My God, Your God, or No God...Oh, God...

[moghopper]

I'm not going to read the article

Cool! You're a zealot nut too!!

 

[RockMiner]

Is there a god? No honest, rational person should pretend to know the answer to this. No matter how strong ones faith might be, it is still just an opinion...that's why they call it faith and not fact.

As to Christianity, like Kronk I feel there are key tenets that make no sense whatsoever. Maybe they made sense to the intensely superstitious individuals that wrote them down thousands of years ago, but people of that time believed a lot of things that are now known to be nonsense. In fact, I would guess that most things that passed for "fact" 2000 years ago have been shown to be incorrect. (just my opinion)

I'll continue to muddle through life, secure in the knowledge that I don't know and you don't either!

 

[azanon]

Cool! You're a zealot nut too!!

I dont like literature on aliens from other planets nor do i read the National Enquirer. I would think my not reading these types of things would make me anything but a zealot. Besides, an agnostic is the antithesis to zealotry.

Also, I didnt need to read the article to (correctly) answer his question. Granted, i had answered it once before. Some people need to hear things 2 or 3 times though, and i understand that.

 

[JWR1945]

I am seeing a lot of arrogance and ignorance. People should not be surprised to learn that the gods that they create out of their own imaginations do not exist.

Actually looking into the facts, the evidence is overwhelming: Michael is right.

Have fun.

John Russell

 

[azanon]

You call out arrogance and ignorance, then immediately follow it with an arrogant and ignorant statement. Good work man!

 

[HFWR]

I am seeing a lot of arrogance and ignorance. People should not be surprised to learn that the gods that they create out of their own imaginations do not exist.

Actually looking into the facts, the evidence is overwhelming: Michael is right.

Have fun.

John Russell

And those facts would be.....?

 

[laurence]

I posted a link to an article on Einstien's view on faith and his personal views and beliefs on God in a last attempt at having the conversation take the high road. But the sharks have smelled blood, and the feeding frenzy cannot be halted. Religious threads almost always turn ugly, and this one has descended to name calling and a cathartic beat down session for those who feel wronged by the country's predominant faith. The primary emotional motivation seems to be not against some one's personal faith, but the intolerance some have experienced for not agreeing with that faith. It's just a shame that the result is an equally intolerant thread. Some, in fact, are presenting a very strong case for the side they claim to oppose! I would ask that if nothing else, we try to avoid stereotypes and clumping people into one neat definitition. Whether a Christian or a Humanist, both should agree on respecting another's opinion and their right to act and believe freely.

 

[azanon]

>I guess i got involved after your comment/link on Einstein, but I presume you did point out he was an atheist.

>Since i dont take this stuff personally, i dont really share your emotions regarding the thread Laurance. Topics on sex, religion, politics are inherently riske/invite tension. If one has a problem with such emotions, they're probably better off just not participating. These types of topics arn't for everyone.

The rest of us, though, do like sharing and hearing each other ideas. Even at 33, i'm still definitley "teachable" and if a compelling enough argument is presented to me about anything, i'll adopt it. I know christains are aware that "fighting the good fight" isnt an easy one, so dont give up on us now ;-)

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

I posted a link to an article on Einstien's view on faith and his personal views and beliefs on God in a last attempt at having the conversation take the high road.  But the sharks have smelled blood, and the feeding frenzy cannot be halted.  Religious threads almost always turn ugly, and this one has descended to name calling and a cathartic beat down session for those who feel wronged by the country's predominant faith.  The primary emotional motivation seems to be not against some one's personal faith, but the intolerance some have experienced for not agreeing with that faith.  It's just a shame that the result is an equally intolerant thread.  Some, in fact, are presenting a very strong case for the side they claim to oppose! I would ask that if nothing else, we try to avoid stereotypes and clumping people into one neat definitition.  Whether a Christian or a Humanist, both should agree on respecting another's opinion and their right to act and believe freely. 

I guess I may be considered part of the problem, but this thread seems pretty civil to me.  If someone needs to slap me  (or anyone else) for being disrespectful, please do.  I think we're having a pretty honest and open-minded discourse.

Incidentally, has anyone else noticed this article today about the wholesome, god-fearing people protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers? 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/

Religion can be whatever you want to make it, and these people make it ugly...

 

[moghopper]

I would think my not reading these types of things would make me anything but a zealot. Besides, an agnostic is the antithesis to zealotry.

Zealotry does not have to pertain to "god-based" religion. I think you qualify. I don't think you're the only one here. You preach a "gospel" just as piously as anyone else here. You've got it man!

Zeal·ot n.
One who is zealous, especially excessively so.

zeal·ous adj.
Filled with or motivated by zeal; fervent.

 

[laurence]

I'm always up for a debate, but some words have been used on this thread usually shut minds, not open them. As I've said, I have my personal beliefs which probably do not coincide with anyone else's on this board, and my motivation comes not from fear of death or the teaches of my parents (as they are atheist) but an innate inner feeling and some experiences in my life, along with my observations of the universe. The writings of Stephen Hawking have probably done more to reinforce my views than the Bible has. I certainly don't pretend to know the answers, I have a profound love of science, and vigorously defend the seperation of church and state and keeping education undiluted with thinly veiled religious dogma (re: intelligent design vs. evolution debates). While I don't pretend to understand the details of superstring theory, or can say more than a couple of sentences on chaos theory, the increase of entropy and it's relation to the directionality of time etc. I am awed by the order of the universe, and amazed each time we discover something new.

My point in entering this discussion at all was not to convince anyone to "repent" or "convert" but rather to contest an underlying premise of some posts here: All Christians are intolerant wackos who hate science and progress. Give up on you? Not a chance. I think we've just been talking past each other, and wanting a different discussion than the other. I wish you and yours nothing but the best.

 

[wabmester]

The writings of Stephen Hawking have probably done more to reinforce my views than the Bible has.

That seems like quite a leap. I can understand you deciding that there's some intelligent force at work in the universe, but how does that get you to an anthropomorphic god who has a human son who gets killed for the future sins of mankind?

For about 5 minutes, I thought Buddhism would appeal to me. I like the idea of celebrating impermenance and embracing change. I prefer the reincarnation myth to the eternal soul myth (at least in terms of how well it jibes with physics). I sort of like the idea about "planes" of existence, and giving "lower" animals more respect than other religions give them. But after a little reading, there was just waaaay too much mystiscism and weird levels of near-godness to deal with.

So, I'll keep working on my own for now.

 

[laurence]

That seems like quite a leap. I can understand you deciding that there's some intelligent force at work in the universe, but how does that get you to an anthropomorphic god who has a human son who gets killed for the future sins of mankind?

eh, one story is as good as another, right? Seriously, I'm quite sure many Christians would see me as a heretic, but long story short is there is a difference between the truth and Truth. Aesop's fables are a simplistic version of this notion. It's not what happened to the particular characters but the greater truth that is being revealed. The Gospels are the books I come closest to reading literally, and genisis the furthest from. I won't bore you to tears on why, it involves style of writing, original language, what tribes wrote which histories etc.


For about 5 minutes, I thought Buddhism would appeal to me. I like the idea of celebrating impermenance and embracing change. I prefer the reincarnation myth to the eternal soul myth (at least in terms of how well it jibes with physics). I sort of like the idea about "planes" of existence, and giving "lower" animals more respect than other religions give them. But after a little reading, there was just waaaay too much mystiscism and weird levels of near-godness to deal with.

So, I'll keep working on my own for now.

Sounds good to me.

 

[wabmester]

It's not what happened to the particular characters but the greater truth that is being revealed.

Ah. Well, if you haven't already, you might want to check out the Talmud. As Einstein said (paraphrasing): if you leave out all that stuff about Jesus being the son of God, then he was really just a good Jew.

 

[laurence]

Ah. Well, if you haven't already, you might want to check out the Talmud. As Einstein said (paraphrasing): if you leave out all that stuff about Jesus being the son of God, then he was really just a good Jew.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Danny]

AF: Thou shalt respect diversity

New Air Force guidelines on religious tolerance discourage public prayer in most official settings and caution senior officers and chaplains to respect religious diversity.

They direct chaplains to "respect the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no belief."

And they encourage commanders to accommodate all faiths by providing free time for worship on their Sabbaths and other holy days when possible.

Chaplains and senior officers were the subject of the most serious charges of religious intolerance dating back to at least 2003, say those involved in the controversy.

Members of a Yale Divinity School team reported witnessing a chaplain exhort new cadets in June 2004 to tell non-believing cadets that those not "born again will burn in the fires of hell."

Brig. Gen. John Weida, the commandant of cadets, second-highest ranking officer at the academy, encouraged cadets to proselytize, according to a June 2005 Air Force report on the academy's intolerance problem.

http://tinyurl.com/adyoa

 

[Michael]

Yes, us humans are not perfect.

Well, at least we agree on something.

 

[Michael]

I believe that the Christian doctrine is simple at its heart: If you truly believe in God/Jesus as Lord and Savior, you will be saved and go to heaven.

Not simply believing that He exists, but actively accepting Him as your personal Lord. Lord means that you agree to do anything He says. Saviour means that you acknowledge that there is nothing you can do to save yourself, and put your faith in Him alone to save you.

good = those who will be saved

I disagree. No mortal is good.

earn way into heaven = accept God's gift of salvation through faith

I disagree. No mortal can earn salvation. Gift means that it is given to someone who doesn't deserve it. No mortal deserves salvation. We deserve death. Lord Jesus died in our place, and that is the only reason we
can live. People are free to accept or reject His gift, but they can never earn it.

 

[greg]

Laurence: I liked the Enstein article you posted alot. Spot on. Thanks.

--Greg

 

[sgeeeee]

Laurence:  I liked the Enstein article you posted alot.  Spot on.  Thanks.   

--Greg

Okay.  Tell me what specifically anyone liked about this article.  I started reading it when Laurence origninally posted it and found it so absent of any valid facts that I couldn't get through it.  After Greg's endorsement, I tried to read it again.  It reads like an informercial to me. Lot's of details that don't seem to get to a point. I don't get it.  What was the point of the article?  what is the thesis the author of the article is trying to push?   

Thanks.   

 

[mikew]

Hello
Not to wade in here but

My university prof told me all of the Japanese are shintoists but just before they die the change to buddism because you don't really have to do anything in shinto but there ain't no afterlife.

 

[greg]

Okay. Tell me what specifically anyone liked about this article. I started reading it when Laurence origninally posted it and found it so absent of any valid facts that I couldn't get through it. After Greg's endorsement, I tried to read it again. It reads like an informercial to me. Lot's of details that don't seem to get to a point. I don't get it. What was the point of the article? what is the thesis the author of the article is trying to push?

Thanks.

It's a little bit about the super-natural. It's also a bit like gravity. It's always been there right under your nose, in front of your nose, behind your nose , to the sides of your nose, and even tugging on your nose. Gravity has been here as long as matter existed (some might say before). People used it and had faith, sort of, that it worked even though they didn't even know it really existed as a scientifically verifiable concept. They, learned elders, postulated chariots dragging the sun across the sky or giant crystalin (sp?) spheres holding up and rotating in the sky--over a flat earth, etc. Lots of different objects at different time periods in history were used to explain the unexplainable. Every single time there was also a theological fight involved.

Enstein was just a trouble maker , saying that there is some type of hidden, as yet unrevealed, order behind this vast physical experience of ours, and we shouldn't give up on it until we find it. We should have faith that something more is there, somewhere. He felt quantum theory/mechanics was a 'give up.'

That's my reading of it. Consciousness, awareness, is like light--metaphorically. It is invisible until it shows up on objects, revealing the objects but not itself. Gravity is revealed thru the objects it affects also--but is invisible otherwise. Enstein thinks there is something more than randomness at the core of the universe and the core of man. I agree.

--Greg

 

[tozz]

Aliens?  Did somebody say aliens?  Finally something in 20 pages of messages this survivor of thirteen years of catholic schooling can relate to.  Cool!

You do know, they are coming to take us away, don't you?

I dont like literature on aliens from other planets nor do i read the National Enquirer. 

 

[sgeeeee]

Remember that Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

 

[azanon]

I haven't read that article as i mentioned, but just so no one is mislead into thinking Einstein believed in God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) "

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)"

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)"

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. (Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)"

There are others.  But i think that is enough to clarify this.