Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Alright then.

Firstly, lets establish that belief is a scientifically useless and often harmful device that humans use to attempt to simplify and make sense of things they cannot understand the proper way(through the scientific method). In short, belief has never given us truth, and is responsible for a good deal of the worlds problems(from the crusades and witchhunts of the past, all the way to the current issues in the middle east).

There goes the saying, 'you must have faith'.

That leaves Christians and other religious sects to prove their god the old-fashioned way. With reason. However... to prove a deity like the christian god, who has no concrete form and is largely undefined aside from being 'omnipotent', 'all-knowing', and 'all-good' is scientically impossible.

That leaves some of the smarter Christians, who realize the fatal flaw of their beliefs, but are reluctant to let go of their bible, to attempt to prove why the absence of god would result in scientifically impossible results. And nearly all of these arguments attack one of the few things science hasnt really explained: the creation of the universe.

One of the few arguments Christians have, that has some weight to it, is that the universe creating itself out of pure chance is mathematically unlikely. There is also the problem of where matter itself came from... one of our scientific laws is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Well thats a bit of clever thinking from the Christians huh? Or is it?

Their argument essentially breaks down to: "There are things I cannot explain, therefor creationism is true."

-Quoted from Backfire.

Cont.

As Backfire elegantly pointed out, this kind of thinking is fallacious. Any physicist worth his salt could come up with an elaborate scenario to how the universe was created(multiverse theories come to mind)...however, for the theory to have any substance it requires proof.

Christianity is just one of a great number of explanations to why the universe exists, and part of perhaps an infinite number of not yet thought of explanations.

So if your a follower of truth like I am: Agnosticism is the correct path for now.

For Christians: Prove up or go home. In other words, go home.

I'd assume then that athiesm is not a correct path iyo?

Originally posted by Alliance
I'd assume then that athiesm is not a correct path iyo?

Its not the correct path, simply because we cant prove that god doesnt exist. However IMO its far more unlikely that we have stumbled upon truth in the bible, which often stinks of primitive outdated thought processes, as opposed to a far more profound explanation of the universe that is not yet discovered.

My argument to you is this.

1. No one can ever make an absolute conclusion...no more than you can ever claim that I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket.

2. The evidence one way is overwhelming. Its very unlikey, in fact its absurd that I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket. But I guess you'll never know.

3. Ad into this the fact that many agnostics want to believe or were raised in a world where blind ignorance is acceptable when it comes to religion. So maybe you don't know if I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket or not, but you really want to belive I do.

No credible person admits either way, but the chance of their being a god is infinately smaller than the chance that there is one. Athiesm is also acceptable, provided the absurdly diminutive chance that a random college student has a fictional diamond.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
For Christians: Prove up or go home. In other words, go home.

Don't you think this statement is a little bit arrogent?



Also, I think you're forgeting that most Christians site Jesus as proof that there is a God.

Well, you are claiming that scientific proof is the only valid evidence. This is true of scientific examinations.

Here is a method for testing faith, it is found in our Book of Mormon. I would assume that you could use this test on anything you consider may be true based in a faith paradigm.

Originally posted by Regret
Well, you are claiming that scientific proof is the only valid evidence. This is true of scientific examinations.

The word science was misused. Its the rational/philisophical/enlightened way to argue.

Originally posted by Alliance
My argument to you is this.

1. No one can ever make an absolute conclusion...no more than you can ever claim that I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket.

2. The evidence one way is overwhelming. Its very unlikey, in fact its absurd that I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket. But I guess you'll never know.

3. Ad into this the fact that many agnostics want to believe or were raised in a world where blind ignorance is acceptable when it comes to religion. So maybe you don't know if I have the pink panther diamond in my pocket or not, but you really want to belive I do.

No credible person admits either way, but the chance of their being a god is infinately smaller than the chance that there is one. Athiesm is also acceptable, provided the absurdly diminutive chance that a random college student has a fictional diamond.

Yes I agree with you that the Christian god is unlikely. It depends on how many assumptions you want to make. Agnosticism makes no assumptions till an objective conclusion about the creation of the universe is reached. Atheism makes less assumptions than Christianity I agree, but it still makes assumptions.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Yes I agree with you that the Christian god is unlikely. It depends on how many assumptions you want to make. Agnosticism makes no assumptions till an objective conclusion about the creation of the universe is reached. Atheism makes less assumptions than Christianity I agree, but it still makes assumptions.

Not really. Agnositcs gloss over the fact that the likelyhood of god existing and god not existing are not balance.

Here's the one assumption that I make as an athiest: The chance of God is so small that it is insignificant. From a scientific perspective, that is how truth is arrived at.

I know that Alliance dislikes long posts, and I do as well, but I think the parts I have quoted from this article are relevant to the discussion. I am sorry if it isn't, I thought it was, perhaps my view of the discussion is off.



Hill was a long-time chemical and fuels engineering professor at the University of Utah and member of the National Academy of Engineering. As well as a General Authority for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We do not believe in paid ministry, so our leaders typically have expertise in other fields as well.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
...Agnosticism is the correct path for now.

I tend to agree, though personally, I would be more comfortable saying that Agnosticism--as opposed to Theism or Atheism--is the only path where you can be certain of the starting point, namely, "I don't know" (whether or not there is a God).

"...correct path...?" That's a tad too exclusive for my tastes. Atheism has the advantage of not requiring any burden of proof to reach a reasonable--if indefinite--conclusion. But if that works for someone, then that is "correct" for them.

Theism (leaving the definition of God open for the moment; ie, Not confining it to the Christian POV) has the advantage of offering a broader map of reality.

Then there is what I call, Practical/Pragmatic Agnosticism, which I find works best for me.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not really. Agnositcs gloss over the fact that the likelyhood of god existing and god not existing are not balance.

Here's the one assumption that I make as an athiest: The chance of God is so small that it is insignificant. From a scientific perspective, that is how truth is arrived at.

Hrm. You are exaggerating the degree to which god is unlikely. You have no proof backing you up, only your opinion(I agree with it). The bible makes no claims that can seriously discredit itself.

Originally posted by Alliance
Agnositcs gloss over the fact that the likelyhood of god existing and god not existing are not balance.


As the saying goes (in reference to missing something, like first place in a race), an inch is as good as a mile. Both "likelihoods" are still in no-man's land. Plus, the "balance" improves if we examine what we mean by Science and Evidence: is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof (yes, I copied this from your thread cuz I was too lazy to retype/restate it here )? If by Method, then we can consider nonempirical evidence. If Science is defined by nature of proof--meaning, strictly empirical proof--then we run into Scientism and the problems inherent thereof. But that's going off topic (again).

Originally posted by Echuu
Don't you think this statement is a little bit arrogent?



Also, I think you're forgeting that most Christians site Jesus as proof that there is a God.

Im an arrogant man.


And I didnt tackle the 'Jesus is proof' argument because I didnt really think it had enough weight to diserve tackling. Theres no historic proof that Jesus even existed, much less that he was anything more than a popular priest.

Originally posted by Mindship
As the saying goes (in reference to missing something, like first place in a race), an inch is as good as a mile. Both "likelihoods" are still in no-man's land. Plus, the "balance" improves if we examine what we mean by Science and Evidence: is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof (yes, I copied this from your thread cuz I was too lazy to retype/restate it here )? If by Method, then we can consider nonempirical evidence. If Science is defined by nature of proof--meaning, strictly empirical proof--then we run into Scientism and the problems inherent thereof. But that's going off topic (again).

You put what Im trying to say in better words I think.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Any physicist worth his salt could come up with an elaborate scenario to how the universe was created(multiverse theories come to mind)...


I believe the statement above counters your argument best.

Be they Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Agnostic, there's a numerous amount of faith based scenarios that any physicist could come up with to explain the origins of life.

So it all really boils down to what each individual chooses to place their faith in. I choose to place my faith in the Christian God, seeing as how the scriptures describe him as being the very embodiment of "love."

Love... like a flood that kills everything on earth...

Go love!

* the reason we have somewhat puzzled ideas to what/who God is... because we are conditioned to what/who God should be...

* for example: many people believe that God is omnipresent (in all places), omnipotent (can do anything) and omniscient (knows everything)... while, according to the Bible, He is not...

* the irony is... the group who conditioned the people's minds are the ones who compiled the scrolls of the Bible in the very first place... they are in contrary of the very piece of evidence to prove their claims... sometimes i want to laugh...

IMO I believe in both Evolution and Christianity

I know that man just appered or what not...

However I still believe in god because if god dosent exist than how can anything exist?

Originally posted by Mindship
As the saying goes (in reference to missing something, like first place in a race), an inch is as good as a mile. Both "likelihoods" are still in no-man's land. Plus, the "balance" improves if we examine what we mean by Science and Evidence: is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof (yes, I copied this from your thread cuz I was too lazy to retype/restate it here )? If by Method, then we can consider nonempirical evidence. If Science is defined by nature of proof--meaning, strictly empirical proof--then we run into Scientism and the problems inherent thereof. But that's going off topic (again).
I'm open to the possibility that the sky is really orange with purple squiggly lines. I'm consistantly wrong, but hey...can anyone say that the sky is always some shade of blue...i mean...come on...have you seen every sky that has ever existed? When it comes down to it...we really just don't know.

Fence-sitters go to hell .

Whom?

{edit...ok I get it}

The point is to tear the fence down and get as many to fall on your side as you can...

Or we cna just play Germany and Belgium.

Also Alliance, I should point out that Atheism directly opposes Theism, not just the Christian POV as Mindship said earlier. Theism simply means that a god is responsible for the creation of the universe, it doesnt go into heaven, hell and all that ridiculous nonsense. The plain Theistic view is much more likely to be true, especially considering the problems that would be resolved if a higher intelligence was indeed responsible for the universe. Can you completely deny Theism with any sense of honesty? I cant. Which is why I suggested that Agnosticism is the correct path.

You cant strip down religion to what you want it to be. Every religion comments on creation and the afterlife. They're archaic mechanisms of explination of natural phenomena taken by govenrments and individuals and transformed into a battery of myths, societal instructions, and communal ritual.

I have said this repeatedly in many threads.

There is no ABSOLUTE evidence either way.

There is imo overwhelming evidence in one direction and the chace of a god existing is so darn low its insignificant. The concept of a god is completely illogical and I've observed that people I know who use your argument often have a hard time letting go of a concept they were raised on.

A parody on your argument:
I think it is logical that one day the clouds were green and fiery. You can't prove I'm right or wrong. There is no absolute proof, but my claim is so rediculous you are correct to believe that I am a nutcase.

Originally posted by Alliance
You cant strip down religion to what you want it to be. Every religion comments on creation and the afterlife. They're archaic mechanisms of explination of natural phenomena taken by govenrments and individuals and transformed into a battery of myths, societal instructions, and communal ritual.

I have said this repeatedly in many threads.

There is no ABSOLUTE evidence either way.

There is imo overwhelming evidence in one direction and the chace of a god existing is so darn low its insignificant. The concept of a god is completely illogical and I've observed that people I know who use your argument often have a hard time letting go of a concept they were raised on.

A parody on your argument:
I think it is logical that one day the clouds were green and fiery. You can't prove I'm right or wrong. There is no absolute proof, but my claim is so rediculous you are correct to believe that I am a nutcase.

Atheism is the direct opposite to theism. Im not stripping down anything, theists by definition dont need any religious dogma, they just need to believe that a god is responsible for creation.

There is no *absolute* evidence for anything, but that isnt what this thread is about. Objective evidence is all that I require, and you being a scientist I would suspect you would think along the same lines.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
The plain Theistic view is much more likely to be true Basis?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Basis?

Less dogma to muddle things. That a higher intelligence created the universe is a very reasonable stance to take, considering the perfection and harmony we live in. When you add for instance the Christian POV then it becomes less likely(but still not impossible).

Perfection and harmony... ok...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Perfection and harmony... ok...

Do I detect....sarcasm?

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Atheism is the direct opposite to theism. Im not stripping down anything, theists by definition dont need any religious dogma, they just need to believe that a god is responsible for creation.

There is no *absolute* evidence for anything, but that isnt what this thread is about. Objective evidence is all that I require, and you being a scientist I would suspect you would think along the same lines.

Almost nothing in the world is ever directly proven to be true in all cases. You get enough eveidence in one direction, and when all other possibilities seem mpossible unlikely, it becomes accepted "fact"

My stance is similar to modern scientific thinking. THat why I gave the sky example. There my be one longshot, but there is no evidence supporting why it'd be different than anyhting else. its not going to be considered ture.

Simply saying "we can never know, so agnocticism is the only rational option" is entirelly missing the point that divine being are not supported by evidence. They only exist in holes in knowledge as filler. Divine bings are irrational, illogical, and have been consistantly invented thorught history. This is not a thumbs up thumbs down scenrio. You;re just arguing whether or not the thumb is exactly vertical or 0.001 degrees off. To some, including me, using modern scientific logic, thats a distinction without a difference.

I have to get off Alliance. We can continue this some other time. Good debating with you.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Do I detect....sarcasm? No not at all.

quit smiling then.........

I know about you xmark......lol

Debbie's clones will come get you.

I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, but I think that this should be thought through. To anyone who doesn't believe a god exists, it is taught in soem religions that there wil be punishment for people who don't believe in god. Whether this is a scare tactic or not, why not try to find soem kidn of a faith in a religion? Why disregard the chance that god exists? Your life won't have less purpose, you may learn how to better yourself, and if you die, but don't go to soem kidn of afterlife, who cares. You'll be wrong, but what does it matter. You might as well try and believe something so that if there is an afterlife, you wont be condemned to a crappy one. Christians are taught that God is so great that he defies physics and science so theres no way you can prove or disprove him in that sense. I agree that if things could be logically explained, that logic supercedes belief, however, this is beyond logic and therefore cannot be disregarded with lack of proof.

^ Well, I really don't have a problem with you. I think you would make the right choice if you were confronted with a tough situation. I only have a problem with people who go around, against the commandment of Jesus, and Judge and condemn other people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Well, I really don't have a problem with you. I think you would make the right choice if you were confronted with a tough situation. I only have a problem with people who go around, against the commandment of Jesus, and Judge and condemn other people.

Thank you.

As far as judgement of others goes...

I don't feel that I can judge others. I believe that the things my Church teaches are true, but that does not mean that others that don't believe as I do won't get to a better place than me. I personally think that is part of the interpretation of the parable on the prodigal son. The son goes out and does various things the father disapproves of, the other son does everything correctly, when the prodigal returns he's given as much love, if not more love, from the father as the first son receives. To me, one of the meanings behind this parable, is that we don't know where our place will be, no matter how we think we are doing. I don't know the measure that is used when we stand before God, I only know that it will be just.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life is important, mythology is not. It is better to live life to its fullest then to cower to a possible future.

Ok, but is it worth it, to live 80 years of worry-free enjoyment and then spend the rest of eternity in a crappy place. I am most certain I can live life to the fullest and still worship a god, unless by that u mean look at porno, pre-marital sex, rob people, or kill people. Im not sure if you ever had a religion, but its not like restrictions as such are hard to maintain. Plus, with that mindset theres no hope. At least you can look forward to some kind of afterlife with religion, whether or not it exists. Hope is what drives people to continue on, despite the circumstances.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life is important, mythology is not. It is better to live life to its fullest then to cower to a possible future.

Ok, but is it worth it, to live 80 years of worry-free enjoyment and then spend the rest of eternity in a crappy place. I am most certain I can live life to the fullest and still worship a god, unless by that u mean look at porno, pre-marital sex, rob people, or kill people. Im not sure if you ever had a religion, but its not like restrictions as such are hard to maintain. Plus, with that mindset theres no hope. At least you can look forward to some kind of afterlife with religion, whether or not it exists. Hope is what drives people to continue on, despite the circumstances.

Your interpretation of living life to the fullest is very demented. To me, living my life to the fullest is, helping other people, being respectful to yourself and others. Honoring and respecting life and the beauty of nature. So, is watching porn and having sex the most important things in your life?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your interpretation of living life to the fullest is very demented. To me, living my life to the fullest is, helping other people, being respectful to yourself and others. Honoring and respecting life and the beauty of nature. So, is watching porn and having sex the most important things in your life?

I didn't say that was my idea, you obviosuly didnt read what I had to say entirely because my point was that you can live life to the fullest and still worship a god.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I didn't say that was my idea, you obviosuly didnt read what I had to say entirely because my point was that you can live life to the fullest and still worship a god.

You can also live life to the fullet and not worship. That was my point. BTW I am a Nichiren Buddhist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can also live life to the fullet and not worship. That was my point. BTW I am a Nichiren Buddhist.

ok but u still have a religion and whether or not u worship u still have beliefs such as a achieving enlightenment, and before u jump down my throat i will openly admit i dont no very much about buddhism, but it is a religion with its own beliefs and you can still live life to the fullest. As far as mythology is concerned, the idea of a buddha and his afterlife of could also be considered mythology

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
ok but u still have a religion and whether or not u worship u still have beliefs such as a achieving enlightenment, and before u jump down my throat i will openly admit i dont no very much about buddhism, but it is a religion with its own beliefs and you can still live life to the fullest. As far as mythology is concerned, the idea of a buddha and his afterlife of could also be considered mythology

Please don't take everything so personally. In no way would I jump down your throat. Mythology is not a bad thing; it is the way we convey information that would be lost over time. You really should learn more about my religion.

http://www.sgi.org/english/index.htm

Actually I just looked up the Nicherien buddhism, i think the moral teachings and ideas of strengthening ur mind to resist tempation are fantastic ideas, but for me it couldn't be my religion, maybe just somethign to do in my free time

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Actually I just looked up the Nicherien buddhism, i think the moral teachings and ideas of strengthening ur mind to resist tempation are fantastic ideas, but for me it couldn't be my religion, maybe just somethign to do in my free time

You do no have to see it as a religion like I do, it can just be a philosophy that works.

maybe someday i will, but for right now i gotta sort out my own beliefs and do more research

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Alright then.

Firstly, lets establish that belief is a scientifically useless and often harmful device that humans use to attempt to simplify and make sense of things they cannot understand the proper way(through the scientific method). In short, belief has never given us truth, and is responsible for a good deal of the worlds problems(from the crusades and witchhunts of the past, all the way to the current issues in the middle east).

There goes the saying, 'you must have faith'.

That leaves Christians and other religious sects to prove their god the old-fashioned way. With reason. However... to prove a deity like the christian god, who has no concrete form and is largely undefined aside from being 'omnipotent', 'all-knowing', and 'all-good' is scientically impossible.

That leaves some of the smarter Christians, who realize the fatal flaw of their beliefs, but are reluctant to let go of their bible, to attempt to prove why the absence of god would result in scientifically impossible results. And nearly all of these arguments attack one of the few things science hasnt really explained: the creation of the universe.

One of the few arguments Christians have, that has some weight to it, is that the universe creating itself out of pure chance is mathematically unlikely.

There is also the problem of where matter itself came from... one of our scientific laws is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Well thats a bit of clever thinking from the Christians huh? Or is it?

Their argument essentially breaks down to: "There are things I cannot explain, therefor creationism is true."
-Quoted from Backfire.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Cont.

As Backfire elegantly pointed out, this kind of thinking is fallacious. Any physicist worth his salt could come up with an elaborate scenario to how the universe was created(multiverse theories come to mind)...however, for the theory to have any substance it requires proof.

And you do realise most of the mainstream theories regarding where the universe came from (such as quantum theories) and things like evolution pretty much have a ton more proof supporting them then God does, right?



Yet it is one that has virtually no proof, and in fact tries to prove itself by finding holes in other, more evidenced theories. It doesn't seem to matter that the Big Bang theory has a mass of evidence supporting it from the moment of the explosion on, Christians will grasp the "but it doesn't say what happened just before, or where that matter came from, so Christianity is more correct because God could have created matter" as proof kind of thing.



I can live with that, it is fine to be able to say "yes, we don't know for sure" - but then again I also think Atheism is also equally valid, from a scientific, rational point of view.

And if Atheism is wrong you could end up in hell for eternal punishment. But hey, being skeptical is worth it cause look I can do what I want for 100 years and when suffer for 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years. Obviously Atheism is rational if you like pain. Dominatrix. Whip sound, oh yah.

You have issues. Cower all you want. I will not live my life in fear of what is right. You can never take that away from anyone.

Better not to take the chance, however, I do not live in fear of hell rather in anticipation and seeking of heavenly rewards. Cowering? Haha. I'm very muc active and out in the open. When you are in Jesus you have to fear because I am justified by my faith.

And since there is no absolute answer, and atheism is the only logical choice thereafter, it not hard to come to a conclusion. Its understanding that conclusion that is the difficult part.

I hope that your god doesn' t mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven.
I wouldn' t consider worshipping a god where a person' s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to believe.

To get to heaven to be with God is what I want. This is what He wants for me as well.

Thus is your interpretation.

Originally posted by Storm
I hope that your god doesn' t mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven.
I wouldn' t consider worshipping a god where a person' s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to believe.

That isnt true with all religions

In many faiths as well as christinaity, one is not punished for his beliefs if he doesnt have the knowledge or awareness of these religions. However, denial of his existence under the circumstances of knowing about religion, is punishable as far as we know or believe.

My question is does it really matter if you believe that no god exists. Its never goign to get you anywhere, you may feel quite dandy thinkign that you know the truth, but as far as an afterlife is concerned according to my faith it could condemn u to the deep south or maybe purgatory. So what if theres a small chance god exists, you might as well live life trying to practice some sort of faith, rather than assuming that therecoudlnt be a god because he defies logic and science.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
That isnt true with all religions

In many faiths as well as christinaity, one is not punished for his beliefs if he doesnt have the knowledge or awareness of these religions. However, denial of his existence under the circumstances of knowing about religion, is punishable as far as we know or believe.
Which god should we believe in, which religion should we follow?

Originally posted by gordomuchacho

My question is does it really matter if you believe that no god exists. Its never goign to get you anywhere, you may feel quite dandy thinkign that you know the truth, but as far as an afterlife is concerned according to my faith it could condemn u to the deep south or maybe purgatory. So what if theres a small chance god exists, you might as well live life trying to practice some sort of faith, rather than assuming that therecoudlnt be a god because he defies logic and science.
I refuse to pretend and to be a person who decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers.
Again, I wouldn' t consider worshipping a god where a person' s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to believe.

Obviosuly you do not know much abotu religion because actions do matter, protestants are the ones that believe in being saved by grace, not catholics nor mormons. If you have read the bible, accordign to that he does punish people for there actions if they are not sorry for them and do not repent. Do you feel empowered that your not restricted to worshipping a religion? I don't understand why you would care more about the idea of no afterlife and lying in dust forever. Storm I really woudl liek you to respond to me on this.

Originally posted by Storm
Which god should we believe in, which religion should we follow?

If you actaully knew anything about christianity, it does state that you will nto be punished for lack of knowledge, so if your not convinced it doesnt mean your goign to hell, according to I believe majority of christian belief

.

Do we live on after death, continuing to experience things in new realms? Do we have a immaterial soul which is actually the origin of our minds and consciousness now? Does this soul continue on after our death, migrating to some sort of heaven or higher dimension? People have always wondered what if anything lies beyond the grave. Is death the end of existence, an entry into eternity or an intermission between earthly lives? I don' t know, I can' t know, I can only wonder.

Currently, I join in the speculation that any and all consciousness ceases to exist at death and that death itself is ultimately the exact same experience as prior to conception. The world we live in is my heaven. An imperfect heaven, but heaven nonetheless. I wake up each morning and am glad to be alive. I have a heightened appreciation for life. As far as I' m concerned, it can' t get any better. I don' t fear death, or what might come after death.

Originally posted by Storm
I refuse to pretend and to be a person who decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers.

2 questions...

1. Why do you see that as "pretending" and not an honest choice for someone?
2. If it was an honest choice for someone, what's wrong with choosing in favor of benefits when there's no other criteria (ie, no "proof" upon which to base a choice?

Just curious.

Originally posted by Storm
Do we live on after death, continuing to experience things in new realms? Do we have a immaterial soul which is actually the origin of our minds and consciousness now? Does this soul continue on after our death, migrating to some sort of heaven or higher dimension? People have always wondered what if anything lies beyond the grave. Is death the end of existence, an entry into eternity or an intermission between earthly lives? I don' t know, I can' t know, I can only wonder.

Currently, I join in the speculation that any and all consciousness ceases to exist at death and that death itself is ultimately the exact same experience as prior to conception. The world we live in is my heaven. An imperfect heaven, but heaven nonetheless. I wake up each morning and am glad to be alive. I have a heightened appreciation for life. As far as I' m concerned, it can' t get any better. I don' t fear death, or what might come after death.

I can't understand that philosophy becasue I don't ever think I coudl think that way, but I respect that if thats the way you feel. It seems more of a pessimistic view of death with no hope, and I'm a person that thrives on hope.

Originally posted by Mindship
2 questions...

1. Why do you see that as "pretending" and not an honest choice for someone?
2. If it was an honest choice for someone, what's wrong with choosing in favor of benefits when there's no other criteria (ie, no "proof" upon which to base a choice?

Just curious. I replied from my point of view and for myself to the situation gordomuchacho presented.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
So what if theres a small chance god exists, you might as well live life trying to practice some sort of faith, rather than assuming that therecoudlnt be a god because he defies logic and science.
Why would I be a hypocrite and practice a faith I don' t believe in merely because it offers benefits, and a possible ticket to heaven?
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
I can't understand that philosophy becasue I don't ever think I coudl think that way, but I respect that if thats the way you feel. It seems more of a pessimistic view of death with no hope, and I'm a person that thrives on hope.
This is one of the arguments often used for an afterlife. It seems to flow from the idea that life is too sad and contradictory and that mankind therefore needs an afterlife where the soul can be at rest and content in the warm glow of an all good existence. In and of itself this life, this reality we live in, already contains all the goodness and all the reasons for hope that we humans need. There is wonder and excitement and glorious moments of triumph when one overcomes disabilities and setbacks to achieve an important aim in life. The good afterlife is already a real possibility here, in this life. Many among us are so busy in arguing about these matters that we miss most, if not all of the heaven that we may experience here, in this life.

Originally posted by Storm
I replied from my point of view and for myself to the situation gordomuchacho presented.

Ah. So if I understand this correctly, you're saying, in effect, that you refuse to be intimidated into believing. In that case, I would definitely agree with you.

That' s another way to put it into words.

Yes. I would agree. I find pro-faith advocates who try to convert with such tactics thoroughly wrong.

Ultimately I have found that a person does not need religion to have hope, to be a good person, to be happy, to live a full life. I know, as I do not have religion, and my life seems to be just as good as any person of faith. We are responsible for ourselves, and it is up to us to make our lives meaningful and joyous.

That there *might* be an after life does not really enter into. Without proof I would find it hard to just "believe" - and I would feel the hypocrite to pretend to believe on the of chance something might happen. This is reinforced even more when it comes to certain religions whose stances strike me as wrong. Thus I will accept responsibility for my own life. My successes belong to me and me alone - not any God. And my failures are also mine, not any God.

Originally posted by Storm

This is one of the arguments often used for an afterlife. It seems to flow from the idea that life is too sad and contradictory and that mankind therefore needs an afterlife where the soul can be at rest and content in the warm glow of an all good existence. In and of itself this life, this reality we live in, already contains all the goodness and all the reasons for hope that we humans need. There is wonder and excitement and glorious moments of triumph when one overcomes disabilities and setbacks to achieve an important aim in life. The good afterlife is already a real possibility here, in this life. Many among us are so busy in arguing about these matters that we miss most, if not all of the heaven that we may experience here, in this life.

Thats not it at all, the afterlife is supposed to be a paradise, the world is not perfect, however, in paradise its supposed to be perfect. I never said that life on earth was crappy and I don't think its to seem crappy by the church at all. I think life is fantatsic and I look forward to living each and every day I can. Your talking about life as we speak and not life after death. There is a lot fo hope and so many great thigns you can do in this life, my point is the idea of finishing a short life ( life is way too short) with idea of goign into the groudn to be consummed by bugs and animals is depressing. If you satisfied living 80 years and then nothign forever after that then thats cool, but I wish to believe there is somethign more in store for me beyodn this life.

Well, even if there is an afterlife your body will still be in the ground (or cremated.)

And I have always wondered. Paradise after death. But what can a person achieve in the Christian afterlife? By all accounts if you are saved when you die you go to heaven and.... are just there. For all eternity. The things a person can achieve in life - respect, loyalty, artistic/philosophical achievement, love, children and so on.... what parallels exist in heaven? Our mortal life can be full of the most amazing highs and, granted, the most terrible lows - what does the Christian afterlife offer, other then "eternal paradise" that could be as potent?

Paradise though is believed to be so perfect and amazing that its inconceivable to us now, its so great that you woudl want to spend eternity there. Its greatness is more potent than anything on earth. accordign to christian belief, not comparable at all to anythign great here. All of those thigns u mentioned above are fantastic and wonderful thigns, I'm just sayign that heaven is much better than all those thigns.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Paradise though is believed to be so perfect and amazing that its inconceivable to us now, its so great that you woudl want to spend eternity there. Its greatness is more potent than anything on earth. accordign to christian belief, not comparable at all to anythign great here. All of those thigns u mentioned above are fantastic and wonderful thigns, I'm just sayign that heaven is much better than all those thigns.

This is heaven and or paradise. The idea that it is something after death, is just fantasy.

If heaven is perfect, won't it be perfectly boring...?

Originally posted by Storm
If heaven is perfect, won't it be perfectly boring...?

Heaven is not perfect. Only nothingness is perfect.

That' s debatable, but not here.

Originally posted by Storm
If heaven is perfect, won't it be perfectly boring...?

No because liek i said before its an inconceivable great as in fantastic you want to be there kind of great

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is heaven and or paradise. The idea that it is something after death, is just fantasy.

Why is this paradise? I think our definitions of what heaven is slightly differs.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Why is this paradise? I think our definitions of what heaven is slightly differs.

We are alive, the dead are not. We have power, the dead do not. We can shape the universe, the dead cannot.

Paradise is not perfectoin. Paradise is life itself. You have the power to makke paradise.


Did I mention that humanism and I have had 37 extramarital affairs?

Originally posted by Alliance
Paradise is not perfectoin. Paradise is life itself. You have the power to makke paradise.


Did I mention that humanism and I have had 37 extramarital affairs?

We agree about the first part.

THe first third of the first paragraph...or the first paragraph itself?

Originally posted by Alliance
THe first third of the first paragraph...or the first paragraph itself? Everything except the affair thing.

Ah. Well that my problem and not yours.

Originally posted by Alliance
Ah. Well that my problem and not yours.

I didn't understand it.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
No because liek i said before its an inconceivable great as in fantastic you want to be there kind of great
How do you know that?
Did you see it your self? Or are you just believing what the book cryptically says?

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
How do you know that?
Did you see it your self? Or are you just believing what the book cryptically says?

Where in any of my posts did I say I knew that? If your gonna question me don't put words in my mouth. If you read anything of what I said before I used the word BELIEF not KNOW. Christian belief is that heaven is what i said before.

You imply that every time you try to use your faith in an argument,
You say: "it IS and inconcievable...blah"
Good I'm glad your Belief is heaven, My belief is that it is not. What makes your better?

i think its better because my belief gives me hope for soemthing gretaer than what I have now, and urs doesn't thats why in my opinion its better

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
You imply that every time you try to use your faith in an argument,
You say: "it IS and inconcievable...blah"
Good I'm glad your Belief is heaven, My belief is that it is not. What makes your better?

I didn't imply i kept a continuation of my statment going on, nothing was implied you just didn't read the top post

Of course it is, If you thought your opinion wasn't as good or better as someone else's you wouldn't have it.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Of course it is, If you thought your opinion wasn't as good or better as someone else's you wouldn't have it.

Ok, but i didnt say thats the way it is, im stating my opinion. If you feel urs is better congratulations, but i never said my beliefs are better, i think they are better

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
No because liek i said before its an inconceivable great as in fantastic you want to be there kind of great

That's what they said about Disney land. Sure, it's fun and all for a while. Maybe even a long while. But eventually it gets a bit boring - fun can last for a long time, as can pleasure, but it is finite, and without achievement it seems hollow.

Which is what I want to know - what can one achieve after death? I get "it's great. Paradise. You'll just sit around and be content for all eternity." I would think, if a soul retained its free will after death, that eventually it would want to do something more, achieve something, anything.



Well that is fine. But it shouldn't lead you to think that a person who doesn't believe in the after life isn't just as happy, or more happy, then you are. In fact I have sometimes, in my studies, seen the opposite. A person of faith will get caught up in how good the next life will supposedly be that they loose the ability to appreciate this one. After all, when you think you are but a few years from "paradise" it is hards to go one with the ups and downs of normal life, and they are unhappy.

As it stands now I have hope for the future, but not in a God, but rather the things I have achieved, am achieving, and will achieve in my life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are alive, the dead are not. We have power, the dead do not. We can shape the universe, the dead cannot.

Is this an assumption? Unless we have evidence of what the dead do or do not do, or even of their existence, isn't it premature to claim they cannot shape the universe in some way we are unable to perceive.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura




Well that is fine. But it shouldn't lead you to think that a person who doesn't believe in the after life isn't just as happy, or more happy, then you are. In fact I have sometimes, in my studies, seen the opposite. A person of faith will get caught up in how good the next life will supposedly be that they loose the ability to appreciate this one. After all, when you think you are but a few years from "paradise" it is hards to go one with the ups and downs of normal life, and they are unhappy.

As it stands now I have hope for the future, but not in a God, but rather the things I have achieved, am achieving, and will achieve in my life.

I feel that you can lead a life full of happiness if you don't have similar views as mine and I don't think I said anywhere that you couldn't, I was merely tryign to make a point to tptmanno1 that i think my afterlife seems more appealing to me than a non-existent one, however, that does not mean my beliefs are better nor does that mean he or anyone else couldn't lead a fufilling life filled with achievement without these beliefs.

AS long as you admit there are possibilites you may be wrong...that all cool

To prove God is to destroy the idea of faith, which, in turn, makes religion meaningless.

Why do I believe in God?

1. Certain aspects of evolution require, in my opinion, more faith that they are simply a statistical probability than that some higher power has guided them.

2. I have seen God work in others' lives. I have seen change in a person that one might be inclined to describe as miraculous. I have heard and read testimonies. These lead me to believe that there is one true God, the God of Christianity.

3. I have no reason not to believe. There is nothing that has challenged my beliefs enough to warrant my relinquishing of my faith.

1. This is not really evolution. I dont think you have a good grasp on the concept. Faith is not really needed.

2. I personally havent found any testimony that has been credible. CHanges within people are simply a result of peole feeling powerless, and latching on to somone else as their source of power. They change themseleves...just dont attibute it to themseleves.

3. Faith is taught to people...you didnt wake up on day and suddenly realize that there is a god. YOu prove positives...you should have reasons too believe...not view faith as a default.

Originally posted by FeceMan
To prove God is to destroy the idea of faith, which, in turn, makes religion meaningless.

I have always wondered about this, and I will admit it strikes me as a bit of a cop out.

I have faith in family/friends. This faith is not blind, it is based upon my knowledge of them, and the way they have proved throughout the time I have known them that they are deserving of my faith.

God, apparently, wants me to have faith in him. Yet he, unlike the afore mentioned friends and family, expects it without really giving me knowledge of him, nor reason why he deserves my faith. Arrogant? Perhaps, but I don't think it is to much to ask, especially when some of the things and attitudes expected, by way of the Bible, strike me as wrong (or if not wrong then needing explanation as to why they should be believed.)

After all, God has apparently proving himself to people before. OT he couldn't keep away from the world. But suddenly it turns into a mental test that runs in a circle - ...have faith in God, though there is no proof, as proof destroys faith, and without faith you can't have faith in God....

Originally posted by Alliance
1. This is not really evolution. I dont think you have a good grasp on the concept. Faith is not really needed.
Silence, for you know not of what you speak.

In the OT, there was no way for anyone to really know of God aside from miracles/wonders/what-have-yous. In the NT, there was Jesus. Now, we have the Bible.

If you think about it, if there were no god, as an atheist would see it, then there would be no reason to fear death what so ever. Because when you die, you would not have consciousness, so there is nothing to fear about death, you would have no sense of "self existance". For me, it is a better existance than heaven and hell.

Mayn devout Chistians would say the same thing (no fear in death)...because they are so confident thay are going to some magical place.

Whereas my belief is that there is no evil or magical place.

Originally posted by The thinker
Whereas my belief is that there is no evil or magical place.


If there is no evil, there is no good.

There just is.

Originally posted by Alliance
There just is.

Can you prove that?

Why do you need me to?

Originally posted by Alliance
Why do you need me to?

Because your post made no sense to me, so I decided to give you a bad time.

argh.

Originally posted by FeceMan
To prove God is to destroy the idea of faith, which, in turn, makes religion meaningless.

Why do I believe in God?

1. Certain aspects of evolution require, in my opinion, more faith that they are simply a statistical probability than that some higher power has guided them.

2. I have seen God work in others' lives. I have seen change in a person that one might be inclined to describe as miraculous. I have heard and read testimonies. These lead me to believe that there is one true God, the God of Christianity.

3. I have no reason not to believe. There is nothing that has challenged my beliefs enough to warrant my relinquishing of my faith. But can you see these can and do happen in other than Jesus name???? They happen all over the world all the time.........