83 replies to this topic

[william7]

But you're judging your rationality by the standarts of a belief that you didn't use rationality to accept and adopt in the first place. Do you see the irrationality here?

Nope. I set aside the humanly devised standard of rationality and adopted God's standard of rationality in its place when I was confronted with the truth. I quickly realized the superiority of God's standards over human ones.

Greater success in our quest for immortality will be achieved when we begin employing God's standards to the task. This is why I hang out with guys. I hope to convince you that much more is needed than just science and technology.

[eternaltraveler]

I hope to convince you that much more is needed than just science and technology.

Elijah,

If I were presented with strong evidence that your god exists I could be swayed. If you were presented with strong evidence that your god does not exist you could not be swayed.

This defies simple logic and reason. You don't want to debate and learn through the debate, you want to preach what you "know" to be true. In debates with others on this forum I have been convinced that things I formerly thought were true are likely not. In fact when I am proven to be wrong on something I thought was true for a long time I am really happy about it. Because I learned something.

You have previously acknowledged that there is absolutely nothing that could make you change your beliefs. I suspect that this is not entirely true, but only largely so. And I understand that it would be very difficult for you if this actually did happen as you've built up so much of your persona around it. You believe that there can be no meaning in life without the version of god you believe in, and for you if you lost your faith perhaps you would feel like you lost your meaning. But I assure you that I for one live a very deep and meaningful life without any connection whatever to your perceived deity.

I'm not saying you don't contribute a meaningful role here. You do. But it isn't the one you hope for I fear. You offer us an excellent example of one strain of a terrible virus that infects most of the world. It's the same virus that began with proto judaism and has now mutated and evolved through natural selection to fill the niches of judaism, islam, and christianity (and all their sub species). It's really a remarkable pathogen, and is itself an excellent example of evolution we can follow through recorded history. Once you are infected you are forced to both disregard any and all evidence against it (so you stay infected), and go on to infect as many other people as you can (through preaching and whatnot). This is not your fault, it is just another example of how good evolution is at producing replicators, whatever the medium.

[Luna]

Oh, again one of those topics..
*Takes the popcorn*
Don't give up Eliah! start with the pictures!
*mumbles: that will give me entertaiment for at least a week!*

[Heliotrope]

Answer to Elijah's question:

YES and No


do you thinnk he prayed to God?

Yes,
i think he prayed to something. saying something like "oh god please save me don't let me die! I pray thee blah blah blah"


do you think he's telling the truth?

No,
i don't think it was "God" he was praying to. i think NO god exists. he was praying to empty air or to himself to calm himself down, part of his brain made him think he prayed to a GOD and it worked.

Edited by HYP86, 19 May 2008 - 05:04 AM.

[william7]

If I were presented with strong evidence that your god exists I could be swayed. If you were presented with strong evidence that your god does not exist you could not be swayed.

I haven't been presented with strong evidence that my God doesn't exist. Instead, I see strong evidence for his existence.

This defies simple logic and reason. You don't want to debate and learn through the debate, you want to preach what you "know" to be true.

I learn a lot from you guys in these debates. I wouldn't participate if I didn't. I preach because I hope somebody might listen. I figure I got the missing piece of the longevity puzzle you science guys need.

But I assure you that I for one live a very deep and meaningful life without any connection whatever to your perceived deity.

The question should be how much more meaningful and productive a life would you have with a right understanding of the God of the Bible?

You offer us an excellent example of one strain of a terrible virus that infects most of the world. It's the same virus that began with proto judaism and has now mutated and evolved through natural selection to fill the niches of judaism, islam, and christianity (and all their sub species). It's really a remarkable pathogen, and is itself an excellent example of evolution we can follow through recorded history.

I have to agree with you about the Pharisaic Judaism of Jesus' day, Islam, and Catholic Christianity being pathological viruses. The only solution, however, will be the production of a benign strain of the virus that will take the place of and protect against those harmful strains.

Now lets take a look at the history of science and technology. Has it always been a benign virus with no harmful effects? Science and technology has its critics too. See, for example, the Wikipedia entries below.

Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.[21] Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.[22] Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.

http://en.wikipedia....osophical_focus

Psychologist Carl Jung believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method used would pose artificial, conditional questions that evoke only partial answers.[27] Robert Anton Wilson criticized science for using instruments to ask questions that produce answers only meaningful in terms of the instrument, and that there was no such thing as a completely objective vantage point from which to view the results of science.

http://en.wikipedia....al_inadequacies

Generally, technicism is an over reliance or overconfidence in technology as a benefactor of society.

Taken to extreme, some argue that technicism is the belief that humanity will ultimately be able to control the entirety of existence using technology. In other words, human beings will someday be able to master all problems and possibly even control the future using technology. Some, such as Monsma,[34] connect these ideas to the abdication of religion as a higher moral authority.

More commonly, technicism is a criticism of the commonly held belief that newer, more recently-developed technology is "better." For example, more recently-developed computers are faster than older computers, and more recently-developed cars have greater gas efficiency and more features than older cars. Because current technologies are generally accepted as good, future technological developments are not considered circumspectly, resulting in what seems to be a blind acceptance of technological development.

http://en.wikipedia....logy#Technicism

Optimistic assumptions are made by proponents of ideologies such as transhumanism and singularitarianism, which view technological development as generally having beneficial effects for the society and the human condition. In these ideologies, technological development is morally good. Some critics see these ideologies as examples of scientism and techno-utopianism and fear the notion of human enhancement and technological singularity which they support. Some have described Karl Marx as a techno-optimist

http://en.wikipedia....nology#Optimism

[william7]

I find it highly unlikely the robber prayed to God for success, and, I'm fairly certain, God doesn't answer such prayers if they are made. If anything, God would trip up and cause the arrest of such robbers so they would be imprisoned where He could begin to teach them the Scriptures under conditions where He would have their attention.

Thats very wishful thinking. Why would God intervene a robber but doesn't help the 5 billion people who are dying of poverty, war, famine or disease in third world countries?



Claiming that it's "God's Will" or that it's part of "God's Plan" or that "God works in mysteries ways" is disgusting and is not a valid excuse.

What if God is both able and willing to prevent evil, but He can only accomplish His goal in a period of time that appears very long to the human mind but very short to Him? In other words, what if He's working on creating a Utopian world where humans live forever without pain or suffering as the Scriptures say? See Isaiah 65:20-25; Revelation 21:1-4.

[JonesGuy]

I prayed to Odin yesterday, and wasn't even approached by a mugger. How's THAT for a divine intervention?

[Cyberbrain]

What if God is both able and willing to prevent evil, but He can only accomplish His goal in a period of time that appears very long to the human mind but very short to Him? In other words, what if He's working on creating a Utopian world where humans live forever without pain or suffering as the Scriptures say? See Isaiah 65:20-25; Revelation 21:1-4.

Claiming that it's "God's Will" or that it's part of "God's Plan" or that "God works in mysteries ways" is disgusting and is not a valid excuse.

Why would an infinitely powerful being make us suffer for 1000's of years just to create his version of a utopia in the far future?

This just proves that either

1. God doesn't exist.

2. God doesn't care.

3. God is not who we think he is.

Either way, what ever type of God may exist, he is not doing anything right. And if this is all part of God's Plan, then his plan is obsolete.

Faith in God only justifies your own fear of death, confirms your lack of trust in reason, and proves your own cowardice to seek your own salvation.

Even if you could prove to me his existance, I would still want to seek my own salvation.

Btw, since we are all children of God (and despite the fact that he supposingly loves us all equally), what kind of child do you think God will be impressed by more ... a weak child that is constantly begging their parent to do everything for them ... or a child that seeks to fend for themselves?

If you were in God's shoes, who do you think he will be more proud of ... someone who is trying to constantly suck up to him like a teachers pet ... or someone who is trying to reach his level all by themselves?

As a parent, what kind of child would you be more proud of ... a child that is always crying and coming to you for help (who is afraid of his own shadow, and when he finishes school, he lives in your basement, etc) ... or a child that strives to be great all by themselves (for instance by getting straight A's, by being the best athlete, by going to college and getting a high paying job, etc).

If God loves us all, then not only will he not care if someone is an atheist, but he will also show more compassion towards souls that remind him of himself.

And if this is not the kind of God that exists (an all loving one), then he is not worthy of any worship or praise, and should be destroyed by any means necessary.

[JohnDoe1234]

[Cyberbrain]

Nice one!

[william7]

[cyborgdreamer]

What if God is both able and willing to prevent evil, but He can only accomplish His goal in a period of time that appears very long to the human mind but very short to Him? In other words, what if He's working on creating a Utopian world where humans live forever without pain or suffering as the Scriptures say? See Isaiah 65:20-25; Revelation 21:1-4.

If He were really omnipotent, He could create a Utopain world instantly.

[spaceistheplace]

God is the why and science is the how.

[Cyberbrain]

God is the why and science is the how.

Why must God be in the explanation. Why can't we live in a world without God?

[Ben Simon]

If He were really omnipotent, He could create a Utopain world instantly.

Yeah, but why would he?

I'm not saying God exists, but if he does that doesn't mean that he should do away with all suffering and conflict. Suffering is something we may wish to avoid ourselves, but that doesn't make it 'bad'. If we accept the premise that God exists we have to also accept that his ways may not be our ways. To attempt to disprove God on our terms is to build a straw God.

Edited by ben, 20 May 2008 - 03:29 AM.

[cyborgdreamer]

If He were really omnipotent, He could create a Utopain world instantly.

Yeah, but why would he?

I'm not saying God exists, but if he does that doesn't mean that he should do away with all suffering and conflict. Suffering is something we may wish to avoid ourselves, but that doesn't make it 'bad'. If we accept the premise that God exists we have to also accept that his ways may not be our ways. To attempt to disprove God on our terms is to build a straw God.

An omnipotent God who allows suffering would not be completely benevalent. If suffering isn't 'bad', than what is?

[spaceistheplace]

God is the why and science is the how.

Why must God be in the explanation. Why can't we live in a world without God?

We already live in a world without God.

[Cyberbrain]

God is the why and science is the how.

Why must God be in the explanation. Why can't we live in a world without God?

We already live in a world without God.

Your God maybe. But the world still has plenty of more God's to get rid of.

[Ben Simon]

An omnipotent God who allows suffering would not be completely benevalent. If suffering isn't 'bad', than what is?

Theologically this is very simplistic. If such a thing as God exists then it must be by nature something we cannot comprehend. It would be infinitely more sophisticated than us. To try to handcuff it to our own moral standards seems like futility to me. While we may operate with the view that pain is to be avoided and pleasure pursued, God may see pain as being beneficial. There is no reason to think that our comfort would necessarily be God's priority. Even if we accept God as benevolent, one would still have to accept that God would know our true interests better than we do. Maybe a life without any suffering would be meaningless? ...I don't know.

What I do know is that there is a perfectly legitimate reason to not believe in God already, and that is that there is no evidence for God's existence. This alone will suffice. Arguments of the sort you are offering, which attempt to disprove Gods character, are ultimately flawed and pretty pointless. If God is real then he has no obligation to meet our expectations or abide by our moral code. He would necessarily be beyond them both.

[william7]

If He were really omnipotent, He could create a Utopain world instantly.

I personally believe that God is not all powerful or all knowing and is subject to laws or limitations on how He does things. This is why its taking as long as it is - by our standard of reckoning time - to bring about His Utopian Kingdom on earth.

[Heliotrope]

If He were really omnipotent, He could create a Utopain world instantly.

I personally believe that God is not all powerful or all knowing and is subject to laws or limitations on how He does things. This is why its taking as long as it is - by our standard of reckoning time - to bring about His Utopian Kingdom on earth.

if he's not all powerful why call him god? maybe he's some supremely intelligent alien race than created humans out of boredom, fun, or as an experiment and then abandoned us, his little "ant farm" if you will

[william7]

if he's not all powerful why call him god? maybe he's some supremely intelligent alien race than created humans out of boredom, fun, or as an experiment and then abandoned us, his little "ant farm" if you will

I call Him God because He's much more powerful and knowledgeable than I. The Scriptures say He hasn't abandoned us but is working out His purpose for humanity within His time frame, not ours. 2 Peter 3:8,9.

[Cyberbrain]

Oh, again one of those topics..
*Takes the popcorn*
Don't give up Eliah! start with the pictures!
*mumbles: that will give me entertaiment for at least a week!*

LoL to the max!

[meursault]

Ya'll wanna-be immortalists just jealous of elijah3 cause his boy Jesus rose from the dead

this thread is ridiculous
and this is what is going on

Edited by czukles, 20 May 2008 - 03:23 PM.

[forever freedom]

If He were really omnipotent, He could create a Utopain world instantly.

I personally believe that God is not all powerful or all knowing and is subject to laws or limitations on how He does things. This is why its taking as long as it is - by our standard of reckoning time - to bring about His Utopian Kingdom on earth.

so why does god lie to us in the bible saying he is omnipotent and omniscient? pure self marketing, i suppose?

[cyborgdreamer]

An omnipotent God who allows suffering would not be completely benevalent. If suffering isn't 'bad', than what is?

Theologically this is very simplistic. If such a thing as God exists then it must be by nature something we cannot comprehend. It would be infinitely more sophisticated than us. To try to handcuff it to our own moral standards seems like futility to me. While we may operate with the view that pain is to be avoided and pleasure pursued, God may see pain as being beneficial. There is no reason to think that our comfort would necessarily be God's priority. Even if we accept God as benevolent, one would still have to accept that God would know our true interests better than we do. Maybe a life without any suffering would be meaningless? ...I don't know.

The argument becomes meaningless if you redefine 'morallity' and 'benevalence' to mean 'whatever God wants for us'. For the concept of morallity to make any sense, it has to mean that people should get the lives they want. The only time this wouldn't be moral would be if fullfilling your desires would harm yourself or others in the long run. However, an omnipotent God could give us what we want and prevent the negative consequences. He could help me get away from the things that make me suffer without making me feel meaningless. By this definition of moralily, a God who chooses not to do this is not completely benevalent.

What I do know is that there is a perfectly legitimate reason to not believe in God already, and that is that there is no evidence for God's existence. This alone will suffice. Arguments of the sort you are offering, which attempt to disprove Gods character, are ultimately flawed and pretty pointless. If God is real then he has no obligation to meet our expectations or abide by our moral code. He would necessarily be beyond them both.

The lack of evidence means that it is extremely unlikely but not impossible for any God(s) to exist. There is some minute chance that there is a God who doesn't abide by our morality or a God who isn't omnipotent. However, a self contradictory God is not only unlikely but logically impossible. A God cannot exist who is omnipotent and completely benevalent, given that we are trapped in this flawed universe.

[Luna]

Will you guys just stop repeating yourself over and over again each time in a new topic, new sentences but the very same endless cycle and meanings? come on, get a room!

[Ben Simon]

For the concept of morallity to make any sense, it has to mean that people should get the lives they want.

Wow... this is not true at all.

'Want' and 'ought' have very little to do with one another.

I think you'd struggle to find any moral philosopher who would agree with your claim.

[cyborgdreamer]

For the concept of morallity to make any sense, it has to mean that people should get the lives they want.

Wow... this is not true at all.

'Want' and 'ought' have very little to do with one another.

I think you'd struggle to find any moral philosopher who would agree with your claim.

Preference Utilitarianism

[Ben Simon]

Yeah, I know about preference utilitarianism. In fact I shared a faculty with Singer at one time, though we rarely crossed paths. I happen to disagree with the philosophy (I think it's logically flawed), but this is not really the point. If in fact you are attempting to assert the utilitarian viewpoint, I think you do so in a way which makes baseness of the philosophy. This of course is a criticism that people often enough level against utilitarians, but one that I tend to think of as being unfair.

Perhaps I too am being unfair, but I took the meaning of your comments to be that what is moral is derived from what people want, as opposed to their actual preferences. Preferences in my opinion are different from wants, if only subtly so. We might say that a persons preferences are what they need. A person may have contradictory wants, but they will presumably not have contradictory preferences.

Besides, though you may be a preference utilitarian, I fail once again to see why this would mean God ought to be as well. In fact preference utilitarianism runs wholly against the grain of the idea of God doesn't it? God's morality would seem to be the objective standard... preference utilitarianism deals in subjective ends. All the same, I would still wish to assert that God would (if he exists) know our true preferences better than we would.

Edited by ben, 20 May 2008 - 10:55 PM.