Why do the God-haters persist?

[thebrucebeat]

1.

Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
It simply is.

Hi Bruce: Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
1. Do you also understand that for people who experience spiritual insights in terms of a "personal God" who speaks to them in this way
is also "not a choice" but their reality.

I cannot choose to be anyone other than Emily Nghiem.
That is not a choice I can change.
And neither is someone who relates to life through a personal connection
which is expressed through God or Jesus. If that is the manner in which
their understanding and perception is shaped and manifested, that is "simply how it is."
What people subjectively find that motivates them and forms their paradigm is not what I am referring to. You are describing a subjective reality. I am talking about what is real outside of our perceptions, needs, creations or fantasies that no doubt sustain us. These are the rationalizations I frequently refer Boss to that people are 100% invested in. What is truth is not influenced by any of it.
2. As for your perception of my approach:


2. Yes and yes, it is both, not either/or.
I have investigated how people operate, and what makes communications/relations
work and what makes them fail.

I always find it best to accept each person's own perspective/perception and path/process which is unique to that person. Where this fails is where people cannot forgive and work with each other's differences. where it succeeds is where we embrace where we are coming from, what we are given, and find where we agree in common as workable.

We don't have to agree, in face, none of us agree 100%; the point is to deal with how we see and say things, and include that in the equations when we address and solve problems.

So yes, I am operating out of my own philosophy of equal concern for all people.

And yes, I am seeking a universal approach that allows equal inclusion of all views,
given the uniqueness and diversity of each person in the mix.

With all due respect, your investigation into the workings of communication and what makes them work and fail is not having the slightest influence on these boards. Your desire to have everyone come together and find a common baseline is not one iota closer than when you came here, and your belief that you know how to accomplish this is clearly just your delusion. You may have a bead on why others fail, but you are clueless as to why you do.
Again yes, and yes.

By including all people and working out our differences,
then we can distinguish what is objective reality from what is subjective or projected.

One is the means and the other is the end result. I trust in the process to get us there,
similar to trusting in the scientific method or the elimination process of trial and error.



No, I am not conflict or friction in itself as a bad thing to be "suppressed/avoided/squashed" -- but it is part of the process to find out where our differences are, and either resolve what can be, or accept and work around differences that are NATURAL (ie NOT caused by misinformation, unforgiven/unresolved projection etc)
people are not prone to identifying these things in themselves. What you claim as misinformation is another man's gospel and you will not shake them from their beliefs. If these threads are a testimony to anything they are a testimony to that hard truth.
There is a DIFFERENCE between naturally occurring differences in healthy relationships,
and abuse of conflicts to stir up ill will and destroy relationships.

Your statement underlined above is an example of a misperception of my intent
that WOULD cause unnecessary conflict.
You have shown your willingness to foment that same unnecessary conflict when describing Bush and Obama as Satan and anti-Christ, respectively. You won't see it that way, which to me will be a very bad misperception on your part.
Your nontheistic viewpoint is NOT a problem that necessarily needs correction.
My viewpoint is not non-theistic.
Do you see the difference? Between unnatural conflicts that need correction so they don't cause unnecessary clashing; versus differences that are natural to people, and if they cause some miscommunication issues, that is to be expected and can be worked with.

3. As for your points about Einstein:

Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
...
In my opinion, and Einstein's, the proposition of a personal god and the possibility of something undetermined and unknowable are not equal in the least. That may be neutral, but it isn't accurate.

As a scientist, that had primacy for Einstein.

Einstein found the evidence for a personal god childish and untenable. He replaces it with no system of his own, but an acknowledgment that some things are beyond knowing, and accepting the humility of that position. He makes peace with what he is ignorant of, but doesn't invent a solution for his ignorance, which is how he sees the idea of a personal god. And so do I.

3. To each his own. It's all "relative" isn't it?

When I want to study science and laws that Einstein specialized in, I would of course ask him or other students of his work and research. I would not ask Bible scholars who study Hebrew history, culture, and language (or Buddhist scholars who study ancient scriptures 11 times the volume of the Bible) who might think the work of scientists like Einstein is "meaningless" compared with what they see going on with spiritual laws of humanity.

When I want to study art, I would not ask Einstein -- I would study the work of Masters and people who love each of those particular genres and can express the full meaning that each art piece represents, in terms of the historic movements in society.

Otherwise, any of the abstract art in history books looks "silly" like a child's fingerpainting
and the meaning is completely lost of events going on in society that gave it lasting impact!

It may seem "silly" to pay millions of dollars for a painting or sculpture that looks like trash you couldn't sell at a garage sale.

But to someone else, that is serious art! It can mean something world shaking to them!

As Einstein and his followers made the theory of relativity a mainstream term,
I would say that concept of "relativity" applies to a lot more in life.

God may be "silly" to one person, but prayer to God and Jesus has saved lives and minds of people
who believe they owe their lives and their children, their sanity, and everything they have to God,
so that doesn't seem 'silly' to them when they could have been dead and never enjoyed anything in life.

Einstein nor I ever concluded that a personal god wasn't useful to those that invest in it. Not the argument at all. Rationalizations are a critical part of the survival of the ego.
That doesn't suddenly make them true.
Completely different arguments.

No response, emily?

 

[Boss]

Since the death penalty for scientific discovery contrary to christian teachings has been lifted god has batted a goose egg and science has beaten back many thousands of so called miracles into nothingness.

I must disagree with you on several things here. First of all, the "death penalty for scientific discovery" is ignorance, just as it has always been. This includes the ignorance of proclaiming things 99.9999% proven without any evidence. Science never draws conclusion, on any question. Even when science is relatively certain, it leaves the door open for the possibility it could be wrong. Guess what? That has proven to be wise because it has been wrong on many things.

Next is miracles. Contrary to what you say, they are still happening today. Things science has no explanation for whatsoever. Cancer Treatment Centers of America includes "spiritual therapy" as part of the treatment process because science has found that (for whatever unexplainable scientific reason) the presence of strong spiritual faith has proven itself with positive and miraculous results. Science doesn't care whether or not you believe in God, it is only concerned with observable results.

Finally, there is what science does versus what science cannot do. Science can explain how things work but it can't really explain why. All of the so-called "miracles" you believe science has explained away, it has only explained how they happened, not why. You can't explain WHY gravity is present in our universe. You can't explain WHY the bonding of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom is water. You can't explain why some subatomic particles become electrically charged producing electromagnetic fields. You can explain how, you can't explain why. For every question of how you answer, the question of why remains and will forever remain unanswered.

 

[sealybobo]

While scientific discovery may cast doubt on certain iterations or aspects of god(s), it certainly does not disprove god, which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying. God is generally described as being outside of current scientific endeavor; rarely is god defined in such a way as to be easily studied through any scientific branch, if such study is possible at all.

I don't believe in any god, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that current science precludes the possibility of any god existing.

I agree. That's why I say the most logical position is agnostic atheism.

But now think about what you are saying. This "GOD" is hiding from us? He's outside of science? Magical? Mysterious? Just silly. Not one footprint? Certainly he isn't the petty god christians jews and muslims talk about. So why is he hiding from us, right?

And I love the dope who thinks satan is real.

Magical and mysterious? Sure. However, usually that is because god is described as being above or beyond the physical universe we are part of; an entity with so much power or of such a different nature than man that god can do the unexplainable.

God wouldn't need to be hiding. It would be more a matter of our not yet having the capability to see.

Science would say if that were true then what would make you think you are any more special to this god than a mosquito, ant or Tardigrade?

 

[Steven_R]

I must disagree with you on several things here. First of all, the "death penalty for scientific discovery" is ignorance, just as it has always been.

Giordano Bruno might disagree with you...

 

[sealybobo]

IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO SEEK AND FIND GOD, you would read his living eternal word ans say,"God if you are real show me,talk to me through your word,let me know if you are real,I WANT TO KNOW" GOD WOULD 100% SURE!

I did this. He did not speak back. He didn't curse me and he didn't bless me. They told me to read the bible and I did and it did nothing. I guess you have to read it before you start doubting. If you go into it suspicious then you'll never swallow what you are reading. I find it funny when I watdh televangelists read the most mundane things and people are shaking their heads or nodding like some big revelation has come over them. I'm like yea so what. Religion allows bad people to fee good about themselves and makes them think they are better than everyone else when they are the problem with our society.

 

[hazlnut]

Depending on which conception of God you mean -- the invisible man in the sky is one hateful sick fuck.

Old Testament -- pissy old man wondering the desert, then clicks "Clear History" on humanity and starts over with Noah's family--making us all the children of incest. Vindictive and petty, supports slavery, polygamy, child abuse and spousal abuse.

New Testament -- prefers to remain in the background, communication via Proxy and his unlucky son (who has magic X-Men powers that seem to not work when he needs them most)

Scientology -- an extraterrestrial, Zenu.



The problem is individuals relying on others or organized ritual groups (religions) to explain God. Religion can offer a good starting point -- but the Spiritual path, the Road less traveled is the only way IMO to really know God.

 

[sealybobo]

there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.
which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.

What is your scientific basis for these statistics?

Surely you have some, right? In order to definitively establish such a certainty, you ought to have some pretty compelling scientific evidence, correct? So where is it? Why are we not seeing it presented? Are we just supposed to accept your word for this?

I would argue the number is more like 50% at best, if we are being completely objective here. There is a 50% chance God is real, and a 50% chance God is not real. Unless there is some observable, testable and falsifiable evidence I am not aware of, that should be the odds....50/50.

You see, it would be just as easy for me to proclaim there is a 99.9999% chance God is real. As long as there is no criteria where actual evidence has to be objectively evaluated, anyone can make any claim they please with regard to the possibility. What does it mean? Isn't this just a subjective opinion?

We've had two threads going here for months, and countless other similar threads, but I have simply never seen ANY scientific evidence to suggest God doesn't exist. Now, when one has made his/her mind up to 99.9999% certainty without ANY evidence whatsoever... what pray tell is THAT called? Hmmm... seems we do have a word for it, don't we?

This is called an argument from ignorance. A common attempt to shift the burden of proof. The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence. Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position. The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

I just leaped out of my body and flew through the computer into your home and I watched you for about 5 seconds and then I was flown back into my body all of the sudden. Do you believe this? Is there a 50% chance I'm telling the truth?

 

[sealybobo]

Depending on which conception of God you mean -- the invisible man in the sky is one hateful sick fuck.

Old Testament -- pissy old man wondering the desert, then clicks "Clear History" on humanity and starts over with Noah's family--making us all the children of incest. Vindictive and petty, supports slavery, polygamy, child abuse and spousal abuse.

New Testament -- prefers to remain in the background, communication via Proxy and his unlucky son (who has magic X-Men powers that seem to not work when he needs them most)

Scientology -- an extraterrestrial, Zenu.



The problem is individuals relying on others or organized ritual groups (religions) to explain God. Religion can offer a good starting point -- but the Spiritual path, the Road less traveled is the only way IMO to really know God.

If there is a god, and 99% chance there isn't one, he doesn't know you any more than you know a minnow in the ocean.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Bruce thanks for your reply.
Sorry im on my cell phone. Pls use @ to signal msg
So i can keep up with you and your replies. sorry.

That is cool you are NOT nontheistic
Maybe you are more like my bf who believes in some
God or creator that is not like the Christian personal
God through Jesus. I believe this approach is importajt
To understand, and more and more ppl will come forth
Who normally aren't heard next to the Christians
Who preach publicly.

I still believe it is the same God and all our
Perceptions are different.

To you, you have seen no proof this can all be reconciled.
To me all i have seen shows me these things can be worked out.

As for Obama and Bush, i deal with ppl from all views.
Sorry you cannot tell when i am making fun of the issues
But thats what most of humor focuses on.

You see that ppl cannot deal with each other.
I see that the problems are mutual and can forgive
The ppl on both sides. Of course you are right where
Ppl cannot forgive they stay stuck in division.

If you look where ppl choose to.forgive and expand
Their perception to consider where others are coming
From that is where change happens.
This is on an internal level of healing and change in
Perception. It isnt always immediate or.visible.

But that is where change happens first
Before it manifests or expresses outwardly.

Yes it happens, is universal, and mutual.
It is a constant process bruce like the force of life.

Sorry you cant see it from your viewpoint
But where i focus its constant change.

Thanks bruce ill reply when i can type
And answer your points better than this sorry!

E=thebrucebeat;9106196]

1.

Hi Bruce: Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
1. Do you also understand that for people who experience spiritual insights in terms of a "personal God" who speaks to them in this way
is also "not a choice" but their reality.

I cannot choose to be anyone other than Emily Nghiem.
That is not a choice I can change.
And neither is someone who relates to life through a personal connection
which is expressed through God or Jesus. If that is the manner in which
their understanding and perception is shaped and manifested, that is "simply how it is."
What people subjectively find that motivates them and forms their paradigm is not what I am referring to. You are describing a subjective reality. I am talking about what is real outside of our perceptions, needs, creations or fantasies that no doubt sustain us. These are the rationalizations I frequently refer Boss to that people are 100% invested in. What is truth is not influenced by any of it.
2. As for your perception of my approach:


2. Yes and yes, it is both, not either/or.
I have investigated how people operate, and what makes communications/relations
work and what makes them fail.

I always find it best to accept each person's own perspective/perception and path/process which is unique to that person. Where this fails is where people cannot forgive and work with each other's differences. where it succeeds is where we embrace where we are coming from, what we are given, and find where we agree in common as workable.

We don't have to agree, in face, none of us agree 100%; the point is to deal with how we see and say things, and include that in the equations when we address and solve problems.

So yes, I am operating out of my own philosophy of equal concern for all people.

And yes, I am seeking a universal approach that allows equal inclusion of all views,
given the uniqueness and diversity of each person in the mix.

With all due respect, your investigation into the workings of communication and what makes them work and fail is not having the slightest influence on these boards. Your desire to have everyone come together and find a common baseline is not one iota closer than when you came here, and your belief that you know how to accomplish this is clearly just your delusion. You may have a bead on why others fail, but you are clueless as to why you do.
Again yes, and yes.

By including all people and working out our differences,
then we can distinguish what is objective reality from what is subjective or projected.

One is the means and the other is the end result. I trust in the process to get us there,
similar to trusting in the scientific method or the elimination process of trial and error.



No, I am not conflict or friction in itself as a bad thing to be "suppressed/avoided/squashed" -- but it is part of the process to find out where our differences are, and either resolve what can be, or accept and work around differences that are NATURAL (ie NOT caused by misinformation, unforgiven/unresolved projection etc)
people are not prone to identifying these things in themselves. What you claim as misinformation is another man's gospel and you will not shake them from their beliefs. If these threads are a testimony to anything they are a testimony to that hard truth.
There is a DIFFERENCE between naturally occurring differences in healthy relationships,
and abuse of conflicts to stir up ill will and destroy relationships.

Your statement underlined above is an example of a misperception of my intent
that WOULD cause unnecessary conflict.
You have shown your willingness to foment that same unnecessary conflict when describing Bush and Obama as Satan and anti-Christ, respectively. You won't see it that way, which to me will be a very bad misperception on your part.
Your nontheistic viewpoint is NOT a problem that necessarily needs correction.
My viewpoint is not non-theistic.
Do you see the difference? Between unnatural conflicts that need correction so they don't cause unnecessary clashing; versus differences that are natural to people, and if they cause some miscommunication issues, that is to be expected and can be worked with.

3. As for your points about Einstein:



3. To each his own. It's all "relative" isn't it?

When I want to study science and laws that Einstein specialized in, I would of course ask him or other students of his work and research. I would not ask Bible scholars who study Hebrew history, culture, and language (or Buddhist scholars who study ancient scriptures 11 times the volume of the Bible) who might think the work of scientists like Einstein is "meaningless" compared with what they see going on with spiritual laws of humanity.

When I want to study art, I would not ask Einstein -- I would study the work of Masters and people who love each of those particular genres and can express the full meaning that each art piece represents, in terms of the historic movements in society.

Otherwise, any of the abstract art in history books looks "silly" like a child's fingerpainting
and the meaning is completely lost of events going on in society that gave it lasting impact!

It may seem "silly" to pay millions of dollars for a painting or sculpture that looks like trash you couldn't sell at a garage sale.

But to someone else, that is serious art! It can mean something world shaking to them!

As Einstein and his followers made the theory of relativity a mainstream term,
I would say that concept of "relativity" applies to a lot more in life.

God may be "silly" to one person, but prayer to God and Jesus has saved lives and minds of people
who believe they owe their lives and their children, their sanity, and everything they have to God,
so that doesn't seem 'silly' to them when they could have been dead and never enjoyed anything in life.

Einstein nor I ever concluded that a personal god wasn't useful to those that invest in it. Not the argument at all. Rationalizations are a critical part of the survival of the ego.
That doesn't suddenly make them true.
Completely different arguments.

No response, emily?[/QUOTE]

 

[emilynghiem]

IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO SEEK AND FIND GOD, you would read his living eternal word ans say,"God if you are real show me,talk to me through your word,let me know if you are real,I WANT TO KNOW" GOD WOULD 100% SURE!

I did this. He did not speak back. He didn't curse me and he didn't bless me. They told me to read the bible and I did and it did nothing. I guess you have to read it before you start doubting. If you go into it suspicious then you'll never swallow what you are reading. I find it funny when I watdh televangelists read the most mundane things and people are shaking their heads or nodding like some big revelation has come over them. I'm like yea so what. Religion allows bad people to fee good about themselves and makes them think they are better than everyone else when they are the problem with our society.

If you are secular gentile on the path of following natural laws
By conscience, you may not relate to God and life the same way.

Look at how Buddha found wisdom and understanding
Of interconnected laws in life- by letting go, not
By attaching to any religious condition.

This is a valid path also. Leads to the same
Pool of universal laws but by conscience and reason
Not religious conditions and striving.

 

[sealybobo]

IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO SEEK AND FIND GOD, you would read his living eternal word ans say,"God if you are real show me,talk to me through your word,let me know if you are real,I WANT TO KNOW" GOD WOULD 100% SURE!

I did this. He did not speak back. He didn't curse me and he didn't bless me. They told me to read the bible and I did and it did nothing. I guess you have to read it before you start doubting. If you go into it suspicious then you'll never swallow what you are reading. I find it funny when I watdh televangelists read the most mundane things and people are shaking their heads or nodding like some big revelation has come over them. I'm like yea so what. Religion allows bad people to fee good about themselves and makes them think they are better than everyone else when they are the problem with our society.

If you are secular gentile on the path of following natural laws
By conscience, you may not relate to God and life the same way.

Look at how Buddha found wisdom and understanding
Of interconnected laws in life- by letting go, not
By attaching to any religious condition.

This is a valid path also. Leads to the same
Pool of universal laws but by conscience and reason
Not religious conditions and striving.

I use to feel special that I got it that organized religion was bullshit but I had a personal relationship with god. Then I met some atheists and they got me to realize I was just about as naive as the people who believe the christian, muslim or jewish stories.

And I don't feel bad or guilty because I know if there is a god he isn't the petty god these religious nuts claim him to be. No hell for not believing a corrupt hypocritical society or the churches in them. I say a real god would punish the stupid, if there is one, and common sense says there isn't one. Imagine you are a god to the fish in the pond you fish in. They worship you. You feed them. You supposedly love them. Every once in awhile you hook one and you eat it. They say "oh it is god's will and he works in mysterious ways and don't question god or you'll go to hell".

 

[BreezeWood]

Science can explain how things work but it can't really explain why.

You can explain how, you can't explain why. For every question of how you answer, the question of why remains and will forever remain unanswered.

Boss: Why do the God-haters persist? ... To put it in simple terms, they fear God.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

nothing new when a religionist answers the question "why" while denying the same for Science that must only have the ability to understand how -

how is it possible to know with certainty how without answering why?

.

 

[Hollie]

Next is miracles. Contrary to what you say, they are still happening today. Things science has no explanation for whatsoever. Cancer Treatment Centers of America includes "spiritual therapy" as part of the treatment process because science has found that (for whatever unexplainable scientific reason) the presence of strong spiritual faith has proven itself with positive and miraculous results. Science doesn't care whether or not you believe in God, it is only concerned with observable results.

Miracles are still happening today?

Identify one.

 

[Hollie]

Science can explain how things work but it can't really explain why.

You can explain how, you can't explain why. For every question of how you answer, the question of why remains and will forever remain unanswered.

Boss: Why do the God-haters persist? ... To put it in simple terms, they fear God.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

nothing new when a religionist answers the question "why" while denying the same for Science that must only have the ability to understand how -

how is it possible to know with certainty how without answering why?

.

Science does have a burden not shared by religionists / supernaturalists.

Science is held to a standard of demonstration where religionists / supernaturalists resolve all issues, questions, paradoxes with: "The Gods Did It... because I say so"

 

[sealybobo]

Since the death penalty for scientific discovery contrary to christian teachings has been lifted god has batted a goose egg and science has beaten back many thousands of so called miracles into nothingness.

I must disagree with you on several things here. First of all, the "death penalty for scientific discovery" is ignorance, just as it has always been. This includes the ignorance of proclaiming things 99.9999% proven without any evidence. Science never draws conclusion, on any question. Even when science is relatively certain, it leaves the door open for the possibility it could be wrong. Guess what? That has proven to be wise because it has been wrong on many things.

Next is miracles. Contrary to what you say, they are still happening today. Things science has no explanation for whatsoever. Cancer Treatment Centers of America includes "spiritual therapy" as part of the treatment process because science has found that (for whatever unexplainable scientific reason) the presence of strong spiritual faith has proven itself with positive and miraculous results. Science doesn't care whether or not you believe in God, it is only concerned with observable results.

Finally, there is what science does versus what science cannot do. Science can explain how things work but it can't really explain why. All of the so-called "miracles" you believe science has explained away, it has only explained how they happened, not why. You can't explain WHY gravity is present in our universe. You can't explain WHY the bonding of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom is water. You can't explain why some subatomic particles become electrically charged producing electromagnetic fields. You can explain how, you can't explain why. For every question of how you answer, the question of why remains and will forever remain unanswered.

Science does leave the door open. That's why we give god a .00009 chance of being real. And what you said in another post is silly. We fear god? Come on now! It is the people who believe in god that are in fear of him. They even say it on the sunday shows. So don't be ignorant. We wish there was a god and a heaven but the most probable thing is neither exist and telling us we will burn in hell won't change our minds because that is silly too. Maybe that worked on us until we got into middle school maybe.

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work. Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims either. Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities. Miracle claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test like the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance. Want to show me a miracle? Show me a limb grow back overnight. A priest putting his hands on 100,000 people and one of them with a brain tumor is cured is not a miracle. Show me a priest who can cure every person with a brain tumor then we’ll talk.

Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

nothing new when a religionist answers the question "why" while denying the same for Science that must only have the ability to understand how -

how is it possible to know with certainty how without answering why?

.

Science does have a burden not shared by religionists / supernaturalists.

Science is held to a standard of demonstration where religionists / supernaturalists resolve all issues, questions, paradoxes with: "The Gods Did It... because I say so"

Did you see they made the one pedophile pope a saint and said he performed one miracle? I looked into it and he supposedly cured some kid of a brain tumor. Just one kid? I guess I'm going to go to the hospital and put my hands on every person with cancer and everyone of them that is cured is my doing and I'm a saint and I performed a miracle. The Catholic church making those last two pope's into saints is another thing that pushed me over the edge on realizing all organized religion is fucked up, immoral, corrupt bullshit. Saints. Sure. What a PR move. They got to do something to win all the people they lost back. That's why they picked a pope who said "who am I to judge" when asked about gays. Great answer, too bad your flock doesn't feel that way.

Oh yea, and why are christians so concerned with gays? Why don't they worry about the 7 deadly sins they commit every day? Gay is not one of them. But being fat and greedy are two of them. Christians need to focus on themselves. Be good people then maybe we'll want to join your cult.

 

[Montrovant]

I agree. That's why I say the most logical position is agnostic atheism.

But now think about what you are saying. This "GOD" is hiding from us? He's outside of science? Magical? Mysterious? Just silly. Not one footprint? Certainly he isn't the petty god christians jews and muslims talk about. So why is he hiding from us, right?

And I love the dope who thinks satan is real.

Magical and mysterious? Sure. However, usually that is because god is described as being above or beyond the physical universe we are part of; an entity with so much power or of such a different nature than man that god can do the unexplainable.

God wouldn't need to be hiding. It would be more a matter of our not yet having the capability to see.

Science would say if that were true then what would make you think you are any more special to this god than a mosquito, ant or Tardigrade?

First, 'science' wouldn't say anything. Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.

And it's not a question I have an answer to. If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.

My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand. I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope. It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.

I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s). Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.

 

[koshergrl]

nothing new when a religionist answers the question "why" while denying the same for Science that must only have the ability to understand how -

how is it possible to know with certainty how without answering why?

.

Science does have a burden not shared by religionists / supernaturalists.

Science is held to a standard of demonstration where religionists / supernaturalists resolve all issues, questions, paradoxes with: "The Gods Did It... because I say so"

Did you see they made the one pedophile pope a saint and said he performed one miracle? I looked into it and he supposedly cured some kid of a brain tumor. Just one kid? I guess I'm going to go to the hospital and put my hands on every person with cancer and everyone of them that is cured is my doing and I'm a saint and I performed a miracle. The Catholic church making those last two pope's into saints is another thing that pushed me over the edge on realizing all organized religion is fucked up, immoral, corrupt bullshit. Saints. Sure. What a PR move. They got to do something to win all the people they lost back. That's why they picked a pope who said "who am I to judge" when asked about gays. Great answer, too bad your flock doesn't feel that way.

Oh yea, and why are christians so concerned with gays? Why don't they worry about the 7 deadly sins they commit every day? Gay is not one of them. But being fat and greedy are two of them. Christians need to focus on themselves. Be good people then maybe we'll want to join your cult.

Sounds to me like you're the one preoccupied with deviant sex.

Not Christians.

 

[sealybobo]

Science does have a burden not shared by religionists / supernaturalists.

Science is held to a standard of demonstration where religionists / supernaturalists resolve all issues, questions, paradoxes with: "The Gods Did It... because I say so"

Did you see they made the one pedophile pope a saint and said he performed one miracle? I looked into it and he supposedly cured some kid of a brain tumor. Just one kid? I guess I'm going to go to the hospital and put my hands on every person with cancer and everyone of them that is cured is my doing and I'm a saint and I performed a miracle. The Catholic church making those last two pope's into saints is another thing that pushed me over the edge on realizing all organized religion is fucked up, immoral, corrupt bullshit. Saints. Sure. What a PR move. They got to do something to win all the people they lost back. That's why they picked a pope who said "who am I to judge" when asked about gays. Great answer, too bad your flock doesn't feel that way.

Oh yea, and why are christians so concerned with gays? Why don't they worry about the 7 deadly sins they commit every day? Gay is not one of them. But being fat and greedy are two of them. Christians need to focus on themselves. Be good people then maybe we'll want to join your cult.

Sounds to me like you're the one preoccupied with deviant sex.

Not Christians.

I don't hate god its hypocritical religious people who think they know him I don't like. I don't hate anyone but boy would I love for that story to come true where jesus comes and takes all you believers to heaven and leaves the rest of us here. Man I hope that happens. Then we'll have heaven on earth with you guys gone.

 

[sealybobo]

Magical and mysterious? Sure. However, usually that is because god is described as being above or beyond the physical universe we are part of; an entity with so much power or of such a different nature than man that god can do the unexplainable.

God wouldn't need to be hiding. It would be more a matter of our not yet having the capability to see.

Science would say if that were true then what would make you think you are any more special to this god than a mosquito, ant or Tardigrade?

First, 'science' wouldn't say anything. Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.

And it's not a question I have an answer to. If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.

My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand. I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope. It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.

I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s). Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.

What is the probability that such a god exists? Very low. The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something. And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.

And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense. We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist. But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows. Anyone who claims to know is crazy. And christians and muslims claim to know.

Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god. God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them. But most thinking people know this is a lie. SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla. At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us. All you have is phylisophical think. LOL.