know?  By all the signs and wonders demonstrated to us in the bible, through the Israelites.

If we are able to arrive at this fairly straight forward conclusion that the old testament God is the only actual God, then it stands to reason that we can work out that Jesus is the Son of God, as he fulfilled all the prophecies given to God's old covenant people, the Israelites.

By reading the old testament, we can work out that God was with the Israelites, not the Egyptians etc. We can then work out, using our God-given brains, that Jesus came from God. 

If we read the new testament (written after Jesus), we can receive further insight into man's current standing with God. 

When Jesus died on the cross, the old covenant ended. The bible records the temple veil tearing from top to bottom (i.e. no more temple system), kind of like God reaching in and ripping it in half, like when we tear a piece of paper in half and throw it in the bin. "Attention planet - temple system of worship finished".

And as Jesus, after he rose from the dead, instructed his disciples to "teach *all nations*, baptizing them...".

Greg.


----------



## Pat (7 September 2008)

Greg71 said:


> You've got to look at the big picture, like looking at the XAO then
> working your way down to the actual stock.
> 
> The old testament is a history of God's people under the old covenant, the Israelites.
> ...



You seriously don't believe this?
He/she/it could of done things a hell of a lot more efficiently eh?
So much of this religious jargon doesn't make sense (logically), especially this Christian stuff.



Greg71 said:


> By reading the old testament, we can work out that God was with the Israelites, not the Egyptians etc. We can then work out, using our God-given brains, that Jesus came from God.



This part here... Come on! 




I love the pagan, or if you will, heathen stuff. 

Can't remember what Native American Indian 'tribe' this is from, they have an analogy for life and the earth... 
A drum with four legs, each leg represents life on earth, the drum beating represents natures heart beat. If one leg goes, so do the other legs, and the drum itself. 
This is something we can actually learn from.


----------



## Out Too Soon (2 October 2008)

roland said:


> seems like the poll here is around 50/50 - certainly not what one would consider a great investment - more of a hit or miss gamble
> 
> better set tight stops on this one, or maybe pick a more prospective long shot




The markets been doing so well lately this thread is getting more populated!:sheep:

Logically the poll indicates that there must be something approaching a GOD/GODS somewhere, somehow but us puny 3 dimensional apes- we haven't got a clue. 

So I say "May The Force Be With You"

Disclosure- I'm a Jedi Buddhist.:horse:


----------



## Out Too Soon (2 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Just to step back a little.
> 
> Can God be trusted?
> 
> 101 Contradictions in the Old Testament.




Just repeated this link - thanks Kennas there's a lot of good reading at that website although I cant see "beleivers " being swayed by the obvious.


----------



## white_crane (2 October 2008)

Out Too Soon said:


> Disclosure- I'm a Jedi Buddhist




Liar!  Everyone knows that Jedi spiritual awareness comes from The Force.:


----------



## Pat (2 October 2008)

Has anyone read the Gospels Of Peace?

Apparently the Vatican has held this knowledge for sometime (so I'm told) ... a 'Da Vinci Code' type conspiracy? 

The writings make more sense to me than most of the bible.

http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/

The below is from book 1.



> And then many sick and maimed came to Jesus, asking him. "if you know all things, tell us, why do we suffer with these grievous plagues? Why are we not whole like other men? Master, heal us, that we too may be made strong, and need abide no longer in our misery. We know that you have it in your power to heal all manner of disease. Free us from Satan and from all his great afflictions. Master, have compassion on us."
> 
> And Jesus answered- "Happy are you that you hunger for the truth, for I will satisfy you with the bread of wisdom. Happy are you, that you knock, for I will open to you the door of life. Happy are you, that you would cast off the power of Satan, for I will lead you into the kincdom of our Mother's angels, where the power of Satan cannot enter."
> 
> ...


----------



## Glen48 (2 October 2008)

If we didn't have religion we would not have wars, but because we do we will have wars until the earth ends.
How many God's are there and which one is right IF you can proive it. 
Religion is a form of Mental illness just like people believe poker machines will pay out.
How many people has the Pope killed?
how many more wil suffer because of his Pope?
Why let people suffer from Aids and war when he could stop it.
Greed in USA is nothing liek religion can give you.


----------



## roland (2 October 2008)

Well, I was born into a Christian family, went to Sunday school, was taught religion at public school, went to bible camps, studied the bible, became a Christian - now I am an atheist and don't believe in God - go figure....


----------



## nunthewiser (2 October 2008)

I am a real nun so therefore there must be a real god


----------



## roland (2 October 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> I am a real nun so therefore there must be a real god




Satan has nuns, they are called dark angels - which side are you on


----------



## nunthewiser (2 October 2008)

roland said:


> Satan has nuns, they are called dark angels - which side are you on




 whoever pays best
amen


----------



## roland (2 October 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> whoever pays best
> amen




definately Satan then, he seems to have more fun as well!


----------



## Out Too Soon (3 October 2008)

Glen48 said:


> If we didn't have religion we would not have wars, .




No, I don't agree- we would have wars anyway, religion is just used as an excuse often to hide a bad case of xenophobia.  It's just sad, what would those aliens think of us?


----------



## [t..o..m] (3 October 2008)

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Watch above movie. It will explain to all of you that there is NO god, jesus, or whatever


It was made up peoples! 	

:horse:


----------



## Ashsaege (3 October 2008)

I believe in God.

If i didn't believe in God, then I would quit my job and become a pr0n star/director


----------



## [t..o..m] (3 October 2008)

You do know that religion was made to explain why things happen in this world. In ancient times they used to give sacrifices to the "sun god" to please him in case the sun didn't rise the next morning. Now we all know that this is not true as the sun will continue to rise whilst the earth is spinning and the sun is blazing.

Same thing today. As we humans still don't understand the mysteries of death, people still use a god, or what have you, to give an explanation to this. As science continues to disprove religious beliefs, hopefully people might awake from this.

Look at Scientology as an example. It's a freakin cult! Believing that aliens put us here, that the Holocaust didn't happen, and getting members to hand over all money, kids for labour, and general good things in life is insane. Google Scientology + crazy.... over 1.4 million hits


----------



## stath (3 October 2008)

[t..o..m] said:


> http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
> 
> Watch above movie. It will explain to all of you that there is NO god, jesus, or whatever
> 
> ...




Don't need movies and crap like that to tell me whether there is a God or not. It is all inside us, our faith and beliefs, that determines the answer to this question.


----------



## Out Too Soon (15 October 2008)

There was this small tribe that beleived gods name was Jaweh & lived in a temple on a mountain, then the Romans burnt the temple down & they decided  God was up higher in the clouds (heaven). 

-- & they've been moving the goalposts ever since.:


----------



## agro (15 October 2008)

most defently do,

if there is someone to listen to your problems in life and help you it's God..

 God is always there, in good times and bad 

I couldn't imagine living without God, knowing that all the beautiful things i see around me and in the world wasn't created by something beautiful like God


----------



## chops_a_must (15 October 2008)

agro said:


> most defently do,
> 
> if there is someone to listen to your problems in life and help you it's God..
> 
> ...



I swear on this bible, and through my god, a good ramp is he.


----------



## Green08 (15 October 2008)

I don't believe in God - to many and people keep coming up with new things he can do.

I would never swear on the bible as I don't believe in God and that would be lying, before I had to tell the truth then I could keep lying as I lied in the first place and no one actually asked "Do you believe in God first!"

I would swear with my hand on my daughters head as I believe in her.

When someone who gets to 'heaven' can you contact AFS and tell us what it's like?  thanks  If there is no reply I will stick to my original belief system.

By the way If you do then this Divine Mess is part of the Divine Plan, can't agrue wth the guy when he's on a mission.


----------



## Out Too Soon (23 October 2008)

Time to put your money where your mouth is peoples, all those spare dollars we have laying around waiting for the ASX to bottom.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_081017_2.html









Do it- there'll be a place in heaven/ paradise/ nirvana for you if you do.


----------



## mayk (23 October 2008)

agro said:


> most defently do,
> 
> if there is someone to listen to your problems in life and help you it's God..
> 
> ...




Ditto.


----------



## nunthewiser (23 October 2008)

agro said:


> most defently do,
> 
> if there is someone to listen to your problems in life and help you it's God..
> 
> ...




can you please post a link to verify this statement 

thankyou 

a nun


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 October 2008)

agro said:
			
		

> God is always there, in good times and bad



Actually Nathan Rees was saying something similar today in (NSW) parliament ...

He was making the point that "being in traffic" and "traffic jams" were relative. 

"It's like love" he says...
"If you believe you are in love, then you are in love ...  and likewise if you believe you are in traffic you are in traffic." 

PS the man has studied English literature btw


----------



## Speewha (24 October 2008)

agro said:


> most defently do,
> 
> 
> 
> God is always there, in good times and bad




Hello,

Must be on long service leave ATM. 

Regards


----------



## Sean K (24 October 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> can you please post a link to verify this statement



 LMAO!


----------



## Green08 (8 June 2009)

Lewis sums it up brillantly as always.




I love this guy - my Jewish friends think he is a hoot!


----------



## bullsvsbears (11 August 2009)

"Seek and you shall find"
Read the good book with an open mind and eventually you will find the answer.


----------



## Happy (11 August 2009)

Did anybody change view because of this thread?


----------



## stu192 (11 August 2009)

Hey Happy,

I'll have a guess and say that no one has changed their mind due to this thread. But really, how do you change people's minds either one way or the other.

The church (all types) have been pretty successful at changing peoples minds over the years (mostly using fear tactics)...or just getting people so young that they have no choice other than to believe. The church has had a long time to refine it's argument....and can probably come up with an answer for any question (anything unexplained can be attributed to god of course). 
Atheists like Richard Dawkins have been using science to disprove god....and I think he's been pretty unsuccessful so far. 

I like to have an open mind.....and so don't believe. However, here's a better question.
Q. What would it take to change your mind?

Being a non-believer....there are many things that could change my mind about god. It just takes a little proof. 
However, ask a theist what it would take to change their mind. They have no answer (at least no theist I have ever asked has an answer). So the next question is...how do you open a closed mind?

Stu


----------



## noirua (11 August 2009)

There is a god for the Human race, but not for animals, or indeed, some would say "other animals".
Not for animals?  Not for animals as they have not the brain power to invent one, some might say, indeed, indeed.


----------



## bullsvsbears (12 August 2009)

We would all agree that there are only two possible answers to the question "Is there a God?"
It's either 'Yes' or 'No"

According to some September 11 didn't occur but was in fact orchastrated by the US government for political gain. All subsequent terrorist acts that have occured since still haven't changed their view but this doesn't change the fact that September 11 was in fact a terrorist act.

My point is: Just because we weren't around when the bible was written doesn't mean it isn't true. 
You must all agree that one must stand up and take note of any historical text that has stood the test of time for thousands of years despite many attempts to smear its credibility. Why would so many people including  great biblical leaders/figures give up their life for a myth?  You don’t see Bin Laden dying for his belief.

Of those that have made up their minds that God doesn’t exist  I have another question:
Have any of you taken the time to actually study the bible in an attempt to make an informed decision?

Don't get hung up on worrying about what Churches or the likes of Dawkins
think  but explore the truth for yourself and I am sure you will find the anwer to the question.


----------



## Mr J (12 August 2009)

> We would all agree that there are only two possible answers to the question "Is there a God?"




I don't. We will vary in our definitions of "god".



> My point is: Just because we weren't around when the bible was written doesn't mean it isn't true.




And it doesn't mean it is true either.



> You must all agree that one must stand up and take note of any historical text that has stood the test of time for thousands of years despite many attempts to smear its credibility.




It doesn't make it any more credible as a religion considering that the books of other religions have done so as well.



> Why would so many people including great biblical leaders/figures give up their life for a myth?




Power. The higher ups in the religions have a lot of it. Religion is a great tool for manipulation and wealth.



> You don’t see Bin Laden dying for his belief




No, typically higher ups brainwash others into sacrificing themselves.



> Have any of you taken the time to actually study the bible in an attempt to make an informed decision?




Studying the Bible is actually irrelevant, as nothing in it makes it any more likely. An informed decision comes from analysing why we think a god may exist, looking at why religion exists, why people believe in it, and recognising that there's much we don't know (far, far more than what we do know). 

I beleive the only properly rational conclusion is to be quite uncertain. My own view is that it is unlikely a god exists, and extremely unlikely that one exists as we perceive. I do not believe people that subscribe to organised religion to be rational people. I am not opposed to spirituality, as that allows for far more flexible interpretation (e.g. the belief in something greater rather than some man in a cloud).


----------



## nunthewiser (12 August 2009)

YES

he lives in geraldton 

with elvis 

amen


----------



## Donga (12 August 2009)

And having a great laugh over this thread, "just a slob like one of us"...


----------



## whereu (12 August 2009)

Burden of proof. 

A question on the existence of God is where does the burden of proof lie? Is the answer that theists need to prove that God exists or is it that atheists need to prove that God does not exist? To prove that something does not exist is often more difficult to prove than it does. A simple example. Hypothesis: space is occupied by little green men. If you find them, great. If you don't... maybe you are looking in the wrong place, or they become invisible when you look at them. For money its up to theists to prove their assumption to be true.


----------



## wayneL (12 August 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> YES
> 
> he lives in geraldton



That's proof he doesn't live on a cloud, because he'd end up in Meekatharra by four o'clock.

And if that happened, he would have done something about that place.


----------



## explod (12 August 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> YES
> 
> he lives in geraldton
> 
> ...




I think he's all over the bloo.y place, only got to see the drivers of the 4x4 and my own ravings on this forum sometimes.

We all got the spirit comrades.

What a dopey thread.  I try to avoid it but love being amazed at how far crap can go. 

When he appears in person on the news or does a good miracle like increase the planet a few dozen times so that we can all be saved then I will certaqinly start to pray


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 August 2009)

Mr J said:


> I beleive the only properly rational conclusion is to be quite uncertain. My own view is that it is unlikely a god exists, and extremely unlikely that one exists as we perceive. I do not believe people that subscribe to organised religion to be rational people. I am not opposed to spirituality, as that allows for far more flexible interpretation (e.g. the belief in something greater rather than some man in a cloud).




Your other points are fine, but I suspect you're seriously misconstruing what it means to be rational. The irony is that your _belief_ about the nature of rationality may be rational, even if incorrect.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 August 2009)

Imagine how clean this planet would be if all the god worshipping people worshipped nature. Instead, they too contribute to the pollution and destruction of nature with blatant flaunting of wealth and power. Just typical humans really.

Maybe we need a `god is nature` implant.


----------



## Mr J (12 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Your other points are fine, but I suspect you're seriously misconstruing what it means to be rational.




How so?


----------



## wayneL (12 August 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Imagine how clean this planet would be if all the god worshipping people worshipped nature. Instead, they too contribute to the pollution and destruction of nature with blatant flaunting of wealth and power. Just typical humans really.
> 
> Maybe we need a `god is nature` implant.



Yep,

I've noticed with a lot of religious folk an arrogant disregard for nature... the Earth was created for us to exploit, we're the reason for creation type nonsense. They reason that - who gives a #### about the earth when it's Heaven they're shooting for.

It ignores some explicit passages in the Bible... nothing unusual there either, they ignore at least half of it.

I like the "God IS nature" idea. It means "God" is totally natural, rather than the ludicrous idea of a supernatural "dude in the sky" model. It also means that a belief in such a "God" (or whatever word you want to use) is contemporaneous with science.

There is some discussion of this concept way back in this thread where many scientists have this type of view.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 August 2009)

Mr J said:


> How so?



I said "suspect". What do you think it means to be rational?


----------



## glenn_r (12 August 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> YES
> 
> he lives in geraldton
> 
> ...




You forgot "whacko Jacko"


----------



## nunthewiser (12 August 2009)

glenn_r said:


> You forgot "whacko Jacko"




LOL no way !

he living in south australia where he belongs!


----------



## Mr J (12 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I said "suspect". What do you think it means to be rational?




I know, and I thought that's what you meant, but I was unsure. I think it means to analyse what data we have on hand to come up with an objective judgement.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> I've noticed with a lot of religious folk an arrogant disregard for nature... the Earth was created for us to exploit, we're the reason for creation type nonsense. They reason that - who gives a #### about the earth when it's Heaven they're shooting for.




Yes, this is lamentable and on a broader scale, what about other kinds of exploitation that are commonplace and of which the majority of us are consumers? ie. battery farm chickens, the destruction of nearly all male chickens not long after hatching, and so on. This is all justified in the name of money. Ethical consideration for nature goes far beyond things like pollution.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Yep,
> 
> They reason that - who gives a #### about the earth when it's Heaven they're shooting for.



That programming is one of the real clinchers in the deal.


----------



## wayneL (12 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Yes, this is lamentable and on a broader scale, what about other kinds of exploitation that are commonplace and of which the majority of us are consumers? ie. battery farm chickens, the destruction of nearly all male chickens not long after hatching, and so on. This is all justified in the name of money. Ethical consideration for nature goes far beyond things like pollution.



Yes indeed. Agree 100%


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 August 2009)

Mr J said:


> I think it [to be rational] means to analyse what data we have on hand to come up with an objective judgement.




I can work with that for now. So how does that apply such that a subscriber to an organised religion is not rational? Take for instance, Francis Collins, who was director of the human genome project. He's an accomplished scientist, agrees with evolution as a working model and is a Christian. 

I don't want to pre-empt you and argue against something you don't think so let me just throw out a kind of typical objection and a response so that I'm not just asking you a string of questions.....It seems to me that the usual objection here would be precisely that he is a Christian. If he were rational,  he would follow his scientific background through to a conclusion that God is not likely. But that would beg the question. For he became a Christian based on his consideration of a range of data to hand, such as scientific, philosophical and experiential. By scientific, I do not mean empirical proof of God, but rather by understanding the strengths and limits of science.

He thinks that his belief in the Christian God is justified based on his assessment of a range of factors and he finds no defeaters for his belief. This is one definition of "rational" (and contrary to popular belief, it is extremely hard to precisely define rationality). Now assume there is some concrete proof that no God exists and is so compelling as to command assent in anyone who understands it but that this proof has not yet been discovered. In the absence of this defeater for belief, Collins would continue to be rational to believe in God. Now if this proof comes to light and Collins is apprised of it but does not understand it, his belief still remains rational. But if he were to understand the truth of the proof (similar to how the truth of 1+1=2 is immediate and self-evident) and realise it is a defeater for his belief, yet he goes into denial and refuses to give up belief, *then* his belief in God would become irrational.


----------



## Bobby (12 August 2009)

How about a challenge for god illusionists , ask the creep to do something good for the people on this planet !


Guess the answer will be the old faithful ' god lets us have free will .
Well god you suck if you stuff this chance up .

PS. those of you that really believe , I forgive your stupidity ,  
Praise me lord .


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 August 2009)

Bobby said:


>




Have a bad day matey?


----------



## Mr J (12 August 2009)

> So how does that apply such that a subscriber to an organised religion is not rational?




I should have expanded. Most of us having varying levels of overall rationality, and often vary greatly at how we apply it. We may be extremely rational in one respect, and not in others. I realise that there are many intelligent people who are a part of organised religion, but I would consider doing so irrational, despite that they might be overall rational people. I'm sure quite a few of these people would admit that they're following belief rather than fact. I don't think it is a flaw to suggest that many otherwise intelligent people can be irrational, as almost all of us are at times.



> He thinks that his belief in the Christian God is justified based on his assessment of a range of factors and he finds no defeaters for his belief. This is one definition of "rational" (and contrary to popular belief, it is extremely hard to precisely define rationality).




I don't think it is rational though. I know rationality can yield incorrect results due to unknown information, but I think his interpretation of the data is flawed. There is no conclusive proof either way (despite many pointing to the bible etc), so a complete belief either way is not a logical assessment. If the evidence suggested that a god existed and that the strength of belief matched this probability, then I would say he is rational. It doesn't, so I don't believe he is. We all work with the same data, we just have different interpretations of the significance of the data.


----------



## Bobby (12 August 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Have a bad day matey?




Thanks for your concern young human , I will consider your indolently soon ,  , praise the lord


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 August 2009)

Mr J,

Then I'm afraid you are begging the question. You don't believe the evidence suggests that a God exists and you lack defeaters for the belief that the evidence is inconclusive, therefore you are rational to suspend belief. Collins (just an example) does believe the evidence suggests a God exists and he lacks defeaters for his belief, hence his belief is rational on that basis. You cannot assign irrationality to Collins belief merely on your belief that he is misinterpreting the data he has to hand.


----------



## weird (12 August 2009)

Bobby said:


> How about a challenge for god illusionists , ask the creep to do something good for the people on this planet !
> 
> 
> Guess the answer will be the old faithful ' god lets us have free will .
> ...




Thanks for posting Bobby.

May I recommend having someone re-read your screech, sorry, speech, before delivering, if you are ever invited to make one at a wedding.

The criticism, actually, the anger and frustration, shown in the rebuttal posts of is there a God, makes one feel sorry for those posting.

There is obviously some inner anger or frustration issue there.

Before one rebuts, with the outer crap, about corruptions, just remember that followers subscribe to the simple wisdom of the originators, and not what has occurred afterward in politics and wars. 

And also note your comments are actually hitting the people following the original beliefs, and not the past corruptions, which you may be angry or find fault with.

I personally wouldn't attack someone I have little understanding of, but perhaps we do that a lot in the West and everywhere else. A few freaks bomb us, kill an entire town and country !!!

Actually while painting a picture, I am thinking of the husband screaming, with lost children and wife, wife screaming of lost husband and children, children with no parents, perhaps they are covered in blood, seeing them die ... where is God, God is there, but where is a humanity ? Perhaps to comfort the child (there is God), yet humans did this, not in the name of religion, but in the name of power.

Perhaps ask where is God in humans, because they are the current instruments in our destruction.


----------



## Bobby (12 August 2009)

weird said:


> I personally wouldn't attack someone I have little understanding of, but perhaps we do that a lot in the West and everywhere else. Few freaks bomb us, bomb all of them !!!




I'm not attacking ' I'm asking your god to do something , seems the silly bugger has gone into hibernation  

Hope alls well with you Weird  .


----------



## Mr J (12 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Mr J,
> 
> Then I'm afraid you are begging the question. You don't believe the evidence suggests that a God exists, therefore you are rational to suspend belief. Collins (just an example) does believe the evidence suggests a God exists, and his belief is rational on that basis. You cannot assign irrationality to Collins belief merely on your belief that he is misinterpreting the data he has to hand.




By commenting about the interpretation of data, I was suggesting that it wasn't his belief that was irrational, but the interpretation of data. If one believes the data to be accurate, then of course the judgement is rational regardless of whether or not it is actually correct. To believe in a god is not just one-step process, it requires many little decisions to be made to come up with the main decision. I'm suggesting that religious people are making an error in small decisions.

I'm all for debating perspective, but there is nothing out there to state that a god exists, let alone a specific god. It may be that I don't have all of the evidence, as people say they "feel" God. Perhaps that isn't just an emotional reaction, and I'm missing a sense.


----------



## weird (12 August 2009)

Bobby said:


> Hope alls well with you Weird  .




Thanks Bobby


----------



## Bobby (12 August 2009)

Mr J said:


> I'm all for debating perspective, but there is nothing out there to state that a god exists, let alone a specific god. It may be that I don't have all of the evidence, as people say they "feel" God. Perhaps that isn't just an emotional reaction, and I'm missing a sense.




Well said Mr J , for those with clear minds believing in such hyperbole is both embarrassing and detrimental to living a real live .


----------



## weird (12 August 2009)

Bobby, loaded mate ... your comments are just trash talk ... no substance, just rubbishing.

I could make up a comment,

"Green people are evil" ... posted it, why would I not post it, if it was not true ?

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT RUBBISHING

Tired of this crap, alas, post no more,

except

BEWARE OF WHITE, YELLOW AND EBONY  (and every other colour) PEOPLE THEY ARE THE WORST !!!!!


----------



## Bobby (12 August 2009)

weird said:


> Bobby, loaded mate ... your comments are just trash talk ... no substance, just rubbishing.
> 
> I could make up a comment,
> 
> ...




Dave my blessings are upon you , see what the lord has done my son  , Yes I now forgive you  .
 Pray for all us heathens then ''''''


----------



## weird (12 August 2009)

Dude, I don't know if you are trading tonight, but I hope your cognitive powers are stronger than they are now at your posting.

Those weak impressions of blessings are a joke for anyone that post them ... more sad than amusing.

Anyhow wish you best Bobby.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 August 2009)

Mr J,

Let's try a different tack. In the mid 20th century the infamous positivist verification principle reigned supreme. Though it is a family of views (rather than one) they say roughly the same thing ie. only that which can be directly perceived or experienced/sensed can count towards knowledge. Though it was widespread, particularly in philosophy, it was rightfully criticised and refuted on the basis that it was self-defeating. The proposition "_only that which can be directly experienced can count towards knowledge_" is itself a claim that cannot be directly experienced. It is not an experiential fact but a metaphysical proposition - the very kind of thing it was supposed to exclude from the room. It had no right to be taken seriously, but it was. A very similar view is widely popular today and that is "_I only believe what science can prove_". Ironically, there is no scientific way to demonstrate this proposition. It is a metaphysical statement grounded in the holder's subjective perception. Yet people take this very seriously, little realising that it is self-defeating and I've met very few people who hold it, that will admit to that fact.

So all of that is to ask: is it rational to believe _"I only believe what science can prove?"_

(Note that I'm not asserting you are saying this. It's just towards a point I'm getting at.)

The relevance of this is that the most common objection to belief in any kind of God (not just the Christian one), is that there may be no way to scientifically prove that a God exists. At first glance, that may seem sensible but IMO, the oddity of this can be underlined by the fact that there is no way to scientifically prove we are not just brains in vats (a la "The Matrix") or that other minds exist. Yet it is perfectly rational to believe we are not just brains in vats being fed sensory input, and it is perfectly rational to believe other people have minds. Intuitively, we would suspect people who thought other minds don't exist to have loose wiring! The question of the existence of God is surely of a different kind to the question of "_what temperature does water boil at near sea-level?_" It seems to me a lot more like the question of consciousness, that is reasonably considered by many scientists and philosophers to not be reducible to "_every mental state is only its neural correlate_". The reality is, we all rationally believe many things that science is not equipped to rule on.


----------



## Bobby (12 August 2009)

weird said:


> Dude, I don't know if you are trading tonight, but I hope your cognitive powers are stronger than they are now at your posting.
> 
> Those weak impressions of blessings are a joke for anyone that post them ... more sad than amusing.
> 
> Anyhow wish you best Bobby.




Thanks Dave , yep I'm trading the FTSE at the moment & drinking beer , the lord seems to be on my side , gee Dave did you bribe the dope for me ?

Thanks for the good wishes , they are reciprocal .

Take Care.


----------



## Go Nuke (13 August 2009)

Gee its a battle between belivers and non belivers....with not much in between.

I'm in between.

I'd love to believe there is a god, so that 
A)  I can be somehow reunited with loved ones after death...somehow.
B) So that maybe I can go to some mythical land where they have magic....like something out of a DragonLance book. That would be awesome too lol.
Something very much unlike this world because this world has a lot of suckfulness about it. Except animals and nature etc. I feel sorry for nature because humans are selfish and ruin it for nature 

I have a theory about life/death though.

You know how people say they see a whitelight when they have near death experiences....well what if when you die...the white light is you being reborn again. Yes thats right...the white light is the hospital where you are being delivered all over again.

I'd be so disappointed with that theory of mine...I truely would.
But it could just be that life is a cycle of death and rebirth for us all.

The only cool thing about that would be that I would then get to see humans achieve the great goals that only science fiction can create now.

Nope.....still rather a fantasy world


----------



## Happy (13 August 2009)

Not all souls are recycled as we have more people and now it seem to be exponential rise.

Also we have to spare a thought to great apes 98% identical to humans, pigs 80% identical to humans.....


----------



## Kez180 (13 August 2009)

I believe that when you die, that is it, that is all, you are over...

I do not believe that is a god, but I acknowledge that it is beyond my comprehension... 

There is only one thing I cannot forgive religion for, that is giving people the perception that there is something else after life, thus discouraging the human race as a whole from attempting to live forever....


----------



## Happy (13 August 2009)

Kez180 said:


> ....
> There is only one thing I cannot forgive religion for, that is giving people the perception that there is something else after life, thus discouraging the human race as a whole from attempting to live forever....




Alluding to blowuppers?


Got a weird comment to your footnote too:

*Kieran
Yes I sold my car and bought BBP @ 50c with the proceeds.... *

This car would be vintage car by now, worth a lot of money as well, but buying power would be?  Well, just halve it every 7 years and it will be close.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (13 August 2009)

Kez180 said:


> I believe that when you die, that is it, that is all, you are over...
> 
> There is only one thing I cannot forgive religion for, that is giving people the perception that there is something else after life, thus discouraging the human race as a whole from attempting to live forever....




Thankfully, there are scientists who are not so pessimistic and based on the _prima facie_ evidence from clinical studies to date of the NDE phenomenon that consciousness might survive body death, the AWARE study is now underway.


----------



## James Austin (13 August 2009)

yes, i saw a video on this a couple of years ago.

in surgery, some patients rendered brain-dead for some specialised operation, have been able to report that such-and-such occured during this brain-dead period.

eg., doctor X said "ABC" to doctor Y, or "i saw XYZ happening"

indicating separation of consciousness and body




MS+Tradesim said:


> Thankfully, there are scientists who are not so pessimistic and based on the _prima facie_ evidence from clinical studies to date of the NDE phenomenon that consciousness might survive body death, the AWARE study is now underway.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 August 2009)

Kez180 said:


> I believe that when you die, that is it, that is all, you are over...




Of course when a living organism stops living that is all. Consciousness is unique to the organism and dies along with it. Once evidence of consciousness ceases it cannot be observed again.

However, people have been "brought back to life" but they were not actually dead in the true definition of death.



> Current ability to resuscitate people who have "died" has produced some remarkable stories. Drowning in cold water (under 50  °F/10  °C) so effectively slows metabolism that some persons have been revived after a half hour under water.






> no pupil reaction to light
> no response of the eyes to caloric (warm or cold) stimulation
> no jaw reflex (the jaw will react like the knee if hit with a reflex hammer)
> no gag reflex (touching the back of the throat induces vomiting)
> ...


----------



## Tink (13 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Thankfully, there are scientists who are not so pessimistic and based on the _prima facie_ evidence from clinical studies to date of the NDE phenomenon that consciousness might survive body death, the AWARE study is now underway.




Yep, well said


----------



## bullsvsbears (14 August 2009)

J..You can knock on a deaf man's door as long as you like but he still won't hear you.

Unless he sees you he won't know you're there but it doesn't change the fact you're there.


----------



## Mr J (14 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> The relevance of this is that the most common objection to belief in any kind of God (not just the Christian one), is that there may be no way to scientifically prove that a God exists.




Which I don't think is necessarily true. Like you go on to suggest, and as I suggested, there may be "proof" that neither I or science can understand. However, as I also said, I can only go by the information at hand, and since God doesn't speak to me I conclude that religion is likely an artificial belief, as the evidence and concept of religion strongly favours this. 

The only thing the religious people have going for them in a debate of whether or not their god exists, is that they can "feel" him. Many would conclude that it is a state manufactured by themselves, but who knows, maybe many people can actually feel god. This still isn't enough for religion to be so specific though, as the sense of a higher power does not prove "God" exists. 

If a single god does exist, it's likely he's just God, and not just of Chrisitans or Muslims, which is another argument to why the religious aren't rational. What makes them all think that their god is the only and only true god? I know people who are spiritual and officially part of a religion, but they don't take it literally. They may believe in something more, but not that a certain god or certain religion is the only correct answer. I would consider these people rational from my perspective, because they're aware of the unknown.



> we all rationally believe many things that science is not equipped to rule on.




Such as? Also consider the difference between high probability, and stating it as fact. This occurs in all groups, as scientists take what they think are high probabilities and state them as fact, and many religious people leave no possibility that they may be worishipping a non-existent entity. I may be wrong about everything. I don't think so, but I allow for that possibility. I think it's a good thing to do.


----------



## Buddy (14 August 2009)

There is a question that I have pondered...... 
Is the universe teeming with life, or does life only exist on planet Earth? 
I also wonder if we knew the answer to that question would it have any impact on whether we believe there is a god, or not?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (14 August 2009)

Mr J said:


> The only thing the religious people have going for them in a debate of whether or not their god exists, is that they can "feel" him.



There are quite a few sophisticated philosophical arguments for God, several of them with empirical support and people find them more or less persuasive. For myself, it was a cumulative case. There was no slam dunk feeling or thought or argument that sealed it for me. But putting that aside, if people feel they have experienced a transcendant consciousness, then that feeling counts as evidence for them, giving warrant to their belief that a God exists. If a person like yourself, has not had any experiences to warrant belief in a God, that only counts as lack of warrant for you to believe - it does not reduce the rationality of believers.

To your second line of response, I provided some examples of rational beliefs that science cannot prove: (1) other minds exist, (2) you are experiencing reality as it is ie. you are not just a brain in a vat being fed sensory input _a la_ "The Matrix". 

And I would reiterate a point that I circled earlier: is it rational to believe _"I only believe what science can prove"_ when that belief itself cannot be proved by science? Interestingly, this very belief forms part of a loose argument (?) for atheism in an article posted by AgentM in the new thread. Despite the errors in that article, it seems to be approvingly highlighted as reasonable thought. That kind of thinking is about as convincing to an informed theist as asserting the earth is 6000 years old would be to an informed atheist. 

As an aside, atheists need some new heroes. I'd recommend William Rowe, Michael Ruse and Quentin Smith.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> There is a question that I have pondered......
> Is the universe teeming with life, or does life only exist on planet Earth?
> I also wonder if we knew the answer to that question would it have any impact on whether we believe there is a god, or not?




Good one Buddy, the question of `is there a god` should be `why is there life`?


----------



## Tink (15 August 2009)

Some good feedback in here : )

There are plenty of signs out there, you just got to be 'open' to see them and hear them. 

If you refuse to look and listen, you arent going to believe..


----------



## Tink (15 August 2009)

Donga said:


> And having a great laugh over this thread, "just a slob like one of us"...




lol good song : )

If God had a face
what would it look like and would
you want to see
if seeing meant that you would have to believe
in things like Heaven an in
Jesus and in saints an all the prophets

Yeah,Yeah,God is great
Yeah,Yeah God is good


----------



## weird (16 August 2009)

Not bad,

"why god never got a phd:

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was written in Aramaic, not in English.
3. It has no references.
4. It wasn't even published in a refereed journal.
5. There are serious doubts he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since
then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The Scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He unlawfully performed not only Animal, but *Human* testing.
10. When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it by drowning his
subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from
the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told his students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son to teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students
failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top. "


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 August 2009)

I have a question for the philosophers. Is the concept of god a proven fact? If not why do we believe that which is not proven? 

We know the sun is the source of heat for life on the planet. It is a fact. 
Do we believe the moon is the source of heat for the Earth?


----------



## $20shoes (16 August 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> I have a question for the philosophers. Is the concept of god a proven fact? If not why do we believe that which is not proven?
> 
> We know the sun is the source of heat for life on the planet. It is a fact.
> Do we believe the moon is the source of heat for the Earth?




Okay, grab your drink of choice and put on your best "doubting Thomas" face. 

I am of the unshakable belief that the way we conceptualise a God is so exceedingly and prohibitively limited that our efforts to define something "unknowable" are probably feeble at best. 

I seriously do not think we, on this little rock, inquistive as we are, can account for a universal movement of energy through billions of years, through billions of galaxys, so unknowable and unfathomable it itself begs belief. 

I do not believe the construct of time can be applied to something that is infinite - it is a human defined term that helps us make linear sense of the past and future as a relative term. However, it does not help us with the degrees of inifinity or how to account for universes outside our own universe. 

For example, can we say that the consrtuct of time existed before the universe existed, or does the construct of time apply to matter within a black hole. That is, without that which is relative it becomes a very handy, but a very one dimensional construct. 

The vast interconnectedness of energies though billions and trillions of galaxies may have something to do with a construct we dont understand and externalise as GOD. For instance, the infiniteness of the universe may actually be the fabrication of all that was, is and ever shall be. Infinite is infinite. If the inifinite actually already contains the ALL, then we have a serious problem with our relativity construct. That is, what we thought occurred yesterday, is actually something that is already contained in our infinite universe. So how could something have occurred in the past if it is already encapsulated in the infinite. 

There is a possibility that we're remembering/experiencing at a layered, very complex level of revelation that stems from some universal movement. 
If we move to death, even at a physical level, the universe is infinite - you have always been dead, and you have always been alive. You are just experiencing a layer of a construct that is possibly akin to God trying to recreate God, or God trying to love God. THat is, if the universe is infinite, it has within it, all that has and  will happen. So, if you die, you are dead relative to a time as we define it, but it is impossible to be dead in the infinite universe. You must still be alive somewhere? The universe has always been. It is impossible to accept the notion of infinity without believing this construct. If we are still alive then (whilst also being dead), then in what sense in what capacity are we alive? If we start to question the unknowable, only then do we start to see that that which we call God is everything that is was and will be, and absolutely every moment of life is a layer of revelation of everything being everything.

More to the point then, the being of absolutely everything was, is and will always be for time immemorial. For example, the light of a dying star reached us at a certain point in "time". But the universe as inifinite means that there is no end point to that light.  It is merely a revelation for us at that moment. What once was, is perhaps still being. 

Im telling you, our notions are limited in the extreme. We even perceive the spiritual as somehow enveloping Earth or being very Earthly even though we are a nanoscopic piece of dust in the near cosmos. It flies in the face of logic, that we finally cannot hope to measure something that is immeasurable - that is, our own time within the inifinite. Might we finally understand that we never were and will always be, we might finally perceive that something greater than us also never existed and has forever existed.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 August 2009)

$20shoes said:


> I do not believe *the construct of time* can be applied to something that is infinite - it is a human defined term that helps us make linear sense of the past and future as a relative term. However, it does not help us with the degrees of inifinity or how to account for universes outside our own universe.




Shoes, greetings. If we were not here, our known surroundings would still be evolving and it`s only because we have (what is called) intelligence that this evolution is recorded for knowledge sake. 

I have contemplated what level of intelligence this race can attain and there is no limit. What was impossible 1000 years ago is now very real. It`s disappointing no live planets are within our present view.


----------



## $20shoes (17 August 2009)

Let me expand a little, because I'm confusing myself, and its quite a leap to understand this...

My supposition of course purports that not only is space, as a measure of distance, expanding infinitely but that time is likely infinite on a separate plane (that is, there is only "time" as a relative construct to help us separate our experiences linearly). But there is no end point to time. At a certain point of being, all things and time were then in being. The universe contained everything at the point of its being - time, matter, energy. Everything required to have a universe was there. Of course, if you accept this, then by a strict definition there is not necessarily a past and future. There is possibly only that which we're creating, from something that is already in being. Why would something be creating or using something that is already in being? Why would the universe keep creating itself within itself, and with that which is already in being? - perhaps to be relative to that which it is??

The most compelling argument for God, possibly stems from the origin of Universe. This is counter to my theory above , and for this you accept that time is unfolding linearly, that there are things that are yet to be, and that things that were are no longer.
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing - no space, or time or light or matter, excepting for one hugely dense hot ball of "something". That something contained all matter and time would start ticking form the moment this matter was unfurled. But before this unfurling this hot dense pea sized ball  of matter/energy/time must have been surrounded by something (though, not space - there was no space). The nothing surrounding this something must, logically speaking, be so infinitely infinite in its nothingness that it could be quite capable of surrounding and absorbing the pea sized density  as it unfurls and proceeds to infinitely expand. That is, there must be "something" into which we expand and there must be a finite border at the edge of the universe, which once crossed places us into "nothingness". So, if we flew our spaceship faster than the speed of light we would eventually move back in time ( wait, I though time was linear) and eventually come to a border crossing as an illegal alien, which once crossed places us outside of time and space. 

By any definition, the concept of God as "all encompasing" and transcending  space and time gels with this very concept that beyond the inifinite boudary of our universe there must still be something even more vastly inifinite that we're expanding into. Could the mystery of God be that very "inifinite" which is beyond our own infinite?


----------



## gav (17 August 2009)

$20shoes - whatever pills you are taking, I want some :


----------



## $20shoes (17 August 2009)

gav said:


> $20shoes - whatever pills you are taking, I want some :




Gav, my head hurts!! 
Oh, and yes, you need to take the blue pills. lol


----------



## Sean K (17 August 2009)

God is only what we don't understand yet. 

Once there is logic, reason, and proof, it stops being assigned to God. 

God is the mystery, the unknown, what to be afraid of. And has been used as a tool to control people through that fear. 

And, no need for an Atheist hero, we have religion leading the cause.


----------



## bullsvsbears (17 August 2009)

The explanation Science offers concerning the formation of the universe, earth and mankind’s apparent explosive grandeur appearance is an obvious source of frustration for Atheists which manifests into anger and hostility by its followers. You just have to look at the common theme on this thread by its worshippers.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (17 August 2009)

Lol. I find it very amusing that believers of any kind are castigated for asserting things as true, yet non-believers are just as dogmatic in their assertions of what they think are true.


----------



## Sean K (17 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Lol. I find it very amusing that believers of any kind are castigated for asserting things as true, yet non-believers are just as dogmatic in their assertions of what they think are true.



LOL  It is quite ironic isn't it.


----------



## gav (17 August 2009)

OK I have an idea.  It requires being open minded and being able to consider *both* scenarios - that God exists or that he doesn't (no matter what your current beliefs are).

*1. What if God were proved to be real?*
Let's say we wake up tomorrow and some scientist has undeniable proof that God is in fact real.  The proof is so sufficient that it cannot be debated by anyone.  All that is proven is that God is real.  Nothing more.  Not 'what religion is correct' or that 'everything in the bible is correct' or if we are meant to 'pray 5 times per day'.  Just that 'God is proven as being real'.  

How would this affect our daily lives?  Would people behave differently?  Would people start flocking to churches?  Which church would they flock to? (seeing as no religion, religious story or particular set or religious rules is deemed "correct", just that God exists)  Would this change the way people treat each other?  Would it change the way our country is ran, and our laws?  Would this cause our head religious figures to have more power, in which the way our lives are lived and country is run?  How would people who were already religious cope?  Would they continue living the way they do, or sacrifice more now that they have proof he exists?  More importantly, how would atheists react?  Would they feel guilty for the way they have lived their lives?  Would some scientists blindly devote their lives trying to prove that God didn't exist, even though the proof of his existance was undeniable?

Then on the flip side....

*2. What if it were proved that God does not exist?*
Let's say we wake up tomorrow and a scientist has undeniable proof that God does not exist at all, and never has existed.  The proof is so sufficient that it cannot be debated at all.

What would happen to religious institutions and their billions of followers?  Would church leaders try to continue their hold over people and turn their religions into cults with their own rules, dispite everyone knowing there is no God? (kind of like the non-accepting scientists in the other scenario above)  Would people riot?  Would people sue churches for psychological damages caused?  Would people commit every sin they could without fear?  Would this tempt people to break the law, as in the past they thought God would judge them? (they no longer have this fear).  If God didn't exist, does that mean there is no such thing as the after-life?  Or would people still hold their own beliefs about alternative things such as reincarnation, etc.  Would people be more selfish, or selfless?

It would be interesting to hear peoples theories if either of the above scenarios were to happen...


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2009)

gav said:


> OK I have an idea.  It requires being open minded and being able to consider *both* scenarios - that God exists or that he doesn't (no matter what your current beliefs are).




Great questions, I like this sort of thinking. 

**going to sleep on it**


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 August 2009)

gav said:


> OK I have an idea.  It requires being open minded and being able to consider *both* scenarios - that God exists or that he doesn't (no matter what your current beliefs are).




There is a repetition to universal acts. A constant and repetitive flow of life and death, creation and destruction. What more is there to know and why a general label (god)? There is nothing to prove or disprove.


----------



## Cartman (17 August 2009)

gav said:


> *1. What if God were proved to be real?*
> 
> 
> *2. What if it were proved that God does not exist?*




the questions are good Gav ---- but unfortunately humans being humans, the responses would most likely be along the lines of --

if you were on the "correct" team --- "Ha ha, i told you so!" :


or if on the "incorrect" team --- "I still dont believe you!" 


Perhaps you could take the question a step further and ask --- What would it actually take to make an atheist admit there is a god, or a godder to admit there isnt one?

i'd suggest even if god appeared in an atheists corn flakes over breakfast, the atheist would still not believe he was real ---- if god offered the atheist a million bucks, he would pretend to believe ---- but once he got the cash in the bank, he would start telling everyone some 'looney" just gave him a million bucks  !!

on the flip side, is it actually possible to disprove god/s exist?  ----- :dunno:

people tell me i had a great great granma ---- but i've never seen her; no one has any pics of her --- does the fact that i exist prove that she did??


----------



## gav (17 August 2009)

Cartman said:


> the questions are good Gav ---- but unfortunately humans being humans, the responses would most likely be along the lines of --
> 
> if you were on the "correct" team --- "Ha ha, i told you so!" :
> 
> ...




LOL I see your point, and I'm sure that is how most would react.  Hence my question is only hypothetical  - with proof being so sufficient it could not be debated.  I wonder how our world would change...To truly consider either of these hypothetical situations you'd need an open mind - which is something a few on this thread seem to lack...


----------



## MS+Tradesim (17 August 2009)

Gav, they are very interesting scenarios. I can contemplate them in an abstract way, but concretizing them is problematic. 

C'man says:



Cartman said:


> Perhaps you could take the question a step further and ask --- What would it actually take to make an atheist admit there is a god, or a godder to admit there isnt one? <snip> on the flip side, is it actually possible to disprove god/s exist?  ----- :dunno:




The fact of the matter is, I don't know what it would take for me to embrace atheism again. Minimally, it is impossible to prove no gods exist. Only certain conceptions of God can be disproven, and even then there are very few slam dunk disproofs, only arguments from improbability against some known background factor. A few concepts of God can be rejected outright -for instance there is no God sitting on a throne above a physical dome enclosing the earth. People have been into space and sent machines into the deep beyond and we know that no such God exists. I cannot envisage what a proof would look like that can disprove any and all Gods. Maximally, I would relinquish my position as a Christian if a number of things relating to Jesus could be falsified. But there's just way too much to explain away to reject theism outright - probably I could be convinced to hold a weaker position somewhere between theism and panentheism. 

This is, I think, where WayneL is in a superior position to atheists. It may be the case that no good evidence exists for any of the major views about God, but at best, that only justifies soft agnosticism (_"I don't know if a god exists"_). Incidentally, some atheists have been vocal in arguing that atheism is not "_the belief that there are no gods_" but "_the lack of belief in any gods_". It's a semantic shift but it is not sufficient to justify defining itself as atheism. It still reduces to agnosticism. Interestingly, some atheists have gone a step further to reject the label of atheism altogether and identify themselves as naturalists ie. that only nature exists. One wonders how long till they clue in that such a position shoulders an impossible burden of proof.

Snake Pliskin asks:


> Is the concept of god a proven fact? If not why do we believe that which is not proven?




As I pointed out to Mr J, humans believe many things that cannot be proven, but we are not less than reasonable for doing so. For instance, it is impossible to prove other minds exist, but everyone believes in them anyway. We cannot prove that we are not just brains in a vat being fed sensory input by some mad scientist, but nobody thinks this is the case. Also, "proof" is notoriously hard to qualify as we each have our own subjective frameworks by which we judge between conflicting ideas and what we will or won't allow to qualify as evidence. I think we can all hold a healthy level of skepticism and a healthy level of open-mindedness, but these are opposite ends of a spectrum too and each end is as irrational as the other. 

As to the question of proofs of god, no I don't think there are any slam-dunk proofs and no philosopher worth their salt would claim there are. My own position is a cumulative case and the falsification of any individual factor would not call into question the integrity of the whole. Perhaps my own position is analogous to evolutionary theory. New information sheds new light on some areas or disproves some sub-theory but it would take something pretty impressive to collapse the whole super-structure.


----------



## Cartman (17 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> The fact of the matter is, I don't know what it would take for me to embrace atheism *again*.




g'day MS --- may i say that even though we probably have tangental perceptions of "god" as such (then again maybe not ,  your logical and educated points are refreshing ---

just curious when you say "again" as highlighted above ---- i'm interested in peoples experiences that were pivotal in there beliefs (either for or against) a higher power/life form/being/god/ or whatever 

you indicate you could "not go back" to atheism ----- interested in any specific moments in your life where you "realised" a higher force at work ---


----------



## MS+Tradesim (18 August 2009)

Hey C'man, I'm always open (time dependent) for a friendly discussion.

There was no single experience or idea that was primary in my deconversion from atheism. It was a range of factors that put together, just made it impossible for me to not be a Christian. I was a fairly reluctant convert and remain skeptical of much within Christianity, but then I'm not a convert to Christianity, but a convert to Jesus.

There was a lot of philosophical contemplation. In that respect one fairly important piece of the puzzle was coming to be convinced that there is a necessary being behind all the contingent ones. Two lines of thought were reinforcing in that respect. In one of his/her posts $20Shoes refers to the cosmological question. From that perspective, I realised the incoherence of an actually infinite past. We are in the present. The past can be divided into a set of equal units of time (however arbitrarily measured). But there is no way through successive addition (traversal) of those units of time that we can reach the present from an infinite past. However construed, the past is finite and that begs the question of beginning. (Some critics have attempted an analogy with Zeno's paradox. Suffice to say since motion exists and we do cross finite distances, we intuitively know that Zeno's paradox is only a thought experiment and does not say something about reality.) Some pretty impressive ideas have been raised to try and avoid a beginning in the finite past. 

On the other line of thought, our experience is filled with contingent (caused) entities. Each one may be said to be causally explicable by a prior totality of necessary and sufficient conditions. So whether or not the past is finite, we know that time itself among nearly everything else, is contingent ie. time as we know it is the dimension in which movement occurs. Without time, everything would be frozen, like a photograph captures one point of an unfolding journey. Not to get bogged down in time, but simply to say even an infinite past remains contingent. Thus, the total set of contingent entities needs an explanation. 

Once again, some ingenius ideas have been proffered to avoid the implication but no purely contingent explanation is sufficient to ground the whole set of contingents. Necessarily, there is an entity that is not contingent itself and that is the ground of existence for all caused entities. Here are two of the many, many variations of how this has been logically argued:

1) There are only two ways for any thing to exist: dependently, or independently
2) Not everything can be dependent
3) Therefore, something exists independently

---

1) If it is possible that a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists
2) It is possible that a necessary being exists
3) Therefore, a necessary being exists

These two are no more or less convincing than other versions, and a lot of ink has been used in explaining, defending and criticising them. We all weigh various factors differently and reach our own conclusions.

A number of properties can be derived from the nature of a necessary being such as eternality, non-physicality, non-timebound and so on. Some philosophers, and I am convinced as well, would add that this entity must be intelligent and conscious as to make the decision to initiate the universe at point X, rather than at any other point. Needless to say, this is controversial and avoiding this conclusion has lead to cosmologists positing an infinite multiverse. But applying Occam's razor of not multiplying entities beyond that which is sufficient to explain, it is simpler and more elegant to posit a single necessary intelligent entity than an infinite multiverse that still remains contingent and in need of explanation itself (adding up contingent entities never yields a necessary and sufficient ground for any given caused entity let alone an infinite set of them). Interestingly, the multiverse itself is a kind of god-of-the-gaps invocation that cannot be proven by people bound within this universe bound by its laws of physics. There is simply no way for us to get outside of our physical laws and continue to exist as we do, yet observe other universes with different laws: unless of course, consciousness is basic and transcends nature itself.

On the topic of consciousness, I've been studying philosophy of mind and looking into the NDE phenomenon. I haven't found a single physical theory that satisfactorily explains all aspects of the many reports of the experience.   I've read the main literature, the clinical studies, a great number of reports and various proposed theories. The simplest view that explains it best is that consciousness survives body death. Note to "death-is-the-enders": I'm not going to argue about it. The NDE phenomenon is not an argument for theism as such, but it is certainly a problem for materialist worldviews.

I am rambling here and have not done justice to the ideas themselves or my own thought process.  I have not given any tight formulations or defense of any arguments and trucks could be driven through the loose wording I've employed. I guess this is just to give you an idea of the _kind_ of things I contemplated as I moved away from atheism.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

tech/a said:


> Do you believe in god.




No! Dont think that needs any explanation.


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

imajica said:


> all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting  easy answers to unanswerable questions.
> 
> the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.




Wow, this is pretty cool!!! Can I use this sometime?


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

I don’t have the time to read through all 55 pages, and maybe someone has already raised this, yet why must it be defined in the guise of GOD? Why must there be a god? I make a BIG generalisation here, yet there would appear to me more 'evidence' to dispel the notion of GOD or a GOD, and so why?

GOD or a GOD is always tainted with the heavy burden of religion and those who try to hi-jack a particular thread of the religion to push the 'views' of GOD or their GOD, e.g. Fundamentalists.

GOD or a GOD is a belief, of sorts, or put another way, a faith. A faith or belief you have in 'something', no matter what it is, whether it is as simple as a football team, or as complex as the notion of GOD.

Why is your (general term) GOD not just the means of a belief or faith. Why must GOD come with all the baggage - Jesus, Church, Religion etc. Sorry, just using Christian religion as the example, insert your own GOD like definitions if you believe in another GOD.

GOD can never live up to his or her expectations - those that we have imposed on him or her or it ... For the record, I am atheist. GOD, or a GOD, or the One True GOD is just that. Many forms, from many meanings to many peoples of the world. Hence, how can there be a GOD which defines and meets the expectations of all? I assume some group have to be wrong? You can’t all be right considering the number of fundamental differences between many of the religions that 'represent' GOD, or a GOD.

To have a faith or belief to give us hope, or something to hold onto in times of trouble, or just to have a faith to makes us feel not alone is what a GOD gives - in real-terms, to many people. It’s a faith that he or she will help in someway, yet doesn’t.

So why not have faith or belief in a tree, or your favourite pencil. This is not to belittle your idea of GOD, yet in the end it can, and will more than likely offer as much in return as GOD, or a GOD.

And, as some have pointed out, GOD or a GOD has a lot to answer for if he or she does exist. Bloody hell, look around at all this mess. Whether manmade [sic] or not, there is just a little too much going on, has gone on, and will go on for GOD, or a GOD to just sit back drinking a long black and watching the show.

Sure, the religious doctrine can talk all about we made 'our' bed when we took the apple from the tree etc., yet I think the more fanciful ideas of the bible/religion or 'start of it all' need to be looked at a little more openly.

So, I come back to my question, why do you not have faith, or belief in yourself, your own thoughts, your tree, your pencil, or just a faith that it will be all OK, or not OK, whichever you want. Why dress it up in religion and then tag an omnipotent GOD to the CEO position?


----------



## stocksontheblock (18 August 2009)

bullsvsbears said:


> The explanation Science offers concerning the formation of the universe, earth and mankind’s apparent explosive grandeur appearance is an obvious source of frustration for Atheists which manifests into anger and hostility by its followers. You just have to look at the common theme on this thread by its worshippers.




lol ... now that is truly funny!!!

Why would the "explanation science offers ..." be a source of "frustration for Atheists ..."


----------



## Mofra (18 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Lol. I find it very amusing that believers of any kind are castigated for asserting things as true, yet non-believers are just as dogmatic in their assertions of what they think are true.



MS, I'd suggest it is the force at which assertions are made (on either side) that determines the castigations reflected back upon those believers/non-believers as the case may be. 

I think most people, face to face, are quite accepting of the beliefs of others and simple discussions would rarely degenerate into a mission to convert the other side to a particular belief system (or non-belief system as the case may be). Perhaps some discussion-type form of Newton's laws of opposing force? 

In short, fundamentalism almost always results in some form of aggression ragardless of the belief attached to it.


----------



## $20shoes (18 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Two lines of thought were reinforcing in that respect. In one of his/her posts $20Shoes refers to the cosmological question. From that perspective, I realised the incoherence of an actually infinite past. We are in the present. The past can be divided into a set of equal units of time (however arbitrarily measured). But there is no way through successive addition (traversal) of those units of time that we can reach the present from an infinite past. However construed, the past is finite and that begs the question of beginning.




Nice post Tradesim.  It is quite logical to dismiss the notion of an infnite past, but I just wanted to expand upon this a little more. 
In my construct, I purport that time is infinite. There are two reasons why I reached this conclusion:

i) my hypothesis accepts that all of time and all universal matter was there in the beginning. It was far more dense than it is today but you and I and dinaosaurs and the year 3500 were  already in existence. As the universe stretches into infinity so does time, much like a bungee cord being stretched. However its end points are unreachable - that is, if i wanted to traverse time to reach an end point, it would be impossible because you are trying to reach the end point of infinity. The counter argument here is that if there was a beginning then there must be a starting point in time. But, we only draw this conclusion, not because its provable, but because it seems logical and we base this supposition on the creation date of the universe. Did time exist before our universe existed? Or is time something that has always been? If it has always been then you might conceive that as infinity stretches into infinity, more of what exists is revealed, as the bungee cord expands. In this sense, time is not elapsing but is being revealed. 


ii) If you accept our current understanding of the universe - that is, at some finite point in time, a universe was created, then before that point there must logically have been "no" time. However, if there was no time, prior to this major event, time could obviously not have elapsed to even allow that very first germination of our universe - there was no time!
If there was a point of no time, to take the concept a step further, then you must concede that it is possible for something to "live" outside of time, or come into being without time,  for our universe came into existence  from somewhere where time did not exist. 
If you accept this, then it is logical to accept that some force was able to penetrate a continuum of nothingness to create time and somethingness held within the nothingness.


----------



## bullsvsbears (18 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> lol ... now that is truly funny!!!
> 
> Why would the "explanation science offers ..." be a source of "frustration for Atheists ..."




Because Science cannot provide an answer to dispel God's existence.

I'm not trying to disrespect science because I have a science background myself. However I have noticed a common theme amongst atheists on this site is to question ones intelligence because of their belief in God's existence.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billions of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.14

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.


----------



## Mr J (18 August 2009)

bullyvsbears - does the complexity of biology suggest that a god was likely, or is it just something that currently impresses us, like tv, radio, electricity and flight once did. I know they're not quite the same, but I'm suggesting that those who come to the conclusion that biology could not have developed unassisted are perhaps underestimating biology, and overestimating their own knowledge and calculations.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (18 August 2009)

Mofra said:


> Perhaps some discussion-type form of Newton's laws of opposing force?



That has merit! 



> In short, fundamentalism almost always results in some form of aggression ragardless of the belief attached to it.



I agree. Looking behind it, I would suggest that the things that people draw their identity from are the things they are most sensitive about. The more tightly the ideas are held, the more sensitivity experienced when one perceives the idea as under attack because to them, it is their very identity that is perceived as under threat.


----------



## spooly74 (18 August 2009)

bullsvsbears said:


> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, *DNA instructs the cell*. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.14



This is not quite true. DNA does not instruct the cell. DNA only stores the information, but it's the proteins that are the functional product of that information.The genetic code translates DNA information into protein products.

_DNA needs proteins and proteins need DNA_. This has been called irreducibly complex, but that does not mean it did not or could not evolve.


> You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.



Simulations have shown how a simple code can evolve into the genetic code we see today throuh a series of gradual steps.


----------



## Gillie (18 August 2009)

The fact that scientists exist and actually question the validity of a god(s) and the universe, would in fact prove that there is actually no god(s).


----------



## MS+Tradesim (18 August 2009)

Hi $20Shoes,

Some good stuff there. I went back and reread your posts a few pages back to get a better grasp of where you're coming from and you should certainly be commended for putting a lot of thought into it all. There are some considerations that arise from your view but I wouldn't want to quibble over them because I do get where you're coming from. Possibly, the biggest hurdle I would see in your position per (i) is the question of the enduring self ie. we experience motion through space and we have a similar experience of motion through time. How would we account for this perception that the "I" endures and experiences the passage of time if no motion through time actually transpires? Are you thinking that the "I" exists in all areas of time but is only aware of experiencing the present? I'm not entirely sure what your view is there. Perhaps you might suggest that the experience of traversing time is actually only the stretching of time itself ie. if time were not expanding we would not be experiencing 'the passing of time'. If that's the case, I would have some objections there. 

With respect to the linearity of time and other lines of time outside of the line our universe is bound to, I don't think there is any _a priori_ reason to immediately reject the existence of multiple time lines related to multiple dimensions. If I understand you correctly, then we would roughly agree on that. One point where I would part company and I touched on in my last post, is that an infinite time series or even multiple infinite time series (assuming their intelligibility) does not obviate the contingency of our timeline.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that our time is infinite and has the kind of elasticity you propose. The timeline would still be relative to the universe, or the space-time relations. Einstein showed us that at least. If time has the potential to change with respect to its properties then trivially, it could be other than what it is. But whatever has potential with respect to its properties can only experience the instantiation of potential through the existence of a necessary and sufficient prior state of affairs, in which the potential can be realised ie. in some way, time is therefore contingent. So for me, even if I ceded the infinity of time, I would still come face to face with the question of what is sufficient to ground the existence of time in the first place? Stretching it to infinity, IMO, only infinitely increases the need for a sufficient ground (I don't feel this is what you are saying and I need to reread some more). So from your post #1077 I would suggest that your hypothesis is not mutually exclusive of God (however so conceived).

Going on to discussion number (ii) there a number of ways this is considered and I'm sure you're aware of them. One is that time began with the universe. On this construal, from a theistic perspective, God's decree to create is simultaneous with the action of creation which includes time (hopefully it's obvious that by 'creation' I am not referring to a young earth creationist kind of idea). So it would simply be unintelligible to speak of 'before time'. Another view would draw from the multiple arrows of time idea that there is some kind of absolute non-potentialised time which is natural to God and the beginning of our time could be marked as a point on God's timeline. This would be complementary to your hypothesis in some way.

Just some loose thoughts. I like the way you think.


----------



## Cartman (18 August 2009)

Gillie said:


> The fact that scientists exist and actually question the validity of a god(s) and the universe, would in fact prove that there is actually no god(s).




geez Gillie -- that logic is about as about as straight as my old divining rod 


any scientist that studies his craft with a pre-(mis)conception that god either does or doesnt exist will in the long term be displaying biased and unreliable scientific data to base future hypotheses from ----  

if there is no god/s (i prefer "superior life form" as a description) then the complexity of living organisms is not diminished --- to the contrary --- it becomes even more amazing from a random point of view

if there is/are SLF (superior life form) --- rest assured they have knowledge of micro-biology and physics that make Sir Isaac Newton and his mates look like kindergarten students --- and the rest of us "uneducated souls" look like imbeciles  :freak3:

i already admit to being an intellectual imbecile ---  the truth tends to get less distorted that way 


PS MS+T --- some interesting stuff to chew on in your previous  posts ---- placing my digestive juices into a higher gear


----------



## Mr J (18 August 2009)

Cartman said:


> if there is/are SLF (superior life form) --- rest assured they have knowledge of micro-biology and physics that make Sir Isaac Newton and his mates look like kindergarten students --- and the rest of us "uneducated souls" look like imbeciles  :freak3:




I've often imagined that we're just a petri dish in the experiment of an alien science class. I don't think it's any less likely than a 'god', and I think if a god does exist, it may very well be what we would consider to be an alien. Perhaps he had a strong telepathic sense to explain his talk and listening in the bible, and as there's so many of us these days, he can no longer do so . Perhaps he got bored and left - explaining the seemingly absence of miracles and chosen ones.

I find it amazing that so many truly believe in the god of a religion, and totally discount the possibility of aliens. It would be enjoyable to see 'God' beam down from a spaceship, though he'd probably be greeted by the armed forces.

Being open-minded to all possibilities is far more enjoyable than being restricted to one .


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 August 2009)

Cartman said:


> i already admit to being an intellectual imbecile ---  the truth tends to get less distorted that way



That`s just it. One doesn`t have to be intelligent to be awake. Read Genesis and one doesn`t need intelligence to `know` the `story` is a fabrication from people who did not know. I used to fear speaking this way because I thought I would be persecuted. My knowing has grown since then.


----------



## Mr J (18 August 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> I used to fear speaking this way because I thought I would be persecuted.




It would create a lot of controversy in many communities and fields. For example, the Americans have elected a half-black man as President, but someone who ever questions the existence of 'God' probably has no chance.



> Read Genesis and one doesn`t need intelligence to `know` the `story` is a fabrication from people who did not know.




There are otherwise intelligent people who do take it literally and believe it. It's not something I think we'll understand from a logic perspective. I would suggest it's not a rational decision by them, but one of emotion and comfort. Perhaps they like the idea, so they choose to believe it. I think we're emotional creatures before we're logical creatures, so in that sense I think I can understand 'belief' to an extent. I'm utterly incapable of it (belief) myself though.


----------



## $20shoes (18 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Hi $20Shoes,
> 
> 
> How would we account for this perception that the "I" endures and experiences the passage of time if no motion through time actually transpires? Are you thinking that the "I" exists in all areas of time but is only aware of experiencing the present?
> ...




MS, I think you just blew my mind 

Regards the enduring self, I'm inclined to this school of thought - "...that the "I" exists in all areas of time but is only aware of experiencing the present" At some point in time, and for what ever reason, the "I" which has always been, "experiences" in the physical sense. In the metaphysical sense the "I" is not grounded whereas the physical incarnation appears to be grounded in the rules of what what we consider the here and now. That is, we are obviously adhering to the rules of the universe but, I believe, only in a physical and measurable capacity, which may be just the immediate layer of the onion. 

Possibly the best way to follow this construct, is using the metaphysical truth "All is One. One is All". If time is also part of the All, then perhaps we are revealed in time because there cannot be a time where we're not part of the All. That is, perhaps the experience that the universe seeks ( you , me and all that is known and unknown draws) is a revelation that unfolds in time. Since everything simply "is", nothing is chaotic. We're simply creating our experience ( the true beauty in this is the concept of free will, of a realistic notion of life after death, of God). 

Multiple timelines are possible. Even science concedes that our universe is one plane. 

My concept is not mutually exclusive of God but perhaps involves God. 
The grounding of time would seem necessary, absolutely, and without which we could not have proven many many hypotheses. 
However, lets for arguments sake, suggest that time is grounded from one point of nothingness and stretches to another point of nothingness. If elastic, there are questions over how time reveals itself sequentially or why it even reveals itself sequentially. Obviously, the laws of time might still be applicable, but you might need to concede that some "collective" universal melding pot of thought/emotion/spirit/energy is creating the experience that makes sense  within that moment. 

I really have brain hurties now. Has been a good discussion though


----------



## bullsvsbears (18 August 2009)

I will depart this thread on this note. It may come as a suprise but I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

Thanks for everyone's input.


----------



## Mr J (18 August 2009)

> It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.




That is simply not the case for me. I'm not really an atheist as I do not presume to know whether or not a god exists, but there is certainly no sense of a god pursuing me with the intention of making me aware of his existence. I see nothing to suggest that it is likely a god exists. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another theory regarding the creation of the universe and the question of why we are here. It may be true, but it does not seem likely. 

There are questions to which we do not know the answer. Many feel the need to conjure up theories, however, many accept these theories as truth. There is very little understanding of probabilty shown by either side.

As for the belief of god, it's not that important to me even if I was shown that 'God' does exist. It really wouldn't change my life, and I doubt his opinion of me would change. I would respect him, but not worship him as lord and creator. If he is the source of my creation and worthy of respect, he will appreciate my stance. I don't think the existence of a god would really change anything.


----------



## Cartman (18 August 2009)

bullsvsbears said:


> I will depart this thread on this note. It may come as a suprise but I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
> 
> I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
> 
> Thanks for everyone's input.




hey BB ---- dont leave now --- that is the sort of stuff everyone is interested in 

U will often be ridiculed for your conviction or applauded for your courage to take a stand ---- disregard anyone who has either of those reactions to your statements (cause they are suffering "Dogmatism syndrome"  ---  tell us more about your "conversion/realisation" ---

the interesting thing about god talks is "atheists" and "godders" who discuss the scenarios are generally both only looking for answers --- dogmatism on either side of the scorecard represents narrow mindedness in my opinion --


----------



## MS+Tradesim (18 August 2009)

Hey $20Shoes, I turned it up a notch coz I saw you thinking about some pretty abstract stuff there. I can crank it further.  

I don't find the "all is one" position persuasive, personally. It has to do with the way I account for individual identity and differentiation by potentialities. I do allow for the bare possibility that "I" might just be an aspect of a greater mind, but it's difficult to get around the reality and intuitive individuality of self. Just ask Descartes: _cogito ergo sum_.

Our experience of time as sequential is another of those intuitions that are difficult to get around. You raise here the question of the topology, or structure, of time. What does it look like? About 4 years ago I sketched a very brief outline for a theory of time as waves, but I never developed it. Briefly, I hypothesised that time within our universe has a wave structure and that there is not one single timeline for the whole universe but that different areas are travelling at different wavelengths and that time could speed up or slow down in different regions of space. Rather than the universe unfolding on a single line, it would be more like currents in the ocean, figuratively speaking. Now to get really obscure, I wanted to tie it into quantum observer theory. Roughly, when we as humans perceive time to be going really slowly, or really quickly it is in fact the case. The wavelength of time for our mind can actually speed up or slow down independently of the pool of timelines around us that are being travelled by say, the desk, the cat and the wife. On this account, it would be the case that time has an elasticity of a kind explained by its wavelength. But it would still be linear, or rather, its arrow would only point one direction.

Anyways, that's going into some dark places I might never return from. :


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2009)

Oh He's real alright and this is what He is telling us. Why would He bother?


----------



## $20shoes (18 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Hey $20Shoes, I turned it up a notch coz I saw you thinking about some pretty abstract stuff there. I can crank it further.
> Rather than the universe unfolding on a single line, it would be more like currents in the ocean, figuratively speaking. Now to get really obscure, I wanted to tie it into quantum observer theory.




Like you don't have enough to do already with trading, you thought you might just develop your own time theory!!  

That is very interesting though. I had never conceived of this possibility at all!! I think I want to read some stuff  on these sort of subjects. I'm not well schooled in this area. If you can recommend anything that would be super.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (18 August 2009)

$20shoes,

When I first conceived of the idea, I had a look around and couldn't find anything about it apart from one article by a physicist (or someone) who  posited a wave view of time (but he never went beyond the basic statement that he thinks time moves in waves), and of course a whole bunch of nebulous stuff on new age sites who seem to co-opt anything. So I don't know of any literature out there about the idea. However, I don't have access to a uni library at the moment or even a decent public library so there could be writing on it that I'm just not aware of.

At the time I used a whiteboard pen and covered every mirror in the house in sketches and ideas. Needless to say, my wife wasn't very happy! 

Here are some places to start looking at with respect to general philosophy of time:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
http://www.philtimesociety.typepad.com/

Trading is great and I love it but it's only ever been a means to an end which is -> lots of money to help people who need it and lots of time to sit around and ruminate on this kind of crap.


----------



## $20shoes (19 August 2009)

Cheers for that! Is been fun bouncing around these ideas. A lot for people to chew on...


----------



## gav (2 September 2009)

Just last week I lost a good friend, died in his sleep aged just 31 - cause unknown...  I have spent a lot of time relfecting; wondering if he is in a better place, or if there is simply just a dead body in the ground.  I went to a private Catholic school and always believed in God, but over the years I have become skeptical or rational, however you want to put it...  These days I really don't know what I believe or think.

I find it strange that on his Facebook page so many people still leave comments, like he can read them from heaven or something.  It is almost as if everyone who knew him believes in God and believes in heaven, which I found quite surprising.  This got me thinking... maybe these people believe in God (during the time of a death of a loved one) as it helps them with their own grieving process, to think he is in a "better place".  Because to think otherwise would be unbearable.  Even I would love to think that he is in the gym at heaven, lifting weights as he loved so much...

His beautiful fiance was supposed to move from Canada to Australia this week to live with him, but instead is here for his funeral  (which was on Monday).  She leaves a very detailed and very touching message on his Facebook wall every morning. (which often gets the better of me if I read it)

I then thought what it would be like to lose those closest to me.  If one of my parents or brothers died, I'd be devastated.  I would mourn their loss and it would be very difficult for me to move on, but I think eventually I would be OK.  I'd see things that would remind me of them and it would have an emotional affect on me, but I'd keep on living.

But if my partner died, there is simply no way I could go on.  Life would mean nothing without her.  And the thought of her not being in a better place waiting for me would be just too much to bare.  I too would be like my friends fiance, and talk or write to my partner every day even though she would no longer be with me.  Because to think anything else, well I'd simply lose any motivation to be alive.

It is strange that I can see this irrationality in another human/s, but at the same time knowing I'd do exactly the same in that situation...


----------



## Julia (2 September 2009)

Gav, I'm so sorry about your friend.   That is just dreadfully young to die.

I guess we all deal with death and loss in different ways, but the apparently irrational 'communicating' with the dead person is I think common, perhaps in an attempt to bridge that gap from the person being alive, and acknowledging the hard reality that you will never see them or speak to them again.

The other aspect to consider is that when we're shocked, saddened and grieving we lose our objectivity as emotions overwhelm us.  We find it somehow comforting to "talk to" the dead person.

The whole death question is one where I can really feel envious of those with religious beliefs.  It must be immensely comforting to believe that someone you love has 'gone to a better place'.  I think there's a bit in the Bible somewhere where Jesus says "I go to prepare a place for you".

My father was a highly intelligent, very well educated person, had no time whatsoever for religion but nevertheless had an unshakeable conviction that there was some sort of  perpetual spiritual existence.  I jokingly said to him, 'well, when you die, send me a sign that proves this'.    I have never had any sense of him communicating with me, but a very odd thing did happen a few months after he died.

I happened to be walking past his house which had been sold and was then rented to a middle aged couple who were on that day working in the front garden.  We got chatting and I said that my father had previously lived there.
They looked at each other and went very quiet.  I asked if something was wrong.  They hummed and hahed and then explained that they had just given notice to leave because the house had a 'bad feeling' and they had been woken several times at night by the sense of someone sitting on the bed and sighing heavily.   Also they had both had the peculiar sense that this being/entity was very wet though they couldn't at all explain that.
They knew nothing about who had previously owned the house and had no way of knowing that my father had drowned himself.

These people were ordinary, pragmatic and said they'd never before had any remotely similar experiences.  Maybe nothing to it at all, but it was a bit weird.

Sorry, Gav, I didn't mean to digress.   Grieving is a very personal process.
It's intensely painful but my own experience is that it's best to just go with it and gradually the pain diminishes.

I think, too, the 'talking' to the person who has died, or posting up comments on a networking site, is a way of honouring that person and the contribution they have made to your life.

These comments will mean a great deal to your friend's family.

So sorry for your loss.
Best wishes
Julia


----------



## Boggo (3 September 2009)

Have a read of this while the link still works.

Something out there somewhere 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ted-Our-son-World-War-II-pilot-come-life.html

PS. Sorry for your loss gav


----------



## mellifuous (3 September 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> No,I do not believe in god because the idea was created from human mind.The other living organisms on the earth have no words to explain things either.




I'm starting to believe you Wysiwyg, no matter how many times I ask my dog, it won't give me the explanation I seek.


----------



## Tink (3 September 2009)

Sorry to hear of your loss Gav



gav said:


> These days I really don't know what I believe or think.
> 
> It is strange that I can see this irrationality in another human/s, but at the same time knowing I'd do exactly the same in that situation...




Only you can answer that question yourself..


----------



## $20shoes (3 September 2009)

Gav, that's such a sad story. I hope you are doing ok. 

If you feel up to it, take a listen to this - 

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=889

It may be of some comfort...I don't know 

"This American Life" produces some amazing, very humanistic stories. They produced the critically acclaimed trilogy on the Financial Crisis as well. Good listening.


----------



## jonojpsg (3 September 2009)

I too am sincerely sorry to hear about your friend gav   It's a pretty scary thought that at any stage we could go to bed not to wake the next morning  

FWIW I believe that we have an eternal soul (after we are born) - how/what that soul experiences after the death of the physical body is something that awaits us all IMO

On the note of time as a wave and us perceiving time differently, I'm all for that.  Surely all of us have experience the flow of time changing at different times in our life - eg this day is taking forever, etc.  Although I had previously thought that this might have been a function of getting older, eg the time we experience becomes a smaller proportion of our total experience and so is perceived as passing more quickly?

Gotta love this conversation


----------



## tech/a (3 September 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> I too am sincerely sorry to hear about your friend gav   It's a pretty scary thought that at any stage we could go to bed not to wake the next morning
> 
> FWIW I believe that we have an eternal soul (after we are born) - how/what that soul experiences after the death of the physical body is something that awaits us all IMO
> 
> ...




Gav not good I have lost 5 suddenly.
Close friends Boyfriend was killed in a road accident on the W/E.
A very good girl "Friend" of ours has terminal spine Cancer and will partner me to the Crows Essendon Match on Friday night.
She is an avid Crows fan and this sadly may well be the last game she will ever attend!
In one respect I think ---while tragic---your friend is indeed lucky!
Would hate to be in Kathy's position!

A few Years ago a mate left for work--he caught a train.work called his wife when he didnt arrive after 3 hrs late. He had been found on a footpath and had died for no reason.

JONO
Apart from "faith" how did you come to your belief?


----------



## nunthewiser (3 September 2009)

sorry to hear gav 

stay cool


----------



## $20shoes (3 September 2009)

tech/a said:


> Close friends Boyfriend was killed in a road accident on the W/E.
> A very good girl "Friend" of ours has terminal spine Cancer and will partner me to the Crows Essendon Match on Friday night.




Not good Tech. 
I hear this and think how blessed am i. You really need to stop and celebrate those little victories each day. Regardless of faith, we're cognizant of our lives and our impending death; that's the gift. Love it all and soak it up. As you have just reminded me, not all of us get this chance, not all of us get the opportunities to live and love.


----------



## weatherbill (3 September 2009)

one of the best places I've found for answers to the creation vs evolution issue is answersingenesis

its a creation science site, but they do a great job at answering almost every argument the evolutionist presents


----------



## sails (3 September 2009)

Gav and Tech, so sorry to hear of your friends.  It seems that whenever there is death, there is usually mention of God.  No one has ever given me reason to believe that we don't have a "God conscious" part in us - and this seems to be confirmed with how many people respond when in danger or with the death of a loved one.

I'm not one to push religious beliefs on to others and for that reason rarely get into the exchanges in these "religious" type threads.  With some hesitation, I will share this true experience - take it or leave it is fine with me.  I had a near death experience quite some time ago when my kids were still little, but it's something I have never forgotten.  

I'd had major surgery and then the next day found myself in serious trouble with a massive internal hemorrhage.  I was rushed back to the OT where they subsequently found the tie had come off a major artery.  While lying on the table just prior to the anesthetic feeling very weak, an incredible peace came over me.  I felt so enveloped in this amazing presence, so full of peace with a total absence of fear.  When I came round after surgery, that same presence and overwhelming sense of peace was still there and remained with unusual intensity for many days to follow.  

Although I was brought up in a religious environment, I have questioned many things over the years.  I like to prove things for myself.  During some of the tougher times in life, I have sometimes questioned if God is still there.  But then there have been times when things happen that would have to be beyond coincidence alone.  Sometimes the answers come so differently to what we might have expected, but ultimately are a much better solution.  

So, at this stage, I have no reason not to believe there is a higher being.  To me, this would be like saying the wind does not exist just because we can't see it.  We can feel it, can see how it moves the trees, etc.  When one feels that sense of peace and sees what appears to be the hand of a higher being at work, I guess the rest is up to how we decide to interpret it.

I think the word "religion" in itself doesn't necessarily mean much to do with God - sadly it can have more to do with man-made ideas and power.

Just my thoughts...


----------



## skint (3 September 2009)

weatherbill said:


> one of the best places I've found for answers to the creation vs evolution issue is answersingenesis
> 
> its a creation science site, but they do a great job at answering almost every argument the evolutionist presents




Oxymoron of the day - "creation science"


----------



## spooly74 (3 September 2009)

gav said:


> Just last week I lost a good friend, died in his sleep aged just 31 - cause unknown.(



Gav,

Very sorry to hear of your loss. Unfortunately I know what your going through. I lost a dear friend suddenly to a brain hemmorhage a few years ago, he was 31 and also engadged to be married.

I don't believe he's looking down from a better place, I don't see how one can 'be' anything when you're dead. Just my opinion.
I can tell you that eventually time will ease the grief you're feeling. Indeed, his fiancee has since got married and is very happy now, living and loving life.

Personally, over time I've come to cherish the time we spent together, and the antics we got up to. There are no more tears, only happy memories.
I wish you well.


----------



## macca (3 September 2009)

hi,

My thoughts on a very personal subject, the body is just a body we use this time on earth. 

I have NO doubt at all that the spirit (soul) lives on.

Hope that helps Gav.


----------



## Vizion (3 September 2009)

Possibly the one topic I love more than anything else to think about.

Its also interesting that the question can never get a simple yes or no response.

Maybe the question should be do you believe in God (s) 
YES
NO
if so which (One) (s). 
List here...

How about "can you beleive in  God (s) and not the bible? 
I personally think that's probably preferable 

Physics & geology tell us that creationists time-lines are wrong.
Yet creationists will argue this fact and have come up with a million reasons why they are right and science is wrong. 

I've never understood why science and spirituality have to be mutually exclusive for the vast majority. It's just as impressive to me if God or whomever made the earth 4.5 billion years ago and that evolution was part of the grand scheme. Why this line in the sand you cant cross?

The vast majority of religions think the Bible & their own religious texts are the "Real Deal" Someone has to be wrong here, we can't all be right.

Come on now... if there is a Christian God I cant see him/her/it requiring our worship. I always wonder If he/she/it is omnipotent & omniscient what's to keep their interest in existing "alive" as it where. 
Are we it? are we the reason for Gods existence? 
We are rather distracting & colourful...but I have my doubts we are the be all and end all for his existence. I want to know what he does with his spare time, what his spare time is...

I want to know why  he made all those other planets / stars / nebula / galaxies. Are we supposed to believe that God made all that 1st and only populated *this* little mud-ball with life, especially since science has already found microbes on bodies other than Earth?
If he was going to make only one planet with life and we are created in him image, I'm pretty sure just like alot of us he would have been compelled to trade up to a bigger "house" We are made in his image after all.

Do we  exist on  after death?
At the most basic fundamental level, the atomic level, the atoms that make up your body exist as entities for a long time. Up to millions of years, when you die your atoms do not "die" they scatter to reform in parts of other constructions. So technically as some of your atoms will reform as part of another living thing at some point, so yes you do. 

I could blather on for years  but will end by saying,  I really think that at  the end of the day if you beleive it's not up for debate.
You either do or do not, that's your business & you should be allowed to beleive as you want to.

The interesting questions are not IF GOD exists but WHY he exists.


----------



## Cartman (3 September 2009)

hey Gav, sympathies my friend ... may i say the "vibe" of your post was one of a genuine friend (and dedicated partner to your wife as well) --- nice stuff -- interesting how even over an internet forum the essence of the person becomes obvious ---- all the best with your grief .




Julia said:


> My father was a highly intelligent, very well educated person, had no time whatsoever for religion but nevertheless had an unshakeable conviction that there was some sort of  perpetual spiritual existence.  I jokingly said to him, 'well, when you die, send me a sign that proves this'.    I have never had any sense of him communicating with me, but a very odd thing did happen a few months after he died.
> 
> I happened to be walking past his house which had been sold and was then rented to a middle aged couple who were on that day working in the front garden.  We got chatting and I said that my father had previously lived there.
> They looked at each other and went very quiet.  I asked if something was wrong.  They hummed and hahed and then explained that they had just given notice to leave because the house had a 'bad feeling' and they had been *woken several times at night by the sense of someone sitting on the bed and sighing heavily.   Also they had both had the peculiar sense that this being/entity was very wet though* they couldn't at all explain that.
> They knew nothing about who had previously owned the house and had no way of knowing that my father had drowned himself.





Julia --- that is a seriously amazing story ---- did that change your beliefs at all in regard to the possibility of god/gods/spiritual world etc etc


----------



## Mr J (3 September 2009)

Julia said:


> Also they had both had the peculiar sense that this being/entity was very wet though they couldn't at all explain that.
> They knew nothing about who had previously owned the house and had no way of knowing that my father had drowned himself.




One of the few things that would freak me out (only temporarily though) is to learn that there are spirits among us. So much for the privacy of our own homes .


----------



## mellifuous (3 September 2009)

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/8850/how-to-talk-to-the-dead/

Read all about it - learn how to communicate with the dead.

oh.. one thought.   I guess they didn't invent a time machine in the future, since no ones come back to tell us about it.  Perhaps one might be an alien? http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/11451/11-hints-you-might-be-descended-from-aliens/

a wet ghost ... interesting idea, I wonder how they distinguished it from a dry one?


----------



## Julia (3 September 2009)

Cartman said:


> h
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Cartman, no, not really.    But I've always been open to the concept of some spiritual (not in the religious sense) connection between living beings and don't find the idea of this continuing after death out of the question.

This has absolutely nothing to do with a God, however, and absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I remember years ago in one of these discussions, I think it was Dukey who wrote a post that made sense to me when he talked about pantheism



> the idea that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that was, is and shall be), rather than as an anthropomorphic entity. With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic[1].




Something to do with a whole inter-connectiveness amongst nature, people, animals etc.   

Isn't it difficult to put words to ideas that are only half formed in the first place!

I recall when my grandmother died, I had an overwhelming sense of her continued presence for some years.  It may be that this was my subconscious way of feeling comfort at losing her.  I don't know.
I would 'hear her voice' (not audibly of course) and feel her calmness when I was stressed.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 September 2009)

Julia said:


> Hi Cartman, no, not really.    But I've always been open to the concept of some spiritual (not in the religious sense) connection between living beings and don't find the idea of this continuing after death out of the question.
> 
> This has absolutely nothing to do with a God, however, and absolutely nothing to do with religion.
> 
> ...




I'd agree but like you, Julia find it difficult to put it in to words.

gg


----------



## Harleyquin (3 September 2009)

gav said:


> Just last week I lost a good friend, died in his sleep aged just 31 - cause unknown...  I have spent a lot of time relfecting; wondering if he is in a better place, or if there is simply just a dead body in the ground.  I went to a private Catholic school and always believed in God, but over the years I have become skeptical or rational, however you want to put it...  These days I really don't know what I believe or think.
> 
> I find it strange that on his Facebook page so many people still leave comments, like he can read them from heaven or something.  It is almost as if everyone who knew him believes in God and believes in heaven, which I found quite surprising.  This got me thinking... maybe these people believe in God (during the time of a death of a loved one) as it helps them with their own grieving process, to think he is in a "better place".  Because to think otherwise would be unbearable.  Even I would love to think that he is in the gym at heaven, lifting weights as he loved so much...
> 
> ...




Gav it is always painful losing someone close to you, we have all been through it and it never gets easier.  One of the ladies who I work with lost her sister in law two weeks ago, she was 30 and had a aneurysm and spent a week in hospital prior to her death.   It's always so sad and I feel for all of you, his family and friends.  I think it always helps to think about them and remember the good times.  It takes time to heal.  

I have had a friend murdered when we were teenagers under extremely tragic circumstances and a brother in law who I just loved die young under tragic circumstances and it took me a long long time to come to terms with it and I often think of both of them.  It's always so heartbreaking when they are young.  If they are old you console yourself that they have had their life and all good things come to an end.  When my Dad died I found it much easier and we celebrated his life rather than mourn his death as he had fought and overcome so much illness during his last years of life.

Hope time helps you all to cope and you gather support from each other and others who knew him well.  Good luck.  Harleyquin


----------



## Cartman (4 September 2009)

Julia said:


> I've always been open to the concept of some spiritual (not in the religious sense) connection between living beings and don't find the idea of this continuing after death out of the question.




yes we can't really rule any thing out as a possibility until we walk through that door eh! --  

what ever dimension god exists in i'm pretty sure he'd agree religion is giving him a bad name!   (no disrespect intended to religious folk -- i have a very good working relationship with god, just not in the traditional sense)


----------



## gav (4 September 2009)

Thanks to all those who offered kind words.  And thanks to those who shared their own personal stories too.  Unfortunately too many people that I've known have died young...


----------



## mellifuous (4 September 2009)

the pope rules as the new pharaoh.
the english royals rule the 'church of england'

all to take advantage of the frailties of men (and women).

I'm stunned that christians speak in 'old english' (first translation of the 'bible'), why not learn hebrew like muslims learn arabic?

'Thou shalt not ... ' - interesting speak for a hebrew.

As I remember reading somewhere, words to the effect of 'if one walked down the street talking to an invisible person, they'd have one locked up - how come religious people get away with it?'

Sadness abounds, it's the downside of life - religions from the beginning of recorded time have taken advantage of our fear of death.  We are as primitive as all those who have passed before us.

I just wonder when the next pyramids will be built?


----------



## Temjin (4 September 2009)

mellifuous said:


> I just wonder when the next pyramids will be built?




You mean the social security pyramid scheme going on in the US right now?  Or any other mega type government sponsored pyramid scheme scams? hehe


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2009)

mellifuous said:


> ... 'if one walked down the street talking to an invisible person, they'd have one locked up - how come religious people get away with it?'



But is God an invisible person? 



> Sadness abounds, it's the downside of life - *religions* from the beginning of recorded time have taken advantage of our fear of death.  We are as primitive as all those who have passed before us.




Yes indeed, in many respects, *more* primitive. "Science" hasn't helped either, even if it has helped open up possibilities, we still refuse to consider them.


Disclaimer: full of cheap Spanish Merlot again. :


----------



## mellifuous (4 September 2009)

Temjin said:


> You mean the social security pyramid scheme going on in the US right now?  Or any other mega type government sponsored pyramid scheme scams? hehe




lol...

actually, I was thinking of the kind used for blood letting..

but, I guess any kind of pyramid would cause us grief, be it the one we can't afford (like the one your refer to), or the one that once again may be used to appease the gods in an attempt to bring certainty to this unpredictable world.

Maybe god is not invisible, didn't I see a picture in this thread of a cloud giving the world the finger? Maybe god is a cloud?


----------



## Julia (4 September 2009)

wayneL said:


> Disclaimer: full of cheap Spanish Merlot again. :




And in so imbibing, Wayne, you are doing a service to the wine maker, to the government and your fellow citizens, with the taxes on alcohol.
Drink on with pride.


----------



## kgee (4 September 2009)

mellifuous said:


> Sadness abounds, it's the downside of life - religions from the beginning of recorded time have taken advantage of our fear of death.




Don't forget the fear of life


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2009)

Julia said:


> And in so imbibing, Wayne, you are doing a service to the wine maker, to the government and your fellow citizens, with the taxes on alcohol.
> Drink on with pride.




It's a win-win situation Julia. 

As I don't really drink much anymore, it doesn't take much before I start speaking unintelligable garble.


----------



## GumbyLearner (5 September 2009)

What I would like to know is what percentage of people participating in this thread are over 60? 

and

Who are worried about death/meeting their maker/ checking out/ yada yada etc..?

Some statistical demographic modelling would be required for me to join this thread.

Just a thought!

Don't feel guilty, just live. That's my only advice. IMVHO!


----------



## nunthewiser (5 September 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> What I would like to know is what percentage of people participating in this thread are over 60?
> 
> and
> 
> ...





under 45 

when my numbers up , its up .........

i am guilty and thats a cross i have to bear


----------



## mellifuous (5 September 2009)

Moses, Jesus, .. who's next?  K. Rudd?

I wonder if it's those who love life who fear death?

It's always hard to give a good thing up!

When you're on a good thing, stick to it?


----------



## inenigma (13 November 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> What I would like to know is what percentage of people participating in this thread are over 60?
> 
> and
> 
> Who are worried about death/meeting their maker/ checking out/ yada yada etc..?




46

What ???  This is life ???  Give me a break.


----------



## jklucas (19 January 2010)

Does it matter? As long as you are happy.


----------



## Logique (20 January 2010)

the barry said:


> he wore a number 5 geurnsy and ran about in the geelong jumper.



Yes god does indeed exist, he was the Norm Smith medallist in the 1989 grand final.


----------



## gooner (19 February 2010)

Mary Mckillop has achieved sainthood. Let us pray for her.......

And wonder why you could never cure amputees......


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 February 2010)

gooner said:


> Mary Mckillop has achieved sainthood. Let us pray for her.......
> 
> And wonder why you could never cure amputees......




Why have a dig at a defenseless lady who does harm to no one? A better quality human being than all the rat bags walking this planet that's for sure.


----------



## gooner (20 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Why have a dig at a defenseless lady who does harm to no one? A better quality human being than all the rat bags walking this planet that's for sure.




She is dead. She does not need defending.

Can you not see the hypocrisy in a church that claims it can cause miracles whilst not fessing up about its responsibility for child rape?


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 February 2010)

gooner said:


> She is dead. She does not need defending.
> 
> Can you not see the hypocrisy in a church that claims it can cause miracles whilst not fessing up about its responsibility for child rape?




Well if you want to discuss child rape then go see the authorities and give them the names and details. No one is above the law although some may cheat it for a time. There is no need to bag the good people. Bag the bad ones instead.


----------



## weird (20 February 2010)

gooner do you have stats comparing molesting priests to number of priests, to molesting school teachers to teachers, or molesting boy scouts leaders to boy scouts leaders ?

I remember hearing stories when growing up that women sexually abused were put on a 'pension' by a bank, and a bank employee or perhaps manager was just transferred after an after works drinks alteration or Christmas party which may have involved rape, while you may think the Catholic church has been involved in cover ups, I would not be surprised to see some cover ups in some house hold name organisations.


----------



## doctorj (20 February 2010)

weird said:


> gooner do you have stats comparing molesting priests to number of priests, to molesting school teachers to teachers, or molesting boy scouts leaders to boy scouts leaders ?



I don't think your suggesting that it's ok because it happens in other organisations?

Personally, I don't think there is a God, but even if there was a God, as long as the church was being run by human beings it would still be corrupt.


----------



## weird (20 February 2010)

Understood and well accepted thought ... good point.



doctorj said:


> I don't think your suggesting that it's ok because it happens in other organisations?
> 
> Personally, I don't think there is a God, but even if there was a God, as long as the church was being run by human beings it would still be corrupt.


----------



## Whiskers (20 February 2010)

In regard to the option with the most responses, "_I know there is no GOD we are a random quirk of nature_"... I've been investigating this question for about 20 years now and am pretty firmly coming to the conclusion that we are not a random quirk of nature. 

Now that isn't saying there is a god as many 'churches' and 'religions' portray, but I'm strongly coming to the belief that there is something out there or maybe in us, in the not completely understood thalamus or diencephalon area that can attune to the rythm of the universe and help guide us to better decision making for some 'greater' purpose in life.

On the issue of miracles... if you believe a miracle to be an act of god, say to save someone's life, and I mean no disrespect to Mary M, she was apparently a terrific lady... but surely if god saved a person through say Mary, surely god wanted that person to live on for some reason. 

So, shouldn't we be looking at that person for whatever god wanted to achieve through saving their life, arguably more than admiration of Mary?... afterall the Commandments say god is a jealous god, so he would be cross with you if you focused your admiration/worship on Mary instead of what he was trying to achieve, wouldn't he?


----------



## bellenuit (20 February 2010)

Whiskers said:


> On the issue of miracles... if you believe a miracle to be an act of god, say to save someone's life, and I mean no disrespect to Mary M, she was apparently a terrific lady... but surely if god saved a person through say Mary, surely god wanted that person to live on for some reason.




The issue I have with miracles such as those attributed to Mary M, is that if God wanted the person to live for some reason, as you say, why did God give the person the affliction to begin with?

I wasn't paying attention when I heard this on ABC radio yesterday, but it appears studies have shown that even if you know you are being given a placebo, if you believe the placebo will heal you, in some cases it will. Apparently a belief that you are being healed actually aids in you being healed. This is what I recall, but may be wrong as I only half heard it.

If that is the case, then it could be a explanation for many so-called miracles. If the person really believes that praying to such and such a saint will heal them, then it is the belief they will be healed that heals them rather than an intercession by the saint. If statistically this occurs only one in a million times, it still would account for all modern Vatican declared miracles. 

And it would also explain why there have been no physically impossible miracles, such as an amputee having the limb grow back.


----------



## gooner (20 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well if you want to discuss child rape then go see the authorities and give them the names and details. No one is above the law although some may cheat it for a time. There is no need to bag the good people. Bag the bad ones instead.




As far as I know, she never claimed to be able to cause miracles. This was a church claim after she died. The whole idea of believing in humans creating miracles is ridiculous. Although, I might start believing were there to be some amputeees who grew their limbs back overnight.


----------



## Tink (20 February 2010)

gooner said:


> Mary Mckillop has achieved sainthood. Let us pray for her.......





OK 

Excellent news


----------



## jonojpsg (20 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> And it would also explain why there have been no physically impossible miracles, such as an amputee having the limb grow back.




Hmm, are you sure?  THis is a big world and I'm sure not everything that happens make it on to Sky news.

Agree that there is little point in giving people sainthood, if a miracle has happened, then obviously God made it happen.  And God is definitely not into worshipping saints.

"The prayer of a righteous man (or woman) is powerful and effective..." just means that if God listens then it's more likely that you're on the right track.  Doesn't mean God doesn't listen to us less righteous though.

Last point - God doesn't give people afflictions, in the same way that he doesn't inflict earthquakes on Haiti.


----------



## Mr J (20 February 2010)

jonojpsg said:


> Last point - God doesn't give people afflictions, in the same way that he doesn't inflict earthquakes on Haiti.




Therefore these things can't be part of a god's plan, and people who claim such are just trying to rationalise.



			
				Whiskers said:
			
		

> but I'm strongly coming to the belief that there is something out there or maybe in us, in the not completely understood thalamus or diencephalon area that can attune to the rythm of the universe and help guide us to better decision making for some 'greater' purpose in life.




I on the other hand don't believe we're special in any way, and that our purpose in life is simple to survive and pass on our genes. I'm sure most intelligent species around the multiverse have had similar delusions of grandeur.


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2010)

Gods are just political tools. If you believe in gods, you will believe anything. When a politician says to bereaved people, "our thoughts and prayers go out to you", he (or she) knows very well that their prayers are not worth a cracker. It's just a cynical ploy, as a sop to people at their most vulnerable.


----------



## wayneL (20 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Gods are just political tools. If you believe in gods, you will believe anything.




Depends on WHY you believe what you believe. If you believe in some version of God because some ranting clergyman told you to, then yes I agree.

There are beliefs based on experiences however. That's a whole 'nuther bowl of wax.


----------



## Mr J (20 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> When a politician says to bereaved people, "our thoughts and prayers go out to you", he (or she) knows very well that their prayers are not worth a cracker. It's just a cynical ploy, as a sop to people at their most vulnerable.




Many people say it, it's almost expected. If not "prayer", then just "thoughts". I think we have a culture of fooling ourselves into caring more than we really do. If we really cared, I think there would be far more action to match the talk.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> Many people say it, it's almost expected. If not "prayer", then just "thoughts". I think we have a culture of fooling ourselves into caring more than we really do. If we really cared, I think there would be far more action to match the talk.



So true. Words released from vocal chords come so easily, leaving true intention never known. While a silent hand up lacks pomp and ceremony, it is "true like ice, or fire".


----------



## Julia (20 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> The issue I have with miracles such as those attributed to Mary M, is that if God wanted the person to live for some reason, as you say, why did God give the person the affliction to begin with?



Indeed.  And why did God cure some and not others?



> I wasn't paying attention when I heard this on ABC radio yesterday, but it appears studies have shown that even if you know you are being given a placebo, if you believe the placebo will heal you, in some cases it will. Apparently a belief that you are being healed actually aids in you being healed. This is what I recall, but may be wrong as I only half heard it.



That's quite right.  The placebo effect has been well documented.
Additionally, medical science doesn't understand everything by any means and physiological events happen for no clearly evident reason.



> If that is the case, then it could be a explanation for many so-called miracles. If the person really believes that praying to such and such a saint will heal them, then it is the belief they will be healed that heals them rather than an intercession by the saint. If statistically this occurs only one in a million times, it still would account for all modern Vatican declared miracles.



How often have you heard people attribute their recovery from e.g. cancer to "visualisation of the healthy self", positive self talk, etc etc.   I don't think it's unreasonable to think our mental approach can have a physiological effect, even if just in terms of hormones released when stressed as opposed to when happy.



Tink said:


> OK
> 
> Excellent news



Why?
If Mary McKillop were to be honoured for all the very useful work she did, then that would seem excellent, but the attribution to her of a 'miracle' on such a basis is the stuff of fantasy for most people.  



Mr J said:


> Many people say it, it's almost expected. If not "prayer", then just "thoughts". I think we have a culture of fooling ourselves into caring more than we really do. If we really cared, I think there would be far more action to match the talk.



Exactly.  Our Prime Minister is the archetypal example of this.


----------



## nioka (20 February 2010)

I've told this story before but it is worth telling again.

I had a very good friend who I half lost contact with when I shifted from his area. I used to travel past his town and sometimes I called in to say g'day. If I was running late I would skip the visit. I had intended to stop one day but I had been held up along the way and decided to miss the visit. I was in the town when the car cut out and wouldn't restart. I had broken down outside the NRMA station.

The NRMA mechanic couldn't find anything mechanical wrong and suggested it was electrical. He towed me to the local auto electrician who was busy and told me it could be an hour before he could look at it. "Was there anything I could do to fill in the time?"

I was only a short walk from my friends home so I went to see if he was at home. I met his wife coming out her front gate. She told me that H.... was in hospital, was gravely ill and not expected to last more than a day or two. On saying that I would go and see him, the reply was that it wouldnt serve any purpose as he hadnt even recognised any of the family for some days.

I went back to see how the car was, the electrician said that the car was OK. There was nothing wrong with it and it started as normal. He had done nothing to it.

I drove to the hospital and asked to see my friend. I was told go on in, he is sedated and wont get disturbed.

I walked into the ward and there he was, a shadow of himself and apparently sleeping. I was about to leave but squeesed his hand to say goodbye when he opened his eyes said my name and said he was just thinking about me.

He told me "they were about to chuck him over the fence". He hoped there was something on the other side. He'd get things organised ahead of me getting there and we have a good time together. He would put together a good herd of cattle ( He worked for my over the years with a cattle stud).

We talked for more than an hour about the past and I was finally asked to leave by the nurses as he was getting tired and the monitor was giving a message that he needed attention.

That car did another 200Klms and never broke down again. It had never stopped before that incident either.

My friend passed on about a week later.

I believe that there is something "up there" that is watching what goes on.


----------



## tunrida (20 February 2010)

Whiskers said:


> In regard to the option with the most responses, "_I know there is no GOD we are a random quirk of nature_"... I've been investigating this question for about 20 years now and am pretty firmly coming to the conclusion that we are not a random quirk of nature.
> 
> Now that isn't saying there is a god as many 'churches' and 'religions' portray, but I'm strongly coming to the belief that there is something out there or maybe in us, in the not completely understood thalamus or diencephalon area that can attune to the rythm of the universe and help guide us to better decision making for some 'greater' purpose in life.
> 
> ...




that seems pretty compatible with your trading analysis whiskers
"God... a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive." 
Ayn Rand


----------



## Happy (20 February 2010)

Taking into account that now thought can be used to operate computer, we might be closer to explain few more things.

Same happened with Solar Eclipse while ago, that it wasn’t some kind of God’s anger but mere result of Solar system at work.

As probably mentioned somewhere in one of the 1172 posts so far, we happily use God as explanation of something that we cannot explain yet, but still want to look knowledgable.
Part of human frailty to be in control of things or know who controls things.


(We have more than 140 religions registered in Australia, some believe theirs is more important and some believe theirs is the only one and quietly move toward taking over not only Australia but also the world. This alone should ring the danger bells)


----------



## johnnyg (20 February 2010)

Nice story nioka. 

It's stories like these, and similar happenings to others and myself that make me believe in a greater power. Whether this greater power is ' God ' or something else, I don't know.


----------



## explod (20 February 2010)

Happy said:


> Taking into account that now thought can be used to operate computer, we might be closer to explain few more things.
> 
> )




There are physical explanations if one wants to understand.  Some follow what they want to follow and only see what they want to see.

Its a big story, a good start for me years ago was a book by the title "The intuitive Edge" by Philip Goldberg, 1983



> Intuition is defined by what it is not: reason, logic, analysis and observation. It is a single event, a snapshot, and it just happens when least expected, without rules. Intuition is inexplicable. Rationality may both precede, and follow, an intuitive breakthrough. Actually, rationality and intuition are symbiotic, work in tandem, and surprisingly, intuition is a part of rational thinking. How often does it happen that we start to analyze something, then have a spontaneous hunch and leap to another track entirely? While deduction follows the rules of logic, intuitive insights can spark an inductive process drawing conclusions from a limited set of observations.
> 
> Intuition and psychic phenomena have a relationship to the extent that only precognition qualifies as intuition. The others like telepathy, clairvoyance, and clairaudience offer other sensory channels bringing in data subliminally or psychically. Intuition implies the unexpected. The knowledge revealed cannot be something that most people would come up with under the same circumstances.




However this is just a small excerpt.

Richard Dawkins receent book "the God Delusion" (which I have mentioned earlier on this thread) offers practical insight also.  His web page under his name can lead you to his thesis.


----------



## Whiskers (20 February 2010)

explod said:


> Its a big story, a good start for me years ago was a book by the title "The intuitive Edge" by Philip Goldberg, 1983




I haven't read this, but understanding intuition as distinct from impulse, and learning how to distinguish and utilise intuition is the path I was led to many years ago. 

Similarly, there is no such thing as luck or coincidence. There is always something behind it... that is often misunderstood.

Could god be called 'Intuition', in it's pure and perfect form?


----------



## explod (20 February 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Could god be called 'Intuition', in it's pure and perfect form?




I think of it as *nature,* some call it God but this can lead some away from the clear thinking required of evolution and its manifestation into the amazing intellect of the human brain and the wonders of other natural beings.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 February 2010)

Happy said:


> Same happened with Solar Eclipse while ago, that it wasn’t some kind of God’s anger but mere result of Solar system at work.



No prejudice toward humans, indeed anything,  is evident throughout history, that is B.C. or AD.  Start your own religion. None are right. People believe (imagine) whatever they want as this is part of mind.
The words they re-print from thousands of years ago has no relevance or "connection" to the workings of the observable universe.


----------



## jetblack (20 February 2010)

I have'nt had time to go through the whole of the post.

But yes there is a god.

The dyslexic people call dog.


----------



## Happy (20 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> No prejudice toward humans, indeed anything,  is evident throughout history, that is B.C. or AD.  Start your own religion. None are right. People believe (imagine) whatever they want as this is part of mind.
> The words they re-print from thousands of years ago has no relevance or "connection" to the workings of the observable universe.





Said number of times already:

Some people need the crutch to come to terms that when they die that’s it.

And all religions fill that void, problem solved.
Pity that lots of tax dollars has to be paid to support it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 February 2010)

jetblack said:


> The dyslexic people call dog.



Is there a cryptic message in that? On its own it is nonsense.


----------



## AussiePaul72 (20 February 2010)

Is there a God? Yes indeed there is and he loves YOU!


----------



## explod (20 February 2010)

AussiePaul72 said:


> Is there a God? Yes indeed there is and he loves YOU!




Okay, that's sounds very good but would like you to qualify it with some proof.   In all of my search, (and I grew up a devout Catholic who was into theology) I could not find anything in the scriptures that could be substanciated by any physical facts.      And,  many of the stories particularly that of the Trinity have two distinct and contradictory versions depending on who's bible you subscribe to.


----------



## jetblack (20 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Is there a cryptic message in that? On its own it is nonsense.




yes, they refer to dog as mans best friend.


----------



## tunrida (20 February 2010)

AussiePaul72 said:


> Is there a God? Yes indeed there is and he loves YOU!




Pleased to hear that AP - didn't go much on those Haitians He wiped out though
All those 140 religions in Oz been saying since "thank you God for a ripper earthquake"


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 February 2010)

explod said:


> Okay, that's sounds very good but would like you to qualify it with some proof.



Unlikely to get an answer because one can believe anything they wish without having to justify or prove to anyone. Mind is capable of love by definition. This means you are god to you and I am god to I so we are all god and hence capable of love.


----------



## explod (20 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Unlikely to get an answer because one can believe anything they wish without having to justify or prove to anyone. Mind is capable of love by definition. This means you are god to you and I am god to I so we are all god and hence capable of love.




Well I cannot,   I need the substance before me,  I believe in the existence of cats because I see them and have one as a pet.

Your answer is gobbledygook to me.

I also feel at great peace with the universe and will die willingly and happy in the knowledge that my immortality is the example I set and pass on to others and also my genes to my Children and eight wonderful Grandchildren.     And that I did not teach them about fairies and other rubbish but about the beauty of nature and the breadth of our infinate and wonderful universe.


----------



## Julia (20 February 2010)

explod said:


> I also feel at great peace with the universe and will die willingly and happy in the knowledge that my immortality is the example I set and pass on to others and also my genes to my Children and eight wonderful Grandchildren.     And that I did not teach them about fairies and other rubbish but about the beauty of nature and the breadth of our infinate and wonderful universe.



That sounds pretty good to me, explod.  
I remember years ago when we were discussing this subject, Dukey (I think) made a post which struck a chord with me when he talked about pantheism.



> Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical [1], or that the Universe (including Nature on Earth) is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning "All" and θεός (theos) meaning "God" - literally "All is God." As such Pantheism promotes the idea that God is better understood as a way of relating to natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that was, is and shall be), rather than as a transcendent, mental, personal or creator entity.[2]. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or creator god. Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Universe as an all-encompassing unity and the "sacredness" of Nature.




Haven't we all at some time been struck with awe and gratitude at something beautiful in nature?   Consider the reassurance we can derive from watching the tides come in and go out twice every day, a sense of the rhythm of life even when our own existence may be chaotic.

Many more examples, none of which need to involve some sort of Holy Father Figure who controls our existence, determines our time of death.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 February 2010)

tunrida said:


> Pleased to hear that AP



I'm surprised to read that from someone whom apparently knows of the following.  Well I do anyway. What she sees is what I see and I will look for the book when I'm next at a library. I will probably be walking past a library and will remember to go in for some reason.



> Objectivism holds that *reality exists independent of consciousness*; *that individual persons are in direct contact with reality* *through sensory perception*; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.


----------



## peterh (20 February 2010)

explod said:


> Okay, that's sounds very good but would like you to qualify it with some proof.   In all of my search, (and I grew up a devout Catholic who was into theology) I could not find anything in the scriptures that could be substanciated by any physical facts.      And,  many of the stories particularly that of the Trinity have two distinct and contradictory versions depending on who's bible you subscribe to.




I thought certain events of the bible had been confirmed by third parties, both old and new testament. Are you saying that no event in the bible has been confirmed by another source (if I have understood you correctly)?


----------



## roland (20 February 2010)

Julia said:


> I'm going to stick up for the Mormons.  Several years ago I was laid up following an accident and worrying about stuff like cleaning the pool, mowing the lawns etc.  A couple of these young chaps called amongst their routine door to door  routine, observed my incapacity and asked what they could do to help.  I said I wasn't at all interested in their religion or even in discussing it with them.  Their response was that that was fine:  they'd still be happy to help.  And they did, willingly and very ably.  I was really grateful .  There was no talk of religion of God or anything along those lines.  They left me their phone number and assured me they'd be back promptly if they could do anything more.  So my heartfelt thanks to two young Americans who were a great advertisement for their beliefs.




Hey Julia,

Old post, I know - but I was digging up all the clay that was dumped on the front lawn of my rented house by a "friendly" next door neighbour prior to my occupancy.

2 x American Mormons, or 7th Dayers came by ... I just looked up and said their efforts would be wasted on me - I then, in jest, suggested if they wanted to help they could start by assisting me digging up the clay.

Well, the 2 guys dropped their backpacks and started rolling up the sleeves on their white business shirts. Without a doubt I am sure they would have got stuck in.....

I did decline their kind offer to help and accepted their Christmas card

One of the better sides of most religions are the teachings of kindness and goodwill to others

On a side note, a friend of mine had his own way of dealing with religious door knockers. He would spy them walking down the path to the front door and would immediately strip naked. At the first knock he would immediately swing open the door, say no thank you and then close the door. Worked for him, the same guys never came back.


----------



## peterh (20 February 2010)

tunrida said:


> Pleased to hear that AP - didn't go much on those Haitians He wiped out though
> All those 140 religions in Oz been saying since "thank you God for a ripper earthquake"




Pain and suffering is a hard one to understand from a christian perspective (well I don't find it easy anyway). Saying that God wiped out those Haitians though would be a matter of discussion. I guess it is possible that he did cause the earthquake, but I'm more inclined to think that he didn't. But as I said this is a hard one, and we certainly won't know all the answers in this lifetime.


----------



## Julia (20 February 2010)

roland said:


> One of the better sides of most religions are the teachings of kindness and goodwill to others



Agree, Roland.  A friend of mine is a devout Seventh Day Adventist.
(We only remain friends because we agree not to discuss religion.)

Every Christmas she looks around her neighbourhood and her workplace to find anyone who may not have family with whom to spend Christmas Day, and invites them to her home for the day.   

Ditto the Salvos who actually help anyone who needs assistance.


----------



## peterh (20 February 2010)

roland said:


> Hey Julia,
> 
> Old post, I know - but I was digging up all the clay that was dumped on the front lawn of my rented house by a "friendly" next door neighbour prior to my occupancy.
> 
> ...




The Mormons really would have helped in your yard. I was talking to some recently and at the end of our discussion they asked if I wanted any help in the yard (I've been a bit slack with the lawns!). They were serious. When I declined they asked if I knew of any elderly people who might need some assistance in the yard. I was impressed.


----------



## Tink (21 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> ...
> 
> There are beliefs based on experiences however. That's a whole 'nuther bowl of wax.




Yep 



Julia said:


> Why?
> If Mary McKillop were to be honoured for all the very useful work she did, then that would seem excellent, but the attribution to her of a 'miracle' on such a basis is the stuff of fantasy for most people.




In the Catholic Church she was acknowledged for both. Hmmm as for miracles being fantasies, I dont agree

Great story Nioka : )


----------



## noirua (21 February 2010)

Is there a GOD?    WHY!?


----------



## AussiePaul72 (21 February 2010)

tunrida said:


> Pleased to hear that AP - didn't go much on those Haitians He wiped out though
> All those 140 religions in Oz been saying since "thank you God for a ripper earthquake"




Hi Tunrida,
I didn't comment on here to start any arguments ... just want people to realise that there is a God and he loves YOU! Yes there disasters that happen throughout this world of ours ...... terrible disasters .... however as a human race we are quick to want to blame someone for that ..... God loves us and if we had chosen to live by His ways things would be very different .... however, as humans we thought we knew best and chose to live our own way ..... how can we now blame God when things go wrong? We can't have it both ways ....
Take care mate ....


----------



## dutchie (21 February 2010)

AussiePaul72 said:


> Hi Tunrida,
> I didn't comment on here to start any arguments ... just want people to realise that there is a God and he loves YOU! Yes there disasters that happen throughout this world of ours ...... terrible disasters .... however as a human race we are quick to want to blame someone for that ..... God loves us and if we had chosen to live by His ways things would be very different .... however, as humans we thought we knew best and chose to live our own way ..... how can we now blame God when things go wrong? We can't have it both ways ....
> Take care mate ....




G'day AP

I'm like you, I usually don't like starting arguments, especially regarding religion. I don't like picking on other posters either. 

Unfortunately for you I have to break two of my "commandments" because of your above post and I cannot let it go without comment.

I'm afraid I (personally) have not read more poppycock for a long time.

But its your life and good luck to you.

Cheers 

dutchie

PS

 poppycock (from pappe kak, the Dutch phrase for "bird crap")


----------



## nioka (21 February 2010)

roland said:


> One of the better sides of most religions are the teachings of kindness and goodwill to others




The ten commandments from the bible does set out a moral standard to live by. It is not the sole property of the christian religion either or of religions in general. If there is one lesson that can be learnt from the bible then that is the one. I am not a great practicing christian but I was taught the ten commandments at a young age and while I can not claim to have never breached them I do try and use them to guide my life. Pity more do not do the same. 

If you think about them often you will be a better person and life will be more satisying.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

I believe God exists and does love us all, regardless of what is going on in the world today.  I also believe each one of us has the option to choose to believe in and accept God or to reject Him.

Blaming God for all the evil and disasters (natural or otherwise) in our world today or historically does not carry any weight for me because I believe our world was originally a 'paradise' but then Adam and Eve failed the test put before them by God (now whether the test was exactly or as simple as told in Genesis I don't know, but I believe some sort of test was given to them and they failed it) and consequently each one of us from then on now has to prove to God that we accept Him.  I believe God is our creator and in his eyes we are all brothers and sisters.  He has now given us this world with all its good and bad in it (natural or man-made) and how we react to and with each other on our journey through our lives coping with all the good and bad is a test from God so he can judge us all as to whether we will be worthy to share eternal life with Him or not when we eventually all pass on from this life.
Had Adam and Eve not failed whatever test was put before them by God, who knows what the world would be like today.

Now I can't prove my beliefs above are true any more than anyone else with diammetrically opposed views can prove their beliefs are true.  Each one of us will make their own choice of beliefs, directly or indirectly through their actions and the way we live their lives.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

dutchie said:


> Unfortunately for you I have to break two of my "commandments" because of your above post and I cannot let it go without comment.




That is right. Just another dream. Make a "connection" in mind and it's all clear. Simple. 

The suggestion that we are "bad" and "things would be very different" is the guilt trip trotted out to try and assert control  over a being.


----------



## Mr J (21 February 2010)

nioka said:


> I've told this story before but it is worth telling again.




It's great you saw your friend one last time, and I can see why many people would believe in something greater after experiences like this. I've experienced many coincidences that would make most people wonder, as I'm sure we all have. However, we experience so many events day-to-day that coincidences are almost certain to happen occasionally. I'm not sure what you would think of this coincidence if your friend wasn't sick.

If we were to put this story down to the intervention of a higher power, what would be the motivation?



			
				Bulldoza said:
			
		

> I also believe each one of us has the option to choose to believe in and accept God or to reject Him.




There are a lot of us that neither believe nor reject a god. I have no clue if a god exists, and don't pretend to know either way. If there is a rational god, I'm sure it will appreciate my position.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

Can this question be answered? 

Why belief? 

Why not accept our relationship with reality for what it is? No imaginings or perpetuated stories. No belief of some entity determining human affairs. 
Why not see the past and present observable universe for what it is?


----------



## nioka (21 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> If we were to put this story down to the intervention of a higher power, what would be the motivation?
> .




1. To use the power
2. To demonstrate the power exists.
3. To show me that we have to make time available when we decide the time isnt there.
4. To demonstrate the value of friendship.
5,6,7 etc. The reasons are endless if you are prepared to think about it.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

Mr J - yep, I can see where you are coming from.  Perhaps I could have worded my comment a bit better.  IMO we all have the option to choose to either believe in God or not.  'Reject' was probably not a good choice of words.  But IMHO, and this is not a criticism, people 'sitting on the fence' are indirectly choosing to not believe in God.  I don't see how someone can only half believe in something unless they are directly or indirectly picking which parts of that overall belief, faith (call it what you will) that suits their own ideoligies, way of life etc etc. to believe in.

Wysiwyg - from my point of view, if the Bible didn't exist then I would probably ask the same question as you do.  The Old Testament was written about 600BC and for me, far too many of the predictions put forward by the various prophets have come true and written about in the New Testament for me to think that the Bible is a work of fiction or some sort of conspiracy by its authors to deceive and con the following generations for hundreds of years.   I don't believe we can take everything in the Bible literally because when its various parts were written, the world and its ways of life were very much different to what the world is today.  But the overall underlying message and teachings in the Bible are correct and reasonable IMO.

But as I am sure you are aware, there are many in this world who for whatever reason choose to believe the Bible is a work of fiction.


----------



## Mr J (21 February 2010)

nioka said:


> 1. To use the power
> 2. To demonstrate the power exists.
> 3. To show me that we have to make time available when we decide the time isnt there.
> 4. To demonstrate the value of friendship.
> 5,6,7 etc. The reasons are endless if you are prepared to think about it.




These are possible motivations, but you have to be prepared to believe in a god, and to believe it is willing to make one last gesture to a dying person and his friend, rather than a more significant contribution to a far greater number of people. I can't really continue this without sounding condescending, so we'll just agree that it was a good story.



			
				Bulldoza said:
			
		

> I don't see how someone can only half believe in something unless they are directly or indirectly picking which parts of that overall belief, faith (call it what you will) that suits their own ideoligies, way of life etc etc. to believe in.




I think many people pick and choose to suit their own ideology. I don't think it's even what makes the most sense to them, but what they _want_ to be true.

Half-believe? I'm not sure who you're referring to, those on the fence or those who say they believe but approach it seemingly half-heartedly? By the way, I wouldn't consider myself on the fence, as I'm not going to make a decision either way. I just don't have the information.



> But as I am sure you are aware, there are many in this world who for whatever reason choose to believe the Bible is a work of fiction.




But is that any worse than choosing to believe the bible is non-fiction?


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2010)

As the most popular Christian religion the Roman Catholic church seems to do very well without concerning themselves too much about God,or his 10 Commandments. One of the most popular aspects of this religion is that mere mortals can grant absolution to sinners, with few strings attached, except for a cash down payment.

The Sicilian Cosa  Nostra, among others, availed themselves of this facility to pursue their murderous activities with a clear conscience.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

Mr J - IMO 'sitting on the fence' means both those who for whatever reason are not sure if God exists and those who say they believe in God but approach their belief half heartedly, as you put it, by selecting the parts of God's teachings that suit their ideoligies and life styles.

IMO God asks all of us to give Him full commitment according to our talents, skills etc that we have been born with by living our lives in the way His Son Jesus Christ showed and taught us.  But as I commented earlier, we then all have the option to give that full commitment or not.  And to be honest, consistent with our society becoming more secular every day most of my family and friends I would say are either 'fence sitters' or non believers in God.  But I respect their choices in life and I assume they respect mine.

Regarding your question - "But is that any worse than choosing to believe the bible is non-fiction?" - IMHO the answer is yes.  The reason I say 'yes' is because by believing the Bible is a work of fiction that person is essentially saying he/she does not believe in God, or at least the God the Bible is about.
Now that is not to say that all people who do not believe in God are bad or evil but I believe non believers are far more likely to give in to temptations,  opportunities etc to do the wrong thing.  

Those that believe in God and the teachings in the Bible will be aware that to eventually be judged worthy to spend eternal life with Him, God has asked us to both believe in His existence and to live our lives the way He has taught us through Jesus Christ.  IMO, based on the Bible's teachings, 1 out of the 2 is not enough - ie.  saying you believe in God but then only picking the good or easy bits of his teachings to follow.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Wysiwyg - from my point of view, if the Bible didn't exist then I would probably ask the same question as you do.  The Old Testament was written about 600BC and for me, far too many of the predictions put forward by the various prophets have come true and written about in the New Testament for me to think that the Bible is a work of fiction or some sort of conspiracy by its authors to deceive and con the following generations for hundreds of years.
> But as I am sure you are aware, there are many in this world who for whatever reason choose to believe the Bible is a work of fiction.



Thanks bulldoza for your thoughts. 

Do you have evidence of these many predictions coming true? I see there was no conspiracy by the authors to con the following generations. There are many passages in the Bible that are helpful in guiding people on good human behaviour. This is the part of the Bible that is valuable. There is also a lot of nonsense and imagining which cannot be verified for fact or practiced in reality. 

If someone one day extracts all the practically useful bits out then that would be a book with huge potential and mandatory reading for school. 

Let's call it. The Guide to a Fruitful Life.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

Calliope - yes the Catholic Church from the Pope down is made up of mere mortals, forgiving sins and administering the other sacraments but there is a huge difference between an ordinary person like me and an ordained priest and above.

Somewhere in the last few chapters of the 4 Gospels (please don't ask me to give chapters and versus) is described how Jesus said to Peter words to the effect - your name is Peter (meaning 'a rock') and upon this rock I will build my church.  Here, Jesus made Peter the first Pope and God's representative on earth.  Jesus then went on to say that what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what is loosed on earth will be loosed in Heaven.  This effectively created a binding bond between the church here on earth and God's Kingdom - Heaven.  

The flow on effect of all this is that all the authority that Jesus had to forgive sins etc then flowed through to Peter and those that followed him through the generations.  A side note, in the Catholic Church, yes sins are forgiven in confession but unless the sinner genuinely repents and tries to not commit the sin again then the sin will not be forgiven at judgement time.
Confession is not a 'get out of jail free' card.  Eg...a robber cannot continually go to confession in between continually robbing banks and expect to get off scott free from God.

But again, all of the above is probably a load of rubbish to those who choose to believe the Bible is fiction or to those who choose to pick out the Bible only the bits they want to believe or follow.  It goes back to wheter we are a fence sitter or not.


----------



## bellenuit (21 February 2010)

I just happened on this video clip an hour or so ago and though the speaker makes no parallels between her experiences having a stroke and religion, it occurred to me as I listened how many of the sensations she went through in the immediate aftermath of her stroke were similar to sensations or experience others attribute to a belief of a God of some sort.

In particular, the sensation of calmness and tranquility that many experience the moments before death and often claimed to be the person seeing Jesus or Mary extending their arms to him/her in an invitation to enter heaven is probably just the left side of the brain shutting down. Other sensations the speaker experienced have similarities with apparitions and other supernatural occurrences that people often attribute to their religion.

Irrespective of one's opinion in the God debate, the video is well worth watching on its own merit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

No problem Wysiwyg - no, I don't have any 'hard evidence' of the predictions coming true just like no-one will have any 'hard evidence' they did not come true.  Like I commented before, it's a matter of each one us choosing whether to believe they are true or not.

But to give you 2 examples - In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah, and I suppose others, described in reasonable detail the birth of Jesus Christ and the circumstances under which it occurred.  He also described in reasonable detail the death of Jesus Christ and the circumstances under which it occurred.  Isaiah also described many of the miracles that Jesus will work throught His life.  Isaiah's descriptions in the Old Testament and the descriptions of the actual events in the New Testament's Gospels are very similar.  

Therefore, I personally believe them to be true but of course there are many
who for whatever reason exercise their option to believe they are not true or didn't happen etc.


----------



## Mr J (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:
			
		

> IMO God asks all of us to give Him full commitment according to our talents, skills etc that we have been born with by living our lives in the way His Son Jesus Christ showed and taught us.




But how do you know this? You're not only believing in a god, but believing a particular religion to be correct, and the teachings of that religion to be honest. I think there's a huge difference between believing in something greater, and believing in something specific. A god could exist without being the chrisitan god, and the christian god could exist without a connection to Jesus. I don't think you can know any of it is true, but you choose to believe it is true.



> Regarding your question - "But is that any worse than choosing to believe the bible is non-fiction?" - IMHO the answer is yes. The reason I say 'yes' is because by believing the Bible is a work of fiction that person is essentially saying he/she does not believe in God, or at least the God the Bible is about.




I don't think that's necessarily true. I might believe that the image of God is correct, but not trust that the bible is the word of God.



> Now that is not to say that all people who do not believe in God are bad or evil but I believe non believers are far more likely to give in to temptations, opportunities etc to do the wrong thing.




But it may not be the wrong thing - you believe it is because you believe that God's opinion is reflected in the bible. I can't make that assumption (though it may not be an assumption to you), and so I can't make assumptions about right and wrong. I think you're taking a great leap of faith to not only believe in a god, but to believe in a specific god, and then to believe that the words of men reflect its will and character. I can't suggest that none of it is true, but each step becoming increasingly unlikely.

How can you trust the words of men? How do you know that the god is God as interpreted by christians? Why not Allah? I don't think you can know, you just choose to believe what you like, and statistically in this country it is likely to be the christian god.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I admit I do think it's unlikely that a god exists, and very unlikely that it is specifically the christian god and that men haven't perverted the words for their own benefit, but I can't know it's not true either. There is just such little evidence and far too many questions for me to attribute a reasonable probability for it. But then that's the problem - my thought process obviously conflicts with what is needed to "believe".



> 1 out of the 2 is not enough - ie. saying you believe in God but then only picking the good or easy bits of his teachings to follow.




You believe that based on hearsay. I'm sure many people would suggest that God wants people to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Who is right? I don't know, but how can you? Again, my trouble is understanding how people can be so certain. I can respect the stance of anyone who suggests that they may be wrong, but I just can't understand how someone can be so certain. 

I mean no offense by this, but I think you're ignoring an entire branch of possibilities. Imagine a tree where we call the base "belief there's possibly a higher power", and then we work our way up the tree until we get to the end of a twig labelled "Christian God". What about the rest of the tree, and what else may be? There are many other routes that may have been taken, many depending on when and where we were born. How can you be so sure that your route is the correct route?

Again, don't take this the wrong way, I like asking questions.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> No problem Wysiwyg - no, I don't have any 'hard evidence' of the predictions coming true *just like no-one will have any 'hard* *evidence' they did not come true*.



Right there is the conundrum. Nothing can be proven factual so the claimant returns the question to the truth seeker.


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Therefore, I personally believe them to be true but of course there are many
> who for whatever reason exercise their option to believe they are not true or didn't happen etc.




I prefer to base my reasons on the facts.   Having been researched by more contemporaneous thinkers, the Bible and its associated scriptures have been found to be sadly wanting.   Just one of the many serious flaws is the following excerpt from Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' 2006 Transworld Publishers, at pp. 118/119:-



> …“All were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus’ life.  All were then copied and recopied, through many different ‘Chinese Whispers generations’ by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas.
> 
> A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, followed by Herod’s massacre of the innocents.  When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus’ death, nobody knew where he was born.  But an Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5: 2) had led Jews to expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.   In the light of this prophecy, John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem: ‘Others said, This is the Christ.  But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath  not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?’
> 
> ...


----------



## $20shoes (21 February 2010)

"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine"...best opening song line EVER!

Whatever one's belief, it seems it is absolutely inevitable, and you could argue essential, that a collective of humans, whenever they gather, form an ideology or supernatural beliefs. 

From my reading it is the next human imperative after collecting food. That is, from a time where people could gather food as a collective of people , be they nomadic or settled community,  they attribute their circumstance to the supernatural - a deity or something similar. 

Sometimes these beliefs become institutionalised. For example, we had chiefdoms in certain areas of the world such as Hawaii, and the Incas for example, used their Gods to highly influence the Inca people's culture. 

Once a collective belief becomes institutionalised, it can potentially mature into the fabric upon which a society could base itself. You often see this where communities have mastered agriculture or have limited migration - it can be used to justify the transfer of wealth for the betterment of their society; to assert power and subjugate others. It can be used to justify conquering and it can be used to develop armies and resist attack. As well, it can have noble benefits for its citizens and those they conquer. That is, it seems that in order to develop a society we actually use our tendency to the supernatural to form the very rules and structure we need on Earth.

But I would say that there has been a spiritual text held sacred for every institutionalised belief where a society could be influenced by such:

The Aranyakas, the Upanishads, the Koran, the Bible, the Confucian documents, Adi Granth etc.
The question is that why, irrespective of our time and place, we continue to formulate ideas about the supernatural/spiritual? There is an inner yearning that at its surface is anthropologically driven. But is there an essence of ourselves that knows there is much more than what we currently perceive? 

What is strikingly similar in all institutionalised belief systems is this - there is a central deity or deities that oversees and governs how the people are to act.  The elected leaders who propagate the belief system establish positions of authority. They have either elected higher powers than the rest of society or have an insight far deeper than the rest of their society. Once the belief system takes hold, the society binds to itself and respects its own laws. Only then can it hope to spread and conquer. 

In this way, Christianity and Islam had the direct benefits of taking off at a time where industry and population allowed them to traverse vast swathes of the northern hemisphere.


----------



## footlose (21 February 2010)

explod said:


> I prefer to base my reasons on the facts.   Having been researched by more contemporaneous thinkers, the Bible and its associated scriptures have been found to be sadly wanting.   Just one of the many serious flaws is the following excerpt from Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' 2006 Transworld Publishers, at pp. 118/119:-




Sad to see that Religious concepts are a subject on a stockforum.
This subject relates to Sunday church,let's talk "stock" the purpose fo this web site.If God invented the Stock Market we all would be making bug bucks.


----------



## Julia (21 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> There are a lot of us that neither believe nor reject a god. I have no clue if a god exists, and don't pretend to know either way. If there is a rational god, I'm sure it will appreciate my position.



That's as good a definition of agnosticism as I've seen.  I agree.



bulldoza said:


> Mr J - yep, I can see where you are coming from.  Perhaps I could have worded my comment a bit better.  IMO we all have the option to choose to either believe in God or not.  'Reject' was probably not a good choice of words.  But IMHO, and this is not a criticism, people 'sitting on the fence' are indirectly choosing to not believe in God.  I don't see how someone can only half believe in something unless they are directly or indirectly picking which parts of that overall belief, faith (call it what you will) that suits their own ideoligies, way of life etc etc. to believe in.



bulldoza, I appreciate that for someone who obviously has a strong belief in a God, you are trying to engage in a reasonable argument which is respectful toward the view of others.

But how you can say that agnosticism is "sitting on the fence" - a pejorative term in this discussion - is imo where your rationality falls over.

You *believe* in a god, you have* faith* that such an entity exists.   That is quite different from *knowing* a god exists.
To know something is to have objective evidence of that thing/entity.
No such evidence exists.

Agnostics don't 'half believe' at all.  We simply say that because we have no way of knowing, we accept that there may or may not be a God.





> Wysiwyg - from my point of view, if the Bible didn't exist then I would probably ask the same question as you do.  The Old Testament was written about 600BC and for me, far too many of the predictions put forward by the various prophets have come true and written about in the New Testament for me to think that the Bible is a work of fiction or some sort of conspiracy by its authors to deceive and con the following generations for hundreds of years.   I don't believe we can take everything in the Bible literally because when its various parts were written, the world and its ways of life were very much different to what the world is today.  But the overall underlying message and teachings in the Bible are correct and reasonable IMO.



So essentially you are picking from the Bible the bits you choose to believe.



> But as I am sure you are aware, there are many in this world who for whatever reason choose to believe the Bible is a work of fiction.



I don't think it's necessarily a case of the Bible being (1) the ultimate absolute message from God, or (2) a complete work of fiction.
Maybe a collection of stories written by the people of the time, valued by Christians as being 'the word of God', something to support their belief system, which in turn provides them comfort in their daily living.

This may be a misinterpretation on my part, but it seems to me that the attraction of religion to many is the notion of 'everlasting life', i.e. it at least partly removes the fear of death.

Oddly enough, my father totally scorned all religion but nonetheless had a belief that human beings did possess a spiritual aspect which was sustained after the physical body died.   This belief always seemed to me to be out of character with his highly intelligent, well educated and usually analytical approach to life.

 I asked him to send me a sign after he died to prove this belief, but sadly in about 8 years nothing has come.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

I don't doubt there was a man called Jesus Christ. He was prophesied to be named Immanuel in Isaiah's  7:14. The Tibetan Buddhist religion has a lineage of Dalai Lamas that are thought to be as follows.


> Traditionally, His Holiness is thought of as the latest reincarnation of a series of spiritual leaders who have chosen to be reborn in order to enlighten others.



So there is a connection with this holy entity theory in other religions. Can either be proven or disproven as fact? Of course not. They are simply concepts from mind.







> From my reading it is the next human imperative after collecting food. That is, from a time where people could gather food as a collective of people , be they nomadic or settled community, they attribute their circumstance to the supernatural - a deity or something similar.



 Interesting read that shoes.

As do many species, we bond and form a hierarchy for survival. The species then has it's sub-groups of which there is also a hierarchy. From family to city to country there is apparent "order" and preferred sanity. 

No different from other species and their survival characteristics.(apart from the supernatural bit)


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

$20shoes said:


> "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine"...best opening song line EVER!
> 
> Whatever one's belief, it seems it is absolutely inevitable, and you could argue essential, that a collective of humans, whenever they gather, form an ideology or supernatural beliefs.
> 
> ...




Yep, about controlling the sheeple, *and of course* if you work hard at it (as a slave) .you will gain eternal life as a reward, not hard to see why the Romans very eagerly embraced the idea.

A great book on the formation of religions I was put onto by a peer at Uni in the 80's  was 'The Golden Bough' the life's work of another Oxford Scholar, Sir James Fraser, first published in 1890.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

Hi again Mr J -

regarding your question - 

"But how do you know this? You're not only believing in a god, but believing a particular religion to be correct, and the teachings of that religion to be honest. I think there's a huge difference between believing in something greater, and believing in something specific. A god could exist without being the chrisitan god, and the christian god could exist without a connection to Jesus. I don't think you can know any of it is true, but you choose to believe it is true"

My beliefs are based on the teachings in the Bible and so I believe and know them to be true, but of course I can't prove it just like any 'fence sitters' or non-believers can't prove their beliefs or 'non-beliefs' are true.  It's a bit like the police saying we know who commited the crime but we can't prove it.  Because the evidence isn't there doesn't mean the perpetrator didn't commit the crime. 

It all boils down to, as I commented earlier, each one of us choosing to 
1)    believe God exists as described in the Bible 
or
2)    believing in whatever variant of God and His teachings in the Bible they see fit
or
3)    not believeing in God at all.

I'm in option 1).

I don't have any issues with the beliefs you express above.  I respect your views although I obviously do not agree with them.  I would hope you at least respect my beliefs even though you exercise your right to disagree with them.


----------



## Julia (21 February 2010)

footlose said:


> Sad to see that Religious concepts are a subject on a stockforum.
> This subject relates to Sunday church,let's talk "stock" the purpose fo this web site.If God invented the Stock Market we all would be making bug bucks.



The thread is in the "General Chat" section.
Feel free to (a) not read it:  (b) not comment.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

Julia said:


> The thread is in the "General Chat" section.
> Feel free to (a) not read it:  (b) not comment.




Appears they were directed to ASF after my lose/loose post in 'ASF spelling and grammar lessons'. Probably unconscious though.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

Hi Julia - I would have thought that agnosticism is a perfect example of 'sitting on the fence' because an agnostic is saying he/she does not know if God exists or not - or am I misunderstanding what an agnostic believes.?

Regarding your comment - "You believe in a god, you have faith that such an entity exists. That is quite different from knowing a god exists.
To know something is to have objective evidence of that thing/entity.
No such evidence exists".  

I can see what you are getting at and you make a valid point.  But suffice to say I can say I believe and know that God exists based on the teachings in the Bible and my personal experiences providing me with evidence that God exists.  Now I am not going into detail about my personal experiences because I cannot prove them with 'hard evidence' and so there is no point  but suffice to say that I personally have seen enough to convince me that God exists.  If people want to think that is a load of rubbish, that is fine because since I can't prove it they are fully entitled to form that opinion if they so wish.  But it won't change anything for me or my beliefs.


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> It all boils down to, as I commented earlier, each one of us choosing to
> 1)    believe God exists as described in the Bible
> or
> 2)    believing in whatever variant of God and His teachings in the Bible they see fit
> ...




It does not in my view boil down to believing at all.  It boils down to what you know is true or faulse.

Written scriptures handed down from antiquity, and lets face it this is suppossed to have had the main event *two thousand years ago*, prove absolutely nought.   They could have been written by any odd bod at all under the direction of ruling powers at the time.  And of course they may not have, we just do not know, *full stop*

So being perhaps fables it is a great travesty that the minds of children are virtually force fed and indoctrinated by this ga..bage, or otherwise know as dogma.

And having been raised as a devout Catholic, who at one time almost became a priest I can assure the damage to learning and proper development done by religion is huge.

And all of the worlds wars can be traced back and be shown to have been caused by religion and money, but a good look at those two elements will show that they are one and the same thing.  Religion controls man and he who controls man controls the till.

*So we are talking about finance after all*


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

Hi Explod - 

re  -  "So being perhaps fables it is a great travesty that the minds of children are virtually force fed and indoctrinated by this ga..bage, or otherwise know as dogma.

And having been raised as a devout Catholic, who at one time almost became a priest I can assure the damage to learning and proper development done by religion is huge."

I disagree with your generalisation.  Sure, a small minority might be and depending on the circumstances it is probably very tragic and lasting for life (but that's a whole new forum topic).

But I know there are many fine people in the community with sound minds, values, integrity etc who were raised as Catholics.  Obviously privacy laws prevent me from naming them in a forum like this without their permission.

Suffice to say, you will be hard pressed to convince me that a large number, let alone the majority of Catholics are damaged or disadvantaged in any way as a result of their upbringing.


----------



## AussiePaul72 (21 February 2010)

dutchie said:


> G'day AP
> 
> I'm like you, I usually don't like starting arguments, especially regarding religion. I don't like picking on other posters either.
> 
> ...




G'day Dutchie,
Its a shame you had to break your own rules. Anyway, like i said, i'm not going to argue with anyone .... and everyone is entitled to their own opinion mate! All the best


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Hi Explod -
> 
> I disagree with your generalisation.  Sure, a small minority might be and depending on the circumstances it is probably very tragic and lasting for life (but that's a whole new forum topic).
> 
> ...




Indoctrination is achieved by repitition.   It becomes blind belief, for example the people of Germany formed it behind Hitler and many of the workers at the death ovens acted under blind group belief.

The ultimate indoctrinator (and that is imprinting the sub-conscious) is the Rosary.   Our family would kneel every night after the evening meal and recide the five decades of the Rosary and this recital gave us great fear of God to the point of total obedience which is also described as love.  In fact the Priest's would often say that "you are blessed with the fear of God"

I as others have expressed (Julia in particular) I do believe that we may need a moral code and the 10 Comandments do serve that.  However good parenting and well educated children learn to make very sound decisions for themselves and at the right times of life without any form of religion.  I have seen and experienced both and can assure that the latter children are way ahead of us scared little devils.

I also know many fine Catholics, but the question I ask, is it the religion or the upbringing by the parents?    There is no doubt that many children directly brought up by the church had a dreadful time.   A new lot just coming to notice from the Newcastle area in the last week.


----------



## wayneL (21 February 2010)

Is this Groundhog Day?


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Is this Groundhog Day?




Not too sure, the way is not clear cut but due to a suggestion a few posts back we are trying to relate religion to the financial markets or on topic with ASF stuff, but as Julia pointed out this is just discussion..   

At this juncture my concern is indoctrination and blind faith.   Over dinner realised that many who follow the stock market do just that.  It is my view that when the Dow rises so does the All Ords.   A good case could be made that belief (or blind faith) is what got the investors in the Maddoc Ponzie Scheme.

So you can have belief if you like, but I very much prefer the safety of trying to follow the facts and the truth.   *Could I say belief at your peril, * and perhaps blind faith the domain of fools.   But that is just my opinion to which we are all entitled.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

explod said:


> The ultimate indoctrinator (and that is imprinting the sub-conscious) is the Rosary.   Our family would kneel every night after the evening meal and recide the five decades of the Rosary and this recital gave us great fear of God to the point of total obedience which is also described as love.  In fact the Priest's would often say that "you are blessed with the fear of God"
> 
> I also know many fine Catholics, but the question I ask, is it the religion or the upbringing by the parents?    There is no doubt that many children directly brought up by the church had a dreadful time.   A new lot just coming to notice from the Newcastle area in the last week.




I'm not sure how praying The Rosary can be seen as an indoctrination.  Maybe that discussion would be more suited to its own thread.  If interested, information on how to pray The Rosary can be found at 
http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm

I wonder if you are interpreting the phrase '...God fearing...', '...fear of God...' that is bandied around from time to time too literally.  My understanding of the phrase is similar to the fear a small child might have of its parents giving it a smack if it did something wrong.  The parents still obviously love the child but will try to introduce some sort of suitable deterent for the child misbehaving.  

Given that God is our creator and our Father in heaven, then we as His children might fear Him (as the child above might fear his/her parents) from the point of view of being punished by Him when our turn comes to be judged if we don't behave during this life in the way he expects us to.  In the mean time God still loves us as the parents above still love their child and vice-versa.   This is my understanding of '...God fearing..'.

These 'fine Catholics' we referred to are IMO most probably a result of both their religious upbringing AND the way their parents raised them.  The 2 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  And of course their are many fine and upstanding people who are not Catholics or don't believe in God, but as I commented before, God teaches us in the Bible that to be considered by Him to be worthy to spend eternal life with Him when our turn comes to move on from this world, we must both believe in Him and live our lives in the way He showed and taught us through His Son Jesus Christ.

And the crux of all this is whether we choose to believe in God or not.  Everyone has to make their own choice.


----------



## wayneL (21 February 2010)

What is obvious is that nearly everyone's view of God (and whether he/she/it exists or not) has been guided and/or marred by other people's perceptions/indoctrination.

Not many are free to unleash themselves from a particular human created model of God.

Even those of us who try to do so, are still "corrupted" by our cultural experience.

As such, this discussion lacks a vital component - lateral thinking - a billion possibilities.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> In particular, the sensation of calmness and tranquility that many experience the moments before death and often claimed to be the person seeing Jesus or Mary extending their arms to him/her in an invitation to enter heaven is probably just the left side of the brain shutting down. Other sensations the speaker experienced have similarities with apparitions and other supernatural occurrences that people often attribute to their religion.




To be honest, I'm fairly sceptical when I hear similar stories - but that is not to say they are all not true.  I just have no way of determining which, if any, are real.

The most infamous I can recall is when Kerry Packer recovered from his near death experience and said there was nothing on the other side.  I wonder if he said that more in hope  because I would not like to be in his shoes come judgement time given the life he chose to lead.


----------



## jonojpsg (21 February 2010)

Ok, I'm sure I've posted this before regarding the Bible's authenticity but given the quote from Dawkins I couldn't not repost:

First point - 

The Gospels were written by:
Matthew - one of the Twelve apostles, knew Jesus personally and hence, hmm, pretty well qualified to write about him and to know where he was born

Mark - not one of the Twelve but hung with Peter, so knew one of them

Luke - again not one of the Twelve but a doctor and writes having done extensive research into Jesus' life

John - one of the Twelve

Surely, surely the Gospels cannot be said to be claptrap written far after Jesus life by people who didn't know him.  Yes they were written later, but surely any of us if we were writing about a very good friend we knew thirty or forty years ago would have a pretty good shot at getting most of it right.

And yes, I know the criticism will come that if I was writing about a good friend that it would be extremely unlikely for me to write anything bad about them, especially if there was something in it for me to amke him sound good.  But these were four separate accounts, written apart in time and by different authors, and yet contain much of the same content.

Second point - Overall Bible content

The Bible was written by some 30+ authors across 1500 years in time.  Surely no rational person can believe that the agreement and consistency between the different books of the Bible can be made up?

Personally I love this forum and thread and think it's great that we can have a reasonable discussion about something that is far more important than making a buck on a few trades (although that is somewhat important)


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

> =bulldoza;534589]Given that God is our creator




You do not in my view know that, because of your indoctrination you think that.




> and our Father in heaven, then we as His children might fear Him (as the child above might fear his/her parents) from the point of view of being punished by Him when our turn comes to be judged if we don't behave during this life in the way he expects us to.  In the mean time God still loves us as the parents above still love their child and vice-versa.   This is my understanding of '...God fearing..'.




Any form of fear or punishment, even a corrective slap is counterproductive in my view.  Positive encouragement works best.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

Hi Explod - 

OK, I am not going to split hairs on semantics.  I believe God is our creator and I don't believe my beliefs are a result of indoctrination, but I guess some will think that it is.  That's fine.

Regarding 'fear of punishement' and what is or is not good parenting should be discussed in another thread imo.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

No one is "judged" on any judgment day. That is a lie perpetuated to keep people righteous. In this context, fear is the shepherd's staff.


----------



## nunthewiser (21 February 2010)

God is real .

He lives in Geraldton WA ................ with Elvis


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Hi Explod -
> 
> OK, I am not going to split hairs on semantics.  I believe God is our creator and I don't believe my beliefs are a result of indoctrination, but I guess some will think that it is.  That's fine.




I do not see any hairs to split, there is God in peoples minds but outside of the mind there is nothing physical that represents anything like a God, icons, imiages and churches maybe but nothing godlike that lives and breathes in our presence.   I have never seen or been told that anyone has seen anyone walk on water.




> Regarding 'fear of punishement' and what is or is not good parenting should be discussed in another thread imo




Well it was yourgood self that introduced the child discipline into the thread.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> No one is "judged" on any judgment day. That is a lie perpetuated to keep people righteous. In this context, fear is the shepherd's staff.




I believe we will all be judged at some point.  Matthew Chapter 25 makes it pretty clear and simple to me that we will.  

The only question now is whether individually we choose to believe what's in the Bible or not.


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I believe we will all be judged at some point.  Matthew Chapter 25 makes it pretty clear and simple to me that we will.
> 
> The only question now is whether individually we choose to believe what's in the Bible or not.




If you go back to post 1216 you will find that the writings of Matthew were not accurate to the extent that he was making it all up.   Dawkins makes very many clear points showing the scriptures to be no more than great moral tales to fit a theme.

And in my view if there was a higher being and he created us I am sure he would be wise and forgiving of everyone, anyone doing wrong would be a fault of his creation.


----------



## Soft Dough (21 February 2010)

OF COURSE THERE IS A GOD

AND I HAVE EVIDENCE!!!

HE HAS A WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR

He is currently influencing the brain of that pathetic batsman michael clarke and forcing him to bowl the useless bowler Mitchell Johnson

to give the West Indies hope.


----------



## bulldoza (21 February 2010)

explod said:


> I do not see any hairs to split, there is God in peoples minds but outside of the mind there is nothing physical that represents anything like a God, icons, imiages and churches maybe but nothing godlike that lives and breathes in our presence.   I have never seen or been told that anyone has seen anyone walk on water.




I don't see why there necessarily has to be anything physical that proves God exists, which I assume is what you are getting at.  

I commented earlier how everything changed when Adam and Eve failed whatever test was put before them (whether it was the 'forbiden fruit' or something else is irrelevant to me).  Since that moment, my belief is that we all must prove to God that we are worthy of sharing eternal life with Him by choosing to believe in Him and living our lives the way he showed and taught us through Jesus Christ His Son.  God has now given us the world we live in, with its good and bad and we will be judged on our worthiness to spend eternal life with Him on how we react to and with each other while coping with all the good and bad in this world.  I see this life as a test for how we will spend eternity after being judged by God.

All of the above depends on whether you choose to believe the Book of Genesis and the New Testament.  Personally, I do.

If God revealed Himself physically then I suppose most, if not all would then obviously believe in God and that would defeat the purpose of His test for us.

But I believe He will reveal Himself physically through the second coming of His Son Jesus Christ (Judgement Day), but by then it will be too late for those who have done the wrong thing in God's eyes during their lives here on earth.

It's been an interesting discussion this afternoon and evening and hopefully at least some 'fence sitters' will have some food for thought to hopefully fall onto one side or the other of the fence


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

> 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance:* but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he** hath.*



Ridiculous. Thankfully this statement is unlawful and not followed by rational, compassionate, sane people.


> 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.



True colours exposed here. The two servants that doubled their *talent (in their masters absence) get rewarded and the servant who buried his talent and returned it as is gets the crying women and barking dogs treatment. Next we see why ...

And what of the master?


> 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, *I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and **gathering where thou hast not strawed*



So the unprofitable servant calls the master a liar and a thief to his face and gets victimised.  
Great story but typical of the nonsense in the Bible I alluded to in a previous post.


* Talent

Talent Of silver contained 3,000 shekels (Exo 38:25, Exo 38:26), and was equal to 94 3/7 lb. avoirdupois. The Greek talent, however, as in the LXX., was only 82 1/4 lb. It was in the form of a circular mass, as the Hebrew name kikkar denotes. A talent of gold was double the weight of a talent of silver (Sa2 12:30). Parable of the talents (Mat 18:24; Mat 25:15).


----------



## Synergy (21 February 2010)

I'd be interested to know this....

1) The % of people with religious parents who themselves don't believe in god.

2) The % of people with non religious parents who do believe in god.

Personally, I can think of several of my friends with religious parents who are non believers, but none the other way around.

I doubt there would be many people fitting into the 2nd category.

Why doesn't God just do a pamphlet drop to improve his popularity?

link i found while googling the above
http:///www.humanreligions.info/intelligence.html


----------



## explod (21 February 2010)

Soft Dough said:


> OF COURSE THERE IS A GOD
> 
> AND I HAVE EVIDENCE!!!
> 
> ...




Your line is probably the best one Soft Dough.   

*And I give up*,      if we cannot cross the border between belief based on weak secondary evidence as written by some odd bods hundreds of years ago and the facts as they can be clearly seen, then I would do better selling iceblocks to the Eskimos.


----------



## roland (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Hi Explod -
> 
> OK, I am not going to split hairs on semantics.  I believe God is our creator and I don't believe my beliefs are a result of indoctrination, but I guess some will think that it is.  That's fine.




Hi bulldoza,

I've been wanting to post on this topic, but in all honesty I wasn't sure how I could condense all my thoughts on this subject into something short and meaningful to others.

Having someone who truly believes in GOD seems to open an opportunistic chance to ask a really simple question:

Why do you believe in GOD?

It seems that it is a lot easier to disprove GOD because there is no hard evidence.

With most other life learning tasks there is theory and then practical tasks to validate the theory.

I, like most, have been down the path of school scripture classes, Sunday School, Church on occasion and in my case, even went to Bible Camps. Plenty of theory but sorely lacking in any practical. At Bible Camp, the "leaders" were certainly well trained in conversions and I was open to be convinced and played along to the point of acceptance and beyond.

To this day, I am still waiting to be convinced as I would dearly love to think that there is more to life after my death.

I wonder what it is that you have been told/shown/felt/seen/experienced that I couldn't "see"?

So, once again, the very simple question - Why do YOU believe in GOD? 

You mentioned that you had been brought up as a Catholic and wonder if you had have been brought up as a Muslim, would you still believe in a Christian GOD?

I am not trying to personally confront you, but have a genuine interest in why you do believe.


----------



## Julia (21 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Suffice to say, you will be hard pressed to convince me that a large number, let alone the majority of Catholics are damaged or disadvantaged in any way as a result of their upbringing.



Well now, how about all the unwanted pregnancies because of the Catholic ban on contraception?
How about the exponential spread of AIDS because of the Catholic ban on the use of condoms?
How about the sexual assault of young men and women by Catholic priests, who have taken the thoroughly unnatural vow of celibacy.   So they offer a veneer of living the celibate life whilst in secret causing huge harm to innocent young people who are too indoctrinated as to the superior role of the priest to report the abuse?
And how about the constant fear - as you have in this thread been promulgating - of being JUDGED by some Creator being?

But don't worry too much about that as long as the sinner can go to the priest, make a confession of all the bad stuff, do their penance, and all is well.

Really, you expect non-indoctrinated, thinking people to accept all that???




explod said:


> Indoctrination is achieved by repitition.   It becomes blind belief, for example the people of Germany formed it behind Hitler and many of the workers at the death ovens acted under blind group belief.



Explod, no doubt many did indeed.  But possibly even more acted out of fear for their lives in that it was a case of show support for Hitler or be killed.

You'd have to wonder if something similar is not taking place in many religions, i.e. toe the religious line or be horribly punished on Judgement Day  if you have transgressed once too often.

By the way, bulldoza, is there a clear list of what constitutes unconscionable sin as distinct from minor human indiscretions so that Catholics (and some other Christians) can keep a check on how they are going prior to being judged, i.e. a score of so many points for particular wrong doings?

Are points put back if an appropriate confession is made?



bulldoza said:


> I commented earlier how everything changed when Adam and Eve failed whatever test was put before them (whether it was the 'forbiden fruit' or something else is irrelevant to me).  Since that moment, my belief is that we all must prove to God that we are worthy of sharing eternal life with Him by choosing to believe in Him and living our lives the way he showed and taught us through Jesus Christ His Son.  God has now given us the world we live in, with its good and bad and we will be judged on our worthiness to spend eternal life with Him on how we react to and with each other while coping with all the good and bad in this world.  I see this life as a test for how we will spend eternity after being judged by God.
> 
> All of the above depends on whether you choose to believe the Book of Genesis and the New Testament.  Personally, I do.
> 
> ...



Hmm, I doubt any of us will  be changing our carefully considered views as a result of this discussion.  As previously suggested by, I think, Wayne, this is really another Groundhog Day in that we've had this discussion on multiple occasions frequently.

Every now and again someone new, e.g. this time it's you bulldoza, happens along and the whole tired subject is resurrected once more.

Without wishing to be disrespectful to you, bulldoze, when I read through your post above, with its dogma, I reluctantly have the same response that I experience when listening to politicians.  i.e. it's just a bunch of words that mean little to the objective reader.   

But hey, it makes your life feel better so that's a good thing.
We all derive comfort and reassurance in different ways.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Hmm, I doubt any of us will  be changing our carefully considered views as a result of this discussion.  As previously suggested by, I think, Wayne, this is really another Groundhog Day in that we've had this discussion on multiple occasions frequently.
> 
> Every now and again someone new, e.g. this time it's you bulldoza, happens along and the whole tired subject is resurrected once more.



Well I thoroughly enjoy any dialogue with religious people and never tire of it. I find it a very interesting subject and have the time for anyone willing to discuss anything from the core to the extremities of their "belief". Everyone is welcome to their views on any subject in this forum whenever they want..


----------



## tunrida (21 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well I thoroughly enjoy any dialogue with religious people and never tire of it. I find it a very interesting subject and have the time for anyone willing to discuss anything from the core to the extremities of their "belief". Everyone is welcome to their views on any subject in this forum whenever they want..




pleased to hear of your keen interest Wysiwyg - my religion is zoophilia and some people shy away, nay, are quite discriminatory when they know that - most ungody I think.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

roland said:


> Hi bulldoza,
> 
> Why do you believe in GOD?




Hi Roland - I'll quickly summarise what I have commented earlier.

The reasons I believe in God include my belief that the overall messages and teachings in the Bible are the Word of God and to be correct.

One of the reasons I believe the Bible to be correct is the very close similarities between the predictions of the prophets in the Old Testament and the accounting of the actual events in the New Testament.  The main examples of this I can give are the reasonably detailed descriptions of the birth of Jesus Christ, the miracles He worked during His life and his death and resurrection by the prophet Isaiah and the fairly similar accounts of those events in the 4 Gospels.

Given the hundreds of years apart the Old and New Testaments were written, I find it implausible that the authors of the Old Testament somehow 'got together' to create a conspiracy to fabricate their writings and propogate and maintain the fraud for hundreds of years and generations to this very day.  I also believe it to be implausible that the authors of the New Testament somehow 'got together' to create a similar conspiracy, especially given the large number of eye witnesses that are said to have witnessed some of Jesus' miracles.

However, I don't necessarily believe that everything in the Bible happened exactly as described in it, but I do believe the events happened.

With respect, my advice would be to take some time (and it shouldn't take that long) to read at least the four Gospels and try to make your own mind up.

An easy trap many people fall into imo is to listen to various non-believers on the TV or other media selectively take individual versus out of their original context in the Bible and put their own interpretations and opinions on those individual versus to suit their particular views, which of course they are entitled to have.  

I would much rather prefer those people to quote the entire passage or chapter they plucked those versus from so that their listeners or viewers can see the context in which they were written.  When reading the Bible, I think the reader should also take into account the very different world, cultures, traditions etc the passage was written in at the time when trying to determine the teaching or meaning the passage is trying to convey - and then try to work out how that teaching or meaning applies to today's world.

IMHO plucking individual versus straight out of the Bible and applying a 21st century interpretation without taking into account the context the verse was written in, could lead to a misinformed opinion.

Finally, as I commented earlier, their is no 'hard evidence' that proves God exists or does not exist.  If anyone in this world finds some, I'm sure if they took it to the media the media would pay huge sums of money to publish it.

We individually have to make up our own minds as to whether we choose to believe in God or not.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Well now, how about all the unwanted pregnancies because of the Catholic ban on contraception?
> How about the exponential spread of AIDS because of the Catholic ban on the use of condoms?
> How about the sexual assault of young men and women by Catholic priests, who have taken the thoroughly unnatural vow of celibacy.   So they offer a veneer of living the celibate life whilst in secret causing huge harm to innocent young people who are too indoctrinated as to the superior role of the priest to report the abuse?
> And how about the constant fear - as you have in this thread been promulgating - of being JUDGED by some Creator being?
> ...




Hi Julia - you ask some very valid questions but imo they are not relevent to this thread "Is there a God?"  

Rather than risk hijacking this thread onto another subject more related to the Catholic Church specifically, I would be happy to try to contribute as time permits to answering your questions in another more appropriate thread if you would like to start one, assuming you would like to discuss further.

I commented earlier how Confession is not a 'get out of jail free' card.  Yes a sinners sins are forgiven at confession but the sinner must then genuinely try to repent and try to not commit the same sin again - eg. a robber cannot continually go to confession inbetween continually robbing banks and expect to get off scott free by God when the robbers turn comes up to be judged.

And also, no - I do not expect people to just blindly accept anything I say.  As I and others have commented, we are all entitled to our views and opinions.  I will repsect other peoples views although I might not agree with them and I would hope most others would at least respect mine even if they don't agree with my views.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

Ok - I think I have done this thread to death (for want of a better expression) from the point of view of my answering the originator of this thread's question.

So I thought I would take a few minutes out of what I normally do (I am a self employed website developer who dabbles in the stock market and not some crack pot evangelist for anyone wondering) to ask a question of my own.

With respect and totally out of curiosity -

*"What do you believe will be life after death if life goes on at all?"*

Just as important, I guess, I am curious and interested in getting a feel on what information, experiences etc your beliefs are based on.

I guess I am more curious to get a feel for what those who do not believe in any God or any religion think.  I already know what the 'mainstream' religions believe life after death to be.

Finally, please don't think I am trying to gain ammunition from any responses to try to shoot down the authors.  It should be a no-brainer to realise that I will probably disagree with most views but I will respect any views put forward.


----------



## Sdajii (22 February 2010)

Of course there is a God, you would have to be a complete moron not to understand that! How else could all the planets and stars have got there? Do you honestly believe that a world so complex could be created by random without an intelligent force?

If you don't believe in God it just means you are a foolish person with no faith, no heart and no ability to see blatantly obvious truth.

Sometimes religion has inconsistencies, but that is just because if it was too easy to see your faith would not be tested and there would be no challenge. You need to earn your ticket to Heaven, no one could expect a free ride.

God allows babies to be raped, people to die of starvation, mass disasters such as floods and famines which kill millions of innocent people to test the faith of the survivors, and of course, the more extreme the test the more effective it is that you will weed out the ones who are weak.

If religion displays any inconsistencies, if things don't make sense, you probably are just confused, and even if you are not, God just makes things a bit confusing to test your faith, and haven't you ever heard that God works in mysterious ways? If it doesn't make sense to you it is just because you are not God and can't understand things. You shouldn't try to understand anything, just have faith and accept God's words.

If God says gay people are evil and will go to Hell, or if women should remain silent in church, or any other politically incorrect things, who are we to complain or question? We are mere mortals who must blindly follow the Lord no matter how ridiculous it might seem. We are nothing compared to the Lord and do not deserve the right to think for ourselves and we should not try to do so, for the Lord has given us rules to live by and it is blasphemy to suggest we know better than God.

...and yes, I'm taking the p!$$, but it really isn't much of a stretch from what the religious folk will tell you, it's just worded a bit less evasively.


----------



## Mr J (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Finally, as I commented earlier, their is no 'hard evidence' that proves God exists or does not exist.




I'm interested in how you - and many other religious people - apply this consistency to the existence of extraterrestrial life. Many people consider it impossible, despite no hard evidence either way. I imagine there's also an extremely strong negative correlation between belief in god and belief in 'aliens'. I would bet many (perhaps most) religious people would deny the possibility of 'aliens', while most agnostics and atheists would allow for the possibility.

It's the inconsistency in logic that I find interesting. The religious people who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of 'aliens' have a firm belief in one subject despite no hard evidence, yet are willing to completely rule out another subject, again despite no hard evidence. There is no consistency there.

*By aliens I don't mean something out of the X-Files or the movies, just life outside of this planet.


----------



## Julia (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Suffice to say, you will be hard pressed to convince me that a large number, let alone the majority of Catholics are damaged or disadvantaged in any way as a result of their upbringing.







bulldoza said:


> Hi Julia - you ask some very valid questions but imo they are not relevent to this thread "Is there a God?"
> 
> Rather than risk hijacking this thread onto another subject more related to the Catholic Church specifically, I would be happy to try to contribute as time permits to answering your questions in another more appropriate thread if you would like to start one, assuming you would like to discuss further.




It was you who raised the Catholic Church as above.
And no, we do not need yet another thread on religion.


----------



## Sdajii (22 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> I'm interested in how you - and many other religious people - apply this consistency to the existence of extraterrestrial life. Many people consider it impossible, despite no hard evidence either way. I imagine there's also an extremely strong negative correlation between belief in god and belief in 'aliens'. I would bet many (perhaps most) religious people would deny the possibility of 'aliens', while most agnostics and atheists would allow for the possibility.
> 
> It's the inconsistency in logic that I find interesting. The religious people who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of 'aliens' have a firm belief in one subject despite no hard evidence, yet are willing to completely rule out another subject, again despite no hard evidence. There is no consistency there.
> 
> *By aliens I don't mean something out of the X-Files or the movies, just life outside of this planet.




Presumably the belief that aliens don't exist comes from the belief that god deliberately made us all and we are special. If you believe that only god can produce life and god only wanted to create life on one planet, you would obviously believe that aliens could not exist. That would have made more intuitive sense if the original belief that there was only one planet was true, and is now utterly absurd in light of the fact there are squillions of galaxies each containing squillions of planets. These are traditional beliefs based on a framework of ancient assumptions though.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

Mr J - I don't know if there is intelligent extraterrestial life out there or not.

We are told in the Bible that God created us in His image but exactly what that means I do not know.  I also don't know if the Bible says we are the only intelligent creatures in the universe.  If it does please post the reference to it.

But to be honest, whether there is extraterrestial life out there or not is irrelevent to me personally because Genesis tells us that God created the universe and everything in it and so the existence or non-existence of extraterrestial life does not affect my belief in God.

Now hopefully, you will take a few minutes to answer the question I posed to the forum earlier:

*"What do you believe will be life after death if life goes on at all?"*


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> *"What do you believe will be life after death if life goes on at all?"*




You mean spiritual life after death but did not state that. Spirit is observable during life but not observable after death. Belief in such is just that, belief, but why belief? Why not deal with the reality? The answer will be 'prove there is not spiritual life after death' . Case dismissed on grounds of *no evidence*.  

Really, anyone can make a statement without actual evidence. That is, evidence that everyone else can see and not some "connection" extrapolated from stories, whispers and rumours.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

Thank you for your reply wysiwyg.  I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say but I get the jist of it.

btw, I didn't mention spiritual or any other form of life after death because I don't want to pre-empt or potentially influence any replies.


----------



## Mr J (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Mr J - I don't know if there is intelligent extraterrestial life out there or not.




Do you see the inconsistency then? You don't know if there's intelligent life, but you're _certain_ there is a god. Even if you feel far more strongly about God since you think the Bible is evidence, how can you be _sure_? Is your faith really based on certainty, rather than a choice to believe despite a lack of concrete evidence?



> But to be honest, whether there is extraterrestial life out there or not is irrelevent to me personally because Genesis tells us that God created the universe and everything in it and so the existence or non-existence of extraterrestial life does not affect my belief in God.




Have you ever considered whether God is what we would call an extraterrestial? Perhaps God inhabits something larger than the universe and did create this universe and all that is within it. Perhaps we are just a petri dish? This may make him a far greater lifeform, but certainly not a god in the way we imagine them. Our situation might be comparable to a colony of ants in a lab worshipping a scientist.



> Now hopefully, you will take a few minutes to answer the question I posed to the forum earlier:
> 
> *"What do you believe will be life after death if life goes on at all?"*




I don't know, but I think it's most likely that we will cease to be in every way. I have seen no evidence of life after death. The evidence against it is the lack of evidence for it. I could make outrageous claims that can't be proven wrong, but you'd be a fool to believe me simply because there's no evidence against it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 February 2010)

> Our situation might be comparable to a colony of ants in a lab worshipping a scientist.




I considered the possibility of our visible universe being a universe within a bigger universe. Like a cell being part of a larger body.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> Do you see the inconsistency then? You don't know if there's intelligent life, but you're certain there is a god. Even if you feel far more strongly about God since you think the Bible is evidence, how can you be sure? Is your faith really based on certainty, rather than a choice to believe despite a lack of concrete evidence?




No, I don't see any inconsistency at all.  

The Bible (Book of Genesis) says God created the universe and everything in it, which IMO would include any extraterrestials if they exist.  

Personally, it makes no difference to my beliefs if ET's exist or not since there existence or non-existence does not affect my belief in God.  I have already commented twice on why I believe the Bible to be true.


----------



## tunrida (22 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> You mean spiritual life after death but did not state that. *Spirit is observable during life *but not observable after death. Belief in such is just that, belief, but why belief? Why not deal with the reality? The answer will be 'prove there is not spiritual life after death' . Case dismissed on grounds of *no evidence*.




there have been many court cases (I refer mainly USA) that have tried to establish religious beliefs - particularly creation. They failed to prove their case (ie lost) but then forced the nonsense on people by turning to the legislators with some success resulting in some schools either barring teaching evolution or enforcing teaching creationists.
In desperation some from the religious right has 'modernised' creation and call it 'intelligent design'
there is neither reason or logic in your statement "Spirit is observable during life" unless you mean normal and abnormal brain activity.


----------



## tunrida (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> No, I don't see any inconsistency at all.
> 
> The Bible (Book of Genesis) says God created the universe and everything in it, which IMO would include any extraterrestials if they exist.
> 
> Personally, it makes no difference to my beliefs if ET's exist or not since there existence or non-existence does not affect my belief in God.  I have already commented twice on why I believe the Bible to be true.




a question for you bull: do you think there is anyone else at all anywhere who has the same identical god as yours, or do you suspect that theirs may be just a wee bit different to the one that is in your head?


----------



## motorway (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> One of the reasons I believe the Bible to be correct is the very close similarities between the predictions of the prophets in the Old Testament and the accounting of the actual events in the New Testament. The main examples of this I can give are the reasonably detailed descriptions of the birth of Jesus Christ, the miracles He worked during His life and his death and resurrection by the prophet Isaiah and the fairly similar accounts of those events in the 4 Gospels.





It was written that way ON PURPOSE
So the prophesies would be Fulfilled

And it opens up another question of ORIGINALITY.. ( Those Miracles ? )

The mind works backwards seeing pattern..
I knew that was going to happen etc
It always works BACKWARDS
SOMETHING CONSTELLATED AND CRYSTALLIZED
And of COURSE WE just KNEW etc


But if I predict that a friend of mine will wear a red hat next week.. And I put it down in an (OLD ? )  TESTAMENT and Then HE WEARS A RED HAT and SAYS he did it SO HAS TO FULFIL THE PROPHESIES and writes about it in a (NEW ? ) TESTAMENT  

That is on another level again
But what does it  mean ?  ==> except the obvious ?
And maybe he did not wear the RED HAT at ALL
BUT JUST WROTE ABOUT IT ( for his OWN PURPOSE )..

So just because the NEW TESTAMENT lines up WITH the OLD
means NOTHING TO THE TOPIC

ALL such literature of that age , era and culture
would too.


IS not The BIBLE  the SORT of PROOF of GOD
YOU use when YOU have NO REAL PROOF..
WHEN you don't KNOW , But want others to BELIEVE...

_NEED them to BELIEVE_ 


Motorway


----------



## Mr J (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> No, I don't see any inconsistency at all.
> 
> The Bible (Book of Genesis) says God created the universe and everything in it, which IMO would include any extraterrestials if they exist.
> 
> Personally, it makes no difference to my beliefs if ET's exist or not since there existence or non-existence does not affect my belief in God.  I have already commented twice on why I believe the Bible to be true.




I intentionally mentioned existence outside of the universe. 

You mention that if ETs existed it would be mentioned in the Bible, but that if they are shown to exist it wouldn't change your belief in God (and I assume the credibility of the bible). Why not? If your evidence for God is the Bible, and the Bible is shown to miss something you believe it couldn't have missed if it were true, then how can you not question your belief when the credibility of your primary evidence is destroyed? It sounds like your faith is based on something other than the Bible, and you're just using it as is convenient.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

Thank you for your view motorway.  It shows, what I commented on back in my first post, that there is no 'hard evidence' proving the existence or non-existence of God.

We as individuals, should make our own decision on whether we believe in God or not.  I have seen and experienced enough to convince me that God exists.

Tunrida - yes I believe there are others in the world who believe in the God I do.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> You mention that if ETs existed it would be mentioned in the Bible,....




*Your statement is not true*, I never said the existence of ET's would be specifically mentioned in the Bible.  What I said was that Genesis tells us that God created the universe and everything in it.  I went on to say that consequently whether God created ET's or not is irrelevent to my beliefs.


----------



## explod (22 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> I intentionally mentioned existence outside of the universe.
> 
> You mention that if ETs existed it would be mentioned in the Bible, but that if they are shown to exist it wouldn't change your belief in God (and I assume the credibility of the bible). Why not? If your evidence for God is the Bible, and the Bible is shown to miss something you believe it couldn't have missed if it were true, then how can you not question your belief when the credibility of your primary evidence is destroyed? It sounds like your faith is based on something other than the Bible, and you're just using it as is convenient.




Am back, cant help myself.

Good points, but yesterday I put up a post which clearly shows that Matthew"s story is at direct odds with Luke's story in the bible but our ole pal *buldozer* just kept rolling on.

People will only believe and see what they want to, we can only at the end of the day save ourselves and let the poor ole bulldozers push it all against the wind.

As in Cool Hand Luke,    "some people yar'h  just caa'nt reach"


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

explod said:


> Am back, cant help myself.
> 
> Good points, but yesterday I put up a post which clearly shows that Matthew"s story is at direct odds with Luke's story in the bible but our ole pal *buldozer* just kept rolling on.




If you feel your post conclusively proves Matthew's Gospel is sufficently at odds with Luke's Gospel to the point where it conclusively proves God does not exist, then why not take your post to the media and see if it will stand up to their scrutiny.  

If it does, I am sure they will offer you mega $'s to publish your post.

IMO your post would not stand up to their scrutiny.


----------



## explod (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> If you feel your post conclusively proves Matthew's Gospel is sufficently at odds with Luke's Gospel to the point where it conclusively proves God does not exist, then why not take your post to the media and see if it will stand up to their scrutiny.
> 
> If it does, I am sure they will offer you mega $'s to publish your post.
> 
> IMO your post would not stand up to their scrutiny.




What I posted was a direct quote from Richard Dawkins and *it has, and it does *and after initial attacks at his cridibility, which also stood up, they the theologians have become quiet;  if you are unable to prove your point, do not stir the hornets nest.  

Another great thinker Michel Onfray  (who teaches philosophy at the Peoples University of Caen, France) has a book published in 2006 "The Atheist Manifesto" which is well worth checking by those who may be undecided.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

explod said:


> What I posted was a direct quote from Richard Dawkins and *it has, and it does *and after initial attacks at his cridibility, which also stood up, they the theologians have become quiet;  if you are unable to prove your point, do not stir the hornets nest.




Richard Dawkins is entitled to his opinions just like anyone else.  If Richard Dawkins had conclusive proof that God does not exist, I am sure at least the media would be all over it one way or the other.

I have to go out for a while.  If I can I will pop back this evening if you would like to discuss further


----------



## explod (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Richard Dawkins is entitled to his opinions just like anyone else.  If Richard Dawkins had conclusive proof that God does not exist, I am sure at least the media would be all over it one way or the other.
> 
> I have to go out for a while.  If I can I will pop back this evening if you would like to discuss further




Most media is controlled by religious interests, judaism and scientology in particluar.  Media deliberately ignore if they can the rationale of thinkers like Dawkins.

And on God, the issue is not that he does not exist, because in truth we do not know, *the real issue is proving that he does exist*  Just feeling or believing or reading it in the bible does not prove any sort of real existence.   You say I know he exists, please tell me why you know he exists?


----------



## roland (22 February 2010)

explod said:


> Most media is controlled by religious interests, judaism and scientology in particluar.  Media deliberately ignore if they can the rationale of thinkers like Dawkins.
> 
> And on God, the issue is not that he does not exist, because in truth we do not know, *the real issue is proving that he does exist*  Just feeling or believing or reading it in the bible does not prove any sort of real existence.   You say I know he exists, please tell me why you know he exists?




I asked bulldoza pretty much the same question and all I got was:



> Hi Roland - I'll quickly summarise what I have commented earlier.
> 
> The reasons I believe in God include my belief that the overall messages and teachings in the Bible are the Word of God and to be correct.
> 
> One of the reasons I believe the Bible to be correct is the very close similarities between the predictions of the prophets in the Old Testament and the accounting of the actual events in the New Testament. The main examples of this I can give are the reasonably detailed descriptions of the birth of Jesus Christ, the miracles He worked during His life and his death and resurrection by the prophet Isaiah and the fairly similar accounts of those events in the 4 Gospels.




It mystifies me how anyone can read a book of jumbled fables and cryptic narratives that have been handed down, translated, interpreted and re-translated through the ages and, without any solid proof, base your whole life on the text presented.

In my mind there is no doubting environmental conditioning when it comes to religion. If bulldozer had been born in India, he would be spruking Hinduism, Iran he would have been a devout Muslim. If born in China, bulldozer would probably would have been a Buddhist.


----------



## derty (22 February 2010)

I recently listened to an eBook that was a series of 24 lectures by Bart Ehrman covering the history of Christianity from the period of Jesus to Constantine.

Fascinating stuff. What I found most interesting was that:

 It was likely that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet preaching that the King of the Jews would come and deliver them to the Kingdom of God. It was a common belief of the day. The king would be a mortal man and the Kingdom was a physical place on Earth. 

There were several different Christianities with markedly different views on worship, Jesus's birth and mortality and God. The main three were the Ebionites, the Marcionites and the Gnostics. These were dominant through the 2nd century AD with what is today's orthodox Christianity ultimately being a blend of the Ebionites and Marcionites not exerting itself until into the 3rd century AD. What we know as Christianity today was ultimately successful as it was the form of Christianity that was popular in Rome and the wealth and power from within Rome saw all other forms branded heretical.

The four canonical gospels were written anonymously (i.e. not actually by the apostles themselves) and all differ significantly. With Mark considered the earliest with subsequent gospels built off Mark and another lost document scholars call Q. There are also many other gospels from around this time that were not included. 

Apostle Paul, who is historically considered as significant as Jesus for the development of Christianity, never knew Jesus and was initially a Jewish Pharisee who persecuted Christians. He did not preach the teachings of Jesus but essentially founded the religion that preaches the religion of Jesus and built up the significance of the death of Jesus and his resurrection being crucial to salvation of the sins of the world.  

So what is Christianity today is nothing like what was preached by Jesus the Jew or the early Christ based forms of Christianity but a much later homogenised interpretation authorised and implemented by Rome based factions.


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

explod said:


> Most media is controlled by religious interests, judaism and scientology in particluar.  Media deliberately ignore if they can the rationale of thinkers like Dawkins.
> 
> And on God, the issue is not that he does not exist, because in truth we do not know, *the real issue is proving that he does exist*  Just feeling or believing or reading it in the bible does not prove any sort of real existence.   You say I know he exists, please tell me why you know he exists?




Regarding the media, I am not convinced that *most media* are controlled by religious interests.   

In the second paragraph I assume you are speaking on behalf of yourself and if that is the case then that is fine and I have no issue with your opinion.
Personally, I have read and experienced enough to say I know God exists but the evidence I am accepting as proof of God's existence would not be sufficient for you and I guess for many others, given your comments so far.  I have no problem with that at all.  

Regarding telling you why I know God exists, we are now starting to go round in circles because Julia effectively asked the same question to me yesterday and I posted my reply.

I'm starting to feel that some maybe feel that I am trying to shove my beliefs down their throats.  Let me assure you I am not.  I have consistently commented we should all decide individually whether we choose to believe in God or not based on whatever evidence or non-evidence is acceptable to each one of us.


----------



## explod (22 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I have consistently commented we should all decide individually whether we choose to believe in God or not based on whatever evidence or non-evidence is acceptable to each one of us.




So you believe regardless of any evidence and by your statement would still believe when there is no evidence, ie ..."non-evidence"...

Do you teach your belief to others and your children?


----------



## bulldoza (22 February 2010)

explod said:


> So you believe regardless of any evidence and by your statement would still believe when there is no evidence, ie ..."non-evidence"...




What I said was:

"Personally, I have read and experienced enough to say I know God exists but the evidence I am accepting as proof of God's existence would not be sufficient for you and I guess for many others, given your comments so far. I have no problem with that at all."

Given I am not trying to change anyone's views, if you think my beliefs and the evidence I have to support my beliefs is a load of rubbish, then that is fine.  You are entitled to your views just I and everyone else is entitled to ours.

Short of going into details of my personal life, which I won't in a public forum like this for obvious reasons, then I can't give you any more information regarding my personal experiences which contribute to my belief in God - and IMO that shouldn't matter to anyone else since I am not trying to change anyone's views.

You clearly do not believe in God or at best are unsure, from my interpretation of your comments and that is fine.  You are entitled to your views and I am not trying to change it.

I'm going to watch the Olympics and so I'll try to pop in tomorrow.

Good night


----------



## roland (22 February 2010)

One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.


----------



## explod (22 February 2010)

roland said:


> One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.




Yes we instinctively want to be guided and looked after as we were as children.   However I was an equiring person and wanted to learn for myself so became much happier as I progressed away from religion.

So moving on from religion is sort of *growing up* and *standing on your own two feet*.     IMVVHO of course


----------



## jonojpsg (22 February 2010)

explod said:


> Yes we instinctively want to be guided and looked after as we were as children.   However I was an equiring person and wanted to learn for myself so became much happier as I progressed away from religion.
> 
> So moving on from religion is sort of *growing up* and *standing on your own two feet*.     IMVVHO of course




Mate, growing up??  I was brought up in the church, baptist minister for a dad who had an affair when I was twelve and that stuffed my belief.  Well, until I *grew up* and realised that smoking dope and drinking my way through life was probably not going to cut it and that once I actually put my "reasonably" intelligent (IQ 135) mind to it (that had done engineering and teaching degrees), I could see that there was far more to the arguments for the existence of God, and that it really was a pretty arrogant position to take to think that we could explain away God with some mathematics and science.


----------



## roland (22 February 2010)

explod said:


> Yes we instinctively want to be guided and looked after as we were as children.   However I was an equiring person and wanted to learn for myself so became much happier as I progressed away from religion.
> 
> So moving on from religion is sort of *growing up* and *standing on your own two feet*.     IMVVHO of course




I personally agree, religion and cute stories in Sunday School did no harm in setting me up as a nice person.

Being interested in science and history helped with an enquiring mind and enabled my free thinking - this of course is in conflict with the fantasy world of religion.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 February 2010)

roland said:


> One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.



And in that is the importance of peaceful religions on Earth.


----------



## bellenuit (22 February 2010)

roland said:


> One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.




Possibly because the non-believers who have had a religious upbringing must contend with the psychological damage done to them when they were at a very vulnerable age by continually being told that if they lost their faith they would suffer eternal damnation. It is very hard to leave that baggage behind and I suspect a lot of believers believe because that is the easier thing to do.


----------



## GumbyLearner (22 February 2010)

If there is, I hope he doesn't mind me operating within my own subjectively-based acceptable boundary limits. : If not, oh well I'm only a rational and logical being after all.


----------



## Mr J (22 February 2010)

roland said:


> One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.




Let's consider two people. The first is told they have a supernatural lord and friend that will always be with them and listen to their troubles. They're told their friend has a plan for them, and that when they pass on they will enter into paradise for eternity. The second is not told any of this. Which is more likely to be happy and stress-free?


----------



## Julia (22 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Possibly because the non-believers who have had a religious upbringing must contend with the psychological damage done to them when they were at a very vulnerable age by continually being told that if they lost their faith they would suffer eternal damnation. It is very hard to leave that baggage behind and I suspect a lot of believers believe because that is the easier thing to do.



That's a thoughtful and insightful observation, bellenuit, as usual.


----------



## tunrida (23 February 2010)

derty said:


> I recently listened to an eBook that was a series of 24 lectures by Bart Ehrman covering the history of Christianity from the period of Jesus to Constantine.
> 
> Fascinating stuff. What I found most interesting was that:
> 
> ...




Concurs with a book by historical writer Colin Cross called "who was Jesus" which I came across in the 70's. Agree fascinating when considering the current religions have drifted so far from the facts.


----------



## symmetry (23 February 2010)

i guess beleiving in a man made up theory of anything else that dispells the need for God, is easy.  thus giving you no accoutablilty for nay actions you do, there are way to many scientific and historical facts to waiver the existance of God.  i admire anyones faith in not believing in God or beleiving we come from monkeys or small cells into very complex ones.  

The model of how things came to being fits much closer to God / creation than evolution , so hats off to all you much bigger faith than me.

BUT if your wrong even slightly guess ingonoring it will be the biggest risk  in life you ever take.

if your quite happy to take for granted the faith of chair will hold you up, or  the wall you lean on will not fall ?   must go around checkign everythign for secuirty  and live on egg shells ..

enjoy your day


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 February 2010)

roland said:


> One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.




Maybe it is just psychological. The phrase "I believe in God and religion" is a positive affirming phrase. The phrase "I don't believe in God or religion" has a negative undertone.

People that say "I can achieve whatever I try to do" are more likely to be happy, successful and fulfilled than those that say "I never achieve what I try to do."



			
				bellenuit said:
			
		

> Possibly because the non-believers who have had a religious upbringing must contend with the psychological damage done to them when they were at a very vulnerable age by continually being told that if they lost their faith they would suffer eternal damnation. It is very hard to leave that baggage behind and I suspect a lot of believers believe because that is the easier thing to do.




Bellenuit, with due respect, surely you have tongue firmly in cheek. 

I would suggest the number of "non-believers", who had a religious upbringing, who are genuinely unhappy with their life, as a direct consequence of psychological damage caused by the continual threat of eternal damnation would account for an extremely small percentage. (For a start I don't think anyone under the age of 50 would have even been exposed to "the continual threat of eternal damnation" - most of the religious orders haven't spoken like that for decades!!).

There would be 1000 more valid and common reasons why "non-believers" were unhappy and discontented before blaming "the threat of eternal damnation". Most of my family of "non-believers" just ..."could give a ****". At least they are honest and don't try to hide behind a "Church Destroyed My Life" headline. 

Is the irony lost on anyone else? Even when people won't have a bar of religion in their lives, religion still manages to get the blame for their unhappiness!

Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 February 2010)

roland said:


> One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.




Maybe it is just psychological. The phrase "I believe in God and religion" is a positive affirming phrase. The phrase "I don't believe in God or religion" has a negative undertone.

People that say "I can achieve whatever I try to do" are more likely to be happy, successful and fulfilled than those that say "I never achieve what I try to do."



			
				bellnuit said:
			
		

> Possibly because the non-believers who have had a religious upbringing must contend with the psychological damage done to them when they were at a very vulnerable age by continually being told that if they lost their faith they would suffer eternal damnation. It is very hard to leave that baggage behind and I suspect a lot of believers believe because that is the easier thing to do.




Bellenuit, with due respect, surely you have tongue firmly in cheek. 

I would suggest the number of "non-believers", who had a religious upbringing, who are genuinely unhappy with their life, as a direct consequence of psychological damage caused by the continual threat of eternal damnation would account for an extremely small percentage. (For a start I don't think anyone under the age of 50 who have even been exposed to "the continual threat of eternal damnation" - most of the religious orders haven't spoken like that for decades!!).

There would be 1000 more valid and common reasons why "non-believers" were unhappy and discontented before blaming "the threat of eternal damnation". Most of my family of "non-believers" just ..."could give a ****". At least they are honest and don't try to hide behind a "Church Destroyed My Life" headline. 

Is the irony lost on anyone else? Even when people won't have a bar of religion in their lives, religion still manages to get the blame for their unhappiness!

Duckman


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Maybe it is just psychological. The phrase "I believe in God and religion" is a positive affirming phrase. The phrase "I don't believe in God or religion" has a negative undertone.
> 
> People that say "I can achieve whatever I try to do" are more likely to be happy, successful and fulfilled than those that say "I never achieve what I try to do."
> 
> ...




Well put Duckman.

All I can say is operate within acceptable boundary limits and you will be fine.
Step inside my boundary limits and look out!! 

Disclaimer: God and neither the devil are on my team.


----------



## bellenuit (23 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> There would be 1000 more valid and common reasons why "non-believers" were unhappy and discontented before blaming "the threat of eternal damnation". Most of my family of "non-believers" just ..."could give a ****". At least they are honest and don't try to hide behind a "Church Destroyed My Life" headline.
> 
> Is the irony lost on anyone else? Even when people won't have a bar of religion in their lives, religion still manages to get the blame for their unhappiness!




Duckman. The quote I was responding to was not about unhappiness in one's life or about the Church destroyed my life type of thing. It was about being happy and content in their belief or in their non-belief in the case of non-believers. It is harder to hold a position that your earlier upbringing has told you leads to damnation compared to a position that your earlier upbringing has told you leads to eternal happiness. 

I watched one of the Dawkins TV series about two years ago when he was touring the Bible belt in the US. One preacher he interviewed actually said that he preaches about eternal damnation just to instil fear in his younger congregation because they are then less likely to question their faith if they fear eternal damnation and to him that is all that mattered. 

If what I said isn't the case, why do so many believers use the Pascall argument for maintaining a belief. If a believer is wrong then he loses nothing, but if a non-believer is wrong then he is forever damned. 

I personally am very satisfied and content with my life and would be regarded by my friends as someone who is a happy person. But when it comes to my beliefs, I had a lot of psychological baggage to overcome when I rejected Christianity and started referring to myself as an atheist, even though the more I examined Christianity and a belief in a God in particular, the more nonsensical it seemed. And yes, I am one of those over 50. 

This is what I responded to: 



> One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2010)

<broken record>I think the title of this thread should be "Is There A Christian/Abrahamic God?".

Read up on "Attitude Polarization" folks.

There are only two possibilities being considered here - 1/ There is no God. We are a freak of chemistry. 2/ There is God as described in the Bible.

I reject both arguments for some other possibility.</broken record>

This thread was better back when there were other more creative views.


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> <broken record>I think the title of this thread should be "Is There A Christian/Abrahamic God?".
> 
> Read up on "Attitude Polarization" folks.
> 
> ...




well said wayneL.

I continue to operate within acceptable boundary limits until some cultural marxist tells me not to do so. Then I will still operate within my own determined limits. They can shove their beliefs where the sun don't shine.


----------



## explod (23 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> <broken record>I think the title of this thread should be "Is There A Christian/Abrahamic God?".
> 
> Read up on "Attitude Polarization" folks.
> 
> ...




The demograph of ASF'ers attacted to this thread would be baby boomers or older.   That age group in Australia were probably 60% plus exposed to serious Christianity  (fire and brimstone).   Therefore the passion of this thread is and will probably stay in situ till exhausted, (and we most be close) on the line articulated in the last sentence.

And thanks WayneL for the uncreative little plug, very down to earth.


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> <broken record>I think the title of this thread should be "Is There A Christian/Abrahamic God?".
> 
> Read up on "Attitude Polarization" folks.
> 
> ...




Hang on chap's, I'm just warming-up on the sideline!

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> Hang on chap's, I'm just warming-up on the sideline!
> 
> jog on
> duc




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

This dude has been warming up too. For over 250 years. LOL


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

jonojpsg said:


> I actually put my "reasonably" intelligent (IQ 135) mind to it (that had done engineering and teaching degrees), I could see that there was far more to the arguments for the existence of God, and that it really was a pretty arrogant position to take to think that we could explain away God with some mathematics and science.




I suppose the best place to start then is with some historical ontological argument:

From St Anslem:



> The ontological argument was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) in the second chapter of his Proslogion.[8] Although he did not propose an ontological system, he was very much concerned with the nature of being. He distinguished necessary beings (those that must exist) from contingent beings (those that may exist, but whose existence is not necessary).
> 
> In Chapter 2 of “The Existence of Nature and God” Anselm′s Argument for the Existence of God is as follows:
> 
> ...




From Rene Descartes:



> Descartes wrote in the Fifth Meditation,[10]
> 
> But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45).
> 
> ...






> Criticism by "essence precedes existence"
> 
> Avicenna's argument is based on essence precedes existence. In his view existence is secondary to essence or quiddity, because a human can think about something and it need not exist. Everything that exists only comes into existence because it is brought from potential to actual existence by something else, except God, who is the only Necessary Existent.
> 
> Averroes rejected Avicenna's ontological distinction between existence and essence. He argued that in an eternal universe anything that could exist would and indeed must exist, and existence of a thing is not just a property added to it.






> Kant put forward a key refutation of the ontological argument in the Critique of Pure Reason (first edition, pp. 592–603; second edition, pp. 620–631).[23] It is explicitly directed primarily against Descartes but also against Leibniz. His criticism was anticipated in Pierre Gassendi's Objections to Descartes' Meditations. Kant's refutation consists of several separate but interrelated arguments. They are shaped by his central distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. In an analytic judgment, the predicate expresses something that is already contained within a concept and is therefore a tautology; in a synthetic judgment, the predicate, or claim, links the concept to something outside it that is not already logically implied by it. New knowledge consists of synthetic judgments.
> 
> Kant first questions the intelligibility of the very concept of an absolutely necessary being, considering "whether I am still thinking anything in the concept of the unconditionally necessary, or perhaps rather nothing at all". He examines one way of understanding the concept, which looks to examples of necessary propositions, e.g. "a triangle has three angles". But he rejects this account for two related reasons. First, no absolutely necessary judgments will ever yield an absolute necessity for things and their existence: e.g., "a triangle has three angles" yields only the conditioned necessity that, if a triangle exists, then necessarily three angles exist. Thus even if we defined a concept of a thing X so that "X exists" were a necessary judgment, all that would follow is the conditioned necessity that, if X exists, then necessarily X exists. Second, since contradictions arise only when we keep the subject and cancel the predicate (e.g., keeping God and canceling omnipotence), and since judgments of nonexistence cancel both the subject and the predicate, therefore no judgment of nonexistence can involve a contradiction. Kant concludes that there is a strong general case against the intelligibility of the concept of an absolutely necessary being.[23]
> 
> ...




jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> I suppose the best place to start then is with some historical ontological argument:
> 
> From St Anslem:
> 
> ...




So where/if any does the moral absolute lie?


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

*et al*

Then, we could swiftly move to the cosmological argument, which, essentially is based upon Empiricism and states:

Everything that exists, exists because of something else. The ultimate causation of  "X" is God. Therefore, God exists.

If you take Karl Popper's Falsification Theory, and postulate that based on empirical evidence, that the above theory is true, then, the conclusion must be assumed to be true, until [evidence] proves it untrue.

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> *et al*
> 
> Then, we could swiftly move to the cosmological argument, which, essentially is based upon Empiricism and states:
> 
> ...




One question for Mr. Popper and it's not about tetra-paks. 

Is there such a thing as no moral absolute?


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> So where/if any does the moral absolute lie?




You are entering into an Ethical question, which, most certainly pertains to the question of the existence of God, but from a slightly different perspective.

If we take an example from Plato:

Is what is good, good because God commands it? Or, does God command it because it is good?

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> You are entering into an Ethical question, which, most certainly pertains to the question of the existence of God, but from a slightly different perspective.
> 
> If we take an example from Plato:
> 
> ...




Nah not a question about God. Are you absolutely sure Plato was right?

Anyone can claim anything from their own subjective reality.

What about you ducati? Is there such a thing as a moral absolute?


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> You are entering into an Ethical question, which, most certainly pertains to the question of the existence of God, but from a slightly different perspective.
> 
> If we take an example from Plato:
> 
> ...




Why does my entering into "ethics" on behalf of some third party concept of "GOD" bother you?


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Why does my entering into "ethics" on behalf of some third party concept of "GOD" bother you?




It doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's simply that pursuing two arguments, that while related, are distinct, can become somewhat confusing.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Nah not a question about God. Are you absolutely sure Plato was right?
> 
> Anyone can claim anything from their own subjective reality.
> 
> What about you ducati? Is there such a thing as a moral absolute?




Of course it's a question pertaining to God. It's simply approaching the question from a different argument, and as such, opens numerous new arguments.

As to 







> Anyone can claim anything from their own subjective reality.



 well yes they can, but much will not stand up to objective scrutiny and thus can be discounted as nonsense.



> What about you ducati? Is there such a thing as a moral absolute?




If you are asking: is there argument for/against, absolutely there is. If you are asking for my argument on this issue, you'll need to provide a context.

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> It doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's simply that pursuing two arguments, that while related, are distinct, can become somewhat confusing.
> 
> jog on
> duc




I'm not trying to confuse you duc. I'll return to my original point. 
Are you sure that no moral absolute exists?


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I'm not trying to confuse you duc. I'll return to my original point.
> Are you sure that no moral absolute exists?




Moral absolutism, implies the existence of religions. As religions do exist, moral absolutism exists.

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> Moral absolutism, implies the existence of religions. As religions do exist, moral absolutism exists.
> 
> jog on
> duc




Yes Sensei.

And what does moral relativism imply?


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yes Sensei.
> 
> And what does moral relativism imply?




It simply restates [refutes] one of the arguments put forward by those with faith: arguing that the Bible [Scriptures], or Koran, or Talmud, are essentially mistaken.

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> It simply restates one of the arguments put forward by those with faith: arguing that the Bible [Scriptures], or Koran, or Talmud, are essentially mistaken.
> 
> jog on
> duc




And what do you claim duc?


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> And what do you claim duc?




Currently I'm not claiming anything. I'm waiting for an argument that refutes my previously posted argument:



> Then, we could swiftly move to the cosmological argument, which, essentially is based upon Empiricism and states:
> 
> Everything that exists, exists because of something else. The ultimate causation of "X" is God. Therefore, God exists.
> 
> If you take Karl Popper's Falsification Theory, and postulate that based on empirical evidence, that the above theory is true, then, the conclusion must be assumed to be true, until [evidence] proves it untrue.




jog on
duc


----------



## Tink (23 February 2010)

explod said:


> The demograph of ASF'ers attacted to this thread would be baby boomers or older.   That age group in Australia were probably 60% plus exposed to serious Christianity  (fire and brimstone).   Therefore the passion of this thread is and will probably stay in situ till exhausted, (and we most be close) on the line articulated in the last sentence.
> 
> And thanks WayneL for the uncreative little plug, very down to earth.




Nope, no where near 60 and neither are my kids, and they are old enough to choose. We all have strong faiths

Wayne, I believe in one God, and I have friends with different faiths

They were happy with Mary MacKillop, which is how this thread all started again.


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> Currently I'm not claiming anything. I'm waiting for an argument that refutes my previously posted argument:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So you lay your belief on the tetra-pak dude. 

It still doesn't explain why some people are assholes but hey I can't explain that either. But I don't believe it's all relative. Of course there will always be assholes. The main question is why?

But what is cool to discuss is:

If one claims there are no rules, doesn't that create a recipe for anarchy?

And if the above is a fallacy then surely to claim no moral absolute is to claim a fallacy in itself? 

Deep stuff but have a think.


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> So you lay your belief on the tetra-pak dude.
> 
> It still doesn't explain why some people are assholes but hey I can't explain that either. But I don't believe it's all relative. Of course there will always be assholes. The main question is why?
> 
> ...




You have made an assumption regarding my position [beliefs] on the question, when I have categorically not made or taken a position with regard to beliefs at all. I have simply posited an argument, that can be refuted by any and all of any position [beliefs]

Anarchy is generally defined within the temporal:



> Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchÃ­ā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
> 
> "No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
> 
> ...




As such, it has only passing relevance to the question: Is there a God? To tie the reference to anarchy to the question, would require much argument into the origins and distortions of law, predominantly Canon Law as opposed to Common Law [Roman Law] which returns us to Natural Law and Aristotle.

Unfortunately the rest of your post makes no sense. Possibly you can elaborate to clarify?

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> You have made an assumption regarding my position [beliefs] on the question, when I have categorically not made or taken a position with regard to beliefs at all. I have simply posited an argument, that can be refuted by any and all of any position [beliefs]
> 
> Anarchy is generally defined within the temporal:
> 
> ...




I have made no assumption. You have no position. 
Essentially you are a nihilist as 
Walter Sobchak would say.



acceptable boundary limits dude.


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I have made no assumption. You have no position.
> Essentially you are a nihilist as
> Walter Sobchak would say.
> 
> ...




It's almost embarrassing to point out the obvious, but, unfortunately old chap, you are making assumptions all over the place.

My position, for the moment, is, as previously posted. I of course reserve the right to re-argue my position, if a refutation is forthcoming.

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> It's almost embarrassing to point out the obvious, but, unfortunately old chap, you are making assumptions all over the place.
> 
> My position, for the moment, is, as previously posted. I of course reserve the right to re-argue my position, if a refutation is forthcoming.
> 
> ...




Get real my friend. You are the one making assumptions. You cannot answer the question as to whether a moral absolute exists? To do so, would put your whole line of argument into peril.

I don't claim either moral absolutism or moral relativism as any foundation 
for my blogging.

If you think there is no moral absolutism? That's fine I respect that.
But just remember the things that I claim. My right to think and fight for myself as a rational and logical individual as distinct from all others whether they be the church and/or state. 

Great debate 
cheers ducati

Gumby.


----------



## ducati916 (23 February 2010)

> Get real my friend. You are the one making assumptions. You cannot answer the question as to whether a moral absolute exists? To do so, would put your whole line of argument into peril.




But old chap, I have indeed answered the question. If religions exist, and they most certainly do, then by definition, moral absolutism exists. What I haven't answered is do I believe in moral absolutism. Currently, my beliefs are immaterial to the discussion.



> I don't claim either moral absolutism or moral relativism as any foundation
> for my blogging.




Which is fine. However, in our world today, both exist, both form arguments refuting the other's position [arguments] thus, for me to engage you, you must posit an argument [it's irrelevant whether you actually believe the argument] so that I can [try] to refute it [said argument]



> If you think there is no moral absolutism? That's fine I respect that.
> But just remember the things that I claim. My right to think and fight for myself as a rational and logical individual as distinct from all others whether they be the church and/or state.




Au-contraire: I absolutely state, categorically, that if there is religion, there is moral absolutism. Rationalism is again widening the argument, although in relation to epistomology and the question: Is there a God? I can see where you might have some very valid arguments as opposed to my empirical argument. But you need to make them.





> Great debate
> cheers ducati
> 
> Gumby.




Ahhh, we are but warming-up. The really tough questions/arguments are yet to come!

jog on
duc


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 February 2010)

ducati916 said:


> But old chap, I have indeed answered the question. If religions exist, and they most certainly do, then by definition, moral absolutism exists. What I haven't answered is do I believe in moral absolutism. Currently, my beliefs are immaterial to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You didn't answer ****.

I'm not willing to bow down to you either.

You still have not answered the ultimate question.

That is "Is there a moral absolute?"

Still waiting for a reasoned response.


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> .......and I suspect a lot of believers believe because that is the easier thing to do.




I disagree - IMO it is much harder to believe than to not believe.

Imo you can't just say "I believe in God" and then live your life however you see fit.  To truly believe in God means living your life in the way His Son Jesus Christ showed us and taught us in the Bible - doing unto others as you would expect them to do unto you, turning the other cheek, abstaining from sex outside of marriage etc etc.

Imo to say God does not exist or I am not sure if God exists and to then live your life however you like morally, ethically etc etc is a much easier thing to do.


----------



## brty (23 February 2010)

What is Damnation??

Please could one of the believers spell it out and give one example/testimonial of someone who has had to endure it.

Likewise, could someone give an example and description of Paradise, again an example/testimonial of someone who has endured it would be helpful.

brty


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> "Is there a moral absolute?"




A view from the fringe of the discussion:

Religious people point to the 10 commandments a evidence of moral absolutes. Ecclesiastes 3 seems to indicate otherwise.

Likewise, Lao Tzu would likely have scoffed at the suggestion. I'm sure some well constructed Socratic questioning could deconstruct just about any "moral" position.

I quite like the Taoist take on it... Yin & Yang etc.


----------



## brty (23 February 2010)

> Ecclesiastes 3 seems to indicate otherwise.




Owhhh, I've never been rend before. 

With apologies to the makers of Bwian's life story..

brty


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2010)

I should point out that although I don't think there are moral absolutes, there are always consequences.


----------



## Sdajii (23 February 2010)

roland said:


> One thing of note that I have observed is that people with strong beliefs in GOD seem to be happier and more content in their belief than the people who put themselves forward as non believers.




Wow, it sounds like you have actually convinced yourself of that! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. As ridiculous as it is, you had to first swallow the whole concept of religion and convince yourself of it, so you've already shown you'll believe anything. People with strong religious beliefs tend to be fanatical and have to twist their minds into forcing themselves to believe silly things in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary of those beliefs. Non religious people don't have any strong reason to care, or any barrier preventing them from deciding on their own beliefs, or changing them if necessary; there is no fear that if they change they will be struck down by god and go to Hell or some such nonsense. If they actually did have a strong belief in god or a strong desire to believe, they would just start believing in god. As a religious person you are an expert in seeing what you want to see or believe you should see, rather than what is actually there, so you probably won't accept or understand this, but people who are free to believe whatever they want to and make up their own mind are more comfortable with their beliefs than people who feel they have no choice.

Have you actually read the bible? Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> ....People with strong religious beliefs tend to be fanatical and have to twist their minds into forcing themselves to believe silly things in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary of those beliefs......




*Imo your unconditional generalisation is simply not true.*

Yes, granted a small minority of all religious faiths will adopt 'extreme' interpretations of their beliefs but I for one, although having strong religious beliefs, am not a fanatic (ie..one who shoves their beliefs down other peoples throats) and I am certainly not forcing myself to believe anything.

I am choosing to believe in God just as freely as anyone else is choosing to believe they do not believe in God or otherwise.


----------



## roland (23 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Wow, it sounds like you have actually convinced yourself of that! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. As ridiculous as it is, you had to first swallow the whole concept of religion and convince yourself of it, so you've already shown you'll believe anything. People with strong religious beliefs tend to be fanatical and have to twist their minds into forcing themselves to believe silly things in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary of those beliefs. Non religious people don't have any strong reason to care, or any barrier preventing them from deciding on their own beliefs, or changing them if necessary; there is no fear that if they change they will be struck down by god and go to Hell or some such nonsense. If they actually did have a strong belief in god or a strong desire to believe, they would just start believing in god. As a religious person you are an expert in seeing what you want to see or believe you should see, rather than what is actually there, so you probably won't accept or understand this, but people who are free to believe whatever they want to and make up their own mind are more comfortable with their beliefs than people who feel they have no choice.
> 
> Have you actually read the bible? Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!




mmm, actually I don't believe in GOD

- see what happens when you don't read the whole thread


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Duckman. The quote I was responding to was not about unhappiness in one's life or about the Church destroyed my life type of thing. It was about being happy and content in their belief or in their non-belief in the case of non-believers. It is harder to hold a position that your earlier upbringing has told you leads to damnation compared to a position that your earlier upbringing has told you leads to eternal happiness.
> 
> I watched one of the Dawkins TV series about two years ago when he was touring the Bible belt in the US. One preacher he interviewed actually said that he preaches about eternal damnation just to instil fear in his younger congregation because they are then less likely to question their faith if they fear eternal damnation and to him that is all that mattered.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that Bellenuit. I tend to look at religion in black and white sometimes.

If you're a believer - great. But don't preach to me or beat me around the head with your Bible.

If you're not a believer - great. But don't tell me how stupid I am for having faith.

For me there are only those two views (and perhaps a third - when people are moving in between the two).

I apologise if I came across as unsympathetic in my post. I was not trying to trivialise your situation or others like you. But I just haven't been exposed nor personally ever seen evidence of psychological damage through the threat of eternal damnation by the Church.  I am Catholic, Mrs Duckman is Anglican and I was raised Uniting. I attended a Catholic school and have attended varieties of services for 30 something years but your situation is one that is foreign to me. 

Maybe it's because I'm comfortable with my level of religious beliefs and am not "hardcore", that I don't have to juggle internal struggles. Do I go to mass every week? - no way. By not going to mass will I end up in hell? - no way. I believe in a God "of some sort", try and live my life as a good person, follow the teachings of the Bible(the ones that are relevant and society friendly) and that is enough for me.        

I really don't understand the hatred and contempt people can have for the Church (particularly by those people who have had very little exposure to religion), nor the pious, holy and judgemental attitudes of the religious right.  

Duckman


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

In a nation which imo is becoming more secular each day, it is encouraging to see in this thread's poll that the split between  believers + potential believers and non-believers + potential non-believers is still about 50/50

I split the 'fence sitters' 121 to believers and 122 to non-believers.

*Summary of Results*

*Believers + possibles:*    148 + 121 = 269 (49%)

*Non-believers + possibles:*    156 + 122 = 278 (51%)

I hope my maths is right


----------



## explod (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> In a nation which imo is becoming more secular each day, it is encouraging to see in this thread's poll that the split between  believers + potential believers and non-believers + potential non-believers is still about 50/50
> 
> I split the 'fence sitters' 121 to believers and 122 to non-believers.
> 
> ...




Not to sure about the maths but I think you may be a bit generous towards your case for the split.

If we give your side the top 3 plus half of the 4th (25 votes, which I think is generous,) your toal comes to 265.    If the side I favour has the botton 2 plus half of the 4th then we have a total of 382

And I maintain that we are dealing with something here that cannot be proven by an actual physical piece of evidence, it is all based on belief, *In my very very humble opinion of course* and as always


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

That's ok explod  

The numbers can be massaged however you like.

To be honest, after all the discussion in here over the last few days I hadn't noticed any change in the poll numbers (I could be wrong) and so the 'hidden agenda'    behind my posting a poll summary was to hopefully subliminally encourage readers to cast a vote one way or the other if they haven't already done so


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2010)

explod said:


> Not to sure about the maths but I think you may be a bit generous towards your case for the split.
> 
> If we give your side the top 3 plus half of the 4th (25 votes, which I think is generous,) your toal comes to 265.    If the side I favour has the botton 2 plus half of the 4th then we have a total of 382
> 
> And I maintain that we are dealing with something here that cannot be proven by an actual physical piece of evidence, it is all based on belief, *In my very very humble opinion of course* and as always




Either way, adding the numbers of each is a logical fallacy and an irrelevance.

I really great phrase I saw (on a church sign would you believe) - "A foolish thing said by 500,000 people, is still a foolish thing". I'm not so sure the pastor saw that the way I did, but it illustrates that being in a small minority doesn't make you wrong...

..as a matter of fact, when I see a minority view, I want to know what it is they know that everybody else doesn't. 

That's not an endorsement of any argument, just food for thought.


----------



## Buckfont (23 February 2010)

His name used to be Eric Clapton


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2010)

Buckfont said:


> His name used to be Eric Clapton




And the devil, apparently, is Angus Young.


----------



## Julia (23 February 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Thanks for that Bellenuit. I tend to look at religion in black and white sometimes.
> 
> If you're a believer - great. But don't preach to me or beat me around the head with your Bible.
> 
> ...



Ah, dear Duckman, if we had more Christians like you, religion would have a much better rap.


----------



## Buckfont (23 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> And the devil, apparently, is Angus Young.




What heaven and hell duelling guitars that would be. I`ll be the first in line for the tickets.


----------



## Sdajii (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> *Imo your unconditional generalisation is simply not true.*
> 
> Yes, granted a small minority of all religious faiths will adopt 'extreme' interpretations of their beliefs but I for one, although having strong religious beliefs, am not a fanatic (ie..one who shoves their beliefs down other peoples throats) and I am certainly not forcing myself to believe anything.
> 
> I am choosing to believe in God just as freely as anyone else is choosing to believe they do not believe in God or otherwise.




Fanaticism doesn't have anything to do with trying to convince anyone else of your beliefs, and doesn't have anything to do with adopting extreme beliefs. Fanaticism is having an extreme enthusiasm for something without being open to changing your mind. Religion very clearly closes minds, the very notion of faith is to believe something without reason or evidence. No one ever chooses not to believe in god based on faith, no one fiercely holds a fanatical, stubborn belief that there is no god because there is no reason to, it is an easy choice to make or break because there is no fear of going to Hell etc if you don't believe in it. There are, on the other hand, ways which religion manipulates people into believing in god and scaring them into holding that belief. If you believe a supernatural power commands you to do something you'll be inclined to do it. If you believe nothing is forcing you to do anything, nothing is even there, your mind is free to make choices, you are unrestricted.


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> ....Fanaticism is having an extreme enthusiasm for something without being open to changing your mind......




Your definition of fanaticism is only true imo if someone is closed to changing their minds if they haven't looked at alternative views, ideas etc.

I have looked at alternatives over the years and I have freely chosen Christianity, hence my belief in God.

Therefore, I maintain that your original unconditional generalisation is simply not true, especially in my case.

But if you would like to think of me as a fanatic, then that is your right to choose and I don't have an issue with that.

I think we are straying off topic now and so if you want to discuss fanaticism further, maybe start a new thread with a more appropriate title.  This thread is "Is there a God?"


----------



## Mr J (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> To be honest, after all the discussion in here over the last few days I hadn't noticed any change in the poll numbers (I could be wrong)




It's an old thread and most people would have voted a while ago. The numbers would be far more interesting if God was proven to exist or not exist. I speculate that if God was proven not to exist, there would be far more religious people unwilling to change their beliefs than there would "non-believers" if God was proven to exist.



			
				explod said:
			
		

> Not to sure about the maths but I think you may be a bit generous towards your case for the split.
> 
> If we give your side the top 3 plus half of the 4th (25 votes, which I think is generous,) your toal comes to 265. If the side I favour has the botton 2 plus half of the 4th then we have a total of 382




You have added an extra 100 to the "non-believers".


----------



## Sdajii (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I think we are straying off topic now and so if you want to discuss fanaticism further, maybe start a new thread with a more appropriate title.  This thread is "Is there a God?"




I think you're kidding yourself if in its 68th page you consider this to be off topic!


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Have you actually read the bible? Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!




Well, this is a new one - even for me.

What Bible or any other reference can you post to support your statement "Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! "

I also disagree with your unconditional generalisation - "The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!"


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 February 2010)

> The numbers would be far more interesting if God was proven to exist or not exist.



Simply proving up the god theory would have 90% of the planet's population convert overnight. The remaining 10% (higher ?) of nutters and terminals would remain the same. All very simple really.


----------



## explod (23 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Simply proving up the god theory would have 90% of the planet's population convert overnight. The remaining 10% (higher ?) of nutters and terminals would remain the same. All very simple really.




I reckon even the nutters would go for a chance at the big orgy in the sky.   Cuuu*mmm*oooorrrnn show me God that can part the water and walk in the sky before my eyes.


----------



## Mr J (23 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Simply proving up the god theory would have 90% of the planet's population convert overnight. The remaining 10% (higher ?) of nutters and terminals would remain the same. All very simple really.




"Convert" might not be the right word. If a particular god was proven to exist, I still wouldn't become religious and worship it. If it truly is all-powerful and knowing, I guess it would have accepted minds and attitude such as mine to be acceptable, and respect my position.


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> "Convert" might not be the right word. If a particular god was proven to exist, I still wouldn't become religious and worship it. If it truly is all-powerful and knowing, I guess it would have accepted minds and attitude such as mine to be acceptable, and respect my position.




Mr J - *yours is an intersting attitude and I fully accept your right to have it*, so please take the following as a purely hypothetical case from your point of view and not as an attempt by me to impose my beleifs onto you.

If the god that was hypothetically proven to exist turned out to be your creator and master of your eternal destiny in terms of whether you are eternally damned or saved depending on whether you lived your life the way he wanted you to, are you not taking a huge risk by not worshipping it and obeying it throughout your life.?

*Remember, this is just a hypothetical question out of curiosity on my part and not an attack on your view.*


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> "Convert" might not be the right word. If a particular god was proven to exist, I still wouldn't become religious and worship it. If it truly is all-powerful and knowing, I guess it would have accepted minds and attitude such as mine to be acceptable, and respect my position.




Early in this thread (and others), I have made several points along the same lines.

I rather think we've anthropomorphized the concept of God. We've created God in our image rather than the Abrahamic contention that God has created us in his.

If there is a God and he/she/it wanted something from us, it would be made very plain and easy to understand. The fact is, there is no universal "instruction booklet".

(** I'm starting the count down to the spurious claim that the Bible is a universal instruction booklet. )


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> If there is a God and he/she/it wanted something from us, it would be made very plain and easy to understand. The fact is, there is no universal "instruction booklet".





It's a no-brainer to put me down for the Bible as the "instruction booklet".

But let's put that aside for a moment.

Your quote is alluding to a common theme of their being uncertainty on whether a god exists and what that god may or may not want from us.

But, for me at least, the Bible imo explains the lack of 'hard evidence' that many ask for on whether God exists or not, and I commented on it briefly a couple of days ago.

Essentially, the Book of Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve failed whatever test was put before them by God and from that moment on, sin entered the world and so consequently we all now have to prove to God that we are worthy to be judged by Him to spend eternal life with Him after our journey through this life.  Imo our life here is a test that will be judged by God.  Through His Son Jesus Christ, as documented in the 4 Gospels, God tells us how he wants us to live our lives - by firstly believing in Him and living our lives in the way shown and taught by Jesus.  

In order for God's test of each one of us to maintain its integrity then logically God cannot reveal Himself to us 'physically' and provide the 'hard evidence' many ask for.  If he did then the purpose of the test would be defeated since I suspect most if not all would then obviously immediately turn to God.

How we react to and with each other in our daily lives and coping with all the good and bad (man-made or otherwise) in the world is all part of God's test imo.

Now I'm sure there are many who think the above is a load of rubbish and that's fine be me.  We all have to make our own individual choices on what we choose to believe.  

But at least the Bible, IMHO, gives an explanation for the uncertainity many speak of and gives us instructions for our journey through life.  We individually just have to decide whether to accept it or not even without 'hard evidence'


----------



## Boognish (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Mr J - *yours is an intersting attitude and I fully accept your right to have it*, so please take the following as a purely hypothetical case from your point of view and not as an attempt by me to impose my beleifs onto you.
> 
> If the god that was hypothetically proven to exist turned out to be your creator and master of your eternal destiny in terms of whether you are eternally damned or saved depending on whether you lived your life the way he wanted you to, are you not taking a huge risk by not worshipping it and obeying it throughout your life.?
> 
> *Remember, this is just a hypothetical question out of curiosity on my part and not an attack on your view.*




Pascal's wager.

For mine, there is zero evidence for a creator god/supreme being and therefore I don't believe in one.


----------



## jonojpsg (23 February 2010)

Boognish said:


> Pascal's wager.
> 
> For mine, there is zero evidence for a creator god/supreme being and therefore I don't believe in one.




I'll double your Pascal's and raise you a Minty

What evidence would you accept or consider reasonable justification for a God/supreme being?


----------



## jonojpsg (23 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Early in this thread (and others), I have made several points along the same lines.
> 
> I rather think we've anthropomorphized the concept of God. We've created God in our image rather than the Abrahamic contention that God has created us in his.
> 
> ...




Why?  Why wouldn't he/she/it create us with a burning desire to know stuff and hence in the journey of discovery find that he/she/it existed?  Given that a supreme being most likely exists outside of time, there is no particular reason for he/she/it to be in a hurry?

Besides which Wayne, surely you can't say that the moral code that exists inside each and every one of us (apart from a very small percentage of socio/psychopaths) is not a pretty good indication of a universal instruction?  There is NO argument against the fact that the moral code exists - otherwise I could just get a rifle and go out and shoot all the bloody annoying people that piss me off


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 February 2010)

> In order for God's test of each one of us to maintain its integrity then logically God cannot reveal Himself to us 'physically' and provide the 'hard evidence' many ask for. If he did then the purpose of the test would be defeated since I suspect most if not all would then obviously immediately turn to God.




I was thinking of the "test" clause yesterday. Discussions as this are perceived as a test of faith and if one comes out the other side still completely faithful then the test is perceived as passed.
By explaining away the reason, the fact is avoided. Highly transparent though and such exposure is defining. Effective perpetuation.


----------



## explod (23 February 2010)

jonojpsg said:


> otherwise I could just get a rifle and go out and shoot all the bloody annoying people that piss me off




Yeh like the twin towers and the aeroplane over England and many other countless ones under the banner of de God's


----------



## Whiskers (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> In order for God's test of each one of us to maintain its integrity then logically God cannot reveal *Himself* to us 'physically' and provide the 'hard evidence' many ask for.  If *he* did then the purpose of the test would be defeated since I suspect most if not all would then obviously immediately turn to God.





It's certainly an ancient cultural tradition that the male is the head of the house and family, but if there is a god as described in the bible, why is god portrayed in religion as male?

It seems logical that if god is a sexual thing then there is more than one of them. Is Satan female? 

It seems to me that a god, creator or life force would be asexual.



> How we react to and with each other in our daily lives and coping with all the good and bad (man-made or otherwise) in the world is all part of God's test imo.




Delete the word and religious conotations of god and my current experience points to this statement being loosely relevant to our existance.


----------



## Mr J (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> If the god that was hypothetically proven to exist turned out to be your creator and master of your eternal destiny in terms of whether you are eternally damned or saved depending on whether you lived your life the way he wanted you to, are you not taking a huge risk by not worshipping it and obeying it throughout your life.?




As Boognish says, this is pretty much Pascal's wager.

- If the god can see through our deceptions, it won't do me any good to worship if I'm not genuine.

- I would not think highly of a god that allows us to think freely and choose, if it then punishes us for making the "wrong" choice.

- If this god punishes 'good' people simply because they don't believe (as it is suggested in a number of religions), it is not a god I would want to worship.

- I have no knowedge of this god. If it was the christian god that was shown to exist, I still wouldn't trust the bible. I will base my opinion of the god by its character and actions. I can't worship a god that I don't know, or can't respect.

- I question the psychological state of a supreme being that creates inferior beings to worship it. A god who does this sounds like a narcissist, or one suffering from low self-esteem.

And I don't feel you're feeling pushing or insulting (and my answers here aren't meant to be either) .



			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> I rather think we've anthropomorphized the concept of God. We've created God in our image rather than the Abrahamic contention that God has created us in his.




Very true, but I think people would prefer something familiar than worshipping energy, green men, or some perfect equation to explain the universe. It does make sense that if a god exists, it would present itself in the image of a human.



> If there is a God and he/she/it wanted something from us, it would be made very plain and easy to understand.




I think so as well. A creator would surely understand our minds, and know that many of us just aren't capable of "believing". Give us a sign! I do think that if a god exists and reveals itself, humanity is in for a shock, and more so for the religious.


----------



## derty (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Essentially, the Book of Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve failed whatever test was put before them by God and from that moment on, sin entered the world and so consequently we all now have to prove to God that we are worthy to be judged by Him to spend eternal life with Him after our journey through this life.



So basically we are all born bad, we then need to prove we are good for our entire lives according to the directives laid out in the Bible for the chance to get eternal bliss or risk eternal damnation. 

The way I see it is that it all hinges on the ultimate carrot - the afterlife. You place your faith in life after death being real and us not simply shutting down like unplugging the TV. Not a bad motivator, I imagine the fear of non-existence after death terrifies a lot of people.


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

Whiskers said:


> .....why is god portrayed in religion as male?.....




I don't know the 'official' answer to that question but I am guessing that since Jesus often refers to God as His Father and fathers are obviously males then God is portrayed as male.


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

derty said:


> So basically we are all born bad, we then need to prove we are good for our entire lives according to the directives laid out in the Bible for the chance to get eternal bliss or risk eternal damnation.
> 
> The way I see it is that it all hinges on the ultimate carrot - the afterlife. You place your faith in life after death being real and us not simply shutting down like unplugging the TV. Not a bad motivator, I imagine the fear of non-existence after death terrifies a lot of people.




Basically yes.  I believe we are all born with Adam and Eve's Original Sin.  Baptism removes that original sin, and then we are tested by God for the rest of our lives as I commented earlier.

For me at least, I accept that Jesus was risen from the dead by God and hence showing us all that there is life after death.


----------



## Whiskers (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I don't know the 'official' answer to that question but I am guessing that since Jesus often refers to God as His Father and fathers are obviously males then God is portrayed as male.




Thanks for your honest admission there bulldoza. 

So have you ever wondered about the logical extension and implications of that, ie whether gods 'male sexuality' is a false/inaccurate portrayl?



Whiskers said:


> It seems logical that if god is a sexual thing then there is more than one of them. Is Satan female?
> 
> It seems to me that a god, creator or life force would be asexual.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 February 2010)

Whiskers said:


> It *seems* logical that if god is a sexual thing then there is more than one of them. Is Satan female?



With the emphasis on seems.  Your logic is illogical and Whiskers question is childish.


----------



## $20shoes (23 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> I think so as well. A creator would surely understand our minds, and know that many of us just aren't capable of "believing". Give us a sign! I do think that if a god exists and reveals itself, humanity is in for a shock, and more so for the religious.




One possible belief, which I tend to subscribe to is Pantheism, where God is not of itself separate or transcendent from the universe but is himself all that is known and unkown with respect to THE universe and other universes. In this respect absolutely everything is God being God. 

MS+Tradesim and I covered the cosmological question some pages back. Although he wouldn't agree with all these assertions we came close to the heart of the matter from a Pantheistic viewpoint ( and yes, just another belief). Here is a summary of my own assertions from that discussion:

*One  possible argument for God,  possibly stems from the origin of Universe. For this, you accept that  time is unfolding linearly; that there are things that are yet to be.  And that things that were, are no longer. Before the Big Bang, there was  nothing; science does not place space, nor time nor light nor matter  before this  event. *
*If  you accept our current understanding of the universe - that is, at some  finite point back in time, a universe was created, then before that  point there must conceptually have been "no" time. However, if there was no time prior to  this major event, intuitively time could not have elapsed to even allow that very first germination of our universe. If  there was a point of no time, to take the concept a step further, then  you must concede that it is possible for something to "live" outside of  time, or come into being without time, for our universe came into  existence from somewhere where time did not exist. 
If you accept this, then it is  logical to accept that some force was able to penetrate a continuum of pre-Big Bang nothingness to create time and  somethingness held within the nothingness.
*
*Within all this “nothingness” there  was somehow, one infinitely dense and bloody hot ball of "something".  That "something" contained all matter, and time would start ticking from  the moment this matter was unfurled. But before this unfurling, this hot  dense pea sized ball of matter/energy/time must have been enveloped by  something (though, not space - there was no space). The nothing  surrounding this something must, logically speaking, be so infinitely  infinite in its nothingness that it could be quite capable of enveloping  and absorbing the pea sized density as it unfurled and proceeded to  infinitely expand. That is, there must be "something" into which we  expand and hence there must be a finite border at the edge of the universe, which  once crossed places us into "nothingness". So, if we flew our spaceship  faster than the speed of light we would eventually move back in time and  eventually come to a border crossing as an illegal alien, which once  crossed, places us outside of time and space. 

By any definition, the concept  of God as "all encompassing" and transcending space and  time gels with this very concept that beyond the infinite boundary of  our universe there must still be something even more vastly infinite  that we're expanding into. Could the mystery of God be that very "infinite" which is beyond our own  infinite?*

*Then  again, the  vast interconnectedness of energies through billions of galaxies and billions of eons may have something to do with a  construct we don't understand and externalise as GOD. For instance, the infiniteness  of the universe may actually be the fabric of all that was, is and ever  shall be. Infinite is infinite!! If the infinite actually already  contains the ALL, then we have a limitation with our time  construct. That is, what we perceived as having occurred in the past may  be something that was and has always been contained in our infinite  universe. If time has an infinite capacity in the infinite universe,  then all is already encapsulated in the infinite. It did not happen and  will not happen;  It just is.

If it just is, there is a possibility that we're  remembering/experiencing at a layered, complex level of revelation that  stems from some universal movement of itself. 

 If we move to death as a  concept, even at a physical level, the universe is infinite - then you  have always been dead, and you have always been alive. You are just  experiencing a layer of physical time that is possibly akin to what some might perceive as God  trying to recreate God. That is, if the universe is  infinite, it has within it, all that has and will happen. So, if you  die, you are dead relative to a reference as we define it, but it is  impossible to be dead in the infinite universe. You must still be alive  somewhere? The universe has always been. If we are still alive then  (whilst also being dead), then in what sense in what capacity are we  alive? Every moment of life is a layer of revelation of Everything  being Everything.

Part 2 continued next post
*


----------



## $20shoes (23 February 2010)

PART 2 - continuation:

*More to the point then,  the being of absolutely everything  that was, is and will always be, is  immemorial. For example, the light  of a dying star reached us at a  certain point in "time". But the  universe as infinite, means that there  is no end point to that light. It  travels on and on and on and on and  on and on and on. It is merely a  revelation for us at that moment. What  once was, is still being. We are  already part of the infinite and  unmeasureable, in this sense. If we accept we never were and will always  be, we might be  inclined to accept that something that transcends us also never existed and has  forever existed.

My supposition of course   purports that not only is space, as a measure of distance, expanding   infinitely but that time is likely infinite on a separate plane (that   is, there is more   to "time" than a relative construct that helps ground us and enables us to experience linearly). But there  is no end point to time. At a  certain point of being, all things and  time were then in being. The  universe contained everything at this point  of its being - time,  matter, energy. Everything that was required in  order to fulfill  the universe, was there in the beginning. Of course, if you accept this,  then by a strict definition  there is not necessarily a past and future  as we perceive it. There is  possibly only that which we're creating,  from something that is already  in being. Why would something be  creating or using something that is  already in being? Why would the  universe keep creating itself within  itself, and with that which is  already in being? Perhaps to be relative  to that which it is. Far  deeper than we can possibly hope to know or  feel, there is a universal,  whose myriad and infinite connections allow  the universe to reveal, to  die, to be born using that which is  available. In a way where man acts  with free will, the soul of the  universe can draw that experience from  that which is; for it has always  been. 
*

*Everything  is.

Time  then is of obvious  importance and holds as law with respect to grounding us in one plane. Might time though be more “elastic”, perhaps in a  way we don’t yet perceive? That supposition of time would accept that all of time and all  universal matter was there in  the beginning. It was far more dense than  it is today but you and I and  dinosaurs and the year 3500 were already  in existence. As the universe  stretches into infinity so does time,  much like a bungee cord being  stretched. However its end points are  unreachable - that is, if i wanted  to traverse time to reach an end  point, it would be impossible because  you are trying to reach the end  point of infinity. If it has always been  then you might conceive that  as infinity stretches into infinity, more  of what exists is revealed,  as the bungee cord expands. In this sense,  time is not elapsing but is  being revealed. 


To accept that supposition, the "I" would exist in all areas of time but  is  only aware of experiencing the present. At some point in time, and  for  what ever reason, the "I" which has always been, "experiences" in  the  physical sense. In the metaphysical sense the "I" is not grounded   whereas the physical incarnation appears to obey the rules of what we   consider the here and now. That is, we are obviously adhering to the   rules of the universe but, only in a physical and measurable capacity;   which may be just the immediate layer of the onion. 

Possibly the most apt  construct is the metaphysical notion "All is One. One is All". If time is  also  part of the All, then perhaps we are revealed in time, since there   cannot be a time where we are not part of the All. Perhaps the   experience that the universe (you, me and all that is known and unknown)   draws unto itself is a revelation that unfolds in time. Since   everything simply "is", nothing is chaotic. We're simply creating our   experience.   Some rich tapestry of thought/emotion/spirit/energy/physical is   constantly creating the experience that it needs, that makes sense, on an infinite and universal   scale within, what Earth would call, each moment.*


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Thanks for your honest admission there bulldoza.
> 
> So have you ever wondered about the logical extension and implications of that, ie whether gods 'male sexuality' is a false/inaccurate portrayl?




No I haven't, and to be honest whether God as a 'supreme being' is portrayed as male, female or other, doesn't matter to me.  No-one has ever seen God in his physical presence and so whether God has a gender or is physically of some other form I do not know.

As I commented before, I think the male portrayal of God is related to Jesus referring to God as His Father.


----------



## derty (23 February 2010)

$20shoes, you are talking about Spinoza's God or God as Einstein used the term? 

As you stated your supposition relies on both space and time being infinite - essentially the universe being infinite. 

While our current understanding of cosmology is likely very incomplete, the empirical evidence and working models we have of the universe indicate that it is indeed finite. It has a beginning. We can only postulate prior conditions. It may be that the current expansion will not slow and reverse and expansion may even be accelerating. So it may have no end however we have a fair idea what the beginning looked like and can see or measure much of the early structure of the universe.

What happens to Pantheism if the universe is finite?


----------



## $20shoes (23 February 2010)

derty said:


> $20shoes, you are talking about Spinoza's God or God as Einstein used the term?
> 
> As you stated your supposition relies on both space and time being infinite - essentially the universe being infinite.
> 
> ...




Good points. "universe indicate that it is indeed finite. It has a beginning". What beginning? Science started a stop watch from the moment of the Big Bang. But this stopwatch doesn't account for the pre-BigBang "nothingness" which was obviously there. Therefore, science can only address up to a logical beginning point and in doing so concedes that it cannot account for anything before this point. 

 You are making an assumption that time has an arrow that traverses on one direction on one axis. This is logical and binds to the laws of physics. My supposition does have a lot of "unprovens". 

If the universe is finite, then it still raises an interesting dilemma. We have indeed expanded into something, and there is an edge. If there is an edge, what is on the other side?


----------



## wayneL (23 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> (** I'm starting the count down to the spurious claim that the Bible is a universal instruction booklet. )





bulldoza said:


> It's a no-brainer to put me down for the Bible as the "instruction booklet".




34 minutes. I wasn't far out. 

BTW, You aren't following all the rules then... why aren't you out stoning adulteresses to death etc? 



jonojpsg said:


> Why?  Why wouldn't he/she/it create us with a burning desire to know stuff and hence in the journey of discovery find that he/she/it existed?  Given that a supreme being most likely exists outside of time, there is no particular reason for he/she/it to be in a hurry?




I can go along with a version of that premise. If so, then each person's journey of discovery is a personal one and should not be subject to indoctrination from organised religion.



> Besides which Wayne, surely you can't say that the moral code that exists inside each and every one of us (apart from a very small percentage of socio/psychopaths) is not a pretty good indication of a universal instruction?  There is NO argument against the fact that the moral code exists - otherwise I could just get a rifle and go out and shoot all the bloody annoying people that piss me off




What is so immoral about shooting people? If one believes in an afterlife, then the shooter is just helping people get there. However, there are consequences of shooting people. They might shoot back, lock you up, whatever. I believe the so called moral code is nothing more than a/ self realization and b/ avoiding negative consequences.



$20shoes said:


> One possible belief, which I tend to subscribe to is Pantheism, where God is not of itself separate or transcendent from the universe but is himself all that is known and unkown with respect to THE universe and other universes. In this respect absolutely everything is God being God.




I like this line of thought. For me at least, it makes a lot of sense. It works on a whole bunch of levels. I am also aware that it is still just a belief.


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> 34 minutes. I wasn't far out.
> 
> BTW, You aren't following all the rules then... why aren't you out stoning adulteresses to death etc?




It would've been less time but my typing finger is a little sore after the last few days  

Stoning adulteresses????  I think I know where you are coming from - but when the group of people gathered to stone an alleged adulteress didn't Jesus go up to them and ask that he who is without sin to cast the first stone, after which the mob dispersed pretty quickly.?

One of the 10 commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 February 2010)

$20shoes said:


> PART 2 - continuation:
> 
> More to the point then,  the being of absolutely everything  that was, is and will always be, is  immemorial. For example, the light  of a dying star reached us at a  certain point in "time". *But the  universe as infinite, means that **there  is no end point to that light*. It  travels on and on and on and on and  on and on and on. It is merely a  revelation for us at that moment. *What  once was, is still being.*



But this cannot be. From the moment the light begins it's journey the "fuel" that created the light begins to diminish. Therefore the light source  is not as it was and may no longer exist. What once was has changed, and there are no boundaries to change. The light has stopped being emitted and like when a torch is switched off, is gone forever. No source, no light. This is the lag of distance from event. Nothing remains the same.  



> Time  then is of obvious importance and holds as law with respect to grounding us in one plane. Might time though be more “elastic”, perhaps in a  way we don’t yet perceive? That supposition of time would  accept that all of time and all  universal matter was there in  the beginning.



 If duration was stopped what would happen? 
Would everything disappear or would the existing elements be frozen forever? I can't prove this but I know that duration is required for the suns to burn fuel and for life to exist. So to stop duration now would freeze everything in the Universe. Duration is the most crucial requirement for continuity. 

There can be only one time (duration) everywhere because the recording device, our mind through the senses, is a lagging instrument. We see what has already happened due to the duration from emitting to receiving. *This is governed by* *distance*.The emittance happened at a precise point in the (let's call it Universe) but the receptor could be any distance from the emittance. That is the illusion of time being different due to distance. The Universal time now is the same 4 million light years away. It cannot be sped up or slowed down. It is fixed. Each human ( I ) will get a different recording due to elapsed time and distance though we generally agree on the earth/sun/moon revolution duration.    Happy to be quizzed on this.



> *However its end points are unreachable* - *that is, if i **wanted  to traverse time to reach an end  point, it would be impossible* because  you are trying to reach the end  point of infinity.



You would need speed. 

For example the duration taken to reach a shop (end point) is within the duration of a biped's existence. Now place that shop (end point) at a distance incapable of a biped reaching in a lifetime then the biped dies on the way to the shop. But given infinite speed, one could traverse to and beyond the universal end point. That is if an end point exists. Time is relevant to people and not the Universal flow. 

Thanks for your insights Shoes.


----------



## derty (23 February 2010)

getting away from the topic here. 


$20shoes said:


> Good points. "universe indicate that it is indeed finite. It has a beginning". What beginning? Science started a stop watch from the moment of the Big Bang. But this stopwatch doesn't account for the pre-BigBang "nothingness" which was obviously there. Therefore, science can only address up to a logical beginning point and in doing so concedes that it cannot account for anything before this point.



Yes science can only account up to the Big bang. Though to assume that there is a 'before' 'outside' the universe assumes that time exists outside the universe and that there is an outside to the universe. You are applying the internal conditions of our universe to what may be 'outside' of it. 

Invoking infinity is difficult as it is infinite. In an infinite universe everything is possible an infinite number of times. There will be infinite copies of yourself living on infinite identical worlds doing exactly what you are doing while an infinite number of other you's will be living infinitely variable lives on infinitely different worlds. it quickly becomes preposterous.

Infinity, while it is a neat concept, does not work.


$20shoes said:


> You are making an assumption that time has an arrow that traverses on one direction on one axis. This is logical and binds to the laws of physics. My supposition does have a lot of "unprovens".



 So far it seems that in our universe time goes one way. While there are hypotheses regarding wormholes and ancient cosmic strings e.t.c. linking bits of the universe via the 'outside' they represent localised links and not a general reversal of the flow of time.


$20shoes said:


> If the universe is finite, then it still raises an interesting dilemma. We have indeed expanded into something, and there is an edge. If there is an edge, what is on the other side?



You are limiting your thought to three dimensions here and assuming that the universe exists within three dimensions.

There is a handy little analogue that was explained to me about the nature of the inconceivability of dimensions. You start with a 1 dimensional universe (essentially a line with no height or width) populated by 1 dimensional beings who can only travel in one dimension along this universe. They see their universe in zero dimensions (i.e. a dot) though they understand that their universe actually is one dimensional. Now if that universe was curved in the second dimension (i.e. it was actually shaped like a circle) the one dimensional beings could keep going in one direction and return to their starting point, unable to comprehend how they got there. So you have a one dimensional universe populated by one dimensional beings that travel in one dimension, view their universe in zero dimensions and perceive their universe to be one dimensional while it is curved in two dimensions.

Now if you have a two dimensional universe (a flat plane with no height) populated by two dimensional beings. They will be able to move in two dimensions, they will see their universe in one dimension (a line) and will understand that their universe is two dimensional. That universe can be curved in the third dimension (a ball shape) though the two dimensional beings would not be able to comprehend this. 

Then you get to us. We live in a three dimensional universe, we move in three dimensions. We understand that our universe is three dimensional while we view it in two dimensions (we see 3D as we have two eyes producing a stereoscopic image from the two 2D images out eyes collect). Now try and imagine the universe curved in the fourth dimension. 

A neat little exercise, it may seem a little pointless until you consider that the most successful models at describing the universe we see today require much more than 4 dimensions. Superstring theory has the fundamental building blocks of the universe vibrating in the 3 main dimensions that we know, and also in 8 or more tiny curled up dimensions that we cannot perceive. Then you start talking M-brane or p-brane theory where they have postulated that the universe may be created by two 4 dimensional branes (4-branes) bumping into each other within a 5 dimensional space. 

Sounds hair braned but these models explain what is being seen at the quantum levels. They work. 

It seems a lot of religions have issues with the implications of evolution. Though evolution seems like such a straight forward concept that works. Quite irrefutable. When you start looking at the universe at the quantum level - that is when it starts to get really weird. You have super strings vibrating in 10 dimensions, you have quantum fluctuations generating particle pairs out of nothing, you have sub atomic particles that need to be spun 720 degrees before they appear as they did before they were spun. This is the stuff that I expect would send people scurrying back to their bibles claiming it is god at work. Not the simplistic Theory of Evolution.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 February 2010)

> They will be able to move in two dimensions, they will see their universe in one dimension *(a line)* and will understand that their universe is two dimensional.



How can a line be one dimensional and still be visible? Can one dimension be seen or represented in some way here?


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

roland said:


> If bulldozer had been born in India, he would be spruking Hinduism, Iran he would have been a devout Muslim. If born in China, bulldozer would probably would have been a Buddhist.




*Not true roland* - if I was allowed access to learn about Christianity and live my life as a Christian in those countries then I would, as I do now.
If not, then I would be a non-believer.

Imo you are making a very incorrect assumption that just because I have strong beliefs in God that I would be prepared to believe in any god, depending on my surroundings.


----------



## roland (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> *Not true roland* - if I was allowed access to learn about Christianity and live my life as a Christian in those countries then I would, as I do now.
> If not, then I would be a non-believer.
> 
> Imo you are making a very incorrect assumption that just because I have strong beliefs in God that I would be prepared to believe in any god, depending on my surroundings.




Yes, you are correct - I am sorry for making any assumptions.

I do wonder though, how you know that your GOD would be still same with an alternate religious upbringing.


----------



## symmetry (23 February 2010)

eerrr thanks for deleting my post, : (  what dont like an alternative view )


----------



## roland (23 February 2010)

symmetry said:


> eerrr thanks for deleting my post, : (  what dont like an alternative view )




bugger - missed it, it must have been good


----------



## explod (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> *Not true roland* that just because I have strong beliefs in God .




And that is just it Bulldozer, your faith is a *belief* no more nor less.  And as a *belief* it takes the argument of "Is there a God" nowhere.

When (from what age) and from where, may I ask, did you gain your faith in God bulldozer?


----------



## roland (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> *Not true roland* - if I was allowed access to learn about Christianity and live my life as a Christian in those countries then I would, as I do now.
> If not, then I would be a non-believer.




If the "truth" is so apparent, why is it that so many others that have learnt, as you did, ended up as non-believers?


----------



## derty (23 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> How can a line be one dimensional and still be visible? Can one dimension be seen or represented in some way here?



It is a hypothetical exercise.


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

explod said:


> And that is just it Bulldozer, your faith is a *belief* no more nor less......
> God bulldozer?




I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Of course my faith is a belief and I have commented previously that based on the evidence I have seen and from personal life experiences I am convinced God exists.

I assume that the implied logic in your above quote would also mean that the non-believers 'faith' on God's non-existance is also simply their beliefs because there is no 'hard evidence' that proves or disproves God's existence.


----------



## explod (23 February 2010)

> =$20shoes;535242]One possible belief, which I tend to subscribe to is Pantheism, where God is not of itself separate or transcendent from the universe but is himself all that is known and unkown with respect to THE universe and other universes. In this respect absolutely everything is God being God.
> 
> MS+Tradesim and I covered the cosmological question some pages back. Although he wouldn't agree with all these assertions we came close to the heart of the matter from a Pantheistic viewpoint ( and yes, just another belief). Here is a summary of my own assertions from that discussion:




Notice the different font and the style grammer would indicate the assertions have come from some other source.  It would be interesting for the discussion to know the author for further study if you would be kind enough to provide that 20shoes

cheers explod


----------



## bulldoza (23 February 2010)

roland said:


> If the "truth" is so apparent, why is it that so many others that have learnt, as you did, ended up as non-believers?




Sorry, no point asking me.  You should be asking them.  

I'm going to watch the tail end of the cricket, if it's dtill going and then the Olympics - I'll pop in tommorow.

Good night.


----------



## explod (23 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I don't see the point you are trying to make.
> 
> Of course my faith is a belief and I have commented previously that based on the evidence I have seen and from personal life experiences I am convinced God exists.
> 
> I assume that the implied logic in your above quote would also mean that the non-believers 'faith' on God's non-existance is also simply their beliefs because there is no 'hard evidence' that proves or disproves God's existence.




So you admit there is no hard evidence, that is a good.

The crux are the two seperate words of *belief* on the one hand and *reason* on the other.   I do not know if there is a God or not because by reasoning I cannot find one.  I remember reading metaphysics as a youngster and some time later realising that it was an attempt to substantiate belief with reason.   At the end of the day for example *there is no life in a rock*(of course something may be living within it)  *but*, it may have the potential.


----------



## nunthewiser (23 February 2010)

Could this be true also ? 

I mean it has the same opinionated evidence as all the other God reasoning here .

No offense intended ( sincere) just making a point that all arguments that God is real are merely based on opinion and heresay from what i can see.



> Jesus was super-smart gay, says Elton John
> From correspondents in London From: NewsCore February 19, 2010 9:30AM
> Elton John has his own spin on what Jesus was like / AP file Source: AP
> APPARENTLY, Elton John didn't give up being controversial for Lent.
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/weird-true-f...-says-elton-john/story-e6frflri-1225832066801


----------



## roland (23 February 2010)

God is a bacteria.

In the bible (which we all know is the definitive book on universal creation), GOD created man in his own image. I just hope GOD evolved as well as we did


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 February 2010)

$20shoes said:


> Within all this “nothingness” there was somehow, one infinitely dense and bloody hot ball of "something". That "something" contained all matter, and time would start ticking from the moment this matter was unfurled. But before this unfurling, this hot dense pea sized ball of matter/energy/time must have been enveloped by something (though, not space - there was no space). The nothing surrounding this something must, logically speaking, be so infinitely infinite in its nothingness that it could be quite capable of enveloping and absorbing the pea sized density as it unfurled and proceeded to infinitely expand. That is, there must be "something" into which we expand and hence there must be a finite border at the edge of the universe, which once crossed places us into "nothingness".





We see creation and destruction in the universe and assume along with  scientific study that there was a beginning. A starting point. But does there have to be a beginning to the greater expanse. From as you type, before the so called big bang there was likely nothingness but we know there cannot be existence without duration. There would always have been duration and hence there was always existence. No beginning. The infinite time frame.



"It is a hypothetical exercise."

Okay.


----------



## Trembling Hand (23 February 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Could this be true also ?
> 
> 
> > "I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems," he said.




Nah nun he must of been bi. Didn't he shag Mary Magdalene?

So says the new bible by the 13th apostle - Dan Brown


----------



## jonojpsg (23 February 2010)

Couple of points:

Nun - same goes for arguments that God is not real, ie they are based on opinion and hearsay.

Evolution - nah, while I agree that micro evolution is a cert, I still can't hold to a theory that is based on an initial step that seems impossible, ie life from non-life.

Love the cosmology though


----------



## Trembling Hand (23 February 2010)

jonojpsg said:


> Evolution - nah, while I agree that micro evolution is a cert, I still can't hold to a theory that is based on an initial step that seems impossible, ie life from non-life.




I dunno, that s!ite trade of yours was dust & dead yet it nearly came to life.


----------



## Mr J (23 February 2010)

jonojpsg said:


> ie life from non-life.




Perhaps everything is alive?


----------



## nunthewiser (23 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Nah nun he must of been bi. Didn't he shag Mary Magdalene?
> 
> So says the new bible by the 13th apostle - Dan Brown




LOL 

I would luv to continue the chat in regards to Jesus's true sexuality preferences but i think it may disrupt the thread ................ But hang on . if we tell enough people ,won't it make it true a bit further down the track?


----------



## spooly74 (23 February 2010)

jonojpsg said:


> Evolution - nah, while I agree that micro evolution is a cert, I still can't hold to a theory that is based on an initial step that seems impossible, ie life from non-life.



The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
It only explains how life evolved once it appeared.

Read a book ffs.


----------



## Hedders (23 February 2010)

derty said:


> getting away from the topic here.
> Yes science can only account up to the Big bang. Though to assume that there is a 'before' 'outside' the universe assumes that time exists outside the universe and that there is an outside to the universe. You are applying the internal conditions of our universe to what may be 'outside' of it.
> 
> Invoking infinity is difficult as it is infinite. In an infinite universe everything is possible an infinite number of times. There will be infinite copies of yourself living on infinite identical worlds doing exactly what you are doing while an infinite number of other you's will be living infinitely variable lives on infinitely different worlds. it quickly becomes preposterous.
> ...




I'm apparently one of the scurriers going back to the Bible then- not necessarily to gain insight into Superstring Theory, or evolutionary processes mind you! With every advance in science, more questions crop up, and that's great- we should never give up the pursuit. I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved- almost as a starting point. Meanwhile we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you. And who knows, there might actually be 10 dimensions. But, beyond the notion of God, whose abilities extend way beyond ours, creating the universe, I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter, which "randomly" came together with other neccessary intracellular matter to form a cell, which then suddenly became a living, replicating entity. For as far as we can break down the components that comprise sub-atomic matter, we're still left with the huge question of why they come together so precisely if they've been blown apart after a big bang.

As for evolution, I don't think it is completely counter Creationist theory. Aspects of evolution are clearly demonstrable, but evolution is not a complete answer in itself. It's certainly not an answer where advocates need any less faith than creationists- evolution can be handy for exaplaining life-preserving processes but it fails to explain why they need to be preserved.


----------



## $20shoes (23 February 2010)

explod said:


> Notice the different font and the style grammer would indicate the assertions have come from some other source.  It would be interesting for the discussion to know the author for further study if you would be kind enough to provide that 20shoes
> 
> cheers explod




no other source except for me and MS+Tradesim having a chin wag about it last year on this thread. I copied out the passages and stitched them together so you would all know that it was being rehashed from my previous comments. 


I have not bothered to counter some arguments to my assertions...WYSIWYG and Derty all see holes in my approach and I actually don't disagree. My suppositions can't be supported by science. 

But from a faith perspective, this is where my personal leaning lies...

Damn...back to the drawing board.


----------



## Sean K (24 February 2010)

I think I commented here about 4 years ago.

No, in the modern religious sense.

The God of the current main religions is absolute pure myth. It's indisputable. Bible bashers should just stop and give up. 

If you have a personal idea of God, s/he may exist somewhere, in some time. 

In what state, is for you to explain.

Go ahead...


----------



## spooly74 (24 February 2010)

Hedders said:


> I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved- almost as a starting point.



Such as?



Hedders said:


> we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you. And who knows, there might actually be 10 dimensions.



Are you referring to M-theory, with 11 possible dimensions?
At least this faith can be tested and will be universally accepted as bull**** if proven false.



Hedders said:


> I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter,



Nucleosynthesis



Hedders said:


> As for evolution, I don't think it is completely counter Creationist theory. Aspects of evolution are clearly demonstrable, but evolution is not a complete answer in itself.



Of course it's counter Creationist stupidity, and as for it not being an answer, that depends entirely on your question.


----------



## springhill (24 February 2010)

jonojpsg said:


> Evolution - nah, while I agree that micro evolution is a cert, I still can't hold to a theory that is based on an initial step that seems impossible, ie life from non-life.




Ever seen Frankenstein? Or Return Of The Living Dead? All it takes is a huge amount of electricity or a toxic substance spill.....


----------



## Ato (24 February 2010)

I'm willing to be someone's god...

Anyone?


----------



## derty (24 February 2010)

Hedders said:


> I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved



None of these hypotheses insist that a greater intelligence/God/creator cannot be involved. It's just that they do not require one to be involved.



Hedders said:


> Meanwhile we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you.



Most of these hypotheses are theoretical and are a result of mathematical deduction from existing equations and hypotheses. People take the maths to new places and the results predict the behaviour of space and time and it's constituents. When the predictions of the equations and models fit with empirical observations these hypotheses begin to become theories that are continually modified and they in turn better explain the universe or they begin to break down. For people like you and me who cannot understand the equations and derivations there is a degree of faith involved. But for the physicists who do the work there is no need of faith, there may be assumptions, but no faith.


Hedders said:


> beyond the notion of God, whose abilities extend way beyond ours, creating the universe, I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter, which "randomly" came together with other neccessary intracellular matter to form a cell, which then suddenly became a living, replicating entity.



The formation of atoms (fusion) is not by choice, atomic nuclei do not want to come together. They need to be made to come together and that requires intense heat and pressure, like is found in the interior of suns. Our Sun currently is fusing hydrogen nuclei together to form helium nuclei. The energy within the Sun overcomes the force of electrostatic repulsion and once forced close enough together the very powerful but incredibly short range Strong Nuclear Force locks the protons and neutrons together. 
As for the creation of organic molecules (carbon based/linked molecules) certain atoms have affinities for each other and easily create bonds. There are a multitude of naturally occurring organic molecules that have been identified within the solar system and within interstellar dust clouds. A sea rich in elements under a free-oxygen-less atmosphere with added heat will readily form simple and complex organic molecules. Once you start adding periods of 100's of millions to billions of years to the equation the probability of forming very complex molecules becomes very high and likely.

For you, you cannot see how matter can organise itself without the intervention of a creator. For me it is simply that one is not required.



Hedders said:


> For as far as we can break down the components that comprise sub-atomic matter, we're still left with the huge question of why they come together so precisely if they've been blown apart after a big bang.



 As I stated before sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules come together due to affinities and in some cases requiring the addition of significant energy. The four main forces that are stable currently in the universe are gravity, the electro-magnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. These all act at different distances with different strengths in different ways and hold the matter in the multitude of stable forms we see it in today. 

Nothing was blown apart in the big bang, the energy that resulted from the big bang began to form particles that we today are familiar with as matter only after the universe had cooled sufficiently for protons and neutrons to remain intact. Following this cooling the universe was mainly composed of hydrogen (75%) and Helium (25%) - all the heavier elements have had to have been created since then within the cores of suns and as a result of supernovae. 



Hedders said:


> As for evolution, I don't think it is completely counter Creationist theory. Aspects of evolution are clearly demonstrable, but evolution is not a complete answer in itself. It's certainly not an answer where advocates need any less faith than creationists- evolution can be handy for exaplaining life-preserving processes but it fails to explain why they need to be preserved.



Evolution (by means of natural selection) does not claim to be an answer in itself. It merely provides the mechanism for simpler life to become more complex and diversified. 

Why do they need to be preserved? Are you saying that you believe that there is a higher purpose for life? Or that life requires a higher purpose to have meaning? That all sounds like a very anthropogenic construct. 

Life does not need to be preserved. It perseveres. Those organisms that can persevere, do. There does not need to be any more to it than that.


The addition of a creator/god along with imposed meanings and purposes just unnecessarily complicates a process that with current scientific knowledge simply does not require one. The science doesn't preclude a God, he just isn't necessary.


----------



## Sdajii (24 February 2010)

Hedders said:


> I'm apparently one of the scurriers going back to the Bible then- not necessarily to gain insight into Superstring Theory, or evolutionary processes mind you! With every advance in science, more questions crop up, and that's great- we should never give up the pursuit. I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved- almost as a starting point. Meanwhile we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you. And who knows, there might actually be 10 dimensions. But, beyond the notion of God, whose abilities extend way beyond ours, creating the universe, I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter, which "randomly" came together with other neccessary intracellular matter to form a cell, which then suddenly became a living, replicating entity. For as far as we can break down the components that comprise sub-atomic matter, we're still left with the huge question of why they come together so precisely if they've been blown apart after a big bang.




 Riiiiiight. So, you can't swallow the idea that very simple forms of life could come from self replicating molecules which were created randomly from simple chemicals, but, you can happily accept that something a zillion times more complex and incredible, with literally magical powers, could somehow pop up in the same way, and then create the simple thing (normal life without magical powers). Yeah... your idea is a lot more convincing! Good idea, take something you consider to be too extreme to believe, and instead believe something a zillion times more extreme. Nice one! Religion strikes again! :


----------



## Client (24 February 2010)

I am an atheist and can say that if there is a God, then he shows a favour only for those, who work hard and do not rely on God.


----------



## Agentm (24 February 2010)

........


----------



## jonojpsg (24 February 2010)

spooly74 said:


> Nucleosynthesis
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Tink (24 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> ....
> 
> Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin!




I have to laugh at this one

What does this say -- *CHRIST* MAS

No religion in that one


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

kennas said:


> ......The God of the current main religions is absolute pure myth. *It's indisputable.* Bible bashers should just stop and give up......




I think the debate/dispute will continue until the 'Second Coming' and subsequent end of time because there is no 'hard evidence' that proves or disproves the existence of God.  But there are 'degrees' of proof.

I have commented earlier on why I believe God has deliberately not given us 'hard evidence' of His existence.

For me personally, the Bible and my experiences in life are sufficient proof for me to be convinced that God exists and I am not trying to change anyone's views here.


----------



## Hedders (24 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Riiiiiight. So, you can't swallow the idea that very simple forms of life could come from self replicating molecules which were created randomly from simple chemicals, but, you can happily accept that something a zillion times more complex and incredible, with literally magical powers, could somehow pop up in the same way, and then create the simple thing (normal life without magical powers). Yeah... your idea is a lot more convincing! Good idea, take something you consider to be too extreme to believe, and instead believe something a zillion times more extreme. Nice one! Religion strikes again! :




I agree- my hypothesis seems "magical" to us, which is what it would seem if there happened to be a being of greater capabilities than the human brain. My point is that secular science's end point is the same- you still have to have faith that the final piece of the puzzle, which always remains an hypothesis, holds true. A zillion times more extreme? You're kidding. A belief that random particulate matter combines in such a fashion as to suddenly start generating life forms is no less a magical notion, but I fear I'm wasting my time debating this- clearly religion has "struck again" for you, so I'm assuming nothing I say will constitute a respectable difference of opinion. In the absence of a counter theory without a hypothetical ending though, you're in no position to consider the relative odds of one theory over another. I concede that neither am I, but that's hardly the point of faith, no matter what you believe. And so every theory requires faith. Getting back to the original question for a moment- is there a God? I believe there is. Can I prove it beyond reasonable doubt? No. Has science been able to disprove the existence of God? No. None of us believe in things that give us all the answers.

Like Bulldoza I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs. I'm not even saying my beliefs are more scientifically plausible.


----------



## Sdajii (24 February 2010)

Tink said:


> I have to laugh at this one
> 
> What does this say -- *CHRIST* MAS
> 
> No religion in that one




It's a pagan winter solstice festival with a Christian name and a few small label changes to make it fit the Christian theme. Incidentally, Jesus was born in the northern warm season, not the middle of winter (or if Jesus was not a real person, the fictional Jesus according to the fictional story in the bible was born in the warm season, not winter).

Evergreen trees were being decorated with candles and shiny bits of metal at the winter solstice hundreds of years before Jesus was around. It's the darkest time of year and it was a way of encouraging back the sun/sun god. Evergreen trees were used because they were seen as something which resisted the cold (as opposed to deciduous trees which drop their leaves/ "die off" during winter), candles were used because of the burny, hot flames, and glittery bits of metal were used because they are shiny like the sun, fire, heat, etc. That's why people still put tinsel and candles on evergreen trees in late December.

The original version of Christmas (celebrated long long before Jesus was born) involved gluttonous eating and general indulgence.

When trying to convert the pagans, the Christians had trouble, partly because they didn't want to give up their much loved traditional festivals, so they were relabeled with Christian themes.

Easter is a fertility festival. Eggs and rabbits are symbols of successful reproduction, the whole lot is directly taken from customs being celebrated long before Jesus was born, let alone died.

The bible is very clear about it being extremely sinful to take part in the customs of heathens and 'rival' gods. Christmas has a new label slapped on it, but with Easter they didn't even bother going that far! It is no wonder that the few Christians who follow the bible would not dare to celebrate Christmas or Easter, and if you are a Christian, have a look into it, it's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it's very well documented that these are not at all Christian customs, and it's not particularly difficult to find out about it.


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

Hi Sdajii - that is an interesting opinion you have in #1408

You still haven't answered the qusetion I posed to you yesterday, that I have seen anyway, and so giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't see it, here it is again.



> Well, this is a new one - even for me.
> 
> What Bible or any other reference can you post to support your statement "Celebrating xmas and easter is a sin! "
> 
> I also disagree with your unconditional generalisation - "The people who actually follow the bible are called crazy even by the majority of the folks who claim to be Christians!"




Your statements come from post #1329


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

NASA Research Reveals Major Insight Into Evolution of Life on Earth08.19.09 Molecular biologist James A. Lake from the University of California at Los Angeles' Center for Astrobiology.
Humans might not be walking on Earth today if not for the ancient fusing of two microscopic, single-celled organisms called prokaryotes, NASA-funded research has found.

By comparing proteins present in more than 3000 different prokaryotes - a type of single-celled organism without a nucleus -- molecular biologist James A. Lake from the University of California at Los Angeles' Center for Astrobiology showed that two major classes of relatively simple microbes fused together more than 2.5 billion years ago. Lake's research reveals a new pathway for the evolution of life on Earth. These insights are published in the Aug. 20 online edition of the journal Nature.

This endosymbiosis, or merging of two cells, enabled the evolution of a highly stable and successful organism with the capacity to use energy from sunlight via photosynthesis. Further evolution led to photosynthetic organisms producing oxygen as a byproduct. The resulting oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere profoundly affected the evolution of life, leading to more complex organisms that consumed oxygen, which were the ancestors of modern oxygen-breathing creatures including humans.

"Higher life would not have happened without this event," Lake said. "These are very important organisms. At the time these two early prokaryotes were evolving, there was no oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Humans could not live. No oxygen-breathing organisms could live."

The genetic machinery and structural organization of these two organisms merged to produce a new class of prokaryotes, called double membrane prokaryotes. As they evolved, members of this double membrane class, called cyanobacteria, became the primary oxygen-producers on the planet, generating enough oxygen to alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere and set the stage for the evolution of more complex organisms such as animals and plants.

"This work is a major advance in our understanding of how a group of organisms came to be that learned to harness the sun and then effected the greatest environmental change Earth has ever seen, in this case with beneficial results," said Carl Pilcher, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., which co-funded the study with the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Va.

Founded in 1998, the NASA Astrobiology Institute is a partnership between NASA, 14 U.S. teams and six international consortia. The institute's goals are to promote, conduct, and lead interdisciplinary astrobiology research; train a new generation of astrobiology researchers; and share the excitement of astrobiology with learners of all ages.

The institute is part of NASA's Astrobiology Program in Washington. The program supports research into the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life on Earth and the potential for life elsewhere.

For more information about the NASA's Astrobiology Program and the institute, visit: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov.


----------



## derty (24 February 2010)

jonojpsg said:


> Read the article yourself ffs spooly :nono:
> 
> Nucleosynthesis has nothing to do with abiogenesis - you can't tell me that amino acids came together into proteins and hence oh my goodness, it's alive simply because the subatomic particles had an affinity for each other.



Spooly put up the nucleosynthesis link as response to Hedders claim that subatomic particles would not be able to form atoms without God's help. There was no intention to link it to abiogenesis.


----------



## Sdajii (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Hi Sdajii - that is an interesting opinion you have in #1408
> 
> You still haven't answered the qusetion I posed to you yesterday, that I have seen anyway, and so giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't see it, here it is again.
> 
> ...




Are you asking me to explain why I say that people call genuine Christians crazy, or why the bible says it's a sin to carry out heathen customs like celebrating Christmas and Easter?

The bible is very clear about it being a sin to observe other gods or the practices of other belief systems, even going as far as saying you should avoid learning about them (it is years since I have opened a bible and can't give you a reference, sorry. I'd look it up, but it's just not that important to me).

If you look at the people who genuinely follow the bible (as any real Christian should), they are nuts. These days most people, including most Christians, will think you are crazy even for things like condemning homosexuality or suggesting that a woman should agree to obey her husband during wedding vows. If you think it is a sin to celebrate xmas or Easter, most people will think you're silly. If you get into all the zillion other bits and pieces the bible demands of you, obviously you're going to get more and more crazy-looking in the eyes of regular people (think Jehovah's witnesses, etc). Actually, I can't think of any large Christian sect which properly follows the bible. The ones which try to (Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc) either take very strange interpretations (eg Pentecostals) or have found a silly excuse to make amendments (eg Mormons). Jehovah's witnesses are the most faithful to the bible I can think of off the top of my head, and I think it's fair to say that most people think Jehovah's witnesses are crazy. I would agree, but I think they are less crazy than people who claim to be Christian and blatantly act in a way which their own holy book says will send them to Hell.


----------



## Hedders (24 February 2010)

derty said:


> None of these hypotheses insist that a greater intelligence/God/creator cannot be involved. It's just that they do not require one to be involved.
> 
> 
> Most of these hypotheses are theoretical and are a result of mathematical deduction from existing equations and hypotheses. People take the maths to new places and the results predict the behaviour of space and time and it's constituents. When the predictions of the equations and models fit with empirical observations these hypotheses begin to become theories that are continually modified and they in turn better explain the universe or they begin to break down. For people like you and me who cannot understand the equations and derivations there is a degree of faith involved. But for the physicists who do the work there is no need of faith, there may be assumptions, but no faith.
> ...





Thanks Derty- fantastic post. I don't profess to understand the mathematical models involved in Superstring theory (despite studying pure maths and nuclear science amongst other things at uni!). I guess my reason for considering God necessary in my own belief system stemmed partly from my observations that many assumptions are made in both maths and nuclear science. As logical as many of the assumptions appear to be, I felt that there was always a need to believe in things that couldn't be explained. Taking an example you brought up- atomic particles, atoms and molecules have an affinity with one another. I guess where we might differ is that I'm unable to rest with the notion that they just do possess this inherent affinity, that energy creates orderly behaviour for no reason other than it does. You're right in saying we don't need a belief in God to help us in scientific research, but for me God doesn't complicate the issue. 

As for a higher purpose in our lives, I guess I do believe that there's more to it than existing if that's what you're referring to. Otherwise I'm not sure why we are built with such a passion for knowledge and a sense of who we are- why we feel the need to expend energy on things beyond matters of survival.

Thanks again for your comments


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> ...... (it is years since I have opened a bible and can't give you a reference, sorry. I'd look it up, but it's just not that important to me).




That's ok Sdajii   - I couldn't find any references to support your statements.


----------



## Sdajii (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> That's ok Sdajii   - I couldn't find any references to support your statements.




Oh for Pete's sake, if you have any familiarity with the bible you'll know there is no shortage of god's message of jealousy and warnings to stay away from other gods or the practises of other doctrines. If you want to stick your head in the sand to avoid seeing what you don't want to see, you're as bad as a, well, you're a Christian I suppose.


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> That's ok Sdajii   - I couldn't find any references to support your statements.




Try Jeremiah 10:1-5

I will do a bit of research and see what others I can find in the next day or two.  Have not had my bible out for about 30 years.  It is a keepsake as my Dad was sincere and he brought it for the family, his signature is on the invoice at the front.  Lost him 40 years ago, beat up by WW2.


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

Sdajii - *I simply disagree with your opinion that celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin *and I asked for references that prove that it is.

You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine and I am entitled to ask what evidence you have to support your beliefs just as others have asked me what evidence I have to support mine.


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

explod said:


> Try Jeremiah 10:1-5
> 
> I will do a bit of research and see what others I can find in the next day or two.  Have not had my bible out for about 30 years.  It is a keepsake as my Dad was sincere and he brought it for the family, his signature is on the invoice at the front.  Lost him 40 years ago, beat up by WW2.




Thanks explod - *Well, at least one positive outcome has arisen from the discussion over the last few days*  - at least one person has brushed off the dust from their Bible and opened it up

I fail to see how that passage proves celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin.

What is your interpretation of that passage?


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Sdajii - *I simply disagree with your opinion that celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin *and I asked for references that prove that it is.
> 
> You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine and I am entitled to ask what evidence you have to support your beliefs just as others have asked me what evidence I have to support mine.




In short it was regarded as a pagan rite till about 200AD  those guiding Christianity then found in effect (if you cant beat em join em) so they created scripture to facilitate the story into harmony for Christians.   *There is as others have said above lots of evidence* the scriptures have been made up as they have gone along to keep everthing dandy in order to control the believers.

A big reason why many of us are believers no more.


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Thanks explod - *Well, at least one positive outcome has arisen from the discussion over the last few days*  - at least one person has brushed off the dust from their Bible and opened it up
> 
> I fail to see how that passage proves celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin.
> 
> What is your interpretation of that passage?




Time does not permit now, unlike the computor search engines, it takes time to work back through the big book, so will get back as I uncover.


----------



## Sdajii (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> Sdajii - *I simply disagree with your opinion that celebrating Christmas and Easter is a sin *and I asked for references that prove that it is.
> 
> You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine and I am entitled to ask what evidence you have to support your beliefs just as others have asked me what evidence I have to support mine.




The only thing lacking was reference to specific bible verses which point out that god is jealous and that observing the customs of other belief systems is a severe sin. Surely you do not require me to give that to you, and if you do, you are a very poor Christian, and as a Christian I suggest you read your bible. The bible contains no shortage of such messages and if you are not familiar with that you clearly have extremely little knowledge of the bible, perhaps limited to a few verses here and there you have been pointed to or listened to at church or Sunday school, as is typically the case. It seems astounding that few Christians have read even 5% of the bible, and the low percentage they have been exposed to is the fluffy, nice side of the book. When I was in my early teens I figured that since I lived in an officially Christian country I should have a familiarity with the bible to understand the culture I lived in, so I read it, despite never having been a Christian myself. It always astounds me when Christians who claim that their beliefs are the most important thing in their life have never even read their own holy book.


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

explod said:


> ..... *There is as others have said above lots of evidence* the scriptures have been made up as they have gone along to keep everthing dandy in order to control the believers.
> 
> A big reason why many of us are believers no more.




And yes, here appears that word 'evidence', which there is for both sides of the question "Is there a god?" or for any matter relating to it - and since *none of this 'evidence'* provides 'hard conclusive proof" for the existence or non-existence of God this debate will go on forever until the Second Coming imo.


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> It seems astounding that few Christians have read even 5% of the bible, and the low percentage they have been exposed to is the fluffy, nice side of the book. When I was in my early teens I figured that since I lived in an officially Christian country I should have a familiarity with the bible to understand the culture I lived in, so I read it, despite never having been a Christian myself. It always astounds me when Christians who claim that their beliefs are the most important thing in their life have never even read their own holy book.




You can take this however you like - I have read all of the New Testament (which is only a small portion of the whole Bible) and a large portion of the Old Testament.


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> And yes, here appears that word 'evidence', which there is for both sides of the question "Is there a god?" or for any matter relating to it - and since *none of this 'evidence'* provides 'hard conclusive proof" for the existence or non-existence of God this debate will go on forever until the Second Coming imo.




Rubbish, there is no evidence that God exists at all, you have only expressed knowledge that you have learned or read and felt within yourself, that is not *evidence* they are feelings and belief.   And of course there is no hard evidence that he does.  But on the ballance of probabilities from my own equiries, it is very unlikely and remote.  Like fairies aT the bottom of the garden, *which are LIES*


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

explod said:


> Rubbish, there is no evidence that God exists at all, you have only expressed knowledge that you have learned or read and felt within yourself, that is not *evidence* they are feelings and belief.   And of course there is no hard evidence that he does.  But on the ballance of probabilities from my own equiries, it is very unlikely and remote.  Like fairies aT the bottom of the garden, *which are LIES*




I disagree - the Bible and my experiences throughout my life provide me with sufficient evidence to convince me that God exists.

I assume you are not speaking on my behalf in your quote above.

I think we are now up to about lap 2548 on the circle of 'yes he exists / no he doesn't.'


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

Would someone kindly tell me I am wasting my time so that I can save myself and leave this thread.

However *evidence* is a question worth examination.  In my career traning I was taught that evidence had to stand up to certain tests to be *evidence*  You had to see it or it had to speak for itself.  What someone told you, or something that is written, is called secondary evidence, but this is not evidence that will support a case, unless it is supported by some other tangible evidence.

I am sure others with an actual law backgound or that in philosophy can provide a clearer definition.

The bible I contend, was written by some powerful control freak and his workers.   In fact news out of the US suggests the the helleluiahs are re-doing the creationst thingo to fit in with contemporary situations today as we speak.


----------



## Mr J (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I disagree - the Bible and my experiences throughout my life provide me with sufficient evidence to convince me that God exists.




I'm not sure why you put so much faith in the bible. As for experiences in life, I highly doubt they're proof. They may be enough to convince you, but many people have many experiences that convince them of things that aren't necessarily true. Variance makes for some very strange events, but because most humans don't seem to understand variance very well, we come up with neat answers that make us happy. 

Example, when explaining someone's death: "It was God's plan". Are you kidding me? When someone wins something "I'd like to thank God for making me great". Why not your parents for passing on good genes, a fortunate environment and turn of events? And to throw some balance in since I'm not just addressing religion, how about "online poker is rigged", or "the flow" of cards at a blackjack table, or the "markets are manipulated" when a trader loses?

We come up with all sorts of excuses, the biggest of all being "gods". It doesn't mean they don't exist, but when we examine the accuracy of our typical uninformed excuses/explanations (such as the gambling ones I mentioned) and think of their consistency with our explanation for gods, it doesn't look promising.


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2010)

explod said:


> Would someone kindly tell me I am wasting my time so that I can save myself and leave this thread.
> 
> However *evidence* is a question worth examination.  In my career traning I was taught that evidence had to stand up to certain tests to be *evidence*  You had to see it or it had to speak for itself.




Haven't you ever fabricated evidence?


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Haven't you ever fabricated evidence?




Well done ole Pal, got me big that time.   But as an ole plod had to keep it simple stupid, bit like the trading, or I would be in trouble.  The other way needs a lot on the uptake, but I suppose its a start if I get it waynel.

And in that you have answered my call 2 posts back and saved me.

cheers explod


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

explod -

In general, 'evidence' for me is something that provides a ground for belief or something that tends to prove or disprove something.

Once you have a piece of evidence, the next step imo is to judge the accuracy and reliability of that evidence.  In a law context, the evidence presented by the police is judged by a jury, magistrate, judge or whatever.

In a 'spiritual' sense, at the risk of repeating myself, the Bible and my life experiences provide me personally with sufficient evidence and proof, again for me personally, that God exists.

Now all this is not to say, as I have commented before, that anyone else must blindly accept the Bible as evidence or proof that God exists as I have.

We all should make our own decision on whether to believe in God or not based on how we judge the evidence before us.


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

> In general, 'evidence' for me is something that provides a ground for belief or something that tends to prove or disprove something.




*grounds* for belief  or *tends* to prove do not stand up to the test of the evidence rules.

To get the average joe to believe in God today you would have to produce him before thier eyes or you would have to part the water before the eyes.   Direct, first evidence. 

It is my view that iit was because people of the past were not educated to think for themselves that religions thrived.  That is happenning again due to poverty and growing lack of ducational opportunities.  In my day there were no fees to go to Uni., so I suppose we only have ourselves overall to blame cause we vote em in.


----------



## derty (24 February 2010)

Hedders said:


> Thanks Derty- fantastic post. I don't profess to understand the mathematical models involved in Superstring theory (despite studying pure maths and nuclear science amongst other things at uni!). I guess my reason for considering God necessary in my own belief system stemmed partly from my observations that many assumptions are made in both maths and nuclear science. As logical as many of the assumptions appear to be, I felt that there was always a need to believe in things that couldn't be explained. Taking an example you brought up- atomic particles, atoms and molecules have an affinity with one another. I guess where we might differ is that I'm unable to rest with the notion that they just do possess this inherent affinity, that energy creates orderly behaviour for no reason other than it does. You're right in saying we don't need a belief in God to help us in scientific research, but for me God doesn't complicate the issue.
> 
> As for a higher purpose in our lives, I guess I do believe that there's more to it than existing if that's what you're referring to. Otherwise I'm not sure why we are built with such a passion for knowledge and a sense of who we are- why we feel the need to expend energy on things beyond matters of survival.
> 
> Thanks again for your comments



No problems Hedders. Though, if I had've known you had done tertiary level pure maths and nuclear science I would not have spent as much time in my explanations. You should in fact be giving the explanation. 

Out of curiosity, were you a believer before you went to Uni and the assumptions within the science were the only places left for God to have any possible role? Or did the fact that assumptions were required disillusion your view of the science and you reasoned that a higher power was required to make it make sense?

When you start asking why is a quark a quark and why does it interact in specific ways? Why are the fundamental parameters of the universe as such? Why is matter so ordered on so many levels? For some a creator is required for it to make sense. For me, while it totally amazes me and is boggling, it is another facet of science that is waiting for an explanation. I am happy to wait and are happy not to know for now. 

As for life requiring a meaning. Life does what life does, it replicates and changes within the boundaries that the universe and the local environment allow it to. On Earth, within these bounds it has attained some amazing feats, humans not being the least of these. Life on Earth has now reached a level where it can contemplate why and how it arose. The contemplation is an evolution in itself with religion being a part of that journey. As part of that evolution science has begun to fret away at the role religion plays in that contemplation. That breaking down of a requirement of a creator has accelerated and advanced to a degree now that a creator is not required to explain our origins. The concept of a creator is now a redundant part of our ongoing contemplation of origins.

I think the question should not be Is there a God? 
It should be Is a God Necessary?


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

explod said:


> *grounds* for belief  or *tends* to prove do not stand up to the test of the evidence rules.
> 
> To get the average joe to believe in God today you would have to produce him before thier eyes or you would have to part the water before the eyes.   Direct, first evidence.
> 
> It is my view that iit was because people of the past were not educated to think for themselves that religions thrived.  That is happenning again due to poverty and growing lack of ducational opportunities.  In my day there were no fees to go to Uni., so I suppose we only have ourselves overall to blame cause we vote em in.




I believe the definition of evidence is correct.  What you are then implying, and I agree in general, is that many would need very strong compelling evidence before accepting the case being put forward as prooved.  You are essentially reinforcing my comments earlier today about degrees of proof or evidence.

I agree with you, based on what I have read in here, that most non-believers in here would require some sort of 'road to Damascus' moment or for God to part the Pacific Ocean so they can walk from Sydney to LA before they will accept God exists.

I have commented earlier on why I believe God does not provide us with such 'hard evidence'.

In my particular case, I am convinced God exists based on the evidence at my disposal.


----------



## Mr J (24 February 2010)

derty said:


> I think the question should not be Is there a God?
> It should be Is a God Necessary?




I think either question leads to the same place. Questioning existence naturally questions necessity, and questioning necessity will very likely lead to questioning existence.


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2010)

Perhaps a better question is - Is _religion_ necessary?

IMNTBCHO => Nope


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

derty said:


> I think the question should not be Is there a God?
> It should be Is a God Necessary?




Imo another very valid question but not necessarily appropriate for this thread.

More appropriate in a thread of its own imo.

Just because something is necessary doesn't mean it already exists and just because something exists doesn't mean its required.

eg..  we need a better hospital system but it doesn't exist.....yet!!!


----------



## explod (24 February 2010)

bulldoza said:


> I have commented earlier on why I believe God does not provide us with such 'hard evidence'.
> 
> .




Yes read it and of course knew of it.   But how wonderfully convienient, I bet the Bishop gave the curate a bonus sip of wine the day he came up with that one.


----------



## bulldoza (24 February 2010)

*Poll Summary Update*​
Just a quck update on yesterday's poll summary since a few more votes have been cast.

As yesterday, I have split the 'fence sitters' 50/50 between believers and non-believers - and please don't jump on me regarding the split.  

You can massage the numbers as you like and polls in this type of environment are imo basically more for fun than for any statistical credibility.

*Believers + possibles:*            149 + 123 = 272 *(49%)*

*Non-believers + possibles:*      158 + 124 = 282 *(51%)*


----------



## Julia (24 February 2010)

Bulldoza, you have made 55 posts in just a few days, all about God.  You have been astonishingly persistent in the repetitive nature of these posts.

Something has been ringing a bell at the back of my mind here.  I have finally woken up to what it is.  Here we have Bullmarket back again after being banned about three years ago.

You know what really gave you away?  The use of the phrase "I'll pop in tomorrow".
No young website designer would use that expression, and it was an absolute favourite of Bullmarket's.

Up to Joe, of course, but I'd hope other ASF members will stop feeding this troll.


----------



## professor_frink (24 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Bulldoza, you have made 55 posts in just a few days, all about God.  You have been astonishingly persistent in the repetitive nature of these posts.
> 
> Something has been ringing a bell at the back of my mind here.  I have finally woken up to what it is.  Here we have Bullmarket back again after being banned about three years ago.
> 
> ...




troll has been sent packing Julia


----------



## Hedders (25 February 2010)

derty said:


> No problems Hedders. Though, if I had've known you had done tertiary level pure maths and nuclear science I would not have spent as much time in my explanations. You should in fact be giving the explanation.
> 
> Out of curiosity, were you a believer before you went to Uni and the assumptions within the science were the only places left for God to have any possible role? Or did the fact that assumptions were required disillusion your view of the science and you reasoned that a higher power was required to make it make sense?
> 
> ...




I became a Christian during uni- up until then I was brought up in a nonreligious home. Living on campus, I spent a good deal of my time getting drunk, and lectures didn't feature too highly in 1st year. I always had these niggling thoughts that there was more to life than what I was doing at the time. After looking into various things I finally looked into Christianity, via the Bible and other Christians. The experiences I had studying science and maths did contribute to the search for more meaning/more answers. Mind you the compassionate and loving aspects of Christianity probably left a greater impression. I spent some time doing missionary work in Africa and that kind of cemented my desire to live for God. 

I used to think religion was for losers and I was very guarded, even hostile towards religious people. So I know what it's like to view religion as pointless. A whole host of things has changed that for me- some things were learnt, some things appear to be inherent in me. Getting back to science for a moment, I love the stuff, and probably like yourself, I look forward to the next discovery in the fields that I'm interested in. Probably the most fundamental shift I made in my approach to science occurred when I was back at uni though, when I struggled with the limitations of the human brain to even establish evidence-based starting points, as I mentioned before. I couldn't dismiss the notion that a being of greater intelligence existed, one that could know more and do more than us. There's no absolute proof that I'm right or wrong in this assumption, yet the infinite nature of sceince and maths reassures me that it will remain as reasonable an hypothesis as any other. I have athiest friends who feel just as sure that science will eventually explain the "gaps plugged with religious ideas" to use their term. I still don't see science as any kind of threat to what I believe, but I'm aware of how foreign this attitude is to them. I enjoy living in a world that remains full of future discoveries.


----------



## Bobby (25 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Bulldoza, you have made 55 posts in just a few days, all about God.  You have been astonishingly persistent in the repetitive nature of these posts.
> 
> Something has been ringing a bell at the back of my mind here.  I have finally woken up to what it is.  Here we have Bullmarket back again after being banned about three years ago.
> 
> ...




Well spotted Julia ,  old bullmarket seems to never give up  

Cheers Bob.


----------



## Tink (25 February 2010)

Great post Hedders

I grew up in a Catholic family, being italian heritage

We travelled to Rome when I was 8 and I had an experience that has never made me question God

So I just say, each to their own when it comes to belief or no belief


----------



## Sdajii (25 February 2010)

Julia: Thanks for pointing that out! I should have seen it, I obviously need to improve my troll avoidance skills! 

Hedder: Once upon a time religion was used as an explanation for how some very basic things worked, because we had no idea how even the most basic aspects of the world and universe worked. "I don't understand it, so god must have done it" seems like a very strange reasoning, especially given our track record of explaining more and more of what religion used to explain. Once upon a time you were seen as challenging god if you said the world was round or the Earth went around the Sun. Now that we fully understand the things which had us boggled back then we have advanced to a stage where we can understand much more advanced things, and in time we will solve those mysteries and come up with some new ones which are even more advanced and we can't even see as mysteries just yet.

We do not need to be able to understand everything, and we never will. Why would you explain something you don't understand by making up something even more unexplainable? Are you not brave enough to say that it is okay for us not to know everything? If we did get to the stage where we understood everything there was to understand about the universe, and fully explained the way everything came to be, and that satisfied us that there was no god, would it still make sense for monkeys to  believe in god because they could not yet understand it all? Should we be arrogant enough to think that we are so incredibly awesome that we will be able to understand any natural aspect of the universe, and that the only way something could possibly be too difficult for us to understand is if a supernatural power had intervened?

Let's assume for a moment that there is no god, the universe did just evolve naturally, the brain is a product of evolution, etc. In that godless universe, anyone in a primitive species with the "If I can't explain it god did it" mentality will wrongly believe that there is a god, and they will accept that there is no god once they manage to explain the whole lot, and if they can't explain the whole lot because it's just too difficult, they will continue to wrongly believe in god. Obviously even not so long ago, in well-documented history we didn't have the ability to even work out what some of the basic organs in the body did.

But what makes even less sense about this line of thinking is that you can't accept that the brain came into existence on its own even though you can see a clear evolutionary progression to the brain between the simplest forms of life which still exist and the most advanced modern brains, while on the other hand you can accept that some magical superbeing came into existence on its own from nothing, even though there is absolutely no explanation for it at all and no way at all to detect it. I can't think of a more flawed argument.

I think I'll just accept that if someone believes in religion they are someone very much willing to suspend logic and reason, so I am bashing my head against the wall in trying to reason with them.


----------



## Boognish (25 February 2010)

Heard a great quote yesterday from an expert on cold reading - you can't rationally argue someone out of a belief that was not arrived at rationally.  The religion/culture war debate is probably my favourite topic, not because any religion has ever harmed me personally but because the idea of god/gods has had such a huge influence on human history and development.  Having said this, I've realised that arguing about it on the internet, even on more high-brow forums like this one, is pretty futile.


----------



## explod (25 February 2010)

Bobby said:


> Well spotted Julia ,  old bullmarket seems to never give up
> 
> Cheers Bob.




Well Julia, time and time again you turn out to be a staunch treasure to us all on ASF.

About God, well I love the debate and trying to clear think it all, but it seems you cannot get through to some so our task perhaps is to do what we can to minimise the dogma being forced onto children and encouraging better education for all.

A good friend, privvy to the forums discussions sent me a very moving message overnight and got me thinking about my spirituality.  I do not know the answer about God but find I may be by nature a Buddist.


----------



## Julia (15 October 2010)

This is probably not the best thread for this post, but I didn't want to start a new one.

The following discussion on Radio National's "Big Ideas" between social researcher Hugh McKay and Jon Cleary (producer of ABC Radio's religious programmes) is an hour of absorbing thought on the part of both people.

Hugh McKay has just had his latest book released:  "What Makes us Tick", the desires, aspirations and beliefs of Australians.

He talks about the need of human beings to believe in something, and suggests that to remain sceptical is a more difficult position to maintain than to fall in with the reassurance of joining a group of believers.

Imo you could extrapolate this to being part of a group about pretty much anything, such is the need most of us have to enjoy a sense of connection with others and a feeling of belonging.

He thinks many Catholics would like to see the Latin mass brought back, because it's the gathering in church, the rites and ceremony that many find so reassuring, rather than the clarity and reality of the English words which for many believers detract from the sense of religiosity.

I'm paraphrasing here, and would not want to suggest that Mr McKay is being anti-religion, because he's not.

It's a discussion that I think believers and non-believers can equally enjoy.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/3038586.htm


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 February 2011)

Chaosi mate or anyone really I don't give a ship.  Wondering what your thoughts are on the thousands of people over the centuries that have exploited the god belief? Were they within their rights to manipulate their followers through fear, lies (see prophecies) and guilt?


----------



## burglar (22 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> Since you brought it up:
> 
> The sh!te meter registers intolerance of others views ...




Why is Pi on the meter?


----------



## wayneL (22 August 2012)

burglar said:


> Why is Pi on the meter?




Pi is the critical mass of of shyte required for a spontaneous chain reaction.


----------



## explod (22 August 2012)

Wysiwyg said:


> Chaosi mate or anyone really I don't give a ship.  Wondering what your thoughts are on the thousands of people over the centuries that have exploited the god belief? Were they within their rights to manipulate their followers through fear, lies (see prophecies) and guilt?




Absolutely and well said.

The Chief installed the Witch Doctor to put fear into the tribe so that the Chief could lead them placidly to heaven.

And control the poor bas  ards all the way to the grave.

Did anyone notice the tears being shed at the Queens Jubilee.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (10 October 2012)

purple said:


> You'll never know the sunshine outside if you stay in your room the whole day.




Thats the thing though,

The magic of reality is so much better than any religous story.


----------



## Tink (11 May 2013)

Agree bellenuit, and thanks for the link.

Yes, I believe in God.


----------



## bellenuit (10 June 2013)

This is a brilliant response to those who use Pascal's wager as a reason to believe in God.


----------



## Tink (10 June 2013)

Thanks bellenuit, we seem to have the same talks go round and round in all these threads. We have all stated our whys and our experiences,  its a pity we couldnt have put them all in here with peoples experiences.

Many that have gone from atheist to christianity, therefore all these reasons that its doctrinated is a load of crock, many have come up with their own conclusions.

and others that have gone the other way, from Christianity to atheists


----------



## Ruby (10 June 2013)

Thanks Bellenuit.  I would like to see Christians refute this argument!  I have given a lot of thought to this line of reasoning for years, but would never have been able to express it in such an articulate manner.



Tink said:


> Many that have gone from atheist to christianity, therefore all these reasons that its doctrinated is a load of crock, many have come up with their own conclusions.
> 
> and others that have gone the other way, from Christianity to atheists




No, not a crock Tink; in order to go from non-believer to Christian, people have to be indoctrinated or they wouldn't know what the Christian faith was.   They could not have drawn their own conclusions without being fed some information.    But then, a lot of people who call themselves Christian don't know what the Christian doctrine is!


----------



## Tink (10 June 2013)

If they go looking Ruby, they arent happy with your atheist reasoning.
I believe in God, you dont - end of story.


----------



## bellenuit (10 June 2013)

Tink said:


> Many that have gone from atheist to christianity, therefore all these reasons that its doctrinated is a load of crock, many have come up with their own conclusions.




Sorry Tink, but the evidence is very much against what you have said. Although I have no doubt there are some people, perhaps in the order of a couple of percent, who have genuinely thought about God and religion and either changed religions or stopped being an atheist and converted to a religion, the vast majority of people believe what they believe because of the place of their birth or the religion of their parents. The correlation is just too strong. To say that this is not due to indoctrination would be to imply that the majority rationally came to their beliefs through reason and the fact that most muslims are in North Africa and The Middle East across to Indonesia, most Buddhists are in East and Southern Asia and most Christians are in Europe and America is just a coincidence. 

Indoctrination doesn't have to be explicit like under Mao's re-education camps or like what is in North Korea today, but can simply be a subtle process that begins from birth and continuous through one's most formative years. It doesn't mean that those doing the indoctrination are even consciously aware that they are doing it. The whole environment that the child and young adult is brought up in just reinforces a particular belief system.  

If you could persuade me that you and most of your family and friends who hold the same beliefs as you would have exactly those same beliefs at this stage in your lives if you had been born in Indonesia or Turkey say (both chosen because they are moderate Muslim countries). Would you and your friends even have the same beliefs if you were born in the US bible belt?


----------



## pavilion103 (10 June 2013)

Christianity has spread from its beginnings to cultures who either had no Christian background or in fact, opposing views. Rome for one. The rest of Europe. South America and now China for goodness sakes!!!

Why did they all believe? Because they bowed down before the white man who told them? Give me a break. 
No because it made sense to them! They changed their conditioned views 180 degrees.


And of course in order to be a Christian you have to hear about Christianity but this doesn't differ from being a trader, you have to read about trading! To understand evolution you have to read books on it. 
Staggering statement that was made!!!


----------



## pixel (10 June 2013)

bellenuit said:


> This is a brilliant response to those who use Pascal's wager as a reason to believe in God.





Thanks bellenuit, the speaker puts my notions of 50 years concisely into words - many times better than I've ever been able.
I have bookmarked that video and hope it'll be allowed to remain indefinitely on youtube.


----------



## CanOz (10 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Christianity has spread from its beginnings to cultures who either had no Christian background or in fact, opposing views. Rome for one. The rest of Europe. South America and now China for goodness sakes!!!
> 
> Why did they all believe? Because they bowed down before the white man who told them? Give me a break.
> No because it made sense to them! They changed their conditioned views 180 degrees.




Maybe because it seemed peaceful to them.....

I doubt that there have been to many Buddhists change to Christianity, but i could be wrong. Both are ok religions in my view. If i had to choose one i would likely choose Buddhism...


----------



## drsmith (10 June 2013)

God in a religious context is what I would regard as something of our own creation to deal with an issue of self awareness. This is the difficulty in coming to terms with our individual physical mortality.

The more practical question is where we are on the scale of life in the universe.


----------



## Ruby (11 June 2013)

pavilion103 said:


> Christianity has spread from its beginnings to cultures who either had no Christian background or in fact, opposing views. Rome for one. The rest of Europe. South America and now China for goodness sakes!!!
> 
> Why did they all believe? Because they bowed down before the white man who told them? Give me a break.
> No because it made sense to them! They changed their conditioned views 180 degrees.




In many cases it was simply a transferral of allegiance from one god, or one set of gods, to another.  Fear can be quite persuasive!  So also could white men arriving in boats and aeroplanes with beads and mirrors.  Please don't give me the "it made sense" line - the people you are talking about were for the most part illiterate and were quite unable to apply any powers of reasoning.   Read some history.


----------



## pixel (12 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> God in a religious context is what I would regard as something of our own creation to deal with an issue of self awareness. This is the difficulty in coming to terms with our individual physical mortality.
> 
> The more practical question is where we are on the scale of life in the universe.




For starters: Which god are we talking about?
Allah, Bastet, Christ, Demeter, Eros, Frigga, Ganesh, Hermes, Ishtar, Jupiter, Kali, Lakshmi, Manitou, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Quetzal, Rainbow Serpent, Saturn, Thor, Uranus, Venus, Wotan, Xenu, Yahwe, Zeus.

It seems that in early human history, each tribe invented their own - "created a god in their own image" as it were. Are they all a particular aspect of the same superior being? Or are they all figments of ancient rulers' imagination? The latter must be the most probable, but I don't know for sure. Well, in the case of L.Ron Hubbard's Xenu, I am pretty sure. 

Soon enough it will become a non-question.


----------



## Sean K (22 November 2014)

I find it incredible that anyone on this forum would have voted yes. 

Are humans still so stupid to believe in these myths designed to explain the unexplainable?


----------



## Tink (22 November 2014)

50/50 on the polls, Kennas, or thereabouts.

We could say the same thing.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2014)

Do we really need the revival of yet another old religion thread?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Do we really need the revival of yet another old religion thread?




NO.


----------



## Logique (23 November 2014)

http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-knocked-unconscious-by-directtv-satellite,36752/
*God Knocked Unconscious By DirectTV Satellite*
NEWS IN BRIEF • God • News • ISSUE 50•33 • Aug 22, 2014

THE HEAVENS - Noting that He was a little shaken but would be all right, sources confirmed Friday that the Lord God Almighty, Our Heavenly Father, was struck by a DirecTV satellite approximately 22,000 miles above earth, rendering Him unconscious for several minutes. 

“Whoa! How long was I out?” God said to a host of concerned seraphim, moments after the four-ton satellite impacted near His right temple while traveling at roughly 6,900 miles per hour.  “Man, I must have let My mind wander””that thing really came out of nowhere. I didn’t see it at all.” 

As of press time, Heavenly sources confirmed that the deity had fully returned to omniscience.


----------



## pixel (24 November 2014)

If there were an omniscient and omnipotent God, it would definitely have been an insignificantly trivial miracle for Her to correct the misspelling of "EXISTENCE" in each of the Poll questions. 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=existance


----------



## Calliope (24 November 2014)

There is only one God that I pay homage to, and that is Bacchus...several time daily.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 December 2016)

PharmBBs said:


> Some of you have also brought up religion... I identify as agnostic and a nihilist. I don't really know if there is a god or not. *I do however feel inclined to believe that there is no inherent objective meaning to anything.* Some people find this belief disturbing but I think that if you can confront the abyss/void and accept it, it can be quite liberating.



Well the 'life' objective is too sustain, continue, survive, exist etc. so there is an objective but for human mind there is no known "meaning" hence the seeking/explanation (or indoctrination in many cases) of a meaning to it all. Science and religion - one revealing substance, the other perpetuating imagination (belief before substance). Belief can stretch a long way from "what is" and belief with no substance to offer is a lie of the highest order.

What do you 'think'?


----------



## explod (3 December 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well the 'life' objective is too sustain, continue, survive, exist etc. so there is an objective but for human mind there is no known "meaning" hence the seeking/explanation (or indoctrination in many cases) of a meaning to it all. Science and religion - one revealing substance, the other perpetuating imagination (belief before substance). Belief can stretch a long way from "what is" and belief with no substance to offer is a lie of the highest order.
> 
> What do you 'think'?




Pretty well said 

A system of control that plays with minds unable to find their own way because they were not taught to think for themselves in the beginning.

And perhaps "taught" may be at error too.  Allowed to think freely for themselves perhaps.


----------



## Tink (3 December 2016)

So you don't think we need the police and the army -- no laws.

No justice system.

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

Plenty of indoctrination going on in those public schools that are coming out that they can't even read, write or add up.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25851&page=6&p=903407&viewfull=1#post903407


----------



## Tisme (28 March 2017)

http://thegoodlordabove.com/god-finally-releases-bible-2/



> Hey God it's been 2000 years


----------

