There is no God. by oldenglanddry

Quote:
Originally posted by Mordacil:
I am "Christian" but I am deeply fascinated by religion and theology, and try to see what others see themselves at, just because these people are different (christian, athiest, hindu,etc.) doesnt mean that whatever group of thousands of people are all idiots.

...

respect their beliefs, as they should respect yours. respect isnt isolation though, it still seems good to share beliefs so that everyone can grow spiritually or philosophically.

I like you.

Quote:
(no one can ever really know if anyone else is chrisitan...for that matter no one knows if each other exists....yeee!, philosophy, thats why this stuff is so fascinating)

While it isn't quite the same as the wrath of god I should warn you that you can bring great wrath down upon yourself by bring up that fact.

Watch your back.

Good luck and I definitely like the way you think, it is fascinating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 4:48 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Your response is so nonsensically constructed, it's hard to know where to start.

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

First off, I never said their claims were based on facts, but rather their belief was derived from their faith.

Quote:
originally posted by christhecynic:

I'm sorry, I should never assume that someone uses the same version of the English langauge as is used by me because there are so many versions to go around, when I said the words, "You were," I meant, "You were the one claiming your beliefs were based on facts."

If you want to discuss this intelligently, then I'm all for it; however, don't deride me for misunderstanding your post. I can fairly well guarantee there's little you could teach me about the English language, since I have an M.A. in English and I teach freshman composition at a university. I don't know though. Perhaps you're right. Maybe I'm using another version of English, because I always thought "litteral or litterally" was spelled "literal or literally".

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

You responded to, "state these facts please," in response to your claim of facts with talk about the burden of proof. How does the burden of proof relate to the facts which you claimed existed but did not reveal?

Again, this question occured during the context of a larger discussion, and I clearly stated that the burden of proof should be on those who are trying to prove the existence of God. If they want me to follow, then I want some proof. In regard to the facts, I believe I clarified that in my last response. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I really don't care whether it is evidence or fact, I just want to know which claims they back up in this way and which things, fact or evidence, they use to do so.

Again, I already answered this in the last post. Just because it's not the answer you wanted to hear, it doesn't make it any less valid.

Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:

Now let me say something about scientific theory. Scientific theories are technically speaking theories; however, theories are grounded upon years of scientific evidence and are generally accepted in the scientific community as facts until proven otherwise. The Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Relativity etc.. Let's take the "Theory of Evolution". Yes it's a theory, but the work being done by geneticists everyday is solidly grounded in the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, this "theory" is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community as a fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I really don't see how this relates to the large context of the conversation, the smaller context of my post and your response to it, or the even smaller context of your post. I would like to point out that I believe the theories you mentioned are correct and am well aware that they are fairly solidly backed up, which seems to be your point.

That's partially my point, and it also serves, I thought, to provide a clearer understanding of why scientific evidence is the basis for my lack of belief. I expanded upon that in my last response.

Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:

That said, some evidence for my belief that God doesn't exist: The Big Bang Theory and the The Theory of Evolution to name a couple.

Quote:
According to the (last) Pope, head of the Catholic Church and most prominent religious figure of any sort on the planet, friend of the Dalai Lama, friend to Jews, friend of many Protastants, and so forth, the Big Bang was the way in which God created the universe and Evolution is more than just a theory, it is the Truth.

Of course they said that, becuase the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Quote:
Originally popsted by MISBEHAVEN: When these are juxtaposed against the creation myths of any religion, I think science does a more than adequate job of disproving them.

Quote:
Orginally posted by christhecynic:

That thought is not shared by everyone, could you perhaps explain why you believe that? Also, as I will mention in greater depth in a moment, not all people take creation theories as literal truth.

I realize that obviously not everyone shares this perspective; furthermore, I'm well aware that not everyone takes creation stories literally. For me, this does provide some proof that God does not exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I can show you some things that people claim were writen by Kennedy that are false, does that mean there is no Kennedy? I can, far more easily, show you things that actually were writen by Nostradums (he should have stayed a doctor by the way) which are incorrect, does that mean that the man never existed? (Oh how we would have to rewrite history if that were true.)

And you accuse me of making grand leaps! That's a logical fallacy if ever I've heard one. As for the rest of your ramblings, I've made it very clear that I think science not only disproves a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it also disproves a metaphorical interpretation as well: i.e. Big Bang, Evolution etc. This is the way I see it from my perspective. Another Atheist might very well argue it differently.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 5:03 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Thanks for an interesting discussion everyone, but I have to get up early tomorrow. I'll be in my bunk.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 5:17 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Your response is so nonsensically constructed, it's hard to know where to start.

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

First off, I never said their claims were based on facts, but rather their belief was derived from their faith.

Quote:
originally posted by christhecynic:

I'm sorry, I should never assume that someone uses the same version of the English langauge as is used by me because there are so many versions to go around, when I said the words, "You were," I meant, "You were the one claiming your beliefs were based on facts."

If you want to discuss this intelligently, then I'm all for it; however, don't deride me for misunderstanding your post. I can fairly well guarantee there's little you could teach me about the English language, since I have an M.A. in English and I teach freshman composition at a university. I don't know though. Perhaps you're right. Maybe I'm using another version of English, because I always thought "litteral or litterally" was spelled "literal or literally".

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

You responded to, "state these facts please," in response to your claim of facts with talk about the burden of proof. How does the burden of proof relate to the facts which you claimed existed but did not reveal?

Again, this question occured during the context of a larger discussion, and I clearly stated that the burden of proof should be on those who are trying to prove the existence of God. If they want me to follow, then I want some proof. In regard to the facts, I believe I clarified that in my last response. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I really don't care whether it is evidence or fact, I just want to know which claims they back up in this way and which things, fact or evidence, they use to do so.

Again, I already answered this in the last post. Just because it's not the answer you wanted to hear, it doesn't make it any less valid.

Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:

Now let me say something about scientific theory. Scientific theories are technically speaking theories; however, theories are grounded upon years of scientific evidence and are generally accepted in the scientific community as facts until proven otherwise. The Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Relativity etc.. Let's take the "Theory of Evolution". Yes it's a theory, but the work being done by geneticists everyday is solidly grounded in the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, this "theory" is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community as a fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I really don't see how this relates to the large context of the conversation, the smaller context of my post and your response to it, or the even smaller context of your post. I would like to point out that I believe the theories you mentioned are correct and am well aware that they are fairly solidly backed up, which seems to be your point.

That's partially my point, and it also serves, I thought, to provide a clearer understanding of why scientific evidence is the basis for my lack of belief. I expanded upon that in my last response.

Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:

That said, some evidence for my belief that God doesn't exist: The Big Bang Theory and the The Theory of Evolution to name a couple.

Quote:
According to the (last) Pope, head of the Catholic Church and most prominent religious figure of any sort on the planet, friend of the Dalai Lama, friend to Jews, friend of many Protastants, and so forth, the Big Bang was the way in which God created the universe and Evolution is more than just a theory, it is the Truth.

Of course they said that, becuase the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Quote:
Originally popsted by MISBEHAVEN: When these are juxtaposed against the creation myths of any religion, I think science does a more than adequate job of disproving them.

Quote:
Orginally posted by christhecynic:

That thought is not shared by everyone, could you perhaps explain why you believe that? Also, as I will mention in greater depth in a moment, not all people take creation theories as literal truth.

I realize that obviously not everyone shares this perspective; furthermore, I'm well aware that not everyone takes creation stories literally. For me, this does provide some proof that God does not exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I can show you some things that people claim were writen by Kennedy that are false, does that mean there is no Kennedy? I can, far more easily, show you things that actually were writen by Nostradums (he should have stayed a doctor by the way) which are incorrect, does that mean that the man never existed? (Oh how we would have to rewrite history if that were true.)

And you accuse me of making grand leaps! That's a logical fallacy if ever I've heard one. As for the rest of your ramblings, I've made it very clear that I think science not only disproves a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it also disproves a metaphorical interpretation as well: i.e. Big Bang, Evolution etc. This is the way I see it from my perspective. Another Atheist might very well argue it differently.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

ROFL.....LOL!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 5:39 PM

NANITE1018

Well i agree that there is no God. There's no evidence, no proof. Without evidence it's just like Russell's teapot:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

To me, i don't see why people still believe in God when there is so much evil in the world, the various holy texts are not totally internally consistent, and the morals are pretty twisted (the Torah and Bible both advocate the murder of evangelists from other religions). I just don't get it. Why would anyone do that?

And another problem i have with the Christian God (the idea of it) is the Tower of Babel. God fractured humanity to prevent us from doing what we were capable of. The Tower was a symbol of that, we were as gods when we were united (a good message in my opinion, and of course, this is all in the Biblical sense, since Genesis is one solid load of gose anyway) and instead of allowing humanity to reach it's full potential, God stopped it. I don't like that; i have a very strong humanist bent and i hate anything that restricts the potential of humanity or gets in humanity's way (like the concept of God right now, causes dogmatic religions, which are the most important problem, and thereby wars and restricted thinking and bigotry).

So yeah, to me, without evidence, i cannot believe in something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 6:31 PM

CANTTAKESKY

If there were evidence, we wouldn't need to "believe in" it. We'd just point and say, "Hey, it's there."

I believe in God. At least, I call what I believe in, "God." I believe there is a strength and power that carries us when we think we can't go on anymore. I believe we aren't alone, even when we feel lonely. I believe there is good in all of us. I believe freedom is worth fighting and dying for.

It's just like they say in Jaynestown. Faith isn't about "truth" or the specific ideas--it is about what you need to believe in to keep on fighting and to keep on giving in the midst of all the evil and tragedy in this world. What you believe isn't as important as THAT you believe. It means you have chosen an inspiration to hang on to, an answer when you're flying against the headwinds and asking, "What's the point?"

I believe, as a species, all humans have a spiritual hunger for this inspiration, for meaning. We call it the soul, if you will. Some fill this hunger with religious stories and rituals, some fill it with arts and creativity, some fill it with good deeds, some with knowledge. Others deny they have the hunger. But we are all inspired by something, something that makes us silent in awe when we see it. It doesn't matter what language you use to describe it. That thing is one of the many faces of God.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 6:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Your response is so nonsensically constructed, it's hard to know where to start.

I'm glad you've decided to be so civil.

Quote:
If you want to discuss this intelligently, then I'm all for it; however, don't deride me for misunderstanding your post.

Please don't accuse me of doing things which I did not do. I didn't deride you. There are in fact many versions of the English language and in some of them when one says, "They didn't do ____, you did," it means that, "you," did the "____" with all of the pronouns adjusted. For example, "They did not toot their own horn, you did," would mean, "They did not toot their own horn, you did toot your own horn."

In other versions, "They did not toot their own horn, you did," means, "They did not toot their own horn, you tooted their horn." Without thinking I assumed that you were using the same version of English as myself. The assumption was unbased and ethnocentric, I should never have done that.

I am sorry and have already apologized but apparently that wasn't enough for you. Even if you think I should have done more there was no need to be rude about my apology.

Quote:
I can fairly well guarantee there's little you could teach me about the English language, since I have an M.A. in English and I teach freshman composition at a university.

In which case you should be well aware of the variations.

I agree that the only things I can teach you about English are probably things that you already know. They are simple things that anyone with a mild education would know, like the fact that the language used to have four cases and our plural system once included a dual, or that syntax differs from place to place and terms like sand-blind are actually the result of folk-entomology.

The thing is that I wasn't trying to teach you anything, I was just telling you the way parallel structures are used in sentences around here fully understanding, even without knowing your background, that you probably already knew they were used that way in some places. In essence I was telling you more about my location than the language itself.

If you're angry because you think I was using that as an exuse for using a type of counstruction that was unclear I'm sorry you feel that way, I meant it only as explanation.

Quote:
I don't know though. Perhaps you're right. Maybe I'm using another version of English, because I always thought "litteral or litterally" was spelled "literal or literally".

I don't need to be reminded of my habit of double keystrokes, I am well aware of it. Most people are polite enough to ignore "litteral"s and "deffintion"s, however you seem intent on insulting me. I have attempted to remove all double strokes that don't belong, I hope it makes you more civil, I certainly don't see the harm in a few consistently mistyped words when their meaning is clear and the intent of the writing does not include publication.

Quote:
Again, this question occured during the context of a larger discussion, and I clearly stated that the burden of proof should be on those who are trying to prove the existence of God.

Even if the burden of proof only rests with one claiming existence, something I personally disagree with, it still rests with you as you are the one who claimed the existence of facts. More importantly:

Quote:
If they want me to follow, then I want some proof.

But that has not come up, people have not tried to get you to follow them, at least not in the course of recent conversation. Instead they have tried to get you to back up that which you claimed to be true.

Quote:
In regard to the facts, I believe I clarified that in my last response. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

I don't understand what the claims are which are supported by facts so far I have seen only one: the Jewish-Christian creation story is is not literal (I hope this makes you happy, just wastes my time because my bad habit doesn't lessen peoples understanding when uncorrected)

I also don't see how the big bang contradicts the creation story but that is really off to the side of the point.

Quote:
Again, I already answered this in the last post. Just because it's not the answer you wanted to hear, it doesn't make it any less valid.

The answer you gave amounted to, "The claims was the creation stories are incorrect." Surely someone with an M.A. in English who teaches freshman composition at a university can see the problem with that sentence. Unfortunately there is no other way we can phrase it because when asked for the claims you gave only one.

Quote:
Originally posted by MISBEHAVEN:
That said, some evidence for my belief that God doesn't exist: The Big Bang Theory and the The Theory of Evolution to name a couple.

You really haven't explained why though, which is all I'm asking for, I'm not trying to disprove you, just asking for a why.

Quote:
Of course they said that, becuase the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Exactly, the evidence is overwhelming, but your interpretation of it is limited to a fairly small group of people. Remember that if we were to combine all people who agree with you with all of the people who claim it is impossible to make an informed decision about god, with all of the people who simply don’t care with all of the people who are waiting for a sign, with all of the people who believe there is no god for reasons totally unrelated to science, and a few other groups as well you would end up with slightly less than one sixth of the world's population.

So what I'm wondering is why you are right and the majority of the world, which agrees with your facts but not your conclusions, is wrong. What insight do you have and why have you not shared it with the rest of us? I'm not saying you don't have such insight, I'm just wondering what it is, and am mildly curious as to why you're more concerned with burden of proof and hypothetical converters than your own claims.

Quote:
For me, this does provide some proof that God does not exist.

Could you elaborate on exactly why that provides that proof to you? You have done a good job of saying that it does, but thus far you have not successfully communicated, to me at any rate, why it does.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I can show you some things that people claim were written by Kennedy that are false, does that mean there is no Kennedy? I can, far more easily, show you things that actually were written by Nostradums (he should have stayed a doctor by the way) which are incorrect, does that mean that the man never existed? (Oh how we would have to rewrite history if that were true.)

And you accuse me of making grand leaps! That's a logical fallacy if ever I've heard one.

Exactly which part is a logical fallacy and which type of fallacy is it?

I thought I asked a simple question:
you've gone from, "These things which certain people claim are divinely inspired are not the litteral truth," to, "Thus there is no god." How do you make that leap?

I then provided other examples of the same type of leap because according to you the fact that the writings attributed to a certain source were incorrect proves that that source does not exist. (Unless I totally misunderstood you and you were saying that disproving creation myths said to come from god is not a reason to believe there isn't a god.)

If the argument is in fact valid then it will hold regardless of what that source is, thus disproving writings attributed to Nostrdamus would prove that Nostrdamus himself didn't exist. This would go against historical fact and therefore does not seem to hold up, to me at least.

The implication is that disproving writings attributed to a source does not disprove the source's existence.

Obviously this implication does not hinder you so we come back to the question: How do you make that leap?

How do you go from:
Fact: These stories are said to come from a source, god.
Fact: These stories are not representative of the literal truth.

To:
Conclusion: The source they are said to come from does not exist
?

Obviously there is something special going on because if I change the source to something other than god you agree that the leap is grand. What is the special thing that is going on? What makes god so different in this source-writing relationship?

Quote:
As for the rest of your ramblings, I've made it very clear that I think science not only disproves a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it also disproves a metaphorical interpretation as well: i.e. Big Bang, Evolution etc. This is the way I see it from my perspective.

And I am very interested in that perspective, which I do not think you have made clear. If I were not interested I would not be asking you to try to make it more clear.

In what way do you see the big bang and evolution contradicting the metaphorical interpretations of creation stories? Why does, in the case of god, that contradiction mean that the alleged source of the story would not exist?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 6:58 PM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

I'm not quite sure why I feel the need to make this distinction, but here goes: I don't care what any one person, or collection of people, believes. But, when their beliefs cause less-than-good things to happen (i.e. restricting gay couples from gaining the same legal rights as 'straight' married couples, or voting down stem cell research, etc.) I have an issue.

If Fred wants to worship Shiva, that's fine with me. But, if Fred prevents people from access to life-saving operations because of Shiva, that's a problem.

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
So yeah, to me, without evidence, i cannot believe in something.

I have trouble believing that.

You have no evidence that I am not in fact Summer Glau, if I were Summer than Chris the Cynic would not really exist, it would all be a lie, gender, age, height, weight, location, occupation, political and religious views, everything that makes up Chris the Cynic could be fake. Of course I wouldn't have to be Summer, any one of 6 billion people could be making this post and the result would be the same, Chris the Cynic wouldn't really exist.

You have no evidence whatsoever saying that these words are really coming from the person you know of as Chris the Cynic or even that that person exists.

Everything that I have ever laid claim to as being my works or my creation could have several perfectly rational CTC-free explanations and many if not most of those explanations probably involve fewer entities than believing I do exist.

But ask yourself, even without evidence, do you believe I exist?

If you don't then I apologize for my lack of faith, I was wrong about you, and you do indeed not believe in a thing when there is no evidence for it. You'll be the first Fair Witness I ever met and as such I'm proud to meet you, even if it is online and not in person.

But if you do believe, in spite of the lack of proof, that there really is a person behind these posts who is Chris the Cynic and not just someone's second account or a years long prank being played on the people here, then there are some things you can believe without evidence. They're just not as absurd as a teapot where one logically can not be or as out there as god.

-

This post has nothing to do with god, believing in me only requires having a bit of faith in common sense, which is, admittedly, not always a good idea. Common sense says no one would keep a ruse up this long and thus I should exist, the same can not be said for god or the teapot.

I just think it is interesting how much most people believe when they do not have evidence for it. I think it is fair to say that most people here believe in me, at least in my existence, yet, unless we have some impressive stalkers, no one here has any evidence that I exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:11 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
If Fred wants to worship Shiva, that's fine with me. But, if Fred prevents people from access to life-saving operations because of Shiva, that's a problem.

It's an important distinction.

But if Fred wants to do harm to others because of Shiva, you really have a problem with Fred, not Shiva. Cause who knows what Shiva really wants?

People rationalize all sorts of evil. They like to rationalize with science or with religion. Doesn't mean the science or the religion itself is at fault.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:22 PM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
But if Fred wants to do harm to others because of Shiva, you really have a problem with Fred, not Shiva.

Yes, especially since I don't believe in Shiva (or any god-like entities, for that matter.)

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:45 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
So yeah, to me, without evidence, i cannot believe in something.

I have trouble believing that.

You have no evidence that I am not in fact Summer Glau, if I were Summer than Chris the Cynic would not really exist, it would all be a lie, gender, age, height, weight, location, occupation, political and religious views, everything that makes up Chris the Cynic could be fake. Of course I wouldn't have to be Summer, any one of 6 billion people could be making this post and the result would be the same, Chris the Cynic wouldn't really exist.

You have no evidence whatsoever saying that these words are really coming from the person you know of as Chris the Cynic or even that that person exists.

Everything that I have ever laid claim to as being my works or my creation could have several perfectly rational CTC-free explanations and many if not most of those explanations probably involve fewer entities than believing I do exist.

But ask yourself, even without evidence, do you believe I exist?

If you don't then I apologize for my lack of faith, I was wrong about you, and you do indeed not believe in a thing when there is no evidence for it. You'll be the first Fair Witness I ever met and as such I'm proud to meet you, even if it is online and not in person.

But if you do believe, in spite of the lack of proof, that there really is a person behind these posts who is Chris the Cynic and not just someone's second account or a years long prank being played on the people here, then there are some things you can believe without evidence. They're just not as absurd as a teapot where one logically can not be or as out there as god.

-

This post has nothing to do with god, believing in me only requires having a bit of faith in common sense, which is, admittedly, not always a good idea. Common sense says no one would keep a ruse up this long and thus I should exist, the same can not be said for god or the teapot.

I just think it is interesting how much most people believe when they do not have evidence for it. I think it is fair to say that most people here believe in me, at least in my existence, yet, unless we have some impressive stalkers, no one here has any evidence that I exist.

Holy crap! What the

? There's plenty of evidence that you exist, christhecynic, simply no proof. You realize that there's a difference, right? A very important difference? A year of posts which reasonably reflect a single point of view, all ascribed to one "christhecynic" is plenty of evidence that someone using the alias "christhecynic" has been frequenting this board. What the heck else does it suggest? Occam's got a razor says you're most likely you.

Science functions perfectly well without absolute certainty and iron clad irrefutable proof in a lot of areas (most?). If absolute proof of a thing were needed for science to advance, we'd still be sticking twigs into termite mounds.

Gravity is a perfect example of something for which there is constant undeniable evidence but no proof ("gravity" itself is in no way observable, only its consequence--scientists make up a silly particle called a "graviton" to even talk about the thing/stuff/concept).

Sensate creatures proceed by the evidence of our senses; most of us are happy to leave the proofs to the mathematicians.

Even life and death legal matters are not proven absolutely, only "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not beyond any doubt (Johnnie Cochrane notwithstanding), but beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sounds like your polemical reach has exceeded your rhetorical grasp just a bit here.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Maybe links like this are why some people hate me but... does that sound Hindu to anyone else? What little I know about Hinduism tells me that that sounds very Hindu.

Of course what I was taught could be wrong, my teachers were far from infalible.

Seemingly but not actually. Hindu creation does occure a number of times, but Hindu creation cycles occur in linear time, with some time between the Earth (Universe) evaporating and reforming.

I think that the Universe was created once, but by virtue of the creation being it's destruction and vice versa rather than two distinct events (the universe creation and its destruction are the same event) this process can be seen as a loop. Like the theoretical possibillity of a time travel paradox, it only happens once but it's also going round and round.

Viewed from outside our universe I think all you'd see is the singularity.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:30 AM

NANITE1018

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If there were evidence, we wouldn't need to "believe in" it. We'd just point and say, "Hey, it's there."

I believe in God. At least, I call what I believe in, "God." I believe there is a strength and power that carries us when we think we can't go on anymore. I believe we aren't alone, even when we feel lonely. I believe there is good in all of us. I believe freedom is worth fighting and dying for.

It's just like they say in Jaynestown. Faith isn't about "truth" or the specific ideas--it is about what you need to believe in to keep on fighting and to keep on giving in the midst of all the evil and tragedy in this world. What you believe isn't as important as THAT you believe. It means you have chosen an inspiration to hang on to, an answer when you're flying against the headwinds and asking, "What's the point?"

I believe, as a species, all humans have a spiritual hunger for this inspiration, for meaning. We call it the soul, if you will. Some fill this hunger with religious stories and rituals, some fill it with arts and creativity, some fill it with good deeds, some with knowledge. Others deny they have the hunger. But we are all inspired by something, something that makes us silent in awe when we see it. It doesn't matter what language you use to describe it. That thing is one of the many faces of God.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

Well i do believe in something: human potential, reason, and science. You might say i'm a humanist i guess. I believe in a better world, in liberty, in rationality, in the power of the human mind to understand the universe. So I have something to keep me going when times are tough (although when it seems hopeless, it'd probably be my own unwillingness to die and stop existing that would keep me going).

I also think everyone has to believe in some ideal, i just wish people believed in more rational and backed-by-evidence ideals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:37 AM

NANITE1018

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
So yeah, to me, without evidence, i cannot believe in something.

I have trouble believing that.

You have no evidence that I am not in fact Summer Glau, if I were Summer than Chris the Cynic would not really exist, it would all be a lie, gender, age, height, weight, location, occupation, political and religious views, everything that makes up Chris the Cynic could be fake. Of course I wouldn't have to be Summer, any one of 6 billion people could be making this post and the result would be the same, Chris the Cynic wouldn't really exist.

You have no evidence whatsoever saying that these words are really coming from the person you know of as Chris the Cynic or even that that person exists.

Everything that I have ever laid claim to as being my works or my creation could have several perfectly rational CTC-free explanations and many if not most of those explanations probably involve fewer entities than believing I do exist.

But ask yourself, even without evidence, do you believe I exist?

If you don't then I apologize for my lack of faith, I was wrong about you, and you do indeed not believe in a thing when there is no evidence for it. You'll be the first Fair Witness I ever met and as such I'm proud to meet you, even if it is online and not in person.

But if you do believe, in spite of the lack of proof, that there really is a person behind these posts who is Chris the Cynic and not just someone's second account or a years long prank being played on the people here, then there are some things you can believe without evidence. They're just not as absurd as a teapot where one logically can not be or as out there as god.

-

This post has nothing to do with god, believing in me only requires having a bit of faith in common sense, which is, admittedly, not always a good idea. Common sense says no one would keep a ruse up this long and thus I should exist, the same can not be said for god or the teapot.

I just think it is interesting how much most people believe when they do not have evidence for it. I think it is fair to say that most people here believe in me, at least in my existence, yet, unless we have some impressive stalkers, no one here has any evidence that I exist.

Chris, you may very well not exist. How do i know? I have no proof. But you claim to be someone, you don't appear to be lying, and all of the evidence (the background, the posts, everything) backs the hypothesis that you are an actual person. Now I have two hypotheses, one that you are an individual, the other that you are a creation, an imaginary person created by someone else. Occam's Razor dictates that if you have two hypotheses that both explain the data equally well than the one with fewer assumptions is most likely true. Now, what does that mean for this case? Well theory 1 has one assumption: there's someone who is christhecynic out in the world, and no one else is involved with the posts, you represent one person. The other requires that there be someone else, who desires to be able to say things without people knowing it was them AND that they created an elaborate back-story and POV and style of writing that appears to come from some individual person. Which has fewer assumptions? Obviously it's choice one, therefore the most likely explanation for the data is that you are an actual individual.

So i accept the hypothesis that you are an individual person, not some dummy account or an imaginary person or something; until such time as contradictory evidence arises (i couldn't think of anything that would though). I can't prove it, but i think it's true based on the evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:52 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I'm sorry, but the Church lost all crediblity with me when they started abusing children

I feel the same way about booksellers. I prosecuted someone who works in a bookstore for taking pictures of naked kids...that means all persons who have ever worked in a bookstore anywhere must be guilty of the same crime. And the companies they work for...they never did a thing (except fire them when the charges were made public). I'll never shop there again and all of you out there reading books, your just fooling yourself, TV is the only real information medium, books don't really exist.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:00 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
I think we all know the world is billions of years old, not thousands. It was created over billions of years, not in seven days. I think it safe to say man wasn't created from a pile of dirt, nor woman from rib. Do I really need to go on here?

God created time. And deep down all matter is composed of the same elements. Ancient Sumarian uses the same word for "life" and "rib" so perhaps its a translation issue.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:00 AM

That analogy has nothing to do with what your responding to. Do you have to work at being unable to grasp a simple point so astoundingly or does it come naturally?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:15 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it,

Wait! Are you saying that God put the teapot there? Is it God's teapot? Is God a teapot? Did he create the teapot and thus create all teapots or did man create the teapot and God simply remove it to its heavinly position?

And if there is no God, how do you explain the teapot's being there in the first place? Unless you are arguing that stellar teapots are naturally occurring. Thats crazy, although I think they did a steller teapot episode on Stargate SG1...Season 3 I think...

Is there tea in the teapot?

How do we know its a teapot? Perhaps its something else and the teapots we have created in its image are merely our limited human minds attempting to recreate that which we can never understand?

And then there is this:

Quote:

But some modern astronomers (while having afternoon tea?) decided that the central part of Sagittarius resembles a teapot:

A "spout" formed by connecting the stars Al Nasi, Kaus Media and Kaus Australis (stars gamma, delta and epsilon of the constellation);

A "handle" shaped by the stars designated zeta (Ascella), tau, sigma (Nunki) and phi; and a "lid" indicated by Kaus Borealis (designated lambda).

When these eight stars are connected by imaginary lines, a "teapot" seems to emerge

All hail the teapot of God! That from which all tea flows...

Quote:

Tempest in a ‘teapot’? Cult followers arrested
Malaysia arrests dozens who follow cult built around giant teapot
Updated: 9:46 a.m. ET July 20, 2005
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Malaysian authorities on Wednesday arrested 58 followers of a bizarre cult built around a giant teapot, two days after the sect’s headquarters was torched.

The official Bernama news agency said those arrested were aged between 20 and 60 years and included a New Zealand woman.

Cult leader, Ayah Pin, was not among those arrested and was believed to have gone into hiding after about 30-35 assailants armed with machetes and Molotov cocktails attacked the commune on Monday, torching a car and the roof of a building and scorching the giant teapot itself.

I think all this teapot talk is just brewing up trouble...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:07 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
I also think everyone has to believe in some ideal, i just wish people believed in more rational and backed-by-evidence ideals.

Is that an ideal you believe in: a world where only rational and evidence-based ideals exist? And is this ideal itself rational and evidence-based?

I like vanilla ice cream. I wished everybody else also likes vanilla ice cream. It's an ideal that keeps me going in tough times.

Is that rational? Is it evidence-based? See, my point is that what you wish for, what you need to believe in, what keeps you going, DOESN'T HAVE to be rational and evidence based. Your inspiration can be whatever you want, even if it seems silly to other people. It's not for others to judge.

Science, BTW, is not religion's competitor. They are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of scientists who are devoutly religious. I'm a scientist myself. My husband is a scientist. God is very important to both of us.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:20 AM

Whew! Much good discussion since last night! And some mud slinging too, that's a shame.

Poor Rugbug - you've got people jumping all over you! I'm trying to make sure that everything I say is just my little world view, and I'm not trying to change yours. I hope you know that!

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Mal4Prez: I don't think God experiences emotions the way we do. Everything about man has been corrupted. Our emotions are corruptions of what they should be and what I would imagine (although can't prove) God experiences. For instance, we don't love selflessly or unconditionally. Our anger is very, very rarely righteous...most of the time it is self-righteous. (and calling what the Pres is doing anything akin to righteous anger is really distorting what is going on. He is not acting out of righteousness. He is acting out of politic). I'm not even sure I could ever experience true righteous anger is just too much "dark" in me.

Not sure what to make of this comment:
Quote:

Wrong as the superior but oh so distant being defines it. That's so limited, and leaves room for people to mess with it in very damaging ways. (Hello pedophiles!)

Can you clarify?

This has been gone over last night by CTC (nice first post CTC - but I can't even follow the spat you're having with Misbehaven. Yikes! Would two just kiss and make up or something?)

But - to restate my way - Organized religion can be used as a blank check to allow damaging behavior combined with a sense of moral superiority. The problem is not precisely with the church, it's with the individuals who misuse it. For example - I don't believe GWB is acting purely out of politics. Those behind him are, but Dubya (IMHO) thinks he's taking the best path toward safeguarding the physical and economic well-being of US citizens, by trying to end terrorism and control the oil supply.

The problem is, he is so set on what he's doing, on it being the righteous path and supported by God (who talks to him - let's not forget that!) that he does not listen to criticism, and he thinks his way is the ONLY way. Anyone who disagrees with Dubya is amoral, un-American, and probably even anti-God. This is super dangerous, because he is completely blind to the pitfalls, and doesn't see how his actions are likely to bite him and LOTS of other people in the ass!

But this behavior is encouraged to some extent by the Christian God. He passes judgement and doles out vengeance and anger, or love and forgiveness, as he sees fit. Because He's in power and He's the Boss. And we're supposed to accept it without a thought! We're supposed to hand our babies over to be killed if He asks! (Abraham and Isaac, anyone?) And we're promised something intangible, this afterlife thing, in return.

I just don't see the hands of truly loving divinity in this. It's a rotten deal, and I can only see it as the construction of men who were in power nearly 2000 years ago, who distorted the message of a truly great man who'd died a couple hundred years before the Bible was written.

Kudos to you Rugbug, if you pick out the good things in there! I'm certainly not saying that there aren't good things in the Bible and in religion, just that too many people approach it blindly and don't feel personally responsibility for their own beliefs and actions. It's exactly what CTC posted above about doing something right versus doing something because God said you should.

The pedophiles thing - that was a problem inside the church, the hiding of that scandal. As you say, Rugbug, the church is political, and it starts mixing messages when it worries about it's own survival. I'm extremely leary of anything that combines politics with the power to judge people's souls and define their personal beliefs.

That scandal wasn't the best thing for me to bring up... there are better ones... Let's see - sex. We can't have premarital sex, can't masturbate, can't have birth control. So here we have an organization telling us our sex drives are faulty and must be controlled. We must make babies - that's it. To hell with that! If we were created by some loving divinity, I think it'd be saying that sex is enjoyable (when done right) and our naked bodies are wonderful, honorable things, whether babies are made or not.

Rugbug - this makes me think of what you said about our emotions being "corruptions of what they should be." That saddens me! Why can't we love our faulted selves instead of always being ashamed?

Or not allowing women to be priests... can it be any more archaic? How can anyone believe that an organization that denies the spiritual worth of half the species has any realistic interest in the happiness or fulfillment of real, individual people? I feel like my happiness, as a 34 year woman with no plans of child-bearing, is absolutely meaningless to the Church.

Damn - I've written one those posts that's too long to actually be read all the way through. Sorry about that! I'll just take a doughnut break now.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'll just step in here with my own personal experience.
______________________________________________
|
| I find NOT believing in god to be a relief.
|_____________________________________________

There's no thought in the back of my mind that maybe if only I did (X) rite /feeling /belief more or better then maybe possibly god(s) would listen. There are no hidden hoops, magical gotchas or unknown costs.

And I hope that everyone at some point in their lives has known what it is to be in harmony with themselves and the world. I believe it comes from normal brain function - the feel good signal fMRI detects when people co-operate and the feel-good signal of trust. I don't need a daddy in the sky threatening to spank me in order to follow the good.

The world is wysisyg. You see what you see, do what you can, and rest easy that your visible efforts, even if small, are meaningful.

I like a world where there are no anxiety-producing hidden agendas, where one follows the good from the inside, and where actual work counts.
------------------------------------

That doesn't address whether there is (a) god(s) or not. But in NT religions, belief is specifically about what you chose to trust in the total absence of evidence. So it will never be settled by argument. You either believe, or you don't. IMHO

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
Chris, you may very well not exist. How do i know? I have no proof.

Obviously but my point is that you don't have evidence either, a point you clearly disagree with. I probably shouldn't side track us by explaining why but since I brought it up I'll give it at least one shot.

Quote:
But you claim to be someone, you don't appear to be lying,

with you so far.

Quote:
and all of the evidence (the background, the posts, everything) backs the hypothesis that you are an actual person.

And that’s where you lose me.

Quote:
Now I have two hypotheses, one that you are an individual, the other that you are a creation, an imaginary person created by someone else.

This seems to me a lot like god, so maybe talking about this isn't as off topic as I thought. Then again it could also sound like aliens.

There are two possibilities:
I am/god is/aliens are an actual individual/actual individuals the other is that I am/god is/aliens are a creation, an imaginary entity/entities created by someone else.

In all three cases I have a long series of actions attributed to the thing in question, and in all three cases there are other explanations for those things ranging from hoax to the planet Venus.

Quote:
Occam's Razor dictates that if you have two hypotheses that both explain the data equally well than the one with fewer assumptions is most likely true.

In fact it makes no statement about which one is most likely true, all that it does say is, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem," (though sometimes the spelling varies as I've also seen, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate," and a couple of others) which is very different. I mean when you read what it actually says it is talking about what should be done when creating a theory, it doesn't even mention the truth or accuracy of said theory.

Then we move from that to saying the theory that is more in line with the idea that we don't multiply entities sine neccesitate is the one that science will accept. It does not say the other is wrong because if there were a way to know the other was wrong we wouldn't need the thing to make the decision. It does not even say the other is more likely to be wrong.

I bring this up because a lot of people get this confused, Occam's Razor is a way of choosing which theory is more scientific, not which theory is more likely to be correct. It is in no way related to truth.

This has no bearing on the rest of the conversation, but I couldn't just sit back and let you go on having an incorrect version of the razor, I'd feel bad about myself for not correcting a friend before an asshole came along and insulted you about it.

Einstein actually felt the need to point out that the simplest thing is not necessarily the most correct when he said about his theory of Relativity, "In my opinion the theory here is the logically simplest relativistic field theory that is at all possible. But this does not mean that nature might not obey a more complex theory." He, of course, went on to say, "In my view, such more complicated systems and their combinations should be considered only if there exist physical-empirical reasons to do so."

That is what the Razor is all about, more complex theories might be true, and the Razor does not say they stand any less of a chance of being true, but even so they will be rejected until there is reason to accept them. The difference between acceptance and truth is important, at least from my perspective.

Quote:
Now, what does that mean for this case? Well theory 1 has one assumption: there's someone who is christhecynic out in the world, and no one else is involved with the posts, you represent one person. The other requires that there be someone else, who desires to be able to say things without people knowing it was them AND that they created an elaborate back-story and POV and style of writing that appears to come from some individual person. Which has fewer assumptions?

To be totally honest, to me, the second one does. That one says someone created a hoax, you could break down the methods of the hoax if you wanted and call each one an assumption, but that leaves me with a bitter taste in my life, as if we took inertia, “an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in uniform motion unless acted on by a force,” and then said that, since it covers all objects in the universe, each individual object in the universe represents one assumption in the theory.

I tend to think that a universal, that being, "All things in/about ____ are such an such," as a single assumption. So, "Chris the Cynic is a hoax," roughly translates to, "All things about Chris the Cynic are hoaxes," which I would call a single assumption covering back story (which really isn’t too elaborate, how much have I told you about myself?) point of view and style of writing. Just like assuming I exist and am who I say I am covers back story, point of veiw, and style of writing.

Clearly you disagree.

And that assumption doesn't require anything about the person doing the faking, it need not even be a person though I would agree that believing there is a hamster pretending to be me typing this up would multiply entities unnecessarily. Typing hamster is a big assumption.

The on the other hand what do you need to do to believe that there is a me in the world. Well first off there must be a person to whom the account of christhecynic belongs as a main account, that's assumption one. Second that person must be giving an accurate representation of himself in his posts, assumption 2. And third that person must still be around and doing it, i.e. it isn't a simple, "Hey, he left his computer with, "Log me in automatically, I'm gonna use this account to research the, 'Internet Theology,' paper I'm going to spend the next three years writing," or whatnot. That third one might not seem like a big deal but it is an important one. If I were to drop dead and my friend Alex were to take over the account and pretend to be me, which is the kind of thing he might do, the only Chris the Cynic who would exist would be in the form of the question, "What would Chris say?" in his mind.

So to recap, to believe I don't exist we assume:
1 It's a hoax
To believe that I do exist we say:
1 There is a person who has this as a main account.
2 That person is honest about themselves and their beliefs (in other words background and point of view).
3 That person is still the one using the account.
(I suppose you could say still around, I mean if someone else is typing this in my name while I’m out getting lunch I still exist, but if someone else is typing this in my name and I no longer hold any of these beliefs or anything that connects me to the personality of Chris the Cynic I don’t exist in the way most people think and if the one who believed these things is actually dead and someone else is typing this I think we can be fairly sure that Chris the Cynic doesn’t exist the way most think.)

Quote:
Obviously it's choice one, therefore the most likely explanation for the data is that you are an actual individual.

There's that, "most likely," again. Occam's Razor doesn't distinguish based on levels of likely, instead on levels of usefulness.

It is useful to accept the theory with the least assumptions if it is indistinguishable from the one that makes more in testable ways, that is that they agree with the same evidence and predict the same things.

It is no more useful to accept any of the other theories, which, while they are equal in terms of agreeing with evidence and predictions, require more assumptions. Since it is no more useful, and it is more bulky, the theory as a whole is less useful (you can think of it as a use-assumption ratio if you like.)

Nothing about likely.

-

Slightly more on topic the reason that you lost me is that what I just read seemed to say:
It is more likely to believe in something's existence than a hoax when there is inconclusive evidence attributed to it. (Note that when I say, “inconclusive evidence,” I do not mean a lack of evidence I mean that there is in fact evidence however that evidence falls short of conclusive evidence, nothing to poke for example.)

I'm not going to try an analogy because I'm almost entirely sure I misunderstood. I would like you to elaborate though, on the other hand since this is off topic maybe you shouldn't. It's up to you I guess.

Quote:
So i accept the hypothesis that you are an individual person, not some dummy account or an imaginary person or something;

I'm glad you do, someday I'm going to say that and someone's going to say, "You don't exist, you're just ..." whatever. And that might be an annoying day, but I will have met someone who doesn't take things for granted, and that might be interesting.

Quote:
until such time as contradictory evidence arises (i couldn't think of anything that would though).

I couldn't either, guess that makes me non-falsifiable.

Quote:
I can't prove it, but i think it's true based on the evidence.

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying then, I thought you were saying, "I can't believe a thing without evidence of its existence," and now I think what you meant was, "I can't believe a thing without evidence that might support its existence." I know the difference seems small, and is small, but it’s a difference none the less.

If I got that right then I'm glad you cleared it up. Though if that is the case I wonder where you draw the line on supporting existence.

I mean if thirty people all told you a blond guy just walked through the room while you were out I think you would, naturally, believe it to be true unless you had reason to think otherwise. But if those same thirty people all said god just walked through the room I'd think you would, quite naturally, not believe them.

(If that's not true then sorry, my oops.)

Yet if we assume these people are capable of telling the difference between god and something else (they might not be) then you have the same evidence for both cases.

Or if you read something that says, "Depressing and pointless, here is a classic chris the cynic short," you'd probably believe that I wrote it, though you might wonder about why in some cases I capitalize my name and in others I don't. If, on the other hand, you read something that says, "This was written by God/Jesus/Jo-Jo of the Fourth Planet/King Arthur/Alexander the Great," you might be a bit more skeptical even if it was one that you know exists.

(Again, if that's not true then sorry, my oops.)

Yet again you have the same evidence both ways, a simple claim of authorship within the work itself.

Personally I distinguish based on what makes sense, which is very non-scientific. If I have equal evidence for two things but one simply makes sense and the other seems outlandish I'll be more inclined to accept the evidence for simply based on, "There's no reason not to believe it," and point out how flimsy the evidence is for the other because it isn't enough to convince me.

For example when I see online a story that is supposed to have been written by Innocence Maintained I tend to think she did indeed write it, unless I have reason not to, in spite of the fact that if I were to see online a story that is supposed to have been written by god I tend to reject that idea due to lack of proof when both have the same amount of evidence for them.

Do you work the same way or do you have a more logical, or at least less subjective, way of evaluating your evidence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:20 AM

PAGANPAUL

I just wanted to say that for the most part this has remained a civil and interesting discussion with various belief systems being represented. PLEASE, can we keep it that way?

There is no need for personal attacks on each other. Please respect that other people are entitled to believe in a manner other than your own.

No one person owns the license on truth.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled topic...

* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:29 AM

MISBEHAVEN

CTC,

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because our discussion is rapidly degenerating. You obviously believe that I have insufficiently aswered your questions, and I clearly think your questions are redundant. So, we seem to be at an impasse, which I seriously doubt we are going to resolve with further posts. For my rudeness, I apologize; however, I thought you were making a snide remark to me, as I am not normally inclined to insulting others. Again, we obviously have a failure to communicate effectively with one another. That said, there remains plenty of other people here, and I feel certain that we would both find it more productive to discuss this topic with some of them. Take care, CTC.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't need a daddy in the sky threatening to spank me in order to follow the good.

Yay! I like that!

And let's hear it for peace!

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:14 AM

HKCAVALIER

Psychologically, developmentally, children have gods: their parents. A child sees in a parent a perfect ruler of reality; a loving, infalible higher power. If such a "god" punishes the child, the child will naturally internalize the punishment and assume that it was deserved, that the "god" is "rightious." Even if such a parent merely hurts the child out of negligence, the child will naturally construe it as a "just punishment" for some imagined "sin."

This kind of identification with the parent at all costs is a natural survival mechanism. Of course any parent can tell you that for some months around the age of 2 and for several years in puberty (at the very least), it is natural for a child to "call b.s." on all that.

"You're not the boss of me!"

"I hate you!"

"I wish I'd never been born!"

"I wish I was adopted!"

This kind of outburst is normal and necessary for a the child to mature and fully individuate. If a child does not go through these "rebelious phases," it's likely to create all kinds of trouble down the line.

Quite apart from the issue of whether God ultimately exists or not, there's an argument to be made here that people's belief in God is often reflective of an immature relationship to reality. Many folks, it would seem, when faced with the ultimate falibility and frailty of their real parents still feel the need for a perfect loving caretaker and so project these needs onto God.

In some ways God serves their purposes much better than a parent ever could, because real flesh and blood parents will eventually disappoint; while the special neither-here-nor-there nature of God guarentees that their projection of perfection will never be falsified. As long as God is the perfect father of a perfect dead guy, who nonetheless follows us around unseen and loves us in ways we can never prove to anyone, we, like happy infants, can assume all misfortune is deserved and all pleasure is a gift from the Almighty. Some Christians, for instance, apparently look at the people dying by the tens of thousands in the Middle East and rejoice in God's Providence. Obviously, a belief in God can be a powerful tool to comfort the mind when faced with senseless man-made atrocity.

So infantile needs can be projected onto the universe and foster a belief in a loving God. And adolescent beliefs can be projected onto the universe and foster an aggressive atheism. But developmentally many people do manage to reach psychological maturity and autonomy; many of us come to understand our parents as friends and as equals, helpers along the way. I have to say that in my own experience, the majority of theists I have known who went through a thorough atheistic phase in their lives have been a good deal more sensible and responsible in their beliefs than the majority of belly-button Christians I've had to deal with.

Perhaps one day, we as a race will come to an understanding of the Earth and the Universe not as a Mother from whom we may take and take and take until she's used up ("Earth?" "Used up?" Where have I heard that before?), or a cold and neglegent absentee father whom we must investigate and expose, but as friends and helpers along the way who deserve our respect and protection.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:17 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

I have to say that, snarking and emotional trauma aside, this is the most interesting and informed debate on this subject I've read on the net. In fact, it beats most of the debates on God I came accross in college. I'm constantly surprised by just how intelligent and insightful the posters on this site are. It's a great place to hang out and talk about life's great mysteries.

That's all. Just sharin' the love, like we Hippies do...

More animations available at http://desktophippie.googlepages.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:57 AM

Well, after a long evening filled with car troubles that spilled into this morning, I've made my way back here. Let's see if I can answer a few things that have been directed my way:

Citizen: My problem with your talk of opposites was that you said they HAVE to exist together...and then went further to say they had to exist together in the same being. The only conclusion of your statement was that God is both good and evil. I disagree that the opposites must exist together.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Poor Rugbug - you've got people jumping all over you! I'm trying to make sure that everything I say is just my little world view, and I'm not trying to change yours. I hope you know that!

No worries mal4prez.... I'm not taking anything personally.

Quote:

Can you clarify?

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
This has been gone over last night by CTC (nice first post CTC

The problem is, he is so set on what he's doing, on it being the righteous path and supported by God (who talks to him - let's not forget that!) that he does not listen to criticism, and he thinks his way is the ONLY way. Anyone who disagrees with Dubya is amoral, un-American, and probably even anti-God.

But this behavior is encouraged to some extent by the Christian God. He passes judgement and doles out vengeance and anger, or love and forgiveness, as he sees fit. Because He's in power and He's the Boss. And we're supposed to accept it without a thought! We're supposed to hand our babies over to be killed if He asks! (Abraham and Isaac, anyone?) And we're promised something intangible, this afterlife thing, in return.

Ah, I guess I don't think God is encouraging blind belief in anything, not even him and especially not another man.

As for GWB, I'm not sure you can blame his personality defects on religion. There have been plenty of presidents who have been believers and who have lead well. The best leaders I've ever known, in the church or out, listen to others and know that they are fallible. They are interesting in all sides of the argument, etc. Dubya is just Dubya.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Let's see - sex. We can't have premarital sex, can't masturbate, can't have birth control. So here we have an organization telling us our sex drives are faulty and must be controlled. We must make babies - that's it. To hell with that! If we were created by some loving divinity, I think it'd be saying that sex is enjoyable (when done right) and our naked bodies are wonderful, honorable things, whether babies are made or not.

Rugbug - this makes me think of what you said about our emotions being "corruptions of what they should be." That saddens me! Why can't we love our faulted selves instead of always being ashamed?

Well, again, the birth control thing and sex for procreation only is Catholic, so I don't believe in that...nor do I believe there is a biblical basis for those doctrines. Sex was meant to be enjoyable, to bring two people together and to strengthen their bond as well as make the babies. Ideally, I think that would be within the context of marriage or a similarly committed relationship. IMO, people have learned to minimize the emotional aspects of sex so they can participate more often. Sex lite, so to speak. All the pleasure without the pesky emotions to get in the way.

As for corrupt emotions, I did not mean that we should live in shame, but rather that we don't experience the emotions in the truest sense. What we experience as "love" is only 1/2 of what God experiences as love. In Christian terms, our emotions are experienced 'post-fall' (introduction of sin into the world) when a more perfect experience would have been 'pre-fall.'

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Or not allowing women to be priests... can it be any more archaic? How can anyone believe that an organization that denies the spiritual worth of half the species has any realistic interest in the happiness or fulfillment of real, individual people?

I agree with you. But this isn't necessarily a biblical thing. I like to think Jesus was a radical feminist for his time. He was always valuing women equal to men. There were even early church leaders who were women.

One thing that gripes me to no end about many churches is that women are allowed to be children's pastors, but can't teach adults. I find that ridiculous and arbitrary.... If a women is qualified and capable of teaching a child (and who gets to decide at what age children should no longer be taught by women), she is qualified and capable of teaching adults.
I have many women friends who are in "parachurch" organizations and they are some of the best teachers (aka pastors) I know.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
As long as God is the perfect father of a perfect dead guy, who nonetheless follows us around unseen and loves us in ways we can never prove to anyone, we, like happy infants, can assume all misfortune is deserved and all pleasure is a gift from the Almighty.

Take a look at the book of Job. All the spiritual leaders thought that Job's misfortune was because he deserved it. Both Job and God knew otherwise.

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

RugBug

Quote:
Well, after a long evening filled with car troubles that spilled into this morning, I've made my way back here.

Car troubles - beastly.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:03 AM

ANTIMASON

the only thing i would add is that in Christianity, the #1 commandment is "love your God above all others, and love your neighbor as yourself. this is the fullfillment of the Law". to me, that leaves absolutely no room for murder, suppression, bigotry, indifference, or any other term that identifies contempt or negligence.

so when i hear that someone who claims to believe in God is breaking this ultimate rule, i feel that they are not accurately representing the word of God, and the natural laws of the universe;rather they are in defiance of God

if Jesus says that the word of God is our sword of protection, that means that through love, reason and logic are we to convert are enemies, not through murder. their are universal truths, such as treat others as you want to be treated(carma), dont have sexual relations with family members, respect your elders etc. many religions share these same truths, because they are divine laws of the universe... and Christianity doesnt have a monopoly on them.

but others, such as love your enemy, and pray for those who persecute you tend to go against Mans natural instincts..and are hardly common sense. Christians believe that this age is not of the Father, but of Satan, and mans nature is fallen, so our instincts must be corrected to understand that reality is an illusion, and that life is a physical test and a stepping stone to eternity. Love is what the world lacks, and love is what religion and spirituality teach as fundemental to peace

to me, God is a force that exists in and above everything in existence; he may not be some old grey bearded guy as the stereotype likes to suggest. but i do believe this force manifested itself, in human form as Jesus, in all his perfection, so that we may know how to relate to such an all-perfect being. the miracles performed by Jesus, which are documented even by first century Jews who denied the guy, and his ressurection, are proof to us that death is not an obstacle, and that there is more to life than what is seen in the physical dimension

if science believes there is something like 11 or whatever possible dimensions, whos to say that this entity that we call God does not exist in the final, all encompassing dimension; which qualifies him(it)as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? im not sure that can be disproven, so whos to say that such an entity does not exist, given what so many of our ancestors believed unquestionably from personal experiences?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Citizen: My problem with your talk of opposites was that you said they HAVE to exist together...and then went further to say they had to exist together in the same being. The only conclusion of your statement was that God is both good and evil. I disagree that the opposites must exist together.

Then what was the big "stop comparing western god with eastern religion" thing about when I was doing nothing of the sort?

My postulate was actually that 'Evil' is 'Good' because it is part of the creative process, without it Good is meaningless, Evil is done to allow good to exist (the light only shines in the darkness). It is only our shallow narrow vision and compartmentalising that can't see that Evil can have a purpose.

This concept isn't all that remote to Christians, God moves in mysterious ways...

Which is why the only conclusion is not that god must be good and evil, that is your conclusion but certainly not the only one.

I'm not saying that god is good and evil, but that good and evil MAYBE OUR inflections on gods actions depending on what those may be because we can't hope to understand them in our shortened singular linear existance.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:08 AM

DUKKATI

If there is no God then there is no Satan.

So if no God then no good.

If no Satan then no bad.

So if no bad and no good then where are we at?

Is it just sick minds that do things to hurt others?
Is it just sick minds that try to help those who have been hurt by the other sick minded people?

Building prisons to keep sick minded people for doing something would be nuts cause why would you put some one in prison for not doing any thing wrong?

If there were a drug invented to help sick minded people we would all be on it and the manufacturer of the drug would be the largest Monopoly in the universe.

Things are not getting better no matter how much you say it is not.

Unless your a person who does nothing. If you do nothing at all then you maybe OK. But sooner or later some sick minded person would think you were worthless and not hire you so then you have to get on welfare and then the sick minded people would think to themselves " Hey that lazy son of a bitch don't do anything and he gets money for nothin' I want to get money for nothin, so I will not work any more ".
Soon the whole Universe would want some thing for nuthin and then the even more sick minded people would start killing the less sick minded and the ones who don't do nothing to get what ever they can of whats left over.

OH CRAP!!!! Now I got a headache.

I've been through the system.
It don't work.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:10 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
im not sure that can be disproven, so whos to say that such an entity does not exist, given what so many of our ancestors believed unquestionably from personal experiences?

But, conversely, I'm not sure that can be proven, so who's to say that such an entity does exist? It's all about perception. After all, perception = reality.

I love being an existentialist...

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:14 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
If there is no God then there is no Satan.

So if no God then no good.

If no Satan then no bad.

This assumes that God is good and Satan is bad, So I'll just ignore that part - and, in fact, the whole rest of the post.

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DukKati:
So if no God then no good.
If no Satan then no bad.

Yeah, I'm not buying this. Not a bit. Sorry DukKati!

Good and bad clearly exist, though definitions may vary widely. The question is whether they are attributed to some divine being(s) or if they are inherent parts of nature, or... *fill in your own theory here*

Rugbug - I like how you think. If more religious people thought like you, the world would be a happier place!

Isn't that the real problem though - no matter what religion or political system we come up with, somebody in the world's gonna screw it up. Best to have systems that allow for that. Checks and balances.

I'm tangenting - it's time to go home!

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug: I disagree that the opposites must exist together.
Then what was the big "stop comparing western god with eastern religion" thing about when I was doing nothing of the sort?

My postulate was actually that 'Evil' is 'Good' because it is part of the creative process, without it Good is meaningless, Evil is done to allow good to exist (the light only shines in the darkness). It is only our shallow narrow vision and compartmentalising that can't see that Evil can have a purpose.

Evil cannot be good. Hot cannot be cold. Left cannot be right.

I never said that evil can't have a purpose. Without evil, there is no recognizing good. (Look, we agree on that

) Yes, good can come of evil (the whole crucifixion, for instance.) but that still doesn't make the original evil an act of 'good' God. Evil is a by-product of free will, not a component of God.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Which is why the only conclusion is not that god must be good and evil, that is your conclusion but certainly not the only one.

Hey now, I don't think that was my conclusion.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not saying that god is good and evil, but that good and evil MAYBE OUR inflections on gods actions depending on what those may be because we can't hope to understand them in our shortened singular linear existance.

My point was that God does not have to be good AND evil. He can be solely good, IMO. This coin only has one side (to use your analogy). It is entirely made up of good. Evil is neither in God nor of him. He doesn't cause evil and it isn't just our labelling an act evil that makes us think it is not of God. Suffering is suffering, not two ways about it. God doesn't cause suffering, but he does allow it.

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Suffering is suffering, not two ways about it. God doesn't cause suffering, but he does allow it.

Dang! Still here...

So, why does God allow suffering? (Not being a smartass, just trying to understand your view!)

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Rugbug - I like how you think. If more religious people thought like you, the world would be a happier place!

Uh, oh. Does that mean I'm a bad Christian?

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Isn't that the real problem though - no matter what religion or political system we come up with, somebody in the world's gonna screw it up. Best to have systems that allow for that. Checks and balances.

True, that.

I'm off to pick up my car. $500 isn't much for a new battery and fuel system flush, right?

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:55 AM

TRISTAN

Alright, I wanted to stay out of this, I really did. I am not angered, nor disgusted, nor anything. I have a question reagarding the "free will" concept. This will be based on a few assumptions, so please bear with me for a bit; this is something that has plagued me, and maybe I can get an intelligent answer from the Christians in here.
Free will is god granting humans a choice in every aspect of their lives. This is completely unlike pre-destination, where everything is writ, nothing you do can change your destiny. Assuming free will exists, and humans do bad things that are blamed on this concept, from where does it originate? According to some, god created all things. This means everything, am I right? This would include thought and deed; all possible outcomes to everything a human is faced with has to have been created by god. If this is in fact true, there is no "free will"; humans just have a pool of pre-made decisions to draw from...good or evil, they have been created by god. Any arguements that "satan has a hand in it, too" will lead back to the fact that god created everything...including satan. If this is not so, then god is not the creator he is put up to be, and is merely another player in things.

Ok, flame away, for I am sure I will get a few of those. For those Christians in here interested in answering, I thank you in advance. I am an odd duck in that I can get along with almost anyone despite their beliefs (or lack of), as long as those beliefs are not foisted upon me.
Thanks for listening.

______________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Evil cannot be good. Hot cannot be cold. Left cannot be right.

You have a left side and you have a right side, are you saying that they are separate entities?

Quote:
I never said that evil can't have a purpose. Without evil, there is no recognizing good. (Look, we agree on that ) Yes, good can come of evil (the whole crucifixion, for instance.) but that still doesn't make the original evil an act of 'good' God. Evil is a by-product of free will, not a component of God.

I don't see all that much free will going on in the garden of Eden.

Quote:
Hey now, I don't think that was my conclusion.

I don't think I said that, in fact checking my posts I can't find anywhere where I did, so yes it is your conclusion for the meaning of my statements and no it isn't the only one

Quote:
My point was that God does not have to be good AND evil.

Like I said, your conclusion of my statements not mine.

Quote:
Evil is neither in God nor of him.

So god did not create all things?

Quote:
Suffering is suffering, not two ways about it. God doesn't cause suffering, but he does allow it.

But God HAS caused suffering, the plagues of Egypt spring instantly to mind. Those who suffer tend to come out of it 'better' (with notable exceptions), those who have never really suffered seem to end up shallow and self absorbed. Suffering compels us to be better and create a better world for those that come after us, without suffering we are diminished.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:16 PM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

I've had thoughts like since seventh grade, Tristan (not to make you look bad, just as a fact); and, quite honestly, I've never gotten an answer that I was satisfied with. Of course, there were only a few people actually willing to think about it and answer my questions, so I haven't heard many opinions on the subject of the free will issue. I'll be interested to see what people say.

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen,

I suppose generic suffering has a logical place in the universe (good and evil), and even an indirect benefit to humanity (to make us more 'human').

I'm going to ponder it in the animal kingdom. There is no doubt that alligators suffer. So the point of internal suffering is that it keeps them away from damaging things. Yet they seem to have no particular concept of the suffering of others, not even other alligators. So suffering has no wide purpose in the alligator's relationship with other animals. And no refining effect on its nature.

But humans are capable of both suffering AND compassion. (They are internal responses probably shared with other species.) So suffering (survival responses) and compassion (feel-good brain chemicals from relating a special way to others) are human lessons from the physical world. However, evil and good are probably intentionally chosen suffering and compassion. So evil and good are 'moral' lessons drawn from human responses.

But I see suffering and compassion, evil and good, as arising from our physical world.

I've seen too much suffering in hospitals and in my personal life to feel that it has a 'godly' purpose, or even an impersonally moral one. People who suffer don't always survive it. And those who survive it aren't necessarily capable of good afterwards. If a child suffers and it makes the parents more human, has the moral benefit to the parents justified the moral cost to the child?

Just musing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
However, evil and good are probably intentionally chosen suffering and compassion. So evil and good are 'moral' lessons drawn from human responses.

I.e. Human inferences on actions or events.

Quote:
If a child suffers and it makes the parents more human, has the moral benefit to the parents justified the moral cost to the child?

Is there a moral loss to the child or a physical loss? Does the child come through the suffering better off?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Evil cannot be good. Hot cannot be cold. Left cannot be right.
You have a left side and you have a right side, are you saying that they are separate entities?

Um, yes. They are seperate entities. They, however, are not absolutes. Which may be where you're trying to go with this? Is that what you've been trying to say? That good and evil are relative?

Quote:
Quote:
Evil is a by-product of free will, not a component of God.
I don't see all that much free will going on in the garden of Eden.

Really? If originally free will was the choice to follow God or not follow him, how was free will not present in the Garden of Eden? They followed, then decided not to.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't think I said that, in fact checking my posts I can't find anywhere where I did, so yes it is your conclusion for the meaning of my statements and no it isn't the only one .

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:My point was that God does not have to be good AND evil.
Like I said, your conclusion of my statements not mine.

Way up thread you stated this:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Without evil there is no good, Yin and Yang, Hot and Cold, two sides of the same coin. I think if there is a God and a Devil then surely they are one in the same, desctruction is required for creation.

So, from there:

Coin=God
One side=good
Other side=evil

Can you please explain the meaning you intended that I so obviously missed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rugbug: Evil is neither in God nor of him.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen: So god did not create all things?

Yes and no. Formless and void to life. God and angels. Angels had free will. Some chose not to follow God any longer, leading to the birth of evil. Evil is the consequence of free will. But originally, evil was just the rejection of God. It has grown in defintion over time.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But God HAS caused suffering, the plagues of Egypt spring instantly to mind.

Hrmmm, you know, you're right. Lots of the old Testament has God raining down with the suffering. Even the Jews wandered in the desert...that probably wasn't too fun. In most cases, the people were given a warning to avoid the suffering and chose to ignore it. The Egyptians were warned to "let my people go" or the plagues would befall them. They made a choice. IMO, that is very different from the suffering that goes on today. God isn't sitting up there and telling some woman 'if you don't behave, I'm going to send some man over who will rape you.' So maybe someone who is Jewish can answer you about old testament suffering.

That's not to say I don't believe the God of the Old Testament isn't the God of the New, but I do believe things were shifted with the appearance of Jesus.

Okay, again I need to leave. I'm hoping I got all the quote tags close to correct. Forgive me if I didn't.

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:45 PM