I'm an athiest, but i hope that i'm wrong

Funny,ur trying to be logical and yet being the most illogical person.'Things happen cuz ...they just happen.' Right.So much for the 'logical ppl',eh?

what he MEANT to say was that outside basic physical causes, things dont have to have some greater supernatural or divine reasoning behind them. they just happen randomly like the pattern of raindrops.

Have u seen ur brain? Have u smelt it?touched it?tasted it or heard?
Then,'logically',it isn't there.(n I'm damn sure abt that)

ahan, a lot of people have, there is emperical evidence for it, there are pictures taken and felt and smelled of other people's brains. u dont have to open every1's brains to find out its there or beleive its there.

What morals? How du make a set of deed morals? Just cuz ur parents told u that helpin an old lady cross the road is good,ur gonna do it n name it as one of ur 'morals'.But how du know what's good.How can u separate a group of deeds and mark them as good n some as bad? It was God Who told us what was right n He wanted us to do it n to encourage us,He told us abt the reward otherwise doing good 'logically' has no personal benefits.

humanistic morals do not require divine guidance or judgement. it is logically based on the things that define use like collective self presevation, collective desire to not suffere, collective logical reasoning which tells us that no1 is at their basis, superior to any1 else, and collective desire to love others and be loved.

infact god of islam/christianity/judaism/hinduism among others quite often gives very negetive commandments and morals which are completly against the above stated logical principals.

Originally posted by maham
Funny,ur trying to be logical and yet being the most illogical person.'Things happen cuz ...they just happen.' Right.So much for the 'logical ppl',eh?

Have u seen ur brain? Have u smelt it?touched it?tasted it or heard?
Then,'logically',it isn't there.(n I'm damn sure abt that)

What morals? How du make a set of deed morals? Just cuz ur parents told u that helpin an old lady cross the road is good,ur gonna do it n name it as one of ur 'morals'.But how du know what's good.How can u separate a group of deeds and mark them as good n some as bad? It was God Who told us what was right n He wanted us to do it n to encourage us,He told us abt the reward otherwise doing good 'logically' has no personal benefits.

A: o and saying things happen because of......."god" is SSOOOOOOO much more logical right?

B: have i personally cut open my head and seen my brain? well the obvious answer is no. have we dissected humans before? OBVIOUSLY yes, so its there, there's no queston. you can detect it with radiowaves and other scans. can you detect god with ANYTHING?? the answer is NO

C: news for you buddy, your experiences and your parents teach you alot ie: MORALS. i said i could have good/bad morals without belief in god. actually i think we're naturally born with good intentions(for the most part) i mean if you were born on an island and your family dies at say age 7. you survive on ur own and you find someone about to die you'd probably help them, because u have morals. not because god said do this, because you yourself did it. of course people tell us whats good in most cases, however saying that because god said to do it, it must be right, is not a good way to look at it

Originally posted by leonheartmm
what he MEANT to say was that outside basic physical causes, things dont have to have some greater supernatural or divine reasoning behind them. they just happen randomly like the pattern of raindrops.

ahan, a lot of people have, there is emperical evidence for it, there are pictures taken and felt and smelled of other people's brains. u dont have to open every1's brains to find out its there or beleive its there.

humanistic morals do not require divine guidance or judgement. it is logically based on the things that define use like collective self presevation, collective desire to not suffere, collective logical reasoning which tells us that no1 is at their basis, superior to any1 else, and collective desire to love others and be loved.

infact god of islam/christianity/judaism/hinduism among others quite often gives very negetive commandments and morals which are completly against the above stated logical principals.

leonheart im so touched that you would defend me.

anyways DANCING BANANA 💃 💃

lol, i wasnt defending u, i just thought she was being unreasonably literal in here interpretation.

and anyway, "she" isnt a pal, "she" is a girl and maybe it wudnt hurt to go easy on her. i mean, no reason to be hostile right?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol, i wasnt defending u, i just thought she was being unreasonably literal in here interpretation.

and anyway, "she" isnt a pal, "she" is a girl and maybe it wudnt hurt to go easy on her. i mean, no reason to be hostile right?

well, im sick of people with one way ideals. with things so set in stone like that. people who think EVERYTHING is based on god. even if there is there is a god, not everything is controlled by him. and i didnt realize it wa a she, but i have no softer feelings toward a woman in a debate. i dont go easy on girls, why should I? they want to be treated equally, they're gonna get equal

Originally posted by leonheartmm
collective logical reasoning which tells us that no1 is at their basis, superior to any1 else

What do you mean by "at their basis"? There are plenty of examples of people who surpass their peers by a wide margin.

in performance, yes, perhaps. but there are many types of performances, not all utilised, and it may be due to nurture. furthermore, it generally has nuthing to do with the person's OWN merit{i.e. THEY didnt make themselves smarter, they were born that way} and perhaps they are not deserving of any special treatment as such. but basicaly i wud say, that such PERFORMANCE based attributes are more than overshadowed by the significance of a conciousness/soul/awareness, than lack thereoff. the point is that conciousness itself is such a huge step from unconciousness that any being who can claim to be even a little sentient, has the percentage significance of their sentience, overshadow their minor abilities{even if it is einstien} so basically, all sentiences{i.e. sense of self/conciousness, which is the most basic thing} are equal and not one deserving of more than the other. naturals level of intelligence{again fiercely debated} are at best a gift or chance happening that the sentience itself didnt deserve by default ove rits peers. be grateful for it, not make yourself feal superior to others with it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in performance, yes, perhaps. but there are many types of performances, not all utilised, and it may be due to nurture. furthermore, it generally has nuthing to do with the person's OWN merit{i.e. THEY didnt make themselves smarter, they were born that way} and perhaps they are not deserving of any special treatment as such. but basicaly i wud say, that such PERFORMANCE based attributes are more than overshadowed by the significance of a conciousness/soul/awareness, than lack thereoff. the point is that conciousness itself is such a huge step from unconciousness that any being who can claim to be even a little sentient, has the percentage significance of their sentience, overshadow their minor abilities{even if it is einstien} so basically, all sentiences{i.e. sense of self/conciousness, which is the most basic thing} are equal and not one deserving of more than the other. naturals level of intelligence{again fiercely debated} are at best a gift or chance happening that the sentience itself didnt deserve by default ove rits peers. be grateful for it, not make yourself feal superior to others with it.

But if a person (even by accident of genetics) is of greater value to the community than most that person should logically be put ahead of a person who is of abnormally less use to the community.

If one person can provide food for half the group and another can barely move you cannot really say their value, in the eyes of society, should be equal. It's a nice sentiment to say that everyone is of the same value but they simply won't be, even if you try to believe it you'll treat some people as superior. In fact that's probably part of the reason that religion spreads so well among people who are poor or born crippled (ie society has no use for you but Aktesh will find a place for you).

tis not about social value and what they can provide. it is about the value of "life"/existance/conciousness that they posess. that far outwieghs their social importance. they need to have basic rights and no discrimination because their conciousness did not CHOOSE the way they are. it is conciousness/soul which is worthy of significance and importance to me, not just physical attributes, those are not very significant. also, i said no different at their BASIS, they are equal. doesnt mean every1 in grownup society shud get the same economic rewards irrespective of work{as long as they are both able bodied}.
however, my point was more directed towards any1 claiming superiority in CONCIOUSNESS or EXISTANCE or inherent rights as a higher being. this leads to basic fairness. "i.e. all humans are BORN equal".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
tis not about social value and what they can provide. it is about the value of "life"/existance/conciousness that they posess. that far outwieghs their social importance. they need to have basic rights and no discrimination because their conciousness did not CHOOSE the way they are. it is conciousness/soul which is worthy of significance and importance to me, not just physical attributes, those are not very significant. also, i said no different at their BASIS, they are equal. doesnt mean every1 in grownup society shud get the same economic rewards irrespective of work{as long as they are both able bodied}.
however, my point was more directed towards any1 claiming superiority in CONCIOUSNESS or EXISTANCE or inherent rights as a higher being. this leads to basic fairness. "i.e. all humans are BORN equal".

I see. Very well.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
as far as the original analogy i gave goes, you are ignoring sum facts. we can NOT use the argument that all things are created. all we have seen are different already existing things TRANSITIONING, and hence it is just as applicable to say that this existance/universe has ALWAYS been here in some form or another as opposed to having to be created. soi think it is fair to challenge te first cause argument.

We know that the universe is not eternal based on Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity; it is the most tested and reliable theory in all of scientific theory. If you do the research, you'll note that even Einstein himself thought his theory was wrong, because of its implications. If the universe had a beginning, it must have had a cause. After much rethinking and recalculation, Einstein concluded that his original theory was indeed correct, and it still holds true today.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
as for the analogy you gave above of different dimension, i completely agree. that is possible and not contradictory. however, even at the basis, you are forgetting sumthing. if the trancendant{althoug it isnt fair to call such a being trancendant as he is confined by the dimension he exists in} creator is SO far removed from all the concepts that define OUR lower dimension, then there is no REASON to follow the thinking of this trancendant creator in our dimension.

In the line of reasoning you provided, I think you are applying humanistic terms to the dimension in which a transcendent creator (TC) may exist; if a TC exists in another dimension, by default, it does not warrant the TC to restriction and/or limitations. On the contrary, to create a new dimension, the TC must be more powerful than the dimension in which we human beings inhabit. I am speculating obviously, but at a minimum, a TC must reside in a dimension far more brilliant and powerful than our own; to what degree is another topic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
let me give you an example, say this creator is beyond the concepts of creation and destruction, and he chooses complete and utter destruction{soul and all} for our lower dimension. wud it be logical/moral/right to kill ourselves and every1 here PERMANENTLY on his orders???? no it wudnt. please read my views on logical morality and the concepts that define us in other threads here, ull understand.

I think this issue deals with theology; but if a transcendent creator is the author of life, a gift given to you, who are you to complain if it is taken away? I know this sounds like a cliche, but if in fact a transcendent creator exists and really is the author of life, who are we to judge? We are products of truth, not the truth itself. I'm a Christian, and I think this is rather arrogant; but not all truth is inspirational. Truth, at times, is plan blunt.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
also, the PROBLEM with using such basic analogies is that god is never claimed to be trancedant in the bible. just all powerful and all knowing. there is a differnece. trancendance can not be confined by definitions but the above two ARE definitions.

The bible does in fact describe God as being transcendent; in fact, some scripture reveils that God has entered our dimension in the flesh (Jesus the Christ). Give them a fair read; in your view, they may hold zero weight in our discussion. And that is fine, but the Bible certainly does "imply" a transcendent creator; hopefully, we can agree on that. Here are a few examples:

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love..." --Ephesians 1:4

"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. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." --Colossians 1:15-20

"Who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time..." --2 Timothy 1:9

"A faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time..." --Titus 1:2

"He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake." --1 Peter 1:20

Originally posted by leonheartmm
also, the gods of the bible is VERY human in thinking{i.e. petty thinking, judgement/ego/rules/punishment/reward}, and him giving certain preferrable RULES or laws to begin with starts giving god PREFERENCES, hence taking away from his TRANCENDANCE. also, u might wanna dig up a thread i made a while ago "why did god nead to create ANYTHING AT ALL" this concept is more elaborated on there. the god of the bible doesnt make sense as i said.

God passes judgement to serve a purpose, not to serve a means to an end. In my opinion, the Bible is a difficult collection of books to read; others may disagree. But if people make a serious effort to study the Bible, there is so much that is readily understandable.

For Bible difficulties, I had to purchase of few Bible commentary books--books that theologians wrote. Most Bible theologians have 20 to 30 years of time invested in study, and they have very important insights to provide. The most recent book I purchased was entitled, "When Critics Ask," authored by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. The answers are there, you just have to care enough to pursue them.

Bible quotes = null and void argument!

The Bible is bullshit, it can't be used in a discussion.

Well, you'll never know if you're right.

what if the Bible is really right??? 🙁

Originally posted by Deja~vu
what if the Bible is really right??? 🙁

The problem is not if the bible is right, but who's interpretation is right. There is an endless number of ways of interpreting the bible.

My interpretation is right!!!

We know that the universe is not eternal based on Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity; it is the most tested and reliable theory in all of scientific theory. If you do the research, you'll note that even Einstein himself thought his theory was wrong, because of its implications. If the universe had a beginning, it must have had a cause. After much rethinking and recalculation, Einstein concluded that his original theory was indeed correct, and it still holds true today.

no we do not. this is a popular misonception. btw which theory are you talking about. if it is e=mc squared, then you are wrong. all that has to say about the universe is that the sum of matter and energies in the universe can neither be created nor be destroyed but can transition from one form to another {mass-energy or energy-mass}. now that is all fine and dandy, but there is a problem. it doesnt tell us that the currently existing energy and mass sum had to be CREATED, it just means it can not be creatED anymore, it couls just as well have eternally existed in one form or another. {btw, the most testable and reliable theory is quantum mechanics, not reletivity}. einstien's theory gives us no reason to beleive that there was ever a FIRST CAUSE. also, if you are talking abotu the BIG BANG theory, then you also have to accept sum other things. even though much work here is hypothetical or weak theory based, there is mountainloads of evidence suggecting that even before the universe existed, there wasnt NOTHING, it just existed in OTHER transitioning synamic dimensions, so in a way, this EXISTANCE has been here in one way or another, this universe is just one reality which arose due to it. then you have to ask yourself, {because first cause isnt just the universe but EVERYTHING} has this EXISTANCE, even if it wasnt the universe we see today, existed in sum form or another for eternity{because it exists in higher dimensions even without the TIME dimension} without first cause????

In the line of reasoning you provided, I think you are applying humanistic terms to the dimension in which a transcendent creator (TC) may exist; if a TC exists in another dimension, by default, it does not warrant the TC to restriction and/or limitations. On the contrary, to create a new dimension, the TC must be more powerful than the dimension in which we human beings inhabit. I am speculating obviously, but at a minimum, a TC must reside in a dimension far more brilliant and powerful than our own; to what degree is another topic.

no no it does, and that is one of the shortcomings of concepts like omnipotence. inevitably there shall be things that the being can not DO{even if it is just the creation of a being more powerful than themself or taking away their OWN omnipotence} and that wud take away omnipotence because there can be NOTHING that an omnipotent entity can not DO. also, even if the other dimension is FAR more brilliant than ours, that still does not mean it is INFINITELY more brilliant than ours and hence not perfect or complete or ultimate.

the last part ill deal with in the next paragraph.

I think this issue deals with theology; but if a transcendent creator is the author of life, a gift given to you, who are you to complain if it is taken away? I know this sounds like a cliche, but if in fact a transcendent creator exists and really is the author of life, who are we to judge? We are products of truth, not the truth itself. I'm a Christian, and I think this is rather arrogant; but not all truth is inspirational. Truth, at times, is plan blunt.

sigh, we ARE sumthing to judge. ill give you an example. you create a robot, who is concious and aware and you program basic needs and desires in him including wanting to be loved, not desiring suffering and desiring self preservation. now if you were to go ahead and give this robot the command to kill itself, it would infact be YOU who is in the wrong and not the machine if the machine doesnt follow your orders. it is becaue YOU are responsible for creating and assigning those concepts to your creation and as such you are responsible for making it so that those concepts are fulfilled in the world and not negated. as such, if the robot;s defining concepts are in conflict wiht your and it FURTHER is defined by self preservation{preserving ALL the concepts that define itself} than the being is completely in the right and completely logical for opposing your commands. you wud be in the wrong here.

as for god, there is a slight difference. unlike human creators, god is beyond good and bad{potentially} and as such unlike humans, he can not be BLAMED for choosing to command the humans to choose death over life{after all empathy etc dont have to be his attributes, a trancendant beign is so beyond them that he can unbioasly choose destruction just as well as creation or preservation}, HOWEVER that does not mean the HUMANS can be blamed for rejecting such an order either{because of the robot analogy and definin concepts as well as self preservation as i described before} . so no1 is to blame. god is too trancendant to be able to truly see things the way humans see it{hence the idea of avatars as in hinduism and stuff seems so appropriate to me if god is omnipotent} and we humans are defined by certain concepts which make us deny any orders against those very basic defining concepts. u can think of god as an innocent child with an anthill here. not understanding the plight of the poor ants, the child might kill them all, and tryign to defend themselves, the ants cud choose to nto do what the child wants them.

The bible does in fact describe God as being transcendent; in fact, some scripture reveils that God has entered our dimension in the flesh (Jesus the Christ). Give them a fair read; in your view, they may hold zero weight in our discussion. And that is fine, but the Bible certainly does "imply" a transcendent creator; hopefully, we can agree on that. Here are a few examples:

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love..." --Ephesians 1:4

"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. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." --Colossians 1:15-20

"Who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time..." --2 Timothy 1:9

"A faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time..." --Titus 1:2

"He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake." --1 Peter 1:20

i read the above but they do not strilke me as very trancendant. dont get me wrong, there is definately suggestions of beign beyond logic in one form or another. but the thing is, that TRANCENDANCE, is a completely undescribeable property so the second you start defining it, it isnt trancendance anymore. that is why many also beleive{among other reasons} that it is an inconsistant or non existing property.

God passes judgement to serve a purpose, not to serve a means to an end. In my opinion, the Bible is a difficult collection of books to read; others may disagree. But if people make a serious effort to study the Bible, there is so much that is readily understandable.

For Bible difficulties, I had to purchase of few Bible commentary books--books that theologians wrote. Most Bible theologians have 20 to 30 years of time invested in study, and they have very important insights to provide. The most recent book I purchased was entitled, "When Critics Ask," authored by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. The answers are there, you just have to care enough to pursue them.[/size] [/B]

maybe, but i think my argument of specific preferences and such human qualities denyin "trancendance" still remains. and personally i find that even the most well read or respected theoligians of christianity can not provide consistant explanations or wholistically logical explanations for the content of the bible. i think therefore that the bible is not a book by an all powerful divine creator and sustainer, one who simultaneously posesses all the qualities that bible attributes to him. it is more probable{although in my oppinion still very improbable on a whole} that it is from A god as opposed to THE god. and it is most probable that it is made up by humans. that holds true for all relegious scriptures i think.

Scientists say that near death experiences (the whole white light at the end of the tunnel thing) can be explained scientifically and that its all in our heads. But to me that doesn't make it any less real and I'm fine if thats all that it is. I think there's plenty of proof here on earth of there being a reason for life.

Originally posted by cococryspies
Scientists say that near death experiences (the whole white light at the end of the tunnel thing) can be explained scientifically and that its all in our heads. But to me that doesn't make it any less real and I'm fine if thats all that it is. I think there's plenty of proof here on earth of there being a reason for life.

You're right, it's completely explainable via normal (i.e. non-religious or supernatural) means. If you're interested, I can link you to a few videos that explain the whole mess, or even just summarize it, but it sounds like you're not too concerned with it.

Originally posted by BackFire
Because you know those are actually false, there is proof against them.

There is no valid evidence or proof for or against God eixisting, both sides have the same evidence (none), so altering beliefs to cause comfort should be fairly easy -- people do it all the time.