Does God exist?

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

No, because I don't see that as militant. Militant has a much more dark and mean quality to me than simply saying, "You should believe this". Militant, for example, is fighting for something without a majority of support and not caring how people against you feel just as long as you get what you think you deserve. That's different than a zealot. They have the support to begin with now.

I'm a mere person from a backward third-world country who behaves like an animal, so I won't be able to fully grasp the fascinating adultness of your deep and inspiring thought. I'd just like to ask you, in spite of all my sarcasm and considering the statement in bold, if Galileo Galilei was a militant.

Bruno

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

I'm a mere person from a backward third-world country who behaves like an animal, so I won't be able to fully grasp the fascinating adultness of your deep and inspiring thought. I'd just like to ask you, in spite of all my sarcasm and considering the statement in bold, if Galileo Galilei was a militant.

Bruno

No, he was not because he didn't go around saying, "Those who don't give me what I want right now are awful or evil and I deserve it now!"

[S485122]

Let me replace militant by assertive :

In my opinion it is time for an assertive atheism and rationalism.

In other words to stop being satisfied with the relative tolerance of religions with atheism. I say relative tolerance because some religions find atheism offensive and want it eradicated by all means. For instance in the islam the penalty for apostasy is death : once you have accepted the islamic faith, there is no way you can change your opinion without forfeiting your life.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

So, Cheesehead, what you are basically saying is that you want all religion to basically stop and "go away" where no one ever hears about it again

No, that is not what I am saying. Inflating what I actually said into something more extreme is not useful to this discussion.

Please take a couple of deep breaths, then carefully re-read my preceding posts in this and other threads that concern religion. I have plainly stated that religions have much that is good and useful.

My admonishment near the end of my 10 Jan 07 08:26 PM posting refers only to "life after death", not to religion in general. AFAIK, not all religions include a belief in life after death, and none of them consists solely of that belief.

because that's what it basically means if a religion can no longer spread its message.

Again, it's not useful to inflate what I actually said into something more extreme, unless you consider it useful to work up your anger.

You want religion to stop doing the very thing that, most of them anyway, they believe they are supposed to do in the first place

So (to use your own rhetorical tactic) you basically think all religions consist of nothing but spreading lies?

Let's set aside that tactic.

Try rewording your statement so that it accurately reflects what I actually wrote, not some angry exaggeration.

.........gosh...... That kind of thinking doesn't leave me with a very pleasant view of the person saying it anymore, sorry.

See? That's what happens when you pretend that someone said your exaggerated idea instead of what he actually said. It may allow you to feel self-righteous in denouncing or vilifying the other person, but it doesn't convince the other person that you're right and he's wrong, or indeed that he needs to pay any attention to your opinion at all.

That's not an attack,

Thinking it wasn't an attack, but putting your thoughts into an actual posting in the thread ... has more effect. But at least we're confining our struggle to the verbal mode.

just my actual reaction of it being so unbelievable

... because you made it unbelievable in your own mind, not because what I actually wrote was so extreme.

that someone would actually go that far in their thoughts against religion.

Actually, it's how far you went, not how far I went.

Even most atheists don't go that far.

But you did, so I guess that just goes to show (again, adopting your rhetorical tactic) that God-believers will go much further in their distortion of another's words than the average atheist will.

Or do you prefer to take a deep breath, and stick with reality?

[Jwb52z]

Cheesehead, what I said is how I read your post. I said what I believed you meant and have a hard time believing you really meant some softer version of what I got out of it, especially when you seem to patronize, and not in a good way, the ideas of religion when you phrase things around the words "lies" and "reality". It's the tone that you appear to have when you talk about those things as you see them that makes it sound like a problem for me even if somehow you really didn't mean it. I still don't see, honestly, how you could say the things you do AND, as you say, believe that there's anything to religion but crap. To me, that seems a bit incongruous. I mean, if you think reality doesn't intersect with religion in its system, logically, and I know you all just LOVE human logic, you should be calling for its demise and telling people they are giant idiots for having anything to do with it. That is, if "lies" and "reality" are to be your way.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by jasong

I apologize if this has been touched on, I've only read the first and approximately last third of this thread.

I really don't think people who insist there is no God, Life Force, etc., understand the implications of their belief. What does philosophy teach us about the possibility of no God? Think about it. If there is no God, there is no absolute morality.

There was a point in my life where I totally accepted atheism and everything it entailed. I became a very corrupt hedonist. In my case it was sexual deviancy.(I won't explain further) I committed many crimes, simply because of what my teachers had taught me. They said there was no God, so I took the idea to its logical conclusion. I accepted Darwinian evolution as a logical morality. I wasn't interested in reproducing, but I came to the conclusion that morality was an artificial construct, and behaved accordingly. It is very possible my later mental illness was caused by having to deal with the idea of a hopeless, random universe, because that is the logical conclusion one comes to. Teaching the truth(possibly) of Dawinian evolution and a universe that exists absent of a higher being is to teach that life is a worthless, random pursuit with no point to it.

Even if there is a vanishingly small chance of a higher being, whether it be Christian, Islamic, or whatever, isn't it worthwhile to chase that dream? Consider, if there is no God, and no hope, then what does it matter if one decides to believe in a lie called God. In that instance, everyone loses, no matter what. Even the Godlike Q of Star Trek:The Next Generation would have an end to his life at some point.

But consider the possibility that there IS a God. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to seek that God with all your strength? The thing that keeps me from absolute despair is the idea that God(in my case, Jesus) created the Universe because he felt a need to express his Love through interacting with his Creation. If I'm wrong about this and there is no God, what does it matter, it's a zero-sum game. But if I'm right, or even partially right, there's the possibility that he will want to pluck me from the Universe and have me serve him for the rest of Eternity.

So, in light of this, why on Earth would anyone want to discourage someone from believing in God, unless it's from lack of considering the facts or pure meanness.(Not that I'm accusing anybody of meanness, I prefer to believe the first possibility.)

I take this to be the testimony of a one time atheist.

If you want more I would recommend the works of C.S. Lewis an atheist turned believer and a Cambridge Don. too.

You could start off with 'Mere Christianity' that gives you the basics
to his other works.

If one wonders about consciousness and Descartes' dictum 'Cogito ergo sum'
where he cogitates and links it with thought, we must first examine the MIND. as these two are functions of it.

First settle what mind is. We know that it exists. Is it matter? Is it energy? if it is energy is this transcendental to matter? Is thought a tangible property of the MIND? If not matter, is it a flux or esoteric field?

I am afraid Evoluion cannot answer these questions. It takes us up to death and decay and thats where meta- physics takes over. It spills over to a knowledge of an after life. And that comes from direct revelation which comes in whether by word of mouth handed over by generations or by the
written word which is less distorted.

To get the proper answers we must come to know Jesus of Nazareth the one born in Bethlehem and not any just one of the many Jesus' that have come our way

He is the Fountain head of all spirituality and things pertaining to it.

If you believe In Newton and Gauss for example and believe their works I dont see why we cannot believe in His words as a person who existed.
When you come to know Him better you will come to know deeper things but first you must make a conscious effort to find him as he can be elusive.

If you are going to blot him out from the start with your mind filled by lesser mortals how can you expect to understand Him though His Holy Spirit that he gave as a privelige to all of us when he ascended to His Father?

A vessel full to the brim cannot be filled with newer ingredients unless you empty it out first. The first essential is to empty oneself first. A mind filled by Dawkins et al has to be emptied out first. Get rid of the garbage they have filled you up with their attractive theories. I know it appeals to the scientific mind but we have to go further than that to get to the TRUTH which goes beyond scence.

Ive read it here by our posters that God is not required to Love our neighbour.
Tell me how can you accept the brotherhood of man without accepting the Fatherhood of God? Who has made us brothers in that case?

I know that those evolutionists here are seeking for the truth. They are searching for the water of Life as they thirst for it but you cannot find it in science. They want to go further but dont know how so I dont despise them at all. They are not only content in their knowledge but are eager to spread it around to get a majority Safety In numbers- that way it is more comforting.

So the first principle in attaining such knowledge is to resolve to empty oneself. Only then can the Holy Spirit fill you with the Living Water of Life.

The requirement of Science is proof, of belief its Faith. And if you have faith you can move the mountains and cobwebs planted in Your mind.

I will wind up this post but will rewind another time.

Mally

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Cheesehead, what I said is how I read your post.

Did you go back to the earlier post(s) where I said that some parts of religion were good and useful?

Did you note that in the 10 Jan 07 08:26 PM posting, I only referred to the supernatural aspects in general, and life-after-death in particular? I didn't say that all religion, or even religion in general, was a lie.

I said what I believed you meant

Fine. I'm not claiming that what you said was not what you believed. I'm saying that what you imply that I wrote (i.e., religion in entireity) was not what I actually wrote; i.e. that your belief is mistaken. Your misunderstanding might have arisen because of lack of care in reading my posting, which I why I recommended a careful re-read.

I still don't see, honestly,

I'm not doubting your honesty. I'm doubting other aspects of your thinking. You may have honestly thought that you were not inflating what I said. But, factually, you _were_ inflating my actual words into more extreme ones. It's not necessary to be dishonest in order to be wrong.

how you could say the things you do AND, as you say, believe that there's anything to religion but crap. To me, that seems a bit incongruous.

Okay. Your logic leads to a conclusion that I don't "believe that there's anything to religion but crap". Since I have plainly stated that much of religion is good and useful, your conclusion is false. (Your statement that it seems incongruous indicates that you also find the conclusion faulty.)

So, there's an error in either your logic or in your presumed facts upon which you applied the logic. I don't think your logic here is faulty, so I conclude that you are in error regarding what you think are the facts. Thus, I suggest that you misunderstood what I previously wrote.

I mean, if you think reality doesn't intersect with religion in its system, logically, and I know you all just LOVE human logic, you should be calling for its demise and telling people they are giant idiots for having anything to do with it.

Since I'm, in fact, not calling for religion's demise and not "telling people they are giant idiots for having anything to do with it", then the B part of your If A => B logic is false. I think your A => B logic is sound enough for this part of our discussion, so I conclude that the A part ("you think reality doesn't intersect with religion in its system, logically") is false. And it is.

I don't say that reality doesn't intersect with religion! ... in its system, logically, or otherwise. On the contrary, if you go back through my previous postings, you'll find that I have specifically acknowledged that some parts of religion are realistic. I've said that religions genuinely satisfy genuine human emotional needs, and that they incorporate useful knowledge about human behavior and relationships.

So, your if-clause is faulty.

- - -

How about remarking on the life-after-death belief, without referring to other parts of religion?

[cheesehead]

Oops. Big oops.

When, above, I wrote about the question "Is it better to believe a comfortable lie, or to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth?", I forgot to explain that the context in which that question was to be posed was that one was considering whether it was better to lie to oneself or to acknowledge the truth to oneself. It supposes that the person posing the question knows that the "lie" is false.

I can see that this almost certainly led to some misunderstandings by those who read my associated soliloquy, especially where my musings left the first-person. There, I was theoretically addressing others who, like me, also did not actually believe in life-after-death but were tempted to try to deceive themselves in order to achieve comfort -- but I failed to explain that.

I did not intend to claim that people expressing a belief in life-after-death were necessarily lying (i.e., knowingly and deliberately uttering a falsehood), but my carelessness in omitting the important qualification probably made it seem that I did, especially to those who were not familiar with my earlier postings about religion.

I apologize to those who thought I was accusing all believers in life-after-death of lying. I resolve to include an explanatory note whenever I use that "comfortable lie" statement in the future.