All we need to end this acrimony is for God to be more proactive. Would it be that difficult? Part of the magic and attraction of the Old and New Testaments is this quality that's missing today. All God has to do -and it's easy - is to choose a few ambassadors here and there to preach the word, perform a few real miracles - as was common thousands of years ago - and there would be no crisis of faith. And there would be no sea called apostasy. Sitting on the sidelines, I can say plainly I am amazed by the faith and works of faith many Christians demonstrate daily. They deserve better. They deserve more. Even God knows that.
Proof of Christianity
- Thread starter alasdair
- Start date
Have you ever wonder why this God of Christianity or Islam who is omnipotent and omnipresent cannot show Himself, Herself, or Itself to us? After all, if you are omnipotent and omnipresent, you do not need any ambassador to preach the word and perform miracles. God can do it all on His, Her, or its own. God is needless. Or is SHe?
I in no way said that colour was a part of creed. I don't know how you inferred that from what I said.
I do believe that peoples faith should be respected, that doesn't mean I respect the actions of someone because of their faith. Not all muslims believe that Jihad must be militaristic in action. Many Islamic scholars will tell you that Jihad has been misused by the extremists of Islam. My respect does have conditions, I do not for instance respect people who cherry pick holy scripture and twist it to suit there agenda. This is all part of that "don't paint the whole group with the same brush" I was talking about.
I have to say I resent the notion you have that I believe race is intertwined with creed. To my knowledge I said nothing of the sort. But since you seem to be clinging to this notion, perhaps you could point out to me where I made that distinction.
I do believe that peoples faith should be respected, that doesn't mean I respect the actions of someone because of their faith. Not all muslims believe that Jihad must be militaristic in action. Many Islamic scholars will tell you that Jihad has been misused by the extremists of Islam. My respect does have conditions, I do not for instance respect people who cherry pick holy scripture and twist it to suit there agenda. This is all part of that "don't paint the whole group with the same brush" I was talking about.
I have to say I resent the notion you have that I believe race is intertwined with creed. To my knowledge I said nothing of the sort. But since you seem to be clinging to this notion, perhaps you could point out to me where I made that distinction.
If belief and moral code are parts of humanity then different belief and different moral code make you a different human being like the different skin colour does in racism.
How do you know that? Have you met God?
Exactly, but the problem is that there is no God let alone Judgment Day.
Well if you want to argue semantics, we are all different to begin with. Every one of my posts has expressed tolerance, not animosity because of differences.
Racism is a prejudice, a rather hateful one at that. Being different in your creed does not in any way necessitate racism. If you are purpetrating hate because of a different religion, it is not racism, it is religious prejudice, and a hate crime. Race is not into creed, you'll find all sorts of different races in all of the religions.
I have not met any god, but I do know that the some followers of Islam believe Allah is the same God of Christianity and Judaism, according to the Quran. Then of course there are many who do not believe this.
How can you know there will be no Judgement Day in the Future, note I don't believe this, but I do concede it is a possibility.
Racism is a prejudice, a rather hateful one at that. Being different in your creed does not in any way necessitate racism. If you are purpetrating hate because of a different religion, it is not racism, it is religious prejudice, and a hate crime. Race is not into creed, you'll find all sorts of different races in all of the religions.
I have not met any god, but I do know that the some followers of Islam believe Allah is the same God of Christianity and Judaism, according to the Quran. Then of course there are many who do not believe this.
How can you know there will be no Judgement Day in the Future, note I don't believe this, but I do concede it is a possibility.
All I can say is if there is no Judgment Day they should tell us. There's a helluva lot of settling that should be done now. We have delegated and delegated to God things we should have done ourselves. Without a JD, you can bet things would be a lot different around here.
How can you know that there will be no Moaning Day in the future?
How can you know that there will be no Crying Day in the future?
How can you know that there will be no Laughing Day in the future?
How can you know that there will be no Sleeping Day in the future?
How can you know that there will be no Running Day in the future?
And there are infinite numbers of How can you know … in the future like questions.
You are asking a very irrational question.
How can you know that I will not be your God in the Future?
How can you know that I will not own the entire planet Mars in the future?
How can you know that I will not be your boss in the future?
Let’s speak in the language of logic and rationale! Shall we?
You are indeed professing that. You say "there is no God let alone Judgement Day", but there is no way you can know this.
Your unwavering stance that this cannot be is similar to a Christian saying that there is. They have their faith to tell them so, you similarly have faith that it is not. You cannot know for sure that this will not come come to pass. Very similar to faith is it not?
Your unwavering stance that this cannot be is similar to a Christian saying that there is. They have their faith to tell them so, you similarly have faith that it is not. You cannot know for sure that this will not come come to pass. Very similar to faith is it not?
In a somewhat roundabout way, this is the real issue to me. It isn't about whether god exists, or Christianity is true, or Islam is true, or anything like that. Here's what I think it's about:
In the early 1970s, an American scientist named Jacob Bronowski (originally a Polish Jew) made a tv series for the BBC, which subsequently led to a book of the same name, called The Ascent of Man. Canada's CBC network aired it in 1973. One episode finds him at the pond at the old concentration camp at Auschwitz, which he was using to make a point about the nature of science and human understanding. Many of his relatives died at Auschwitz. He wades into the pond, scoops up a handful of mud from the bottom, and says this: "It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false... This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave." (emphasis mine)
That struck me at the time, and still does, as a profoundly true and useful insight, and my next thought was that absolute knowledge is exactly what religion claims to have. A life in science has taught me that there's no absolute knowledge beyond the trivial; any true claim must be, at least in principle, falsifiable, which means it must be possible to at least conceive of evidence that would prove it to be wrong. (For instance, if you want to prove Darwinian evolution is wrong, look for mammal fossils in precambrian sediments.) If there's no conceivable evidence that could show a claim to be wrong, then the evidence in its favour doesn't matter either, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence, which to my way of thinking makes it vacuous.
So to the religiously committed I would say this: if you think there's no possibility that you might be wrong, that you have an absolute lock on some absolute truth, you are a dangerously ignorant idiot, and from me you'll get scorn and derision. If on the other hand you have your faith but remain open to argument and discussion and do not condemn out of hand people who disagree with you, I will be pleased to talk with you about these matters, and hope we can both learn something interesting and useful.
In the early 1970s, an American scientist named Jacob Bronowski (originally a Polish Jew) made a tv series for the BBC, which subsequently led to a book of the same name, called The Ascent of Man. Canada's CBC network aired it in 1973. One episode finds him at the pond at the old concentration camp at Auschwitz, which he was using to make a point about the nature of science and human understanding. Many of his relatives died at Auschwitz. He wades into the pond, scoops up a handful of mud from the bottom, and says this: "It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false... This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave." (emphasis mine)
That struck me at the time, and still does, as a profoundly true and useful insight, and my next thought was that absolute knowledge is exactly what religion claims to have. A life in science has taught me that there's no absolute knowledge beyond the trivial; any true claim must be, at least in principle, falsifiable, which means it must be possible to at least conceive of evidence that would prove it to be wrong. (For instance, if you want to prove Darwinian evolution is wrong, look for mammal fossils in precambrian sediments.) If there's no conceivable evidence that could show a claim to be wrong, then the evidence in its favour doesn't matter either, it's invulnerable to any kind of evidence, which to my way of thinking makes it vacuous.
So to the religiously committed I would say this: if you think there's no possibility that you might be wrong, that you have an absolute lock on some absolute truth, you are a dangerously ignorant idiot, and from me you'll get scorn and derision. If on the other hand you have your faith but remain open to argument and discussion and do not condemn out of hand people who disagree with you, I will be pleased to talk with you about these matters, and hope we can both learn something interesting and useful.
Last edited:
"Belive" in god
To learn is far more important than to know. Learning about belief is the end of belief. When the mind is free of belief then it can look. It is belief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief are the same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So we can completely put aside positive or negative belief; the believer and the non-believer are the same. When this actually takes place then the question, "Is there a god?" has quite a different meaning. The word god with all its tradition, its memory, its intellectual and sentimental connotations - all this is not god. The word is not the real. So can the mind be free of the word? The word is the tradition, the hope, the desire to find the absolute, the striving after the ultimate, the movement which gives vitality to existence. So the word itself becomes the ultimate, yet we can see that the word is not the thing. The mind is the word, and the word is thought. The word is the tradition, the hope, the desire to find the absolute, the striving after the ultimate, the movement which gives vitality to existence. So the word itself becomes the ultimate, yet we can see that the word is not the thing. The mind is the word, and the word is thought. The word is the past; it is memory. The wife is the word, and the house is the word. In the beginning was the word. Also the word is the means of communication, identification. Your name is not you, and yet without your name I can't ask about you. So can the mind can be free of the word - that is, can the mind be free of its own activity?In the case of the tree the object is before our eyes, and the word refers to the tree by universal agreement. Now with the word god there is nothing to which it refers, so each man can create his own image of that for which there is no reference. The theologian does it in one way, the intellectual in another, and the believer and the non-believer in their own different ways. Hope generates this belief, and then seeking. This hope is the outcome of despair - the despair of all we see around us in the world. From despair hope is born, they also are two sides of the same coin. When there is no hope there is hell, and this fear of hell gives us the vitality of hope. Then illusion begins. So the word has led us to illusion and not to god at all. God is the illusion which we worship; and the non-believer creates the illusion of another god which he worships - the State, or some utopia, or some book which he thinks contains all truth. Can be free of the word with its illusion? If there is no illusion, what is left?
Only What is . The "what is" is the most holy.The very simplicity of that statement, " `what is' is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunity from a truth which you have violated. The white man who says to the black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do not burn", has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred to him, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change. Is there god. I said: the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at "what is " actually is. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the "observer" who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what really is? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is, is change. That is a fact. That is what is. We want to see if there is god. Can you see that the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is, is change. That is a fact. That is What is.
Can love change? Can love ever be caught in the wheel of change? If so then it can also be hate; then love is hate. It is only when there is no illusion that "what is" is most sacred. When there is no illusion "what is" is god or any other name that can be used. So god, or whatever name you give it, is when you are not. When you are, it is not. When you are not, love is. When you are, love is not.Is Love God? Who are you (to ask)?
To learn is far more important than to know. Learning about belief is the end of belief. When the mind is free of belief then it can look. It is belief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief are the same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So we can completely put aside positive or negative belief; the believer and the non-believer are the same. When this actually takes place then the question, "Is there a god?" has quite a different meaning. The word god with all its tradition, its memory, its intellectual and sentimental connotations - all this is not god. The word is not the real. So can the mind be free of the word? The word is the tradition, the hope, the desire to find the absolute, the striving after the ultimate, the movement which gives vitality to existence. So the word itself becomes the ultimate, yet we can see that the word is not the thing. The mind is the word, and the word is thought. The word is the tradition, the hope, the desire to find the absolute, the striving after the ultimate, the movement which gives vitality to existence. So the word itself becomes the ultimate, yet we can see that the word is not the thing. The mind is the word, and the word is thought. The word is the past; it is memory. The wife is the word, and the house is the word. In the beginning was the word. Also the word is the means of communication, identification. Your name is not you, and yet without your name I can't ask about you. So can the mind can be free of the word - that is, can the mind be free of its own activity?In the case of the tree the object is before our eyes, and the word refers to the tree by universal agreement. Now with the word god there is nothing to which it refers, so each man can create his own image of that for which there is no reference. The theologian does it in one way, the intellectual in another, and the believer and the non-believer in their own different ways. Hope generates this belief, and then seeking. This hope is the outcome of despair - the despair of all we see around us in the world. From despair hope is born, they also are two sides of the same coin. When there is no hope there is hell, and this fear of hell gives us the vitality of hope. Then illusion begins. So the word has led us to illusion and not to god at all. God is the illusion which we worship; and the non-believer creates the illusion of another god which he worships - the State, or some utopia, or some book which he thinks contains all truth. Can be free of the word with its illusion? If there is no illusion, what is left?
Only What is . The "what is" is the most holy.The very simplicity of that statement, " `what is' is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunity from a truth which you have violated. The white man who says to the black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do not burn", has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred to him, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change. Is there god. I said: the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at "what is " actually is. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the "observer" who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what really is? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is, is change. That is a fact. That is what is. We want to see if there is god. Can you see that the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is, is change. That is a fact. That is What is.
Can love change? Can love ever be caught in the wheel of change? If so then it can also be hate; then love is hate. It is only when there is no illusion that "what is" is most sacred. When there is no illusion "what is" is god or any other name that can be used. So god, or whatever name you give it, is when you are not. When you are, it is not. When you are not, love is. When you are, love is not.Is Love God? Who are you (to ask)?
Last edited:
As I said, let’s think and talk rationally! Shall we?
Rationally, we must assume that things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Most of the people who believe in God follow this rule as well; for instance, they don't believe in unicorns, even though they cannot definitively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere. So, you don't have to provide evidence for something which does not exist. However, if you claim that something exists then you must bring objective and compelling supporting evidence for its existence.
That is why I say with confidence that there is no God let alone Judgment Day. Now, the burden of proof is on you if you claim that there is such a thing called God.
Once again, let’s think and speak rationally here. If I truly believe (based on my own feelings=faith) that you have twenty billion dollars; my belief does not make you rich when in fact you don't actually have this amount of money. You can have faith and believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything in this universe including God. This is called faith.
You do not need faith to believe in a nonexistent entity. You need rational thought to see the reality and express it as it is. Atheism is about having no belief (no faith) in the existence of a nonexistent entity.
Dexter Sinister,
I have watched the entire episodes of The Ascent of Man. Jacob Bronowski did a great job considering the fact that he did not have the modern media technology that we have today.
China,
Your message is so rich that it can be published as an online article.
I always tell myself that Change is the only constant in this universe. And you have described it in a very clear philosophical way. Thanks!
Anyways, I have been participating at DU (Debate Unlimited) forum for the last five years. I can see how you (Dexter and China) can stir the pot if you drop a few lines there at http://mwillett.org/Debate/
Cheers!
I have to disagree with this. I will show courtesy to religious folks, but I will not respect their choice to blindly believe the 'word of god.' Blind faith is not something to be respected. Voluntary ignorance is not something to be respected. Critical thought on the other hand... Well, you know where I'm going with this.
Dex, I'll have to look that up.
In that post you quoted, I too almost said blind faith, but I caught myself before I posted. The reason I left it out is, as I said before, the majority of people have strong emotional ties, or experiences in their life that shape their view. Calling it blind is ignorant to that persons entire life and upbringing. Do you know their life history? If they experience something and attribute it to a deity, that's theirs, it's personal, and you cannot qualify or change that fact. My botany professor last year was one of the smartest and most intuitive men I've ever met. He made us think critically about all sorts of things, and he was a religious man.
This kind of jumping to conclusions and "blind" judgement is the very same that helped to lead me away from my Catholic upbringing.
This kind of jumping to conclusions and "blind" judgement is the very same that helped to lead me away from my Catholic upbringing.