Instant Access Registration Takes Less Than 15 Seconds! You May Not Post Until Registered.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having trouble staying logged in when navigating between forums/topics/etc., you need to reset your session cookie. Go into your browser and delete any cookie for the site them log back in. This should fix the login issue.
just as dave stated. I have great respect for Klash, dave, you Sal, and as he also said, I think everyone understands that. I just really laughed like I haven't in a while when I read that, so I had to post it.
Well -
I don't think I have a personal GOD - I would think myself more along the line of what Einstein has said - what little I have read about anyway.
And I certainly don't have a religious GOD - does that make me an Atheist?
If so, I'm OK with that too!
I'm pretty easy all in all - just don't let the ladies know about that!
Sal
From what I have read of Einstein and Spinoza is they refer to existence as god and that science and reason is how you understand him/existence. So they believe in an objective and independent reality in which man's wishes, whims or prayers do not influence reality. This is exactly the same belief's as an atheist but what they refer to as god could also be called nature, existence, reality. Pantheism is just a more acceptable and romanticized version of atheism. They don't believe in a personal god, they believe in existence and call it god. To me pantheists and atheists are the same thing.
And the whole Einstein / Spoinoza thing - well I'm in a bit of agreement there so far.
I'll be doing some more research on this shortly.
Sort of reminds me of Wicca or Wiccan Religion to some degree with the theme of nature being god or somethign along those lines.
you dont want to go through that list one at a time? you think that list, a very partial list, is full of idiots and dim wits? you wouldnt agree that, those are some of the greaest minds in history? your just gonna split hairs with eintein? you might wanna read some of those things youer blowing off...it may be relevant to your position. personal god or whatever...he was NOT an ateist (i wouldnt think someone so smart would be something that dosnt exist...kinda silly huh?), he believed in something...what proof did he have?
here's more of: "some of the greatest minds in history were religious"
Gregor Mendel
Robert Boyle
Johannes Kepler
Sir Francis Bacon
more foolish believers!!!
you can say "atheist exist, atheist exist" all you want....just as i can say "god exist"...we dont believe eachother...thats all. i dont believe in atheist's. i've never seen proof that they exist...just people that claim to be one...how many people claim to have a visions of god or angels each year? do you believe them? i cant prove that they did or they didnt, but they BELIEVE they did....like a supossed atheist...just gotta take their word for it or dont!
i like the... "Everyone is an atheist when they are born" thing...i've heard that before. they also cant walk, talk and continue to drool on themselves for a couple years...not the smartest mutherfuker on the planet at that point. i dont think i want to follow the rashinal of an infant....good try though
Your ignoring the fact that despite the fact these people were theists, they did not have the same idea of god. There isn't a person on this board that believes in the same god. You might agree on his name and a couple fundamental aspects but then everyone goes their own way. Why? Because there is no consistent standard once you dismiss reason as the standard.
As far as the FACT that everyone is born atheist. Yeah infants have to learn everything but learning is not INDOCTRINATION. Learning labels and characteristics in the use to articulate ones thoughts are based on a physical reality. Learning to walk is based on physical reality. What is the revelation of god based on? Can you show an infant the revelation of god and say "see that is god". No! You tell the infant that god revealed himself 2000 years ago? Then the child will hit you with a barrage of questions in which your only answer is "it is written in god's word". Of course, the child is smarter than that "how do you know it's the word of god?". In which the response might as well be "shut up kid". You resort to 2000 year old written stories that contradict everything we know to be true with reality but present it as factual information, despite there is no evidence for it - that is indoctrination. In other words, if a child was to grow up around nothing but atheists there would be no way for him to figure out the concept of Christianity. Yet, if he grew up around mutes, he would still figure out the concept of a table and to walk.
Your ignoring the fact that despite the fact these people were theists, they did not have the same idea of god. There isn't a person on this board that believes in the same god. You might agree on his name and a couple fundamental aspects but then everyone goes their own way. Why? Because there is no consistent standard once you dismiss reason as the standard.
As far as the FACT that everyone is born atheist. Yeah infants have to learn everything but learning is not INDOCTRINATION. Learning labels and characteristics in the use to articulate ones thoughts are based on a physical reality. Learning to walk is based on physical reality. What is the revelation of god based on? Can you show an infant the revelation of god and say "see that is god". No! You tell the infant that god revealed himself 2000 years ago? Then the child will hit you with a barrage of questions in which your only answer is "it is written in god's word". Of course, the child is smarter than that "how do you know it's the word of god?". In which the response might as well be "shut up kid". You resort to 2000 year old written stories that contradict everything we know to be true with reality but present it as factual information, despite there is no evidence for it - that is indoctrination. In other words, if a child was to grow up around nothing but atheists there would be no way for him to figure out the concept of Christianity. Yet, if he grew up around mutes, he would still figure out the concept of a table and to walk.
we wasnt talking about the different belief's in god bro...just the belief that he exist's. i was mearly pointing out that alot of smart people agree with me....NOW, you want to split hairs about what EXACTLY there belief is....well bro...i'm not doing thathat!!! there is a consistant standard...there is 1 theme...he created all....isnt that what ALL of them agree on. skip the horseshyt on go to the main picture.....he's the "all of it" package...to all of the different religions. thats all that need to be uniform.
i didnt teach my kids the bible...they heard something somewhere...they decided to look for themselves and they made their own decission. they both believe. i dont do church. they've both gone with friends, but not consistantly...their beliefs are surprisingly along the same lines as mine....and i've NEVER talked to them about religion....ever....how's that work?
anyways...the boy that grows up with the mute monks....he wont learn to talk...and, if they were non walking monks...he'd probobly never walk...if they were drooling monks...he'd may continue to drool forever....but the cool thing is...god wouldnt hold it against him. i really struggled with what you were trying to say...you were kinda implying that if the infant wasnt taught religion, he wouldnt know it...well...duhh...if he was taught to talk he would fukin talk either....
HE WHO MAKES A BEAST OF HIMSELF, GET'S RID OF THE PAIN OF BEING A MAN!!
i was mearly pointing out that alot of smart people agree with me....
No a lot of smart people believe in their own idea of god, not yours. You implying the character of god is irrelevant. It isn't. A vengeful god that torments non-compliance and a god that actually endorses free will are two totally different gods. Yet both these god's followers can call themselves Christians.
NOW, you want to split hairs about what EXACTLY there belief is....well bro...i'm not doing thathat!!! there is a consistant standard...there is 1 theme...he created all....isnt that what ALL of them agree on. skip the horseshyt on go to the main picture.....he's the "all of it" package...to all of the different religions. thats all that need to be uniform.
Are you saying the revelation of god is horseshty?
i didnt teach my kids the bible...they heard something somewhere...they decided to look for themselves and they made their own decission. they both believe. i dont do church. they've both gone with friends, but not consistantly...their beliefs are surprisingly along the same lines as mine....and i've NEVER talked to them about religion....ever....how's that work?
anyways...the boy that grows up with the mute monks....he wont learn to talk...and, if they were non walking monks...he'd probobly never walk...if they were drooling monks...he'd may continue to drool forever....but the cool thing is...god wouldnt hold it against him. i really struggled with what you were trying to say...you were kinda implying that if the infant wasnt taught religion, he wouldnt know it...well...duhh...if he was taught to talk he would fukin talk either....
Exactly if religion wasn't indoctrinated upon it's followers it couldn't be discovered as gravity, that atom and nuclear energy were. Your comparing apples and oranges. If an infant wasn't taught to talk he could still make sounds and assign those sounds to objects - thus talking. He'd just miss out on 2000 years of the evolution of language.
they are the same god...we have freedom but are not free...no difference. you have a right to bare arms, you just cant go pop a fukin cap in someones ass!!!(maybe in texas)
i'm not saying the revalation is horseshyt...just you reducing everytrhing down to the ridiculus is...we went from me believing in god to me having to believe what EVERYONE ELSE in the WORLD believes about god. 2 people can see the same car and not agree on the color...and your suprised that people have different feelings and thaughts about god?...so now your niave too?
maybe he could make sounds...i dont know...if the munks are not making sounds...maybe the fuker would never udder a peep!!! how about that? talking is learned...just like the lord. i dont see the problem with that, your just using bad examples in my opinion...the non talking kid thing was a poor example. i dont know where this is even going....everything has to be learned...that was my point. god also has to be learned. the concience effort to reject god was learned as well. whats your point exactly....that people have to learn about god so he must be fake...like learning about santa? or the easter bunny? or red and blue makes purple? or that there is such thing as a "purple"? or learning to drive, walk, talk or all the other things you have to learn....if the monks are color blind, does he not see color? this line is not going well....lol
HE WHO MAKES A BEAST OF HIMSELF, GET'S RID OF THE PAIN OF BEING A MAN!!
Question -
If GOD has to be learned or cannot be thought of without being indoctrinated - then where did the concept come from????
Someone had to think of it sometime....no?
Even the most basic cultures usually have some form of spirituality and they certainly weren't led there by bible toting Christians.
The first concept of GOD wasn't an indoctrination - it was discovered as gravity although much differently one would think.
That is unless GOD himslef came along thousands of years before Christ to lay down the law and indoctrinate everyone and if HE really did and was capapble of doing that then maybe he had the right to.
Who the heck knows.
But all religion or spirituality isn't learned - the concept had to originate somewhere from something - much the same was the concept of gravity originated from an apple falling from the tree. Gravity was always there --- right? It just wasn't understood!
Damn there seems to be a lot of reference to apples in my posts.
Ah well -----
The concept wasn't learned - it is reasonable to believe it was discovered much the same way as gravity - by accident and someone putting reasonable thought together and coming up with the idea.
I'm sure early thoughts on gravity aren't what they are now - and we are sure what we know now is correct - until we "prove" that it isn't - but that's another topic.
But I'm prety sure Newton didn't get hit with the apple and instantly have the full understanding of the inner workings of the earth or the full knowledge of gravity as it is currently. It was a concept and an idea that has evolved. Sure it can be "proved" within the very limited resources and understanding we as humans have at this small stage in our existance but we still say dropping a rock and seeing it hit the ground is proof.
It's only proof as far as our understanding will let it be.
What is fact today may well be a total lie tomorrow.
So the whole thing about science and being able to prove things with logic and reason is only as good as today. Once a new discovery is made that can all go out the window.
That doesn't make it any less true knowing what we know now.
Much the way early thoughts on spiritual issues and GOD aren't what they are now but it doesn't make them any less correct or true for the time.
So nonconformists are going to burn in eternal hell and they are going to be reunited with god in heaven? and in some cases there are no such thing as non-conformists.
they are the same god...we have freedom but are not free...no difference. you have a right to bare arms, you just cant go pop a fukin cap in someones ass!!!(maybe in texas)
O.k. see this is a result of accepting pragmatism. Your either have free will or you don't. if god has revealed himself, there should be a consensus; not confusion. We're talking about the creator of the universe, here and the best he can do is a religious text that causes more division and violence because of it's lack of articulation. I mean I'm a mere mortal and i could write a better book on morality than the Bible and it would be 1000's of pages shorter.
i'm not saying the revalation is horseshyt...just you reducing everytrhing down to the ridiculus is...we went from me believing in god to me having to believe what EVERYONE ELSE in the WORLD believes about god. 2 people can see the same car and not agree on the color...and your suprised that people have different feelings and thaughts about god?...so now your niave too?
It's ridiculous because you can't support your beliefs. Two people can see the same car and not agree on what to call the color.
maybe he could make sounds...i dont know...if the munks are not making sounds...maybe the fuker would never udder a peep!!! how about that? talking is learned...just like the lord. i dont see the problem with that, your just using bad examples in my opinion...the non talking kid thing was a poor example. i dont know where this is even going....everything has to be learned...that was my point. god also has to be learned. the concience effort to reject god was learned as well. whats your point exactly....that people have to learn about god so he must be fake...like learning about santa? or the easter bunny? or red and blue makes purple? or that there is such thing as a "purple"? or learning to drive, walk, talk or all the other things you have to learn....if the monks are color blind, does he not see color? this line is not going well....lol
O.k. maybe not the most articulate example but I'm trying to differentiate between INDOCTRINATION and learning. i can learn math from anyone. If I go to you to learn about god; it's going to be different than if I went to Fuzo; why? Because it's make believe and people want you to accept their beliefs uncritically, without applying logic. I can be critical of math, history and science and there is a rational explanation. God - not at all.
Question -
If GOD has to be learned or cannot be thought of without being indoctrinated - then where did the concept come from????
Someone had to think of it sometime....no?
Even the most basic cultures usually have some form of spirituality and they certainly weren't led there by bible toting Christians.
The first concept of GOD wasn't an indoctrination - it was discovered as gravity although much differently one would think.
That is unless GOD himslef came along thousands of years before Christ to lay down the law and indoctrinate everyone and if HE really did and was capapble of doing that then maybe he had the right to.
Who the heck knows.
But all religion or spirituality isn't learned - the concept had to originate somewhere from something - much the same was the concept of gravity originated from an apple falling from the tree. Gravity was always there --- right? It just wasn't understood!
Damn there seems to be a lot of reference to apples in my posts.
Ah well -----
The concept wasn't learned - it is reasonable to believe it was discovered much the same way as gravity - by accident and someone putting reasonable thought together and coming up with the idea.
I'm sure early thoughts on gravity aren't what they are now - and we are sure what we know now is correct - until we "prove" that it isn't - but that's another topic.
But I'm prety sure Newton didn't get hit with the apple and instantly have the full understanding of the inner workings of the earth or the full knowledge of gravity as it is currently. It was a concept and an idea that has evolved. Sure it can be "proved" within the very limited resources and understanding we as humans have at this small stage in our existance but we still say dropping a rock and seeing it hit the ground is proof.
It's only proof as far as our understanding will let it be.
What is fact today may well be a total lie tomorrow.
So the whole thing about science and being able to prove things with logic and reason is only as good as today. Once a new discovery is made that can all go out the window.
That doesn't make it any less true knowing what we know now.
Much the way early thoughts on spiritual issues and GOD aren't what they are now but it doesn't make them any less correct or true for the time.
Sal
Any teachings of the revelation of god is indoctrination. any acceptance of the revelation of god is accepting the premise that others men are superior to you. Otherwise why do you need the word of other men to reveal god to you?
the first concept of god was not a discovery but a hypothesis that was uncritically accepted. When the first man came forward with the idea of god, he should have been challenged to prove this god - when he couldn't the hypothesis should have been dismissed. Instead, every Christian couple' children are taught that god came down to earth and died for their sins and if they don't believe this once exposed they can burn in hell but yet none of this can be backed up with reason - INDOCTRINATION.
...omg your so fuked up, lol!!! it is my personal opinion that NONE of them have it right and ALL of them have it right. the basics are correct and the same....the rest is debatable, but not by me! i have my belief's. and you cant act as though people dont have different opinions or beliefs about many subject bro...this is just another one. just happens to be the one that you want to use those difference in opinions/beliefs to bulster your argument against the existance of god...an arguement that i persoanly dont believe you even believe in, lol...funny.
yea...ok...it's that easy...you either have it or you dont...you either can raise animals as you wish and have dog fights or you cant!! you either can own a gun and shoot a fuker that annoy's you or you dont have freedom!! please...you couldnt right a better book. i dont even fallow the bible and i know you cant!!! if you can...do it. if it makes all the sence you say it would, i'll follow it. but remeber..it was man that wrote the first one that your complaining about not understanding....
right...two people, 1 car...not agreeing...we're on the same page so far. dont understand why you wrote what i did, as if it was a rebuttle to what i said...i established that already bro. my point was you act surprised that 2 people that believe in god dont share the same opinion about the details...2 people can certainly agree that it's a tuarus, but i say it's avacado green, and he say olive green...
really...math? explain this
Three men are travelling and get tired, so they decide to spend the night at a nearby inn. When they go to the front desk, the innkeeper charges them $30, ($10 each), and the three men go into their rooms and go to sleep. Then the innkeeper realizes that he was only supposed to charge the men $25 total, so he gives $5 to the bellboy to give to the men. But on the way to the men's rooms, the bellboy thinks to himself, "Hey, I've been so good, I deserve some money." So he keeps $2 and gives the remaining $3 to the men. Because they each get $1 back, they paid $9 instead of $10 each. But 3 x 9 = 27. But $30 - the taken $2 = $28. Where is the missing dollar?
HE WHO MAKES A BEAST OF HIMSELF, GET'S RID OF THE PAIN OF BEING A MAN!!
Any teachings of the revelation of god is indoctrination. any acceptance of the revelation of god is accepting the premise that others men are superior to you. Otherwise why do you need the word of other men to reveal god to you?
the first concept of god was not a discovery but a hypothesis that was uncritically accepted. When the first man came forward with the idea of god, he should have been challenged to prove this god - when he couldn't the hypothesis should have been dismissed. Instead, every Christian couple' children are taught that god came down to earth and died for their sins and if they don't believe this once exposed they can burn in hell but yet none of this can be backed up with reason - INDOCTRINATION.
I'm not saying that others are teaching it.
Simply that someone or many someones! Have come up with the idea.
To think there is a higher power - not a superior man - is fathomable for some. It does not necessarily take the word of other men to reveal god to them
You're trying to spin it in a way that it's not possible to believe in a higher power unless someone has coerced one into thinking that way.
Or to have the teachings of some mans' god shown to you or it's not possible to believe.
Again - someone thought it up at one time all on his own - whether or not it should have been dismissed is irrelevant for the point at hand. THe fact that is was thought of means that other free thinking people can think of it as well.
That my friend is not anyway close to indoctrination. It's a free man thinking for himself.
Sure the concept of god may not have been a discovery - no more than gravity was.
It was a concept until it was proven - again proven by what standard at what time.
Maybe when the concept of god was first brought about it was proven as much as Newton proved gravity - possibly more so. Maybe the wind blew - could that have been prove at the time?
Again - because someone chooses to question it is fine but you can't compare the questioning things of 2009 to questions that would have been around in the time these things were first discussed.
You like to say when the concept of god was first brought up and he couldn't prove it - it should have been dismissed.
"When the first man came forward with the idea of god, he should have been challenged to prove this god - when he couldn't the hypothesis should have been dismissed."
How do you know it wasn't proven?
You can't honestly tell me you think everything that was "proof" 100 years ago is still true today. Can you?
Let's not even consider 10,000 years ago.
The proof as you know it or want to "believe" it to be may actually be 100% and totally false in another 100 years.
Just look at the medical field and the archaric methods used at the turn of the century - those were medical FACT at the time - only to be dismissed and ridiculous be present knowledge.
The only sure thing is that there are no sure things.
The concept of god or the concept of how gravity works - is not yet fully understood. Though we may have a better idewa of how gravity works than Newton did - maybe there's just less of a learning curve with gravity than there is with GOD.
It is only as understood as it can be with the limited knowledge and information at hand.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
oh...and i like your einstien quote
Comment