where you been dude? You were missed.
GTM
Rereading Das Kapital. LOL
soul? Do you believe in Karma? What is your purpose in this life? What happens after your death?
How was the earth, the flowing waters, the blue sky above, the celestial stars, trees and the animal kingdom including homosapiens created? Why does a human being have the gift of reason and a dog does not?
Do you believe in love? Why are there good and bad people? What is good? What is bad?
Is it important to be honest? Do you believe in life or murder? Do you believe in obeying the law? If so why?
I await your answers.
-- Modified on 5/28/2009 10:37:12 PM
For you I probably need to say that there is no god yet. You may have proven to yourself that there is a god but I probably won't find your proof acceptable to me. We are humans that live on Earth and we look at the the universe from Earth's perspective. Our existence is the result of Earth's existence. Earth exists because the universe exists and as humans , we cant see beyond the existence of the universe. End of story.
see beyond the existence of the universe"? What does it mean to exist? Did the airplane exist before Oroville and Wilbur Wright flew at Kitty Hawk or was the airplane simply unknowable before 1901?
Does love exist?
BM what we know is what we can prove to our satisfaction. In your example the known equation is flight. We have seen birds do it so we believe we can do it. We know that there is a universe but we have yet to quantify it. We know that love exists because it makes fools of us all.
Because religion cannot be proven. You must be a believer, period. Doubting Thomas needde proff so Jesus appeared before him to show him the nails scars on his hand. I, like Thomas, need proof because I am intellectually wired that way. So for my purpose, I consider myself a agnostic or as Studs Terkel would put it " a cowardly atheist"
I had myself all convinced not to like you, but then you go spouting reasonable thought again. lol
That's my roundabout way of saying I agree with you. I too would need Jesus to appear before me before I would give the slightest credence to the Christian religion. I hold all religions in equal disdain on an intellectual level, but I reserve a particular loathing for the followers of Islam and Christ because of their inability to "leave me the fuck alone".
“. . . reserve a particular loathing for the followers of Islam and Christ because of their inability to ‘leave me the fuck alone’”
I contend that that’s like saying that you have real disdain and loathing for all poor people because you are bugged and annoyed too much, too often by panhandlers. The scale and intensity and impact on your life is not same between the two analogies but my point is of course that not all Christians (not even close to a majority) are responsible for your troubles and discomfort.
As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’m not defending the “objectionable” Christians, but simply trying to put things in perspective.
I would respectively disagree. I would like to meet these Christians because I met few that you described. If they existe they have been silent as the Moral Majority have used "politics" to impose their world view on a variety of issues.
Liberty University recently banned Democrats from organizing on their campus. Where is the pushback from these christians you speak of? Where is the pushback on any social issue of today?
Take the hobby for an example. Rather than legalizing it, so called christians choose to force it underground, giving life to pimps and exploitation.
I argue that after living in Europe, you see the differences. The majority you speak of exist there -not in America
I try not to be rigid in my thoughts but I do have some form of faith...When I am in Atlantic City and at the crap table LOL
Preciesely because they DON"T wear their religion on their sleave, you would never know they were so. You are now chastising the "silent ones" for not being activists against other Christians? How much of an activist are you or others here that complain?
Certainly you can see differences. There are lots of activists Christians here, but you are again lumping all Christians together.
First, I grew up in a VERY christian home. My father was a Deacon and my mother was the church mother. My ex-Wife is an ordained minister. My social circle are ALL church goers, the people who you describe. For years, I was the christian you describe because of the factors above. I do not know of any secular thinkers other than myself, and they all agree on the social issue today, especially the most pressing on today - Gay marriage. Prop 42 or whatever the the number was pushed by the Church. If the christian who do not silently support what Gambler describe as not leaving non-believers alone, did they stay home and not vote? No, their Pastor told them to vote against and they did.
So these "silent christians" as you call them so not wesr religion on their sleeve or just simply churchgoers
I too grew up in and still reside in a “very” Christian family and community. Shall we get into an argument over who is more Christian exposed that whom,. LOL?. The point is that it is very possible for a very useful Christian to not be in everyone’s face about it on a daily basis. Uninvited proselytizing is not practiced by most Christians. It is also possible for citizens to hold views and vote for issues siding with religious people without being religious. Abortion is a good example.
You didn’t answer as to how activist you are. You want others to be activist for your benefit, but are you?
Ok, you are say I change the topic..LOL. Going back to the OP by GG, he said that his problen with Chritians and Muslims alike is their inabilty to stay out of his life. Your point its not all Christians but if enough of them pry into the life of others.
Now I am not a practicing christian but for years, I was an activist in not focusing on abortion/gay issues but feeding the poor, affordable housing and service that lack in poor communties.
You are now demonstrating that you see the point I was making that only a minority of Christians are the ones in GG’s face. I never stated GG was wrong about his observations, only that far from all Christians were guilty of the transgressions he objected to.
My questioning of your activism was not about how actively you practiced Christianity or any religion (either now or in the past). It was about how actively you were in combating those things to which you objected to and thought that I should be objecting to, namely combating the efforts all these objectionable Christians and Muslims.
What is deja vu?
How is matter created in a perfect universe from chaos that makes even the study of science possible?
How does science explain the existence of the self-replicating gene? How can human beings create a machine that flies us to the moon while an animal cannot even write a single sentence?
I asked Charlie445 questions because I am intrigued to know what his beliefs are? I am curious, that's all.
-- Modified on 5/28/2009 10:26:18 PM
I don't have the answer to your (or my) questions. I am almost as sure that religion doesn't have an answer for them either, at least not a real answer. Fairy tales can be very comforting to children, and in the same vein religion can be very comforting to "adults". It doesn't mean that there is a bit of truth to any of it.
We all would like the answers to "life's meaning" and it is quite easy to believe someone who claims to have all the answers. Just remember the same church that so many people follow today is the same church that only a few hundred years ago considered it blasphemy to believe the world was round. Do you really want to follow people with such a history of narrowmindedness and being so outright wrong on so many subjects?
GG, its also the same church who changed our calanders from the MYAN/HOPPI, calander..which was more astrological..to the calanders we use today..AND CHANGED OUR TIME, TO A CLOCK..
Making time an external instrument, instead of AN INTERNAL/BIO-LOGICAL time-
That was the CATHLIOC CHURCH
Whoops! Sorry about that. It slipped out. 
What I meant to say is, I agree with you. Why can't religions and their followers, leave us non-believers alone? What makes them think they have the right - or in some cases - the mandate to convert us to their way of thinking?
It never ceases to piss me off!
within the Church have misguided souls throughout the centuries and have caused division and hatred upon this earth. Pope Urban II in 996 AD or therabouts as for example proclaimed to the nobility of Europe that a crusade should be waged to occupy the Holy land.
For over 1300 years Christians and Muslims have been quarreling, when with very little effort their differences and disputes could be overcome and peace and harmony could exist between them and the world could be at rest.
The Church, I agree does not have all the answers, but does that mean there is no God, no love, that we stop looking for answers, to transform our souls? Just somethings to ponder my friend.
and I would offer that religion discourages "looking for answers" as religion claims to already have all the answers.
IMO there is a huge difference between spirituality and religion. Religion encourages hypocrisy, spirituality encourages higher ideals. Just something else to ponder.
powers. Love flows from God through the Holy Spirit to man. Now love can be expressed many ways such as love for a football team, love for country, family or even political enthusiasm but this is all a finite love.
Love is unlimited, boundless, infinite! Left to our own devices man limits love. The perfect love needs an unselfish instrument, absolutely freed from fetters of every kind.
Yes, you do not need to believe in God to have love, but this love will be limited.
When a person of faith and a non-believer enter into a discussion regarding the questions you ask, you run into a two-fold problem.
First, the non-believer doesn't have all the answers. Or at least, shouldn't claim to. Through science, we as a species have made incredible strides in the past few millenia in trying to tackle the biggest questions that we know to ask. But we uncover new questions almost as fast as we answer old ones. And you know what? I think that's just great. I love the expanding scope of the universe.
On the other hand, the person of faith always seems to fall back on a two-legged stool of reasoning. The Bible/Koran/Torah says it is that way. Or simply, God did it or wants it that way or we as puny humans aren't meant to know the answer. If we all followed that line of rationality, we would still be riding horses and living in wooden shacks.
The non-believer doesn't know all the answers, but it doesn't bother him/her. They can go on living, loving, and learning in an open-ended universe.
The person of faith knows that they have all the answers. Look, it's all written right there in that little book. They can't imagine a person that could sleep at night without the tidy knowledge that there are no great mysteries out there.
I personally find that kind of mind-set a bit confining and pathetic. But that's just me.
does not mean something does not exist. The expanding universe is an excellent example. The Hubble telescope is discovering new and glorious worlds every day.
These celestial stars and planets always existed but we as human beings simply did not know about them.
I do not claim to know all the answers, and I especially do not defend church. I also do not believe in dogma. I believe in an independent investigation of the truth. When someone says there is no God. Ok! that is fine, but is that not also dogmatic and absolute statement.
I respect your ability and inclination to write thoughtful posts regarding this subject. I am not trying to argue, but here is how I might respond to your question.
You ask, "When someone says there is no God. Ok! that is fine, but is that not also dogmatic and absolute statement(?)"
I respond (somewhat flippantly), "I also say that there is no Tooth Fairy. Does that mean that I am being dogmatic, or that I am stating a fact?"
I don't intend to demean your argument here, but as others have stated, there are many things that we don't believe, until they are proven. I don't think anyone would have believed that gravity can bend light until Einstein proposed it and later experiments confirmed it. Now I believe it.
because something is in the mind it does not exist. Well, so is mathematics, numbers do not exist under rocks. The concept of the Law of Gravity was not postulated until Sir Issac Newton. Does this mean the Law of Gravity did not exist before the 17th Century? The atom with it's compositions of protons, nuetrons, and electrons has never been seen by the naked eye. Does this mean atomic bomb does not exist?
When Albert Einstein came up with his Theory of Relativity and what you stated the bending of light, it was not proven until scientists were able to perform experiments on a total solar ecilpse. Do you mean to tell me light only began to bend until 29 May 1919? Thus, until 1919 by your idea of proofs the Theory of Relativity was all in the mind, Albert Einstein's mind. a fairy tale you will. As a matter of fact Albert Einstein came up with theories by Gedanken (thought) experiments. Yep. all in the mind.
Steel does not exist in nature. Does this mean steel does not exist.
All I am saying is that just basing your idea of proofs such as Charlie445 on only what you see, touch, smell, taste, and hear is limiting yourself to other gifts of wonderment the universe has to offer. Now I call him God who provides these gifts, but if others wish to call him the universe, well that is not for me to say.
It's all good.
and yes I for one agree with the position that atheism is just as rigid as any other "ism".I also consider myself an agnostic, I don't know the answers, but I am pretty damn sure that no other human being has the answers either. That doesn't mean that there isn't some slim possibility that the either Christians, Mulims, Jews etc are correct. One chance in a billion quadrillion perhaps, but still possible. lol
If I were a gambling man (which I am) I would have to bet that Charlie is correct, "there is no God" lol and the chances that any of the major (or minor) religions actually got it right are slimmer yet.
What people of faith seem to forget is the fact that virtually every religion, with the exception of Scientology were started by people who were also convinced that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, the list of their other, equally ridiculous beliefs goes on and on. What would possess someone to base their entire life on the writings of some person who lived thousands of years ago, and whose education wasn't equal to a first grader's of modern times? To a rational person, it just boggles the mind.
are left to be discovered. In Issac Newton's world the ideas of space and time were inflexible following the precepts of Euclidian geometry. However, in Einstein's description of gravity, space was required to be curved. Wow!
I do not defend the church, because of it's rigidity of thought or some say fundamentalism. This does not mean I do not believe in God, I just been provided with a different perspective, that's all.
Peace.
you limit yourself to only two gorups of people. There are many "people of faith" that are just as scientifically minded as anyone. Not all scientists (and they are as true a scientist as you could define) are non-believers.
I believe you are making just as fundamental a mistake with your argument.
I never said that no believers were scientific minded. Or that all non-believers were. What I said was that IN MY EXPERIENCE, believers tend to fall back on religious doctrine to explain just about anything that is not yet proven. Meanwhile, non-believers will continue to look for a rational hypothesis that could theoretically be tested through experimentation or calculation.
You keep claiming that only a minority of believers act as proselytizers and/or are active in trying to cram legislation down the throats of others. Where are your numbers to back up this assertion?
I ask this because, IN MY EXPERIENCE, this is not the case. I have lived in just about every major region of this country. I have socialized with a vast cross-section of people from many backgrounds. I am generally very open to talking with other, reasonable people about their beliefs and their thought processes.
The only people that have ever told me - directly told me to my face - that I was not living my life correctly are PEOPLE OF FAITH. And this has happened in one way or another, to one degree or another, MANY times.
The kicker is, most all of these people that knew anything about me beforehand, thought of me as a good, decent, intelligent person. But when they found out I was an atheist, they all decided that I was suddenly a borderline lunatic.
Listen, it is quite obvious that we are not going to convince each other that the other is wrong. And why is this? because we are both arguing from our own personal experiences. You may be correct based on your life. I feel I am correct based on my life.
I am willing to let it go at that. I would bet that a true person of faith would not be willing to agree to disagree.
-- Modified on 6/1/2009 6:40:33 AM
Your previous argument seemed very two sided, not leaving room for people that had a foot in both worlds. I was merely pointing there existence. I find that scientific people that are also “people of faith” keep an open mind to unknowns of science. There are non-believers as well that can also be dogmatic.
My points recently regarding the perception of those that proselytize is that due to their forceful and objectionable nature these people are quite memorable and are very much noticed. The ones that are not actively proselytizing generally go unnoticed. They are generally not even recognized as being people of faith. Due to this, a person’s sampling bias can be quite skewed.
finds it brings up more questions than it answers. So, s/he is not left with "knowing" anything, and perhaps, not even any faith in God. But, that is about all they can be left with, "faith," not "knowing."
Westerners seem to place the emphasis on *belief*, ie acquiesence to creeds or teachings flowing from an interpretation of "revelation" or from authority / hierarchy. *external* authority
Easterners tend to place the emphasis on revelation - within - self, knowledge of the spiritual or divine coming from within, from self experience.
I encounter the spirit, the divine, at the point of the mind-body connection, by the practice of two disciplines of Yoga.
But I don't *believe* anything with respect to the divine - because I do not place credence in externally derived formulas.
is Imitiation - which is the easiest.
(2) Reflection - which is the noblest.
(3) Experience - which is the bitterest.
Tell me, buddy, was Krishna Divine or not? Was his spiritual qualities different from others, if so how? What is the spirit?
I let you reflect on that.
I'm an Odinist -- a polytheist -- believing in many gods and goddesses.
As a scientist, I interpret these as a humanization of the forces of order in the universe to make those forces more accessible and understandable.
I also believe that if you are going to have a God (or Gods), he should have a red beard, drink mead, swing a very large hammer and have a sense of humor.
And if you are going to have a Goddess (or Goddesses) she should be really hot, really smart, and capable of kicking ass with a sword against the forces of chaos.
Is when King Jmes changed the bible..To his friendly ''version''..
He changed the story from galaxy's and astrology..To a story with peopple in it..Effectivily changing our religion..From the ancient hoppi's and Myans-AND ALL OTHER INDIGINOUS PEOPLE'S
I very rarely address you directly, why do you feel the need to direct every other post you make to me?
You might want to consider looking up JockO, I am sure he can get you better quality meds, the ones you're on don't seem to be working.
-- Modified on 5/29/2009 8:45:29 AM
Because you are a wise ass guy although very funny "sometimes" and she is a wise ass girl and also very funny "sometimes", "if" you
understand her.. ,and both of you are very inclined on the prissy side ...roflmao at both of you..
I say that because you "act' like it matters what she says about you and then you act like you don't care..and you both go on and on between yourselves..and then on and on some more..
Please Don't stop, as I have found I like reading much more than writing..
when you confine yourself to reading instead of writing. As of late I really believe you should have attempted the tenth grade.
Who said King James was right? Who appointed him the official representation of the world and it's inhabitants? Just another nut with an agenda doing the re-write.
Now there's a concept...a god and goddess...representative of the two halves of humanity. Hmmmmm, balance...whatever would the Christians etc do with that concept?
they would turn it into something sinful and ugly, just like they do with anything else that usurps their power over the common person. The Christians like to believe in an angry God, it's easier to control the masses when you have eternal hellfire to threaten them with.
Thats is why The Romans fed them to the lions.
It ain't necessarily so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtISyZYW5fY&feature=related
makes us feel best about ourselves and life. Science searches for truth, while religion and organized belief systems are looking for meaning. It takes a lot of thinking and faith to integrate the two.
When I say that there is no god I say it because the existence of god has not been proven to my satisfaction. Religion to me is a form of entertainment. Organized belief systems are a form of mass hypnosis. What you are saying is that you want to integrate
science and entertainment. I think you ought to check out the latest Terminator movie, it would seem to meet your criteria.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Some factors may be beyond our perception.
Our sense are incredibly limited given the spectrum they COULD cover. And some things, because of our frame of reference, we don't even consider.
For example: do plants think?
An interesting question that most people would immediately answer "no." We don't hear plants talking, they don't seem to write philosophy, and as far as we can tell, they have no nervous system or brain.
YET -- look here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080619/news_1c19plants.html
If you dig around, you'll find that plants, generally, are sentient; yet this is a fact that few even imagine to be true because the very concept is so alien to us.
An entity's Sentience Quotient (SQ) can range from -70 to +50 with those respective limits set by quantum mechanics. On this scale, humans are +13, most plants are -2, and carnivorous plants are +1.
Now, imagine an entity with an SQ of +28. Such an entity would be as sentient compared to us, as we are compared to the grass in our yard. Just as plants have no conception of us, we would have no conception of this entity. And just as we don't even think of plants as sentient beings, the entity with an SQ of +28 would have the same difficulty with us.
Do Gods exist?
By definition, if they did, they would be beyond our comprehension. It would be like a blade of grass contemplating humans.
If there was a god with a SQ of -70, how would that work?
I think you just like to argue. You didn't really read what I said, and that was a cute slight of hand in exchanging my "religion and belief systems," with your "entertainment." There are plenty of religious practices that are anything but entertaining for the practitioner or the observer. Some people do make an attempt to think objectively about what they view as a personal spiritual experience. I know quite a few scientists who have a spiritual belief system, and many of those practice a religion. All of them, of course have been well schooled in scientific experimental design, and get paid quite handsomely for thinking objectively. So, your exercise that you continue to demonstrate on this board is pretty puny compared to their efforts to integrate their professional discipline and their personal spiritual experiences.
So, how about an exercise in objective thinking. Try doing what we had to in Debate classes, and take up the other side of the argument, just as an exercise in cognitive discipline. Of course, this could prove to be difficult since you will probably run head first into what you believe. I'm not saying you'll become a believer in anything, but perhaps it might make you more tolerant of thinking and believing individuals.
BTW, It was entertainment and mass hypnosis. Scientists that have "spiritual beliefs" do exist. It is evidence that they have taken a hiatus from some aspects of reality and have sought solace in religion. I would think it is quite an effort for them to keep the two thought processes separate. But wait, what do you mean by suggesting that they try to integrate the two thought processes into one? I think that would surely compromise their scientific integrity , it would make them less objective huh?
I take it you are a believer in god? Which one? I think it is easier to believe in god than it is not to. There is some research into the brain's ability to be spiritual. I have provided a link.
Oh yes, There is no god!
HELL NO, YALL CANT!!!!! Look at anything objectivily...LMAO
Communists say there is no God because to them the state is God.
Simple.
(and bc it gives people hope, something else Communists don't like...)
Communists are against religion, not specifically god. Religions tend to dilute state power and waste economic resources. The question of existence or non existence god is an individuals choice.