If God did not exist

[orogenicman]

Dude... if you're not convinced by the first 'miracle', you're still waiting for it.

Well if one reads between the lines they might consider something more. I.E., miracles are presented, documented and offered up as proof. The skeptic does not render an opinion and moves on, pretty much forgetting such an event ever occurred. This leaves the believer the task of presenting some other event or proof, where once again it is not disprove, but ignored. Then we hear sometime later "there is no evidence for God."

The point is, once someone BELIEVES they've seen a miracle, they're a 'believer'. It doesn't take two.

Of course, believing in a miracle does not make it real.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that? Should we?

 

[Steven_R]

I have no data either way regarding the supernatural. Maybe there's a god, maybe there isn't, maybe there's an unlimited number, maybe there's something no human being can conceptualize, I just don't know. What I do know is the physical and archaeological evidence says that Jehovah and Jesus are no more real than Odin and Thor or Zeus and Hercules and that the Bible is no more an accurate depiction of the creation of the world than the Egyptian Book of the Dead is.

As a scientist, I'm not interested in the supernatural in any event. I can do nothing with the supernatural, and it doesn't fit anywhere in what I do. There is a natural explanation for every event in whatever plane of existence we're on and my goal is to find those explanations without putting some deity in the equation. If we start saying "dunno, ergo God did it" I'm out of a job and we might as well stop looking for anything outside of a holy book.

Some atheists are assholes who delight in telling religious people how stupid they are. Some fervently religious types are assholes who delight in telling everyone how they are going to burn for not worshiping exactly as they do. That's not a character flaw for atheists or fundamentalists; that's a human character flaw.

 

[Steven_R]

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that? Should we?

It depends on what the believer is doing with that belief. If someone sees a miracle and it gets them through the day, it's no skin off my nose. If that same believer uses that same miracle as the basis of a new law or tries to shut down science in a classroom because science says the miracle is nothing but a natural process, then it's a different story.

 

[orogenicman]

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that? Should we?

Does it? What is the objective measure of a delusion?

 

[AVG-JOE]

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that? Should we?

It depends on what the believer is doing with that belief. If someone sees a miracle and it gets them through the day, it's no skin off my nose. If that same believer uses that same miracle as the basis of a new law or tries to shut down science in a classroom because science says the miracle is nothing but a natural process, then it's a different story.

Fortunately, respect does not equate to submission, ass-u-me-ing that the believer is as tolerant and respectful as the non-believer, or there is a government in place to guarantee boundaries when respect can no longer be assumed.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that? Should we?

Does it? What is the objective measure of a delusion?

Personal, ass-u-me-ing a modicum of respect and tolerance on all sides, and / or boundaries enforced by a neutral government, guaranteeing the right of each and every citizen to be quite wrong.

Have you NEVER been wrong?

 

[orogenicman]

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that? Should we?

Does it? What is the objective measure of a delusion?

Personal, ass-u-me-ing a modicum of respect and tolerance on all sides, and / or boundaries enforced by a neutral government guaranteeing the right of each and every citizen to be quite wrong.

Have you NEVER been wrong?

Yes but that doesn't answer my questions, does it?

 

[turzovka]

While Flew embraced the concept of there potentially being an inteeligent design to the universe, he castegorically rejected the notion of God as presented by christians, muslims and judaism.

"He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ's resurrection to be added into his latest book.[6]

Flew was particularly hostile to Islam, and said it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[6] In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".[21]"

Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One step at a time is all we can hope for. We have now established Intelligent Design with the previous atheist intelligentsia. Based on reason.


PS -- I am rather hostile to Islam myself.

No, you haven't. It was one guy, late in his years bordering on senility.

Then senility may be of benefit to some? Antony Flew used intelligence and reason to conclude that evolution without ID was utterly untenable... comical even, the way Dawkins proposed it.

 

[turzovka]

Dude... if you're not convinced by the first 'miracle', you're still waiting for it.

Well if one reads between the lines they might consider something more. I.E., miracles are presented, documented and offered up as proof. The skeptic does not render an opinion and moves on, pretty much forgetting such an event ever occurred. This leaves the believer the task of presenting some other event or proof, where once again it is not disprove, but ignored. Then we hear sometime later "there is no evidence for God."

The point is, once someone BELIEVES they've seen a miracle, they're a 'believer'. It doesn't take two.

Another point is that bona fide miracles do not require any belief at all. God is not limited to natural manifestations only. I personally find it quite sad to see the desperation in so many trying to explain away the obvious.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Does it? What is the objective measure of a delusion?

Personal, ass-u-me-ing a modicum of respect and tolerance on all sides, and / or boundaries enforced by a neutral government guaranteeing the right of each and every citizen to be quite wrong.

Have you NEVER been wrong?

Yes but that doesn't answer my questions, does it?

There is no answer, Brother. One Monkeys delusion is another Monkeys God Almighty.

A neutral government enforcing the right of each and every citizen to believe in whatever bullshit floats their boat is the closest thing to an answer we can expect in a society of hard-headed Monkeys wishing for individual freedom.

 

[pacer]

If God is a necessary condition of objective morality, where would mankind ascertain a means of objective morality, if God did not exist?

Dostoevsky once wrote: 'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that? Should we?

Miracles are the cornerstone of religion and faith. Without them people would abandon hope. They fuel our every movement...well many of us. LOL

 

[Old_Liberal]

I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God?? ..

That is their religion, a belief in a Godless universe. They place their belief, or base their belief using a limited knowledge. And from this limited knowledge they are so egocentric as to think they can draw conclusions from an extremely limited knowledge of existence.

In short they may be long on a tentative science, but short on intelligence and honesty, in regards to the limitation of human knowledge. It really is the height of egocentricity.

Most atheists have tremendous egos, which is the source of their confusion. They don't realize exactly what the ego is. And this creates the delusion from which they then move from. It is best to just ignore them, and their extremely limited knowledge.

You may as well try to teach a chimp to speak English. Neither the atheist nor the chimp have the capacity to understand. The atheist still views the universe using classical physics. Scientific materialism. Yet materialism begins its life with one helluva assumption. That assumption is that consciousness comes from matter. When it is probably true that matter comes from consciousness. If this is ever proven, these atheists will probably have mental breakdowns, unable to live in a universe that came from consciousness, as their own egos would then be insignificant.

And so these atheists believe in something that is nothing more than an assumption. Only a big ego could ever do that. But these guys are a supersititious lot.

 

[orogenicman]

Personal, ass-u-me-ing a modicum of respect and tolerance on all sides, and / or boundaries enforced by a neutral government guaranteeing the right of each and every citizen to be quite wrong.

Have you NEVER been wrong?

Yes but that doesn't answer my questions, does it?

There is no answer, Brother. One Monkeys delusion is another Monkeys God Almighty.

A neutral government enforcing the right of each and every citizen to believe in whatever bullshit floats their boat is the closest thing to an answer we can expect in a society of hard-headed Monkeys wishing for individual freedom.

Are you suggesting that we don't have the clinical capability to define delusions? Because I can provide evidence that we do, in fact have that capability.

 

[orogenicman]

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that? Should we?

Miracles are the cornerstone of religion and faith. Without them people would abandon hope. They fuel our every movement...well many of us. LOL

That's an odd claim considering the rather large number of people who don't believe in miracles and yet aren't prepared to put a bullet in their heads.

 

[orogenicman]

I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God?? ..

That is their religion, a belief in a Godless universe. They place their belief, or base their belief using a limited knowledge. And from this limited knowledge they are so egocentric as to think they can draw conclusions from an extremely limited knowledge of existence.

In short they may be long on a tentative science, but short on intelligence and honesty, in regards to the limitation of human knowledge. It really is the height of egocentricity.

Most atheists have tremendous egos, which is the source of their confusion. They don't realize exactly what the ego is. And this creates the delusion from which they then move from. It is best to just ignore them, and their extremely limited knowledge.

You may as well try to teach a chimp to speak English. Neither the atheist nor the chimp have the capacity to understand. The atheist still views the universe using classical physics. Scientific materialism. Yet materialism begins its life with one helluva assumption. That assumption is that consciousness comes from matter. When it is probably true that matter comes from consciousness. If this is ever proven, these atheists will probably have mental breakdowns, unable to live in a universe that came from consciousness, as their own egos would then be insignificant.

And so these atheists believe in something that is nothing more than an assumption. Only a big ego could ever do that. But these guys are a supersititious lot.

You just gotta love the way that religious folk completely ignore what atheists are telling them about atheism and simply make up their own utterly ludicrous ad hominem bullshite, as if that is the proper and acceptable way to have a conversation. None of what you posted was accurate, and I think you know it. Which makes you someone who argues from willful dishonesty, the worst kind of argument. Congratulations.

 

[oldfart]

If God is a necessary condition of objective morality, where would mankind ascertain a means of objective morality, if God did not exist?

Dostoevsky once wrote: 'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'.

Most people consider the Dalai Lama a moral person, yet he does not believe in "God". Your post reveals a cultural conceit based on ignorance which is offensive to half of the world's population as well as being incorrect.

BTW Taoist, Buddhist, Confucian, Shinto, and similar religious/ethical systems are far more rigorous than Christian ethics; they don't give everyone who behaves badly absolution for the harm they do others. In the eyes of most of the world, the perverted religion is Christianity.

 

[The Professor]

I'm confused. You say you are atheist and then you say you believe in God. Everyone perceives God differently for those who believe in God. So, that fact you believe in a God of your own perception/understanding would make you a believer, would it not?

He was just making a joke, pacer. Some very enchanting and delightful speakers begin their case with a joke. "I swear to God I am an atheist," is such a statement. It was meant to be amusing.

He believes in God, doesn't wish to go into detail here to cause a stir or offend. It's just that he was trying to break a little ice. It wakes up the students in an auditorium and makes them wish to listen once they "get it."

Get it?

Thanks for explaining it. I got that phrase (I'm an atheists; I swear to God I am) from a comedian a long time back. I can't remember whether it was George Carlin or someone else, but I thought it was funny.

 

[pacer]

Please do not shoot the messenger. I lifted the topic from another website...thought it would generate an interesting discussion on this board. Sorry if I offended.

I agree it is not necessary to believe in God or divine punishment in order to be a moral person. I believe morality is biological and that all mankind is inherently good. Mankind is intrinsically compassionate and can certainly distinguish between right and wrong and good and evil without a set of commandments.