Is There A God?

[miketx]

Sure there is a God. But the problem lies with identity politics. The brain infected libtards thought it was H. Clinton.

 

[Divine Wind]

Sure there is a God. But the problem lies with identity politics. The brain infected libtards thought it was H. Clinton.

LOL True. Socialists do worship the State.

 

[Czernobog]

Just an observation: I don't know if anyone noticed, but this began as a discussion on the existence, and nature of divinity, and seems to have digressed into a discussion on the validity of a book...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Tangential discussion. Atheists and Theists often conflate dogma with the actual spirituality that religions originally sought to teach.

In the 1990s I visited Bangkok, Thailand with close Thai friends who were going to show me the sights. Having been a student of Eastern philosophy and, consequently, Eastern religions, I was looking forward to being immersed in the culture. What I found caused me to reflect on the attitudes of many American Christians; there were "good" Buddhists in Thailand, but I saw a lot of people, mostly in the middle-low to lower income groups who were more interested in ostentatiously displaying their religiosity than in pursuing the goals Buddhism teaches.

Just because, as noted previously, there are assholes among a religious group, be it theist or atheist, doesn't negate the deeper meaning or purposes of that religion.

I think the problem is that dogma pretty much defines a religion, and thus dispossesses any spiritual content that religion may wish to impart. I believe that is why non specific spiritualism is being given such pre-eminence in recent decades. Some people (I'm trying really hard not to over generalize) want to find the spiritual "enlightenment" without the dogmatic trappings.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Divine Wind]

I think the problem is that dogma pretty much defines a religion, and thus dispossesses any spiritual content that religion may wish to impart. I believe that is why non specific spiritualism is being given such pre-eminence in recent decades. Some people (I'm trying really hard not to over generalize) want to find the spiritual "enlightenment" without the dogmatic trappings.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Half right; yes dogma defines the religion but it doesn't necessarily negate the spirituality. A religion is but one path to spirituality just like one form of martial arts is one path to self-defense. You don't belief the rules of Taekwondo or Jujitsu dispossess them of their self-defense qualities do you?

Agreed on finding the enlightenment beyond dogmatic trappings.

 

[Czernobog]

I think the problem is that dogma pretty much defines a religion, and thus dispossesses any spiritual content that religion may wish to impart. I believe that is why non specific spiritualism is being given such pre-eminence in recent decades. Some people (I'm trying really hard not to over generalize) want to find the spiritual "enlightenment" without the dogmatic trappings.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Half right; yes dogma defines the religion but it doesn't necessarily negate the spirituality. A religion is but one path to spirituality just like one form of martial arts is one path to self-defense. You don't belief the rules of Taekwondo or Jujitsu dispossess them of their self-defense qualities do you?

Agreed on finding the enlightenment beyond dogmatic trappings.

The problem is that neither Taekwondo, nor Jujitsu claim that one can only defend themselves by following the prescribed techniques of their disciplines. When the dogmas become so repressive that they do not allow for any dissent, then the dogma ultimately gets in the way of spiritual growth, and becomes just a set of ritualised behaviours, and ethical demands that offer no real spiritual fulfilment. And to be clear, this is not just an indictment of Christianity, but of any religion where the dogmatic subjugation to a set of rules becomes more important than seeking, and understanding.

Go back to your trip to Thailand. Sure there were all of those people proudly displaying all of the religious trappings of Buddhism, but did you get the impression that the religion was actually bringing any of those people spiritual growth, or satisfaction?

 

[Divine Wind]

The problem is that neither Taekwondo, nor Jujitsu claim that one can only defend themselves by following the prescribed techniques of their disciplines. When the dogmas become so repressive that they do not allow for any dissent, then the dogma ultimately gets in the way of spiritual growth, and becomes just a set of ritualised behaviours, and ethical demands that offer no real spiritual fulfilment. And to be clear, this is not just an indictment of Christianity, but of any religion where the dogmatic subjugation to a set of rules becomes more important than seeking, and understanding.

Go back to your trip to Thailand. Sure there were all of those people proudly displaying all of the religious trappings of Buddhism, but did you get the impression that the religion was actually bringing any of those people spiritual growth, or satisfaction?

Like religion, some diehard fanatics do believe their martial art is the best and only way. That all others are inferior.

Agreed about when dogma supersedes spiritual growth. What you appear to be disagreeing about is that any religious person can recognize this truth. It's not the quiet religious person or martial artist who has this problem, it's the loud ones who see to dominate others. Same goes for atheists. People should be allowed to believe as they choose, but when that belief includes forcing others to believe as they do, then we have a problem.

On Thailand, yes. They're the quiet ones with the soft smile and a sense that we're all connected. The loud ones with the huge Buddhas on their chests don't get it.

 

[Czernobog]

The problem is that neither Taekwondo, nor Jujitsu claim that one can only defend themselves by following the prescribed techniques of their disciplines. When the dogmas become so repressive that they do not allow for any dissent, then the dogma ultimately gets in the way of spiritual growth, and becomes just a set of ritualised behaviours, and ethical demands that offer no real spiritual fulfilment. And to be clear, this is not just an indictment of Christianity, but of any religion where the dogmatic subjugation to a set of rules becomes more important than seeking, and understanding.

Go back to your trip to Thailand. Sure there were all of those people proudly displaying all of the religious trappings of Buddhism, but did you get the impression that the religion was actually bringing any of those people spiritual growth, or satisfaction?

Like religion, some diehard fanatics do believe their martial art is the best and only way. That all others are inferior.

Agreed about when dogma supersedes spiritual growth. What you appear to be disagreeing about is that any religious person can recognize this truth. It's not the quiet religious person or martial artist who has this problem, it's the loud ones who see to dominate others. Same goes for atheists. People should be allowed to believe as they choose, but when that belief includes forcing others to believe as they do, then we have a problem.

On Thailand, yes. They're the quiet ones with the soft smile and a sense that we're all connected. The loud ones with the huge Buddhas on their chests don't get it.

I would agree with your analysis of religious adherents. On the other hand, I would submit that some religions are more guilty of encouraging this fanaticism you refer to. I mean look at Christianity, and the emphasis that it puts on proselytising. Most of the Eastern religions, like Hinduism, or Buddhism, for example, are much more interested in encouraging people to find their own way to spiritual enlightenment.

 

[Divine Wind]

I would agree with your analysis of religious adherents. On the other hand, I would submit that some religions are more guilty of encouraging this fanaticism you refer to. I mean look at Christianity, and the emphasis that it puts on proselytising. Most of the Eastern religions, like Hinduism, or Buddhism, for example, are much more interested in encouraging people to find their own way to spiritual enlightenment.

Not just Christianity, but Islam. Both active push members to convert other members. Remember the Hari Krishnas in the airport parking lots? That isn't an Abrahamic religion yet they actively sought converts. I have no problem with being asked, but I do have a problem when they don't take "no thanks" for an answer.

Atheists do this too. Remember Richard Dawkins declaring "mock them!"? That's proselytizing too.

 

[Czernobog]

I would agree with your analysis of religious adherents. On the other hand, I would submit that some religions are more guilty of encouraging this fanaticism you refer to. I mean look at Christianity, and the emphasis that it puts on proselytising. Most of the Eastern religions, like Hinduism, or Buddhism, for example, are much more interested in encouraging people to find their own way to spiritual enlightenment.

Not just Christianity, but Islam. Both active push members to convert other members. Remember the Hari Krishnas in the airport parking lots? That isn't an Abrahamic religion yet they actively sought converts. I have no problem with being asked, but I do have a problem when they don't take "no thanks" for an answer.

Atheists do this too. Remember Richard Dawkins declaring "mock them!"? That's proselytizing too.

As we move to Hari Krishnas, I think we need to expand to most cults. However, I think that's an animal of a slightly different breed. Most cults go beyond being aggressive to being predatory. They even have a victim profile they hunt for. So, not sure we want to wander off into that direction. After all, I think everyone would agree that religious cults are less than healthy.

 

[Divine Wind]

As we move to Hari Krishnas, I think we need to expand to most cults. However, I think that's an animal of a slightly different breed. Most cults go beyond being aggressive to being predatory. They even have a victim profile they hunt for. So, not sure we want to wander off into that direction. After all, I think everyone would agree that religious cults are less than healthy.

Some atheists have declared Christianity as a cult. Some Christians have declared Mormonism as a cult.

As my previous post displayed, Christianity isn't the only religion that actively seeks converts. It's a big world and, yes, a percentage of them are oppressive assholes, but to condemn all for the actions of a few is wrong. Would it be wrong to condemn all atheists for the words and actions of oppressive assholes like Dawkins and Hitchins? Yes, it would. So why do some think it's okay to condemn Jews, Christians, Muslims or any other religion for small segments of their groups?

This doesn't just apply to religion either but to skin color, culture, nationality and any other artificial constructs that people use to subdivide the human race into "us" and "them".

 

[ding]

The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps.

The story of genesis is about God establishing the law, as a light to the nations, in a world that was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep, meaning superstition and ignorance reigned for the previous untold millions of years of evolution when people did not yet learn to think very deeply or rationally and lived like vicious wild animals in a lawless jungle.

The story is not about the beginning of the universe or the creation of the solar system, the earth, plants, animals, or the first human beings.

The story is about an extraterrestrial influence that taught people to learn to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, true and false, and life and death, no more than 6000 years ago.

Thats when heaven and earth, a world above and a world below, - the concept of a higher and lower realm of conscious existence - was first introduced and established among people on this planet.

The account of Genesis is about a great many things of which the beginning of Creation is one of them.

Genesis is about many things, yes, but it is not about the beginning of the creation of the universe or solar system or life on earth.

If you think it is about the Creation, literally, even though it is impossible that anyone living 6000 years ago would have known anything about the subject, what it is actually about will continue to remain hidden from you.

God knows, right? The account was written by men and inspired by God. They were free to write the account in their own words in terms they understood. Are you telling me that Genesis does not discuss the beginning of Creation? Are you telling me that Genesis does not describe how it was performed in steps?

 

[ding]

The story of genesis is about God establishing the law, as a light to the nations, in a world that was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep, meaning superstition and ignorance reigned for the previous untold millions of years of evolution when people did not yet learn to think very deeply or rationally and lived like vicious wild animals in a lawless jungle.

The story is not about the beginning of the universe or the creation of the solar system, the earth, plants, animals, or the first human beings.

The story is about an extraterrestrial influence that taught people to learn to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, true and false, and life and death, no more than 6000 years ago.

Thats when heaven and earth, a world above and a world below, - the concept of a higher and lower realm of conscious existence - was first introduced and established among people on this planet.

The account of Genesis is about a great many things of which the beginning of Creation is one of them.

Genesis is about many things, yes, but it is not about the beginning of the creation of the universe or solar system or life on earth.

If you think it is about the Creation, literally, even though it is impossible that anyone living 6000 years ago would have known anything about the subject, what it is actually about will continue to remain hidden from you.

So you admit that the stories in the bible are full of lies. Good for you.

No, the bible is not full of lies anymore than the story about the pied piper is full of lies.

Like in any fairy tale, myth or fable that was written specifically for instruction, the bible is a treasure trove of hidden knowledge and wisdom conveyed through fantastical stories that conceal subjects and issues that are not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

OK, so you admit that you don't know what the stories are actually about.

Goody for you.

If you want to know what any given story is actually about, all that you have to do is ask.


BTW, I never said that the earth is 6000 years old.

Pay attention!

So god told Adam not to bang the girl and to stay in homo heaven with him. So Adam did the girl and was tossed. What's that story really about?

And how old is the world according to you?

The account of Adam and Eve is allegorical. It is the account of how man knows right from wrong and when he violates it he rationalizes that he didn't violate it, but he never abandons the concept of right and wrong. We've had this discussion before. The only reason you are still having it is because you condemn respect for anyone who believes in God, you believe yourself to be superior to them and because it pleases you to "try" to make fun of them. Thus proving that, you have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. See my signature below.

 

[ding]

Just an observation: I don't know if anyone noticed, but this began as a discussion on the existence, and nature of divinity, and seems to have digressed into a discussion on the validity of a book...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, and there is a reason for it. Mudda has no interest in an honest discussion. His only intention is driven by pleasure.

 

[Czernobog]

As we move to Hari Krishnas, I think we need to expand to most cults. However, I think that's an animal of a slightly different breed. Most cults go beyond being aggressive to being predatory. They even have a victim profile they hunt for. So, not sure we want to wander off into that direction. After all, I think everyone would agree that religious cults are less than healthy.

Some atheists have declared Christianity as a cult. Some Christians have declared Mormonism as a cult.

As my previous post displayed, Christianity isn't the only religion that actively seeks converts. It's a big world and, yes, a percentage of them are oppressive assholes, but to condemn all for the actions of a few is wrong. Would it be wrong to condemn all atheists for the words and actions of oppressive assholes like Dawkins and Hitchins? Yes, it would. So why do some think it's okay to condemn Jews, Christians, Muslims or any other religion for small segments of their groups?

This doesn't just apply to religion either but to skin color, culture, nationality and any other artificial constructs that people use to subdivide the human race into "us" and "them".

I think part of the problem, particularly with religion, is that too few followers of any particular religion speak out against the zealots. Oh, they defend their religion against being judged by the zealots, as you are doing, but they don't actually speak out against the zealots; and, even when they do, it is usually qualified.

You'd be amazed how far it would go to rehabilitate the image of Christianity with non-adherents, if, in the light of exposure of someone like Jim Phelps, Christians just said something like, "What an ass! A Christian should never act like that," and left it at that. Not follow it up with "...but he doesn't represent..." Because when that happens, no one hears the condemnation of the zealot, all they hear is the defence of the religion that the zealot represents.

The same is true of Islam. The statistics are clear. The non-jihadists far outnumber the jihadist extremists. It would do the religion a world of good if those moderates would speak out to condemn acts of extreme violence, en masse, ever time. Not defend the religion, but simply condemn the acts of violence.

 

[Divine Wind]

God knows, right? The account was written by men and inspired by men. They were free to write the account in their own words in terms they understood. Are you telling me that Genesis does not discuss the beginning of Creation? Are you telling me that Genesis does not describe how it was performed in steps?

Genesis, and the other first five books of the Bible, were written down by Moses (supposedly) thousands of years after the events described happened. That's a lot of time to pass for legends to grow and truth be distorted.

 

[Divine Wind]

I think part of the problem, particularly with religion, is that too few followers of any particular religion speak out against the zealots. Oh, they defend their religion against being judged by the zealots, as you are doing, but they don't actually speak out against the zealots; and, even when they do, it is usually qualified.

You'd be amazed how far it would go to rehabilitate the image of Christianity with non-adherents, if, in the light of exposure of someone like Jim Phelps, Christians just said something like, "What an ass! A Christian should never act like that," and left it at that. Not follow it up with "...but he doesn't represent..." Because when that happens, no one hears the condemnation of the zealot, all they hear is the defence of the religion that the zealot represents.

The same is true of Islam. The statistics are clear. The non-jihadists far outnumber the jihadist extremists. It would do the religion a world of good if those moderates would speak out to condemn acts of extreme violence, en masse, ever time. Not defend the religion, but simply condemn the acts of violence.

1) That's why we have laws.

2) How often have you spoken out against overzealous atheists? With the except of Neil Tyson Degrasse, I've never heard an atheist speak out against another atheist.

 

[ding]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

The problem, as Sartre pointed out, is that both Aristotle's "Prime Mover", and Aquinas' "First Cause" (variations of the same theme) rely on the premise that the Universe is ordered, and purposeful. Which means that, in order to accept their "proofs", one need also accept their opening presupposition, for which they offer no proof whatsoever. They completely discount the "shit happens" factor in the universe. Sometimes things just happen. There is no reason, or evidence to presume that the universe is either ordered, or has meaning, or purpose.

Descartes' ontological proof, on the other hand is not evidence of any sort of the existence of God. In fact, his entire premise for proving of the self is the presupposition that "God" exists, and that, in fact, that God is evil, whose sole purpose is to deceive humanity. His entire argument for god is that existence "necessitates" the existence of divinity, without ever offering any actual evidence to support that necessity.

The purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. As cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. We know from our own experiences that men do evil not for evil's sake but for the sake of their own good. We know from our own experiences that we prefer good over evil. We know from our own experiences that when we violate the moral law we rationalize that we didn't, but we never abandon the concept. We know we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything does happen for a reason and everything is connected. When what we perceive as bad happens there is something good that comes from it.

The proof of the first cause can be found in the proof of reality. There is a final state of fact for all things. Once the final state of fact is discovered it will be known that it was always true and will always be true. In effect... it is eternal. Therefore, God is both truth and reality. To say it differently as it was first said... I am.

 

[Czernobog]

I think part of the problem, particularly with religion, is that too few followers of any particular religion speak out against the zealots. Oh, they defend their religion against being judged by the zealots, as you are doing, but they don't actually speak out against the zealots; and, even when they do, it is usually qualified.

You'd be amazed how far it would go to rehabilitate the image of Christianity with non-adherents, if, in the light of exposure of someone like Jim Phelps, Christians just said something like, "What an ass! A Christian should never act like that," and left it at that. Not follow it up with "...but he doesn't represent..." Because when that happens, no one hears the condemnation of the zealot, all they hear is the defence of the religion that the zealot represents.

The same is true of Islam. The statistics are clear. The non-jihadists far outnumber the jihadist extremists. It would do the religion a world of good if those moderates would speak out to condemn acts of extreme violence, en masse, ever time. Not defend the religion, but simply condemn the acts of violence.

1) That's why we have laws.

2) How often have you spoken out against overzealous atheists? With the except of Neil Tyson Degrasse, I've never heard an atheist speak out against another atheist.

Well...it would be rather pointless for me to speak out against atheists, don't you think? I'm not an atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Mudda]

The account of Genesis is about a great many things of which the beginning of Creation is one of them.

Genesis is about many things, yes, but it is not about the beginning of the creation of the universe or solar system or life on earth.

If you think it is about the Creation, literally, even though it is impossible that anyone living 6000 years ago would have known anything about the subject, what it is actually about will continue to remain hidden from you.

So you admit that the stories in the bible are full of lies. Good for you.

No, the bible is not full of lies anymore than the story about the pied piper is full of lies.

Like in any fairy tale, myth or fable that was written specifically for instruction, the bible is a treasure trove of hidden knowledge and wisdom conveyed through fantastical stories that conceal subjects and issues that are not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

OK, so you admit that you don't know what the stories are actually about.

Goody for you.

If you want to know what any given story is actually about, all that you have to do is ask.


BTW, I never said that the earth is 6000 years old.

Pay attention!

So god told Adam not to bang the girl and to stay in homo heaven with him. So Adam did the girl and was tossed. What's that story really about?

And how old is the world according to you?

The account of Adam and Eve is allegorical. It is the account of how man knows right from wrong and when he violates it he rationalizes that he didn't violate it, but he never abandons the concept of right and wrong. We've had this discussion before. The only reason you are still having it is because you condemn respect for anyone who believes in God, you believe yourself to be superior to them and because it pleases you to "try" to make fun of them. Thus proving that, you have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. See my signature below.

"The account of Adam and Eve is allegorical", you may think so, but others don't, as the bible was written as a true account. Anyways, you're all over the map with what you pick and choose. So you're not a good example of a theist, you're too messed up.

 

[Czernobog]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

The problem, as Sartre pointed out, is that both Aristotle's "Prime Mover", and Aquinas' "First Cause" (variations of the same theme) rely on the premise that the Universe is ordered, and purposeful. Which means that, in order to accept their "proofs", one need also accept their opening presupposition, for which they offer no proof whatsoever. They completely discount the "shit happens" factor in the universe. Sometimes things just happen. There is no reason, or evidence to presume that the universe is either ordered, or has meaning, or purpose.

Descartes' ontological proof, on the other hand is not evidence of any sort of the existence of God. In fact, his entire premise for proving of the self is the presupposition that "God" exists, and that, in fact, that God is evil, whose sole purpose is to deceive humanity. His entire argument for god is that existence "necessitates" the existence of divinity, without ever offering any actual evidence to support that necessity.

The purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. As cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. We know from our own experiences that men do evil not for evil's sake but for the sake of their own good. We know from our own experiences that we prefer good over evil. We know from our own experiences that when we violate the moral law we rationalize that we didn't, but we never abandon the concept. We know we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything does happen for a reason and everything is connected. When what we perceive as bad happens there is something good that comes from it.

The proof of the first cause can be found in the proof of reality. There is a final state of fact for all things. Once the final state of fact is discovered it will be known that it was always true and will always be true. In effect... it is eternal. Therefore, God is both truth and reality. To say it differently as it was first said... I am.

There are many flaws in your argument, but let's start with your proclamation that there are no "uncaused" events in the universe. We know no such thing, and such a claim cannot be proven. What, in fact, can be proven, is that there are, and have been, many events in the universe for which no cause has been discovered. Hence your entire argument proceeds from a flawed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk