Do you belive in a GOD? just yes or no pls

[jeremyboycool]

Everything is subjective sweetie --even scientists are 'subjects', and any body of knowledge they (and the people who pay them!) produce is, by extension, subjective!

I mean come on, I have read prominent 'Royal Society' scientific journal articles saying that gay men have 'passive genes' and straight guys have 'active genes'. What a load of bollox. Even language is so limited, now and forever.

Belief in god (or gods) is just as reasonable (shocking I know) as the belief that there is no god! Bishops have put knives to our throats and say 'you must believe on god!'. Stalin, Hitler, Mao then put guns to our heads and said 'you must not believe in god, it is inefficient! We will tell you what perfection is!'

You seek "actual comprehensible evidence"... but please define (i) actuality (ii) comprehension (iii) evidence... if you end up setting all of these terms out within the context of some human 'system' of though... then you do not even know what it is that you seek! But if you go to the bother of painstakingly defining each term, in 'proper' order... go publish a book and make some money! Then publish a sequel called non-actual, incomprehensible and lacking evidence! Routledge or Yale U.P. will gladly publish both! $$$ P

"Everything is subjective "

I am sure you mean truth is subjective, as Kierkegaard famously put it. As, denying the existence of the material world would be a bit irrational.

 

[jeremyboycool]

Every one of us is like a man who sees
things in a dream and thinks that he
knows them perfectly and then wakes
up to find that he knows nothing.
PLATO, Statesman

Come, then, and let us think of something to say to him. Shall we
begin by assuring him that he is welcome to any knowledge which he
may have, and that we are rejoiced at his having it? But we should
like to ask him a question: Does he who has knowledge know something
or nothing? (You must answer for him.)

I answer that he knows something.
Something that is or is not?
Something that is; for how can that which is not ever be known?

And are we assured, after looking at the matter from many points of
view, that absolute being is or may be absolutely known, but that
the utterly non-existent is utterly unknown?

Nothing can be more certain.
Good. But if there be anything which is of such a nature as to be
and not to be, that will have a place intermediate between pure being
and the absolute negation of being?

Yes, between them.
And, as knowledge corresponded to being and ignorance of necessity
to not-being, for that intermediate between being and not-being there
has to be discovered a corresponding intermediate between ignorance
and knowledge, if there be such?

Certainly.
Do we admit the existence of opinion?
Undoubtedly.
As being the same with knowledge, or another faculty?
Another faculty.
Then opinion and knowledge have to do with different kinds of matter
corresponding to this difference of faculties?

Yes.
And knowledge is relative to being and knows being. But before I proceed
further I will make a division.

What division?
I will begin by placing faculties in a class by themselves: they are
powers in us, and in all other things, by which we do as we do. Sight
and hearing, for example, I should call faculties. Have I clearly
explained the class which I mean?

Yes, I quite understand.
Then let me tell you my view about them. I do not see them, and therefore
the distinctions of fire, colour, and the like, which enable me to
discern the differences of some things, do not apply to them. In speaking
of a faculty I think only of its sphere and its result; and that which
has the same sphere and the same result I call the same faculty, but
that which has another sphere and another result I call different.
Would that be your way of speaking?

Yes.
And will you be so very good as to answer one more question? Would
you say that knowledge is a faculty, or in what class would you place
it?

Certainly knowledge is a faculty, and the mightiest of all faculties.

And is opinion also a faculty?
Certainly, he said; for opinion is that with which we are able to
form an opinion.

And yet you were acknowledging a little while ago that knowledge is
not the same as opinion?

Why, yes, he said: how can any reasonable being ever identify that
which is infallible with that which errs?

An excellent answer, proving, I said, that we are quite conscious
of a distinction between them.

Yes.
Then knowledge and opinion having distinct powers have also distinct
spheres or subject-matters?

That is certain.
Being is the sphere or subject-matter of knowledge, and knowledge
is to know the nature of being?

Yes.
And opinion is to have an opinion?
Yes.
And do we know what we opine? or is the subject-matter of opinion
the same as the subject-matter of knowledge?

Nay, he replied, that has been already disproven; if difference in
faculty implies difference in the sphere or subject matter, and if,
as we were saying, opinion and knowledge are distinct faculties, then
the sphere of knowledge and of opinion cannot be the same.

Then if being is the subject-matter of knowledge, something else must
be the subject-matter of opinion?

Yes, something else.
Well then, is not-being the subject-matter of opinion? or, rather,
how can there be an opinion at all about not-being? Reflect: when
a man has an opinion, has he not an opinion about something? Can he
have an opinion which is an opinion about nothing?

Impossible.
He who has an opinion has an opinion about some one thing?

Yes.
And not-being is not one thing but, properly speaking, nothing?

True.
Of not-being, ignorance was assumed to be the necessary correlative;
of being, knowledge?

True, he said.
Then opinion is not concerned either with being or with not-being?

Not with either.
And can therefore neither be ignorance nor knowledge?
That seems to be true.
But is opinion to be sought without and beyond either of them, in
a greater clearness than knowledge, or in a greater darkness than
ignorance?

In neither.
Then I suppose that opinion appears to you to be darker than knowledge,
but lighter than ignorance?

Both; and in no small degree.
And also to be within and between them?
Yes.
Then you would infer that opinion is intermediate?
No question.
But were we not saying before, that if anything appeared to be of
a sort which is and is not at the same time, that sort of thing would
appear also to lie in the interval between pure being and absolute
not-being; and that the corresponding faculty is neither knowledge
nor ignorance, but will be found in the interval between them?

True.
And in that interval there has now been discovered something which
we call opinion?

There has.
Then what remains to be discovered is the object which partakes equally
of the nature of being and not-being, and cannot rightly be termed
either, pure and simple; this unknown term, when discovered, we may
truly call the subject of opinion, and assign each to its proper faculty,
-the extremes to the faculties of the extremes and the mean to the
faculty of the mean.

True.
This being premised, I would ask the gentleman who is of opinion that
there is no absolute or unchangeable idea of beauty --in whose opinion
the beautiful is the manifold --he, I say, your lover of beautiful
sights, who cannot bear to be told that the beautiful is one, and
the just is one, or that anything is one --to him I would appeal,
saying, Will you be so very kind, sir, as to tell us whether, of all
these beautiful things, there is one which will not be found ugly;
or of the just, which will not be found unjust; or of the holy, which
will not also be unholy?

No, he replied; the beautiful will in some point of view be found
ugly; and the same is true of the rest.

And may not the many which are doubles be also halves? --doubles,
that is, of one thing, and halves of another?

Quite true.
And things great and small, heavy and light, as they are termed, will
not be denoted by these any more than by the opposite names?

True; both these and the opposite names will always attach to all
of them.

And can any one of those many things which are called by particular
names be said to be this rather than not to be this?

He replied: They are like the punning riddles which are asked at feasts
or the children's puzzle about the eunuch aiming at the bat, with
what he hit him, as they say in the puzzle, and upon what the bat
was sitting. The individual objects of which I am speaking are also
a riddle, and have a double sense: nor can you fix them in your mind,
either as being or not-being, or both, or neither.

Then what will you do with them? I said. Can they have a better place
than between being and not-being? For they are clearly not in greater
darkness or negation than not-being, or more full of light and existence
than being.

That is quite true, he said.
Thus then we seem to have discovered that the many ideas which the
multitude entertain about the beautiful and about all other things
are tossing about in some region which is halfway between pure being
and pure not-being?

We have.
Yes; and we had before agreed that anything of this kind which we
might find was to be described as matter of opinion, and not as matter
of knowledge; being the intermediate flux which is caught and detained
by the intermediate faculty.

Quite true.
Then those who see the many beautiful, and who yet neither see absolute
beauty, nor can follow any guide who points the way thither; who see
the many just, and not absolute justice, and the like, --such persons
may be said to have opinion but not knowledge?

That is certain.
But those who see the absolute and eternal and immutable may be said
to know, and not to have opinion only?

Neither can that be denied.
The one loves and embraces the subjects of knowledge, the other those
of opinion? The latter are the same, as I dare say will remember,
who listened to sweet sounds and gazed upon fair colours, but would
not tolerate the existence of absolute beauty.

Yes, I remember.
Shall we then be guilty of any impropriety in calling them lovers
of opinion rather than lovers of wisdom, and will they be very angry
with us for thus describing them?

I shall tell them not to be angry; no man should be angry at what
is true.

But those who love the truth in each thing are to be called lovers
of wisdom and not lovers of opinion.

Assuredly.

The Republic, Plato

 

[Ecclesies]

I believe in God

1. Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift.
2. If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question).
3. If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).
4. Therefore God is not omnipotent.

1. If he creates a stone which he cannot lift, he proves his omnipotence by creating something that which is "impossible"
2. By not being able to create a stone which he cannot lift, he furthermore proves his omnipotence by being unable something that can best his own power. Suggestibly, he could still create it, but instantaneously gain the strength required to lift it. I put this into what I call the "chain of experience," a never-ending cycle in which things are learned the instant they are created, and things are created constantly

1) The order of the universe.

You are just creating a new problem. If there is a supreme being, who created her? Or it. Or he. Since the universe couldn't have evolved spontaneously, flawed as it is, according to your beliefs, it is far much harder to believe that a supreme being came into existence without someone creating it. So who? Or what? And why?

Nobody created it. That's the whole point of the "supreme" part. Even if someone/something did, i doubt it would let us know, especially evident in the fact that nobody truly does know.

2) Earth and life.

Evolution.

I agree, but i also belive that evolution is facilitated and "overseen" by God.

3) Conscience.

Does an animal in the wild feel guilty killing for food. NO. Why do we.

Humans have been designed in a way that makes us superior to the other creations of the world. The main reason for this is our reasoning, and communication skills. We have a higher tier of thought, and we can communicate these thoughts via coherent, intelligent, spoken language. Even unspoken language, at times.

Most of us don't feel guilty whilst killing for food. That's why we have the animals (in addition to raw materials, pets, entertainment, etc) Some of us do however. It is these people who do feel guilty, who should be defending animals when they are killed for no reason, or for malicious intents (Excluding nutrition in a civilized sense (no cat-eating, guys)).

4) Intricacies of humans.

Can this be explained by chance?

Totally. It is hard to explain otherwise why we are constructed so badly. A 7,-- € webcam has a better lens than the human eye. We have remnants in our bodies of experiments like gills and so on. We are completely what you would expect if we evolved without a designer, haphazardly, under the influence of cirstances. Again: evolution.

Actually, for imperfect beings we are probably the most well thought out creations around. Take the eye, all by itself. Crack open an anatomy book and really get nitty-gritty. The eye is complex stuff. When you put all the parts together, we aren't really so much "slapped together" as some may claim. Remember, how we are created, and how we "operate" ourselves are 2 distinctions. Sure we aren't the best, and we can create things better than our own capabilities, but as explained above, that makes us human: being able to improve

5) Belief in God.
In general, throughout time, every group of people have worshiped a higher power. Whether it was a sun, or animal, or person.
How could every group, or tribe, or civilization all be wrong?

I believe that religion based on inanimate objects, animals, and astrological bodies are not "true" religions. These things cannot respond in a manner that can be clearly understood. They must ALWAYS be interpreted. And we all know what happens when we follow what we want. We get what we want. And sometimes, its really not about you.

They are made up and there is no evidence for their divine powers.

This is my favorite anti-religion(Christian) argument. That's where you atheists (and some Christians, other religions, etc) get it wrong. Religion, Christianity isn't about proving itself. Its about presenting itself in whole, so that you may decide for yourself to believe, or to refute its claims. Proof implies that you are being objective, that you are insecure and are trying to "win." This is life, not a game. You can have all the fun you want, but regardless of what you believe, we all die. I'd rather subscribe to paradise. Everything else seems too much of a repeat of life itself (especially reincarnation). Going into nothingness/limbo seems rather boring, too.

For a long time everybody believed the earth was flat. They were all wrong. The whole world population of the time. Then they thought the earth was the center of the universe. Again, the whole world population was wrong.

I am saddened to see that you used an "entirety" argument. You are aware that you cannot make arguments that have total unanimity when considering the population of an entire age of time? It is unfair to say that EVERYONE believed ONE idea. There are always dissidents, even for the simple reason to dissent of its own accord.

Let me end with a few quotes:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
~ Napoleon

"All thinking men are atheists."
~ Ernest Hemingway

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”
--John Adams, third President of the US

I see what you did there.

Let me end with some facts:

Hitler was a "thinking man"

Obama is a "thinking man"

George Washington was a "thinking man"

MLK was a "thinking man"

Susan B Anthony & Rosa Parks, Sandra O'Connor were "thinking WOmen" (or is this a males only thing?)

Also you and I are thinking men

I am a thinking man, and i happen NOT to be atheist.

You should watch your propaganda there, good sir.

-Napoleon used an assumation. And it was an opinion statement.

-This is obviously NOT true.

-John Adams used an opinion, and something (context) tells me that he was talking about a specific person, place, thing, or event (rather than the entire planet) But I don't know the quote, so maybe not...

"Funny thing about the half glass of water, is that you should see it from both perspectives, all the time. Less suprises." -myself

PS: Mmm my cranium tickles. This was fun.

 

[BugsyB]

hahahaha... think when this poster posted this thread he said...just yes or no?

but to elaborate more on it...

 

[Tom]

Ecclesies,

That was truly profound!!!

 

[ritsuka]

I agree with much of what Synned has written above. There are no gods, there is no afterlife. Religious morality hates the body, hates little children, spreads emotional dishonesty and seeks to put adults into a self-hating, subjugated state, preserving grievously out-dated, antisocial systems through the dissemination of bad literature. Thankfully I have never been religious or spiritual, and as someone in the arts and humanities, I utterly condemn and disclude all of it; I am for humanity, here and now, one life only.

The following article largely correlates with my own views: http://anonym.to/http://www.screamsfromchildhood.com/spirituality_cements_childhood_blindness.html

...Spiritual conceptions cement childhood blindness and illusions because people are prompted to continue living in unconscious ways – like children following the rules and beliefs of others. When our feelings come alive, we leave our childlike dependence behind and can do what was so forbidden in childhood – and what is so unwelcome in spiritual belief systems – to feel, to question, to criticize and to contradict. The goal of religious and spiritual movements is not to question one’s childhood, parents, the “authorities” and their deeds, their manipulations and true intentions, their control and rules. That is what they greatly dread and oppose. Instead of being encouraged to get to know and love oneself and to speak up, one is asked to kneel down and bow in obedience and devotion to a “higher being” and supposedly “higher life-concepts” – and thus a subservient, fearful, childish, brainwashed attitude is prolonged as the betrayal of “spirituality.”

When we get up from kneeling down to embrace our rights – also the right to feel – our self-worth and our strength, we break the vicious cycle of denial, devotion, adoration and servility. People who communicate honestly and compassionately with their inner world become real, alive and conscious human beings with self-confidence because they know themselves. They deal with life’s problems not by submitting to outdated, authoritarian rules established by others, but according to how they feel and what they have come to realize as humane and meaningful as different issues arise. They are not afraid to share their feelings and to stand up for their convictions.

 

[Ecclesies]

I agree with much of what Synned has written above. There are no gods, there is no afterlife. Religious morality hates the body, hates little children, spreads emotional dishonesty and seeks to put adults into a self-hating, subjugated state, preserving grievously out-dated, antisocial systems through the dissemination of bad literature. Thankfully I have never been religious or spiritual, and as someone in the arts and humanities, I utterly condemn and disclude all of it; I am for humanity, here and now, one life only.

It is to my belief that these "methods" are extremely strict, to the point where it starts to contradict itself and counteract the very thing it seeks (conversion). Most of this comes from, dare I say, the catholic denomination of the Christian faith. Catholics are to Christians as conservatives are to politics Then there are the truly outrageous examples of brainwashing, occult-like, narcissistic views as a proponent of the faith. We all remember that crazy woman on the news; what was her name? Sally? It is that kind of "Crusader Religion" of which I share your sentiments of condemnation toward. But to say that about all religion (especially if practiced the way it was intended (which doesn't include violence, emotional manipulation, or degredation of human decency)) would be unfair to those like myself, who don't have the "holy complex."

I do not align myself with denominations. They are partial, and factioned. They quarrel with themselves and in doing so, send a bad message to anyone who may pass by. The religion I subscribe to says if you commit a crime "you'll burn" BUT, there's a loophole so go tell people about it. If they reject the idea that's their perrogative. And I certainly won't be negative about it either way they penny falls.

 

[rileydog]

Everybody has the choice to believe in a God or not to believe in a God.
I would never be so presumptuous as to assume to know if God does or doesn't exist - I'm an agnostic, I don't KNOW if God exists and to be perfectly honest, neither does anyone else.

 

[exim]

Religion - man made
...Bible - man made, edited over centuries to suit dictators for purposes of sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia.

So no I don't believe in God

 

[RuG]

I do believe in God and higher power but not necessarily on religion and all its mambo jumbo

 

[Tjerk12]

Dear Arumbob, imagine that our brains are lying in bowls, filled with a sugar solution. Things well connected, so the brain stays alive. When its alive, it must be able to think, develop images, sounds and fragrances. It could even think that it is embedded in a body. Are we alive? Are you alive? God knows.

 

[jeremyboycool]

It all depends on how we define the 'material world'. Often, it is conceived of in terms of form (over matter). A form of life, a thing, an instance where matter has taken form, or changed form. Scientists can purport to explain the structure of particular instances or forms within reality, but there is an underlying and wholly unexplained (and inexplicable?) reality: matter itself. Where does the 'stuff' come from that enables this form or that form to be? Ergo, mainstream science (with the tentative exception of quantum physics) downplays (or relegates to the past) the question of matter, of being (Cf. Heidegger's Sein und Zeit): so we should raise the question, even though it is unanswerable. We do not run away from it. Any purported scientific consensus on fundamental reality is an outright lie at worst, or belies fear, insecurity and cowardice at best.

"It all depends on how we define the 'material world'."

As Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I have heard people call it allot of different things but regardless of what it is called it still smells the same.

mainstream science downplays the question of matter, of being

Exactly how does it do that?

"even though it is unanswerable."

How do you know it is unanswerable? And if it is unanswerable why waste our time trying to answer the unanswerable?


"Any purported scientific consensus on fundamental reality"

I have never seen such a thing, maybe you could give an example of what you are talking about.

 

[jeremyboycool]

Everybody has the choice to believe in a God or not to believe in a God.
I would never be so presumptuous as to assume to know if God does or doesn't exist - I'm an agnostic, I don't KNOW if God exists and to be perfectly honest, neither does anyone else.

And are you agnostic to elves, dragons, fairies, orbital tea cups, flying spaghetti monsters, trolls, radioactive snot slinging superheros and so on and so fourth? Also, what exactly is this god anyways? What is it you are saying nobody knows if it exist?

I don't claim to know the secrets of the universes. I am just unconvinced of all of the human created god theories I have heard.

 

[roamer]

Yes

 

[mrduke]

yes

 

[jeremyboycool]

I have to yawn (along with many many people who are now yawning). This is a tired old argument from one of Dawkin's £19.99 pop-science books. The entire concept of god is very complex. It cannot be reduced to comical images or cartoon like creations. But many things exist only in the imagination... and this somehow negates their reality? For example money is imagined... is is merely something that has value if we belief this is so. Otherwise money is just pieces of paper of 0's and 1's on a bank's computer. How silly! But we all know that money is real, we all believe in it... some even worship it. In fact, given the recent economic turmoil (Dow Jones just lost 20% of its value in one day) money is not a 'radioactive snot'... it is quite real, and a very serious matter.

But if you parted with a £20 note for the latest hardback release then good for you. There are worse things one could spend money on!

"This is a tired old argument from one of Dawkin's £19.99 pop-science books."

I have never read a Dawkins book, so I won't know.


The entire concept of god is very complex. It cannot be reduced to comical images or cartoon like creations.

Regardless of the question of complexity gods like ghosts are subjective apparitions and in that respect they are comparable.


"But many things exist only in the imagination... and this somehow negates their reality? "

No, I agree, God exist as an imaginary being and perhaps, in some respects, God is like money.

 

[luxferre]

yes...

 

[1ikki1]

Everything is subjective sweetie --even scientists are 'subjects', and any body of knowledge they (and the people who pay them!) produce is, by extension, subjective!

I mean come on, I have read prominent 'Royal Society' scientific journal articles saying that gay men have 'passive genes' and straight guys have 'active genes'. What a load of bollox. Even language is so limited, now and forever.

Belief in god (or gods) is just as reasonable (shocking I know) as the belief that there is no god! Bishops have put knives to our throats and say 'you must believe on god!'. Stalin, Hitler, Mao then put guns to our heads and said 'you must not believe in god, it is inefficient! We will tell you what perfection is!'

You seek "actual comprehensible evidence"... but please define (i) actuality (ii) comprehension (iii) evidence... if you end up setting all of these terms out within the context of some human 'system' of though... then you do not even know what it is that you seek! But if you go to the bother of painstakingly defining each term, in 'proper' order... go publish a book and make some money! Then publish a sequel called non-actual, incomprehensible and lacking evidence! Routledge or Yale U.P. will gladly publish both! $$$ P

Could you show the link to that article pls?? I'd like to read it

About the thread I think yes... Although I actually dont follow any religion despite when I was child I used to be Catholic xD

 

[jeremyboycool]

Jeremy says:
"I have never read a Dawkins book, so I won't know. "

While this may be true, nonetheless it is a misleading statement. It is curious that you repeatedly use buzzwords and talking points that come directly from one or the other of his books...

Perhaps you buy other authors that quote directly from Dawkins? If you spent the £19.99 on those, well, as I say... there are worse things you could be spending your time and money on!

It is not originally a Dawkins argument, Integritas0. Russell's Teapot (1952) is the earliest argument of its kind that I am aware of (although it is a simple argument, I assume it even older then Russell). The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was founded by some physics graduate named Bobby Henderson in 2005.

Here is the Celestial Teapot; which of course was what I referring to with "orbital teapot". (Btw, the snot slinging monster is an obscure reference to a T.V. from the early 80's.)

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. - Bertrand Russell

 

[jeremyboycool]

Jeremy said:

"I have never read a Dawkins book, so I won't know."

Once again, I feel this is a misleading and disingenuous statement.

For the third time... there are worse things you could be spending your £19.99 on!

" I feel this is a misleading and disingenuous statement."

I don't appreciate you implying that I am a lair, Intergritas0. There is nothing "misleading" or "disingenuous" about what I said. I have never read a Dawkins book and that is just the fact of the matter. But I really don't see how any of that is relevant.

Integritas0, what you are doing is called ad hominem and I am sorry but I not interested in that type of discourse. So please direct your attention towards the arguments and not the people.