this is one of the problems i have with "god" people...believing "just in case". you might as well not believe in god at all if you can't stand by your convictions.
Then I ask you: What if Jesus was a metaphorical "son" of God? What if He was just a normal, decidedly non-divine human being like the rest of us? Why is this possibility so hard for Christians to consider? Isn't the important thing the message, as all of you love to say? Then why should this be of any consequence? If I believed Jesus Christ existed and that He was a man of sound moral fibre with a great message, but not God.. how is that any different from you interpreting hell to be whatever you think it is? I'm not saying you can't pick and choose what is figurative and what is not - that's your personal choice. But to take it as some universal "truth"?
The concept of an eternal heaven is a ludicrous as an eternal hell. Holy ****, this is the three millionth day in a row I woke up late, made love to Jessica Alba, played Pebble Beach and shot 54, flew the G5 down to New Orleans for the Texans/Cowboys Super Bowl where the Texans will win, again. You know, it's just not that fun anymore. There is no positive without a negative and there is no negative without a positive, you need contrast in order to make a subjective judgement. Maybe the people in Heaven can see the people in Hell so they can say, wow, I'm glad that's not me. If it were me though, the empathy would just ruin it. (like it does on Earth) *There really isn't any such thing as time. Time is only a conscious observer comparing the the motion of two different masses. *If you want to find a point to human existence you might look at our consciousness. For all we know we are the only entity around to perceive the universe and without a consciousness observer it doesn't exisit. So procreation of the species and observation might be...IT. If you are religious you could say that God created man to validate his own existence. To try to make definitive statements about the nature of the universe is folly. We only have the human perspective. There will always be things so small we cannot observe them, String Theory is just a mathematical exercise in visualization. Only a handfull of people on the planet can even consider quantum mechanics or multiple deminsions.There is the possibility that things are much larger than we can ever observe, larger than the 12 billion light year radius sphere we call the universe. They might be a numerous as the stars. Our universe might be as insignificant as our Sun is when compared to all the other stars. So when I consider God I have to use the facts I can see. The story is self- certifying. It's true because it says it's true. Yhat doesn't carry a ;ot pf weight with me. And when I look at the very cruel nature of life (pain, death, insanity, injustice; the whole carnivore thing) it looks a lot more like an evolving natural system than an omnipotent plan. Man it's hot today! I'm just looking for excuses to type.
Maybe outright was the wrong word. I still think it is proof of the existence of the soul. I'll try to find Aristotle's definition of the soul and see if I can rework my thought.
I've been doing that too, except I tell people I'm an atheist, not an agnostic. Some feel compelled to evangelize to me, but mostly they're just happy to see me in church. My position is respected though. That might derive from the denomination's doctrine. PCA believes the Saved are chosen by God with no help from the subject. Baptists, on the other hand, generally believe Christians choose to be Christians, which can cause more animosity, it seems.
Einstein wasn't an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, more of a minimalist god. He did not like the idea of the Universe having a beginning, as that would lend to the notion that someone had to have created the universe. This is why he added a comological constant to his relativity equations - to avoid a beginning....of course, this constant later went on to support the big bang theroy...after which Einstein had this quote: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Still not atheism by any strech of the imagination....
What I'm saying is that everyone creates a religion and belief system. It's in our nature. And when you fight against that, well, you're fighting against your nature. Everyone has to belief in something....even to believe that the mysteries of the universe are somehow explained scientifically without some sort of "mystical force".... So if an Atheist believes in only in science, then science becomes their god. It may very well be that everything has a scientific and mathematical explanation....which may not necessarily be in conflict with spirituality.....but the point is, everyone believes in something - that's why being an atheist is somewhat self-defeating...
Again, the point is we all believe in something. You can call it God, or the universe, or whatever, but show me someone who doesn't believe in anything, and I will show you a very disturbed person. It's not a matter of whether god exists or not, it's a matter of our inner nature. Perhaps evolutions worst trick is that to make us tolerate suffering was to create the belief in something greater. Something to make us endure and find happiness through tough times. Organized religion is merely what happened when populations got large enough in recent history.
There was an interesting show on the Science Channel, or was it National Geographic...either way - it was actually about the Earth and the Moon, how the Moon came to be (a gigantic asteroid that hit the earth), and the implications. Essentially, without that cosmic happening, life would have "evolved" much much differently than today. The impact is what created seasons, sent the Earth spinning significanty faster than before, of course, created tides. As the moon slowly drifted further and further away, those tides became multi-thousand foot tidal waves, which crashed hundreds of miles inland, got sucked back out to sea, creating a "soup" of minerals...leading to life! Interesting program. I'm agnostic, if it matters.
I'm not sure I'd classify you as an atheist. To me, an atheist doesn't only deny the existence of god, but denies the existence of all things spiritual. Because what is spirituality except the connection one has with god? Now, I don't buy into a deity-kind of figure either. I think people invent these figures because it's easier to comprehend a deity then god as some mystical force that's propogating through the universe....or that god is simply the universe. Perhaps we should more carefully define what atheism is...i think the traditional definition is a bit out-of-date.
I agree with this as an analogy. Technically speaking, though, God is more clearly defined than something someone believes in. In this case, science becomes their God works as an analogy, but certainly not an exact one. Also, atheism, by definition, is NOT the lack of belief in everything, just the disbelief in or denial of the existence of god/Gods
You're right....but it's still an active belief. To say there is no supernatural god is a type of religion in a way.
I grew up a Star Trek geek. Going to Johnson Space Center for a field trip is one of my strongest memories of Houston (the Blue Bell factory is second). I find it funny that Star Trek rarely mentions religion inside Starfleet. I guess that speaks for itself. My generation hasn't had a massive government science project that held its people's imagination. Challenger effectively stomped any dividends the Space Race had upon the public. The closest definitive science event in my mind is the cloning of Dolly. It's one of those discoveries you imagine should've been possible because 60's scifi reruns say so. Dolly wasn't as clean and romantic as the Moon landing. It was half greeted with horror, and people called upon its ethics. Well I guess by the time we have fusion or warp engines, we'll also have fusion and warp bombs as well. Science brings out the extremes in its uses. I don't know what role God will play in our progress, but I know our people will carry it along. If we make it to some Star Trek utopia, some will say God made it so. If we suffer a setback and land in another Dark Ages, some will say we need God more than ever. But I don't consider that irrational for humans. Borrowing New Yorker's evolutionary concept, God or religion can play a physical manefestation for their conscience or superego. I also think that with a population still growing into the high billions, religion will fill the needs of an individual where governments and society can't. In sci-fi futures, corporations become larger than individual planets. Our current ideal of liberalism could be lost. Should we become indirect Gods, I hope its on the path of Asimov's short, "The Last Question." That'd be one helluva answer.
Now regardless of my beliefs, I wanted to see how many people agree with the statement below. Do you agree and would you say someone who believes this is an atheist/agnostic Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
You can hate religion and still believe in god. By the way, I disagree. If you believe there is such a dilineation between "good" people and "evil" people in the first place, you'd have to define those people by their actions. Thus a good person who does an evil thing isn't a good person. The truth is we all have some "good" and "evil" in all of us, and much of our actions are a matter of circumstance. We are all capable of killing if pushed far enough, we are all capable of stealing or whatever if pushed far enough. But is killing in the name of religion the same as killing for pleasure? Which is more evil? Does motivation matter? I say it's too hard to judge. Religion isn't the reason for why people kill each other idiotically....it's because there are people who are intolerant idiots and they look for differences as a means to assert control and power over others. It can be religion, race, sex, political affiliation, nationality, geography, cultural, or anything else.
I believe for some people it is...Maybe not as the "big picture" but most of the people doing the killing are the people who truly believe they are doing the right thing for their god.
Agreed, except for one detail: If an atheist believes only in science, science does not become his god. Words have defined meanings because they're meant to be used in certain ways. Even if you were using the word "god" comparatively instead of literally, it's still a poor analogy. Science does not play the causational role in one's life that a personal god(s) does for a religious person. A better comparative statement would be "science becomes their religion". I'm anal, I know Imagine, if you will, a young child with a toothache. The child represents a new human mind; the toothache is a symbol for life (with all its suffering). How does the child make sense of his toothache? The religious method: His parents have told him of a malevolent tooth fairy that created his toothache. Or, if you prefer, a benevolent tooth fairy that created his tooth and tries to make the pain go away - but it is the child's fault for eating too much sweet stuff. In both versions, the tooth fairy must be appeased for the child's own good. The child's mental concept of the tooth fairy is shaped by what his parents tell him initially.. and later, by his own thoughts and imagination. Does some mysterious tooth fairy really exist? Perhaps. But how likely is it that the child has an accurate idea of it? The scientific method: His parents have told him they aren't sure why he has a toothache. They teach him to accurately predict when the pain will come and go, however. They provide him with reliable ways of relieving the pain. But the child never stops seeking information about his toothache - because sometimes the pain comes unexpectedly, or in another form. His parents' (and later, his own) treatment of the toothache is improvised and man-made, yes. Does it work, though? Most of the time. The child doesn't stop trying to uncover the truth behind the toothache.. this may be impossible during his lifetime, but does it really matter?
I've seen very few zealots who murder soley for God. Even among terrorists, they name the love of their people, their culture, and their home countries along with religion as a source of their grievances. Maybe Bush's war is for the love of money, but the Americans who support it name the love of their country, the safety of their families, and for themselves. Religion is just another example of some people's devotion to a way of life. Just because some love God so much that they to do bad things in the name of it doesn't mean that it's the root of violence or killing. It's something more basic and intrinsic in all of us.
