some thoughts on God, Faith and atheism

[axel]

I was responding to THOTH. are you following?

[THOTH]

axel -

 

History and current times are filled with many who calim tobe christian (and who are sometiems recognized as great people in their time for their culture/nation etc) - but who are not - who do terrible things. If Christianity is indeed a religion of freedom (this I highly dispute) - then it must be freedom to commit any atrocity on the unbeliever - this must be the meaning. Hitler was only following in a well established tradition.

[Sasun]

THOTH, you have no idea of Christianity. No true Christian will share your understanding of it. Based on what you have said on this forum, your knowledge of Christianity is superficial and partial.

 

This is the problem with the atheists - they don't know much about what God is meant and religions but they can claim anything based on superficial things like "Hitler was this and that".

 

If you don't know then you should admit that you don't know. Talking about something you don't know and don't want to know is pointless. If you don't believe then it is your problem, but negating and badmouthing what others believe in can't be right.

 

Not to believe is much easier than to believe. Not to believe constitutes inner weakness.

 

I don't blame atheists as much as fake believers, hypocrits, ignorant self-righteous "Christians", bloodthirsty fanatics - all products of organized religion.

[QRISTINE]

Hi

I have found that almost anyone can shrug off an argument. So I want to deliver some more.

The first is to get you to consider anything outside of Atheism. And this has its own parts.

Atheism is saying that there is no God. Is this not saying something without any proof? If the burden of proof what shifted to the person who said this, then the person would come up empty handed. This empty of proof posture is the same as the posture that the Atheist would say that religions have. So in the Atheist own logic, Atheism must be a sort-of religion, and by their own ideas, as valid as any other. If I had to try to construct a defensible structure, I would choose Agnostic – one who doubts, and says we can not know. But to doubt is to allow the possibility of the other side being right.

I came to God separately from being a Christian. My crossover point is ‘Why is there beauty?’. I may be able to understand the pleasing appearance of something biologically desired, as in food or a mate, but I can not understand why I find sunsets/sunrises beautiful. If I was nothing but an animal who reasons and feels, this is a strangeness.

We in this forum have all felt changes in our lives, and small things we call miracles. Now my former stance when agnostic/atheist was that there were no miracles. Had to be – miracles would imply an outside power. So what is a miracle? For me it was that something prayed for happened. Sometimes the miracle can be as simple or as complex as someone having a change of heart. And sometimes it was something in the real physical universe happening at a time and place that was unlikely, but done via processes that could be explained. And sometimes it is something that was completely outside of any expectation. I have been content with the small stuff, I have not experienced the big stuff. But any miracle accepted by a person will break a logical posture of ‘there can not be miracles’.

was/is?”. Your post proclaims him only a man. The actions of the apostles were not those of people following only a man. The Romans were seriously into punishment as deterrence. They may have had their equal for inflicting pain and woe, but they are up there in the top bunch for such. Yet the apostles took a stance that would and did lead them to a nasty way of dying. None of them died rich. This was not a show of faith for personal gain – this was the abandonment of personal gain for faith. And check their attitudes – this was a message that *had* to get out, at any cost to the messenger. So the Romans became even more nasty – see the flaming human torches. And still people came to Christianity. Much of this is covered in some other places, and likely better.

There was a Roman person who said that the Roman gods may be false, but they were needed for the state to maintain civilization. This is not the Christian attitude. Sorry if this is untidy, I really felt inspired to publish it.

[QRISTINE]

Dear Gamavor read this I believe it will be helpful.

God Exists and Loves!

“It is perplexing that some people, with very little knowledge of how the universe works, would come to dispute God’s existence. Coming up with a fantastic theory like the Big Bang, they are claiming that the universe came out of nothing. We don’t understand their true intentions. Are they trying to discover how the universe began or are they just overthrowing our faith in God?

Let us be careful in receiving information such as this. Scientists only have assumptions to make when it comes to explaining the universe. How can they marvel at the grand design of the universe, yet deny the existence of the Grand Architect?

We believe in God because we exist. If our existence is not enough to convince the agnostics or atheists that God exists, then there are ten reasons why they should change their mind. These ten important truths are:

Love. Has any scientist explained clearly the nature of love? Unless he loves truly, a scientist cannot tell what love is. If he knows how to love, he can only explain it by experience and not through the microscope or telescope. Does he deny the existence of love? If he believes in love, how can he fail to believe in God? "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in Him." (I John 4:16) "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (I John 4:7-8)

Conscience. There is a universal law in us that enables us to tell the right from the wrong. We call them conscience. We feel guilty when we commit a sin or offend someone. According to the Bible, even those who have not heard the Gospel have the requirements of the law written in their hearts. (Romans 2:15)

Knowledge. We are God's superior creation, and a proof of this is our ability to assume, theorize and think on our own. We are free to analyze our own existence and think about eternity. Some of us are even questioning the existence of God. The Bible knows this and warns the people against falling into the same trap. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile. (Psalm 53:1) Many people had denied the existence of God in the past but all of them are now forgotten. "The wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish." (Isaiah 29:14)

The Bible. The Word of God is contained in the Bible, which explains the wonderful truth about creation, existence, love, joy and holiness. "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth." (Psalm 33:6) Despite the publication of many books about the big bang theory or the theory of evolution, God keeps His Word in the heart of the believers. "There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord." (Proverbs 21:30) Written two thousand years ago, the Bible is still a bestseller today. "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God stands forever." (Isaiah 40:8)

Scientific Truths. While the Bible speaks of spiritual truths, it also conveys truths that can be observed by human senses and understanding. Foremost of these truths is the Bible's description of the universe. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." (Psalm 19:1) Before Galileo was born, the Bible was already comparing the stars in heaven with the sand on the seashore. (Genesis 22:18) The Bible also revealed that the earth is circular and the universe is expanding. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)

Israel. The Old Testament in the Bible had documented the history of Israel from Abraham to the 12 sons of Jacob (12 tribes of Israel). Beyond recording the events in Israel, the Bible had precisely foretold the future of Israel and the world. First, the Bible talked about the destruction of Jerusalem, and the spread of the Jews around the planet. We know how Israel was overtaken by other countries and how the Jews fled their homeland to seek refuge in other countries. We know how the Nazis tried to annihilate the Jews and we know how God miraculously saved them and brought them back to Israel. Before this happened, the book of Zechariah was already conveying this prophecy. This is what the Lord Almighty says, "I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God." (Zechariah 8:8)

Population. If the claims of scientists that men have been living on earth for millions of years now were true, then the earth's resources should have been depleted a long time ago. It would take only a few thousand years for men and women to fill the earth with their children. For example, a very old man named Abraham who lived about four thousand years ago was the father of many nations. "And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore." (Hebrews 11:11) Of course, if it were not for wars, calamities and plagues, the earth would have run out of space for humans. The first year of Jewish calendar was 3760 B.C.

Progress. It is hard to imagine how a chaotic disorder like the big bang would result in orderly concepts like democracy or how a loud explosion in the stars would eventually cause music. How is it that humans appreciate beauty and are able to create arts if existence really began as a disaster?

 

Life on earth is a process, growth or progress. From an infant, a human becomes an adult capable of reasoning and doing things. "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die." (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2 in part)

The fact that men live in harmony with nature and that we desire progress in every thing - from resources and recognition - is a manifestation that Someone is in control. In the Book of Colossians, Paul referred to Jesus Christ as the Son of God who controls all things. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17)

Time. Scientists do not believe in eternity, because they explain things according to their sensory experience of the world. Their observation is mainly confined to the physical world where time seems to dictate everything. They deny God because they think that time has a beginning and an end. The book of Genesis, the first book in the Bible, says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." There is eternity because there is God. He is "from all eternity." (Psalm 93:2) "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

Spiritual Truth. Apart from our sensory experience of the world, men also live in spiritual truths. The joy that poor people have when worshipping the Lord is brought about by their recognition of these truths that are revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. Scientists who analyze things according to their sensory experience of the physical world are not able to see the spiritual truth. "For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:18)

Only those who have accepted the grace of salvation offered by Jesus Christ can recognize and embrace these truths. "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Corinthian 2:12-14)

Aside from the ten truths mentioned above, there are a million reasons why we should believe and glorify God, the One who created the universe and put man on top of all His creation. He was there before time began and will be there after the end of the universe. "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." (Revelation 4:8 in part)

God oversees all things. "From heaven, the Lord looks down and sees all mankind; from His dwelling place, He watches all who live on earth." (Psalm 33:13-14) "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17)

To those who continue to deny God's existence and doubt His Word, the Bible contains these verses: "The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know." (I Corinthians 8:1 in part). "The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the Word of the Lord, what kind of wisdom do they have?" (Jeremiah 8:9)

To find wisdom, let us approach the One who is the source of our existence. "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." (James 1:5)

We must understand, however, that in order to understand the Word of God, we have to know and embrace the fundamental truth - that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came down from heaven to die for our sins and give us eternal life. Jesus said: "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the Good News." (Mark 1:15 in part)”

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

THOTH, you have no idea of Christianity. No true Christian will share your understanding of it. Based on what you have said on this forum, your knowledge of Christianity is superficial and partial.

---

You have no idea of what I know and what I do not know. Obviously no "true" Christian would share my understanding of Christianity...unless of course they are some kind of masochist...then again...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

This is the problem with the atheists - they don't know much about what God is meant and religions but they can claim anything based on superficial things like "Hitler was this and that".

---

Oh here we go again with "This is the problem with the atheists..." etc I've also had similar converstations with Muslims (who say to me - "This is the problem with Christians...etc" [meaning me BTW - LOL. All the while saying - no that terrorist isn't a "true" Muslim etc etc - now what do you think?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

If you don't know then you should admit that you don't know. Talking about something you don't know and don't want to know is pointless. If you don't believe then it is your problem, but negating and badmouthing what others believe in can't be right.

---

Again its my problem. NO! That you feel the need to believe in fairy tales is YOUR PROBLEM! Don't forget Axel started this thread (like you) badmouthing Atheists - assuming that we are wrong and have problems etc etc. Well I totally reject this. I never claim to have the answers - but what I do claim is that your answers don't do it for me. And the more that you and those such as you push the fact that your belief is the one and only true one - etc etc - the more I will say - NO F-----g Way! Your claims have no more basis then mine or anyone elses. Its you who need to understand and admit this. Then we can talk.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

Not to believe is much easier than to believe. Not to believe constitutes inner weakness.

---

Is it? I think its the opposite. As Western society is based around this belief it is all pervasive. Its easier to go with the flow and accept what we have been taught then to question and think for one's self. Its easier to just accept the platitudes - "Oh the universe was created by "God" all powerful - he made us, if we follow we will live eternal etc etc...." To me - it is inner weakness (your words) to accept all of this on FAITH - rather then to think for oneself - outside of the prescribed little box...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

I don't blame atheists as much as fake believers, hypocrits, ignorant self-righteous "Christians", bloodthirsty fanatics - all products of organized religion.

---

Blame? No we are just weak minded looking for the easy way out - etc etc Isn't it funny how there always apear to be more "false" believers etc etc - how everyone is wrong but your particualr belief. Don't (truly thinking) people see a problem with this?

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by QRISTINE:

Atheism is saying that there is no God. Is this not saying something without any proof? If the burden of proof what shifted to the person who said this, then the person would come up empty handed. This empty of proof posture is the same as the posture that the Atheist would say that religions have. So in the Atheist own logic, Atheism must be a sort-of religion, and by their own ideas, as valid as any other.

---

No - sorry - not good enough.

 

Bertrand Russell, "What Is an Agnostic?" 1953: 'If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.'

 

So must I disprove all of these as well as all other possible gods in order to not believe in any one particular god or believe in any? Must there be a god or gods? Why?

 

Here is another excerpt that perhaps you should read:

 

Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof?

A Reply to Prof. Ralph McInerny (1997)

Keith M. Parsons

 

"The "evidentialist challenge" is the gauntlet thrown down by atheist writers such as Antony Flew, Norwood Russell Hanson, and Michael Scriven. They argue that in debates over the existence of God, the burden of proof should fall on the theist. They contend that if theists are unable to provide cogent arguments for theism, i.e. arguments showing that it is at least more probable than not that God exists, then atheism wins by default. It follows that atheists are under no obligation to argue for the nonexistence of God; their only task is to show that theistic arguments fail.

 

Some theistic philosophers gladly accept the challenge, eager to display what they think are powerful arguments for theism. Others, such as Alvin Plantinga, reject evidentialism and deny that theists must bear any special epistemic burden in their debates with atheists. Prof. Ralph McInerny goes a step further to argue that the burden of proof should fall on the unbeliever. Here I shall rebut Prof. McInerny's claim and argue that, in the context of public debate over the truth of theism, theists cannot shirk a heavy burden of proof.

 

(skipped a bit)

 

Let's cut to the chase and concede that the vast majority, say 99% of all humans who have ever lived, have had some concept of the divine. Given the enormous diversity of these concepts -- from animism and shamanism to fetishism to manifold polytheisms to the diverse monotheisms -- what kind of burden of proof does this "common consent" impose on the skeptic? The skeptic would appear to dissent from the common consent of the divine or the sacred. That is, if anything is sacred to skeptics, perhaps they should be counted within the common consensus.

 

Is anything sacred for the atheist or agnostic? The answer is often "yes." Though he was not a believer in the God of theism (he endorsed the God of Spinoza -- Deus sive Natura), Einstein expressed a reverential awe for the subtlety of "The Old One," his personification of nature. Edward O Wilson's book Biophilia expresses an almost mystical sense of affinity with all living things. One cannot read the beautiful, powerful closing sentences of The Origin of Species without sharing Darwin's awed sense of the grandeur of the evolutionary view of life. The Soviet astrophysicist Yakov Zeldovich was fond of quoting Proust's remark that "The highest praise of God is the unbelief of a scholar who is sure that the perfection of the world makes the existence of gods unnecessary." Many atheists would add "amen" to that.

 

Suppose, though, that an unbeliever has no sense of the divine. Literally nothing is sacred for that person. Should this person feel epistemic embarassment when confronted with the overwhelming common consent of humankind? Well, it all depends on how that common consent is explained. Numbers alone mean nothing; otherwise ad populum would not be a fallacy. What accounts for the near universality of some sense of the divine among human beings? Is it only reasonable to explain such near-unanimity in terms of the (however misconstrued) human awareness of God? The Common Consent Argument implies that this is the only reasonable explanation. Is it?

 

Stewart Guthrie's recent book Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion proposes the challenging thesis that the psychological basis of religious belief is the nearly universal human tendency to anthropomorphize. He argues that humans have a nearly universal and overwhelming tendency to attribute human characteristics to nonhuman things and events. He suggests that this tendency is hardwired -- an evolutionary adaptation. Thus, we see faces in clouds and Jesus in a picture of spaghetti on a billboard. (This really happened!) More seriously, we tend to see random events as orchestrated by unseen benevolent or malignant intelligences. When I curse the traffic light that always stops me or the photocopier that breaks down whenever the job is urgent, I'm anthropomorphizing.

 

The upshot is that the unbeliever can appeal to Guthrie, Freud, or other psychological, sociological, or biological theories to account for the near universality of some form of religious belief. In other words, the common consent phenomenon can be explained naturalistically without appeal to any awareness of God. The Common Consent Argument therefore reduces to a version of the ad populum fallacy. Hence, the unbeliever need feel no epistemic embarassment at the fact that he or she is in the 1% for whom nothing is sacred. Charles de Gaulle was wily but illogical to reply to a critic "Monsieur, forty million Frenchmen cannot be wrong!" They can be wrong; so can 99% of the human race!

 

I conclude that McInerny has given no good reason for placing a special burden of proof on the skeptic. Further, he has said nothing to obviate the burden of proof that the theist must bear in debates over the truth of theism. The evidentialist challenge stands: Is there good reason to think theism true? If not, the skeptic is fully justified in taking the same attitude towards theism that he or she takes towards claims about UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lost Continent of Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, poltergeists, etc. These are interesting claims, but their proponents are perennially unable to offer persuasive evidence on their behalf. In such cases skepticism is an eminently rational position, and its rarity among human beings is not an indictment of it, but of the gullibility of the majority."

 

And here is another argument made by Jeffry James Lauder:

 

"The god of Islam (Allah) and the god of Christianity (Jehovah), despite their common origin in the god of Judaism (Yahweh), are mutually exclusive. Jehovah and Allah, at least as traditionally understood, cannot both exist at the same time. Both claim to be the Creator of the universe, but they have contradictory attributes (e.g., Christianity claims that there are three "persons" known as God but Islam claims that there is only one).

 

Thus, the Christian theist who makes the positive existential claim that the Christian god exists, is implicitly making the negative existential claim that all gods contradictory to the Christian god do not exist. Similarly, the Islamic theist who makes the positive existential claim that the Islamic god exists is implicitly claiming that all gods contradictory to Allah do not exist. And both the Christian and the Islamic theist presuppose the non-existence of the god of Deism, an impersonal Creator of the universe."

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by QRISTINE:

If I had to try to construct a defensible structure, I would choose Agnostic – one who doubts, and says we can not know. But to doubt is to allow the possibility of the other side being right.

---

What of this possiblity? Is it not just as possible that Odin resides in Valhala? Is it not just as possible that your "God" is just the Devil in disguise...yes who is really to know...

[axel]

THOTH, I allow the possibility of your being an imbecile.

 

[ January 24, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: axel ]

[Sasun]

It is not possible. By definition God is good. You may believe that as such it exists or not. If you are talking about devil you are talking about something else.

 

[ January 24, 2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Sasun ]

[Sasun]

Axel, sorry but this conflicts the belief in Christ. I understand your feelings but this can't be right. Every time I hear anti-God statements it hurts me and sometimes I want to say something like that. But Christ said "Forgive them Father for they don't know what they are doing". This, of course means nothing to atheists. They instead will find silly excuses to 'attack' God and belief in God, which is a pretty easy thing to do.

 

P.S. I don't doubt your belief

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by axel:

THOTH, I allow the possibility of your being an imbecile.

---

Well effectively you have conceeded. Now please be so kind to show me how/where name calling is a Christian virtue. Again I will remind everyone that you began this thread with a challenge to Atheists questionsing our belief/lack therof. Additionally you demeaned non-believers and proposed that we are somehow deficient. Yet when prevented with logical argument countering your spurious claims all you can resort to is name calling. I see no evidence in you - nor in most so-called believers (particualry the noisy ones) - of any greater morality, civility or any other particualr virtue or redeeming quality. While I know many who do sincerely follow Christian, Muslim and/or Buddist based life/beliefs who are kind, giving and understanding - equally they would show me respect as you have not. I can only conclude your so-called Christianity (your belief and practice of such) is a sham. The more that you claim that I do not understand Christianity (knowing nothing about what I have studied and read in my life and failing to know that my advisor at University was head of the religious studies department and a Yale Divinity School graduate [and was interested in me possibly pursueing a similar path] - yet still you make empty claims. I understand Christian belief and its historical underpinnings much more then you might relize. (Additionally at various times I have spent considerable time with Christian youth groups and [through a Christian relative] I particiapte in a Christian based care center for homeless families). So I understand various aspects of the religion and its believers. And I still believe as I do(n't!). If you are not up to the challenge of my words/thoughts then I would ask that at least you refrain from name calling and refrain from prostelithizing. Show some respect to those who are or believe differently then you do. Tolerance is a virtue equal to any on any particualr religions list. Thank you.

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

quote:

---

Is it not just as possible that your "God" is just the Devil in disguise...yes who is really to know...

---

It is not possible. By definition God is good. You may believe that as such it exists or not. If you are talking about devil you are talking about something else.

---

No I don't believe in him either. Though I would believe it just as likely - if not more so - that the "God" that is commonly worshipped by Christians is in fact the great trickster. Empirical evidence points strongly to this conclusion (if first one accepts the fact of this outside anthropomorphic being influencing our actions, fate and natural disasters and such...

 

[ January 24, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[THOTH]

Did any bothwer to read this? Do you understand your paradox?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by THOTH:

And here is another argument made by Jeffry James Lauder:

 

"The god of Islam (Allah) and the god of Christianity (Jehovah), despite their common origin in the god of Judaism (Yahweh), are mutually exclusive. Jehovah and Allah, at least as traditionally understood, cannot both exist at the same time. Both claim to be the Creator of the universe, but they have contradictory attributes (e.g., Christianity claims that there are three "persons" known as God but Islam claims that there is only one).

 

Thus, the Christian theist who makes the positive existential claim that the Christian god exists, is implicitly making the negative existential claim that all gods contradictory to the Christian god do not exist. Similarly, the Islamic theist who makes the positive existential claim that the Islamic god exists is implicitly claiming that all gods contradictory to Allah do not exist. And both the Christian and the Islamic theist presuppose the non-existence of the god of Deism, an impersonal Creator of the universe.".

Thus if you believe in the Christian God you disbelieve in the others - they are mutually exclusive. So by your standard you must first disprove these other gods - all of them - before you can prove yours.

 

Case closed.

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

quote:

---

Is it not just as possible that your "God" is just the Devil in disguise...yes who is really to know...

---

It is not possible. By definition God is good. You may believe that as such it exists or not. If you are talking about devil you are talking about something else.

---

No i don't believe in either. Though I would believe it just as likely - if not more so - that the "God" that is commonly worshipped by Christians is in fact the great trickster. Empirical evidence points strongly to this conclusion (if first one accepts the fact of this outside anthropomorphic being influencing our actions, fate and natural disasters and such...

[Sasun]

About belief and believers: I couldn't say better, so I quote from Sri Chinmoy.

 

When we speak about true faith, I understand it this way:

Finally, about disbelief. Why I don't like, accept or respect Atheism?

 

P.S. I am not hold anything against atheists, I only feel regret. My father is atheist, most friends and people close to me are atheists

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasun:

Finally, about disbelief. Why I don't like, accept or respect Atheism?

---

Well I am very sorry that you feel this way - but this is your problem/yor insuficiancy. Again - lack of tolerance/understanding.

 

Sri Chimoy - yeah right - $$$$$ is all I can say - he is big business so of course he wants yours. All mumbo jumbo that says nothing to me but a sales pitch.

 

And again you claim that I have no respect for the world or nature or such - how wrong you are. And how utterly presumptious. This is a common characteristic of "so-called" believers I think.

[THOTH]

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/ra...ts/untouch.html

 

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/life.html

 

And is Atheism a religion: (not)

 

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/at...smreligion.html

 

[ January 24, 2003, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[THOTH]

Heres a good one: (not mine)

 

Is God an atheist?

If not, which Higher Power does He believe in?

How do you feel about bowing down to an atheist?

Surely, to become nearer to God, shouldn't you become an atheist as well?

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by THOTH:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/ra...ts/untouch.html

 

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/life.html

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical..._astronomy.html

 

And is Atheism a religion: (not)

 

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/at...smreligion.html

---

[THOTH]

I'm in good company...

 

If indeed the world in which we live has been produced in accordance with a Plan, we shall have to reckon Nero a saint in comparison with the Author of that Plan. Fortunately, however, the evidence of Divine Purpose is non-existent; so at least one must infer from the fact that no evidence is adduced by those who believe in it. We are, therefore, spared the necessity for that attitude of impotent hatred which every brave and humane man would otherwise be called upon to adopt toward the Almighty Tyrant.

-- BERTRAND LORD RUSSELL [The Scientific Outlook, p. 130.]

 

"...It would be more consistent that we call [the Bible] the work of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

 

-Thomas Paine

 

[ January 24, 2003, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[THOTH]

Heh - turns out jesus has another website (though I think it is just another Jesus)...

 

what to believe in what to believe...

 

http://wypleader.freeservers.com/

[THOTH]

Well i was wrong -

 

Proof for "God" exsists after all -

 

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/

 

[ January 24, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[THOTH]

True Christians? (warning extremely graphic imagry - not for the feaint hearted). Note also suport for the killers of Dr Sepian...

 

http://www.christiangallery.com/

 

Sample quote:

"I know this will come as an absolutely mind boggling idea to many citizens of the United States of America, but there are people here--lots of them--who are willing to live and die in defense of the Rights of the Creator. If you don't believe it now, unless the desecration of God's authority is arrested in the USA, you'll have the opportunity to see these people demonstrate their willingness to see God's authority restored or die trying. "

 

[ January 24, 2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[THOTH]

And how could i forget:

 

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/

 

Bt the way all of your new age "God" belief will help you for naught...

 

Sample Quote:

When new agers say, "The Christ" they are not talking about Jesus, they're talking about Lucifer aka Maitreya. Their Jesus was only a man who happened to discover "the Christ" within him. Blasphemy of the first order.

 

[ January 24, 2003, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[Sasun]

Big business????? I will assume that you never heard about him. Your quick dismissal is a typical case of immediate disbelief, an easy thing to do.

 

It says nothing to you because you dismiss it without trying to feel the subtleties. You shouldn't take it personally. Just try to read again by feeling if you wish.

 

About intolerance, maybe you could explain where I am intolerant and to who/what?

 

Your reference to Yale... blablabla means nothing of essence, at most it could be Theology. Learning Theology doesn't put one anywhere near knowing things of essence. Christianity (more precisely, Christ consciousness), God are not tought or studied in universities. God is not something for the mind/intellect to understand. Assuming that human mind can grasp what is beyond its capability is simple human arrogance which we all have. Your "empirical evidence", "god-trickster", and "paradox" show that the only thing you know about the concept of God is descriptions but not essence. I think the problem here is that you don't attempt to feel, you just think. Nothing wrong with thinking, but as long as you rely only on thinking you will never understand what I am talking about and what God is meant to be. I should tell you that I understand everything that you have said so far, and at some point in the past I have thought similarly. But when it comes to things not physical, like Tao says "To know is not to know". That means, in my opinion, to know not by thinking but something else.

 

Christian "self-hate" as you like to put it, is simply admitting ones own imperfection. I admit that I am imperfect, but that doesn't mean I hate myself. And if I am not perfect, that does not mean that I could be a fake believer or a "so-called" believer. Neither should it give anyone a reason to claim that what I believe in is fictitious. You could apply simple logic and say that, but that would be superficial.

 

There are many things in all religions that are counter logic or paradoxical. To point the obvious contradictions does not do it. There is something else inside us that drives us to believe.

 

God is not a person, object, subject or anything specifically that human mind can comprehend. But it is easier for us humans to see God as a person. To see more than one person is to distinguish between specific divine qualities. It is not a paradox that some religions have numerous Gods, some have one or a few.

 

The above passage from Sri Chinmoy is not about you. If you are kind that means you believe in kindness. Kindness is not a rational, logical behavior. It is rather a feeling. If you love the world that means you believe in love. Love is not rational or logical either.

 

Let's say there is one God called Kindness who represents unlimited kindness, and another God called Love who represents unlimited Love. In this case one could say you believe in both Gods. It is reasonable to assume that you don't possess neither unlimited kindness nor unlimited love. But you are still a believer to some degree. Of course, I am not you and don't know what you feel. This is a matter of speaking. This is only one way of explaining. To many believers, God exists and represents Kindness, Love, Compassion, Generousity, and meny other things that we cannot study and understand rationally.