 |
|
|
|
 The group American Atheists has placed this billboard in New York City's Times Square.
December 21st, 2013
10:22 AM ET
Why atheists should quit the 'War on Christmas’Opinion by Chris Stedman, special to CNN
In recent years, one organization, American Atheists, has claimed the mantle of prime atheist promoter of the tired “War on Christmas” narrative. This year, they ushered in the season with an electronic billboard in New York City’s Times Square carrying the message: “Who needs Christ during Christmas? Nobody.” The word "Christ" is crossed out, just in case their message wasn't clear enough. The American Atheists maintain that their latest entry in the annual “War on Christmas” saga is a message to other atheists that they are not alone. In a recent Fox News appearance, American Atheists President Dave Silverman said, “The point that we’re trying to make is that there’s a whole bunch of people out there for whom religion is the worst part of Christmas, but they go to church anyways, and we’re here to tell them they don’t have to.” While that intention is important and admirable, very few people—atheist or theist—seem to interpret the message as welcoming to anyone. Many of the responses I’ve seen have been vitriolic and disturbingly anti-atheist. Which raises the question: If the goal truly is to reach isolated atheists, why does the advertisement read as a dig at Christians? A better billboard for American Atheists’s stated aim might read: “Don’t celebrate Christmas? You’re not alone.” As atheists become more visible in our society, the entire “War on Christmas” back-and-forth feels ugly and unnecessary. Worse still, it seems to do little more than offer ammunition to those claiming atheists are just mean-spirited grinches. Bill O’Reilly—one of the major “War on Christmas” soldiers—made that clear when he and I discussed the “War on Christmas” a couple of weeks ago. Let’s not kid ourselves: There is no war on Christmas. We live in a culture that privileges stories of conflict, so it’s understandable that this narrative would gain traction—with or without billboards. Much of this narrative is a manifestation of religious fears about our increasingly secular society, and it reflects widespread anxieties about atheists and religious differences. But it doesn’t reflect reality. Rather, as religious diversity in the U.S. has become more recognizable, Americans have largely broadened their approach to this time of year. According to new data from the Public Religion Research Institute, the percentage of Americans who prefer the inclusive “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings” has now exceeded the percentage that prefers “Merry Christmas.” It’s not that Christmas is under attack; instead, our society is becoming better at embracing its religious diversity and challenging the notion that a single majority religion should dominate public expressions of belief. So why does the “War on Christmas” narrative persist? Based on how much play they give it each December, the “War on Christmas” narrative seems to be good for Fox News ratings. And American Atheists has openly admitted that it is good for their pocketbooks, as their talk show appearances bring in a swell of donations. Consider this from a recent profile of Silverman: “Silverman’s notorious anti-Christmas billboards and subsequent TV appearances have breathed new life into American Atheists and are often followed by an uptick in subscribers and donations. ... According to Silverman, the primary objective of the billboards is to get invitations to talk shows.” In other words: American Atheists and Fox News - alongside conservatives like Sarah Palin - seem to have discovered a mutually beneficial relationship. But does this relationship benefit atheists more broadly? Does it accurately represent the sentiments of nontheists in this country? Does it improve atheist-theist relations? Does it lessen the widespread stigma and distrust that exists between atheists and theists, which enables atheist marginalization across the U.S.? Does it invite Christians to think critically about religious privilege? Many atheists, myself included, suspect that there are more effective approaches to tackling these important issues. To start, atheists can build positive relationships with believers to humanize our communities and educate one another about our differences. That’s something that billboards, for all of their flash and fundraising capabilities, likely won’t accomplish. Atheists face real marginalization in the U.S., and it should be robustly challenged. But we also have good tidings and great joy to offer—important contributions to the public square that are currently being drowned out by attention-grabbing billboards claiming “nobody” needs Christ in Christmas. In the spirit of generosity, compassion, and kindness so often associated with this time of year, let’s ditch the billboards and build relationships of goodwill. Chris Stedman is the Assistant Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, Coordinator of Humanist Life for the Yale Humanist Community, and author of "Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious." You can follow him on Twitter at @ChrisDStedman. The views expressed in this column belong to Stedman. soundoff (5,210 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next »
« Previous entryDoes Phil Robertson get the Bible wrong?
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
(CNN) - The “War on Christmas:” what — or who—is it good for?
Consciousnesses EVOLVE as a species evolves...tools are discovered etc etc etc...nothing hard to understand about this. From non thinking survivalists to primitive discovery of tools and thinking ......Science DOES understand how it forms......no magic here.......god did it...right? Lazy thinkers believe that.
It takes a considerable amount of consciousness to come up with the idea of any god, so why is that insignificant?
Please stop the nonsense!! Enough is enough you all are going to make me loose the job. 🙁
The comments sounds like the comments from the BB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc
I think 8've seen every one of those emails as a comment here!
Yeah it won't take long to find in print the comment about going to the lake of fire !
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/12/richard_dawkins_interview_science_religion_irrationality_group_selection.html
Loved it...needed it for a good laugh...thanks
to Richard Dawkins ,you have done what God wants you to do Sir,as an atheist you highlighted the need for the evolution of religion from todays dominant monotheistic faith in Christianity and a variety of one God faiths now existing to higher level religion in the future.You fully know well that that never in the history of the world that religion was non existent.You are a scientist so you understand evolution more than us laymen.But I understand also that religions also evolve to conform with the true reality of the age,meaning the level of the present human cosciousness.I would like to ask you a question who motivated or willed or masterminded the big bang.sorry ,i am asian so my english is not that fluent
Simply stated without a long thesis...we don't know 'HOW" the big bang happened ...there is nothing to suggest the question "who" was behind it. The reasoning and rationale behind THAT is there has been no EVIDENCE to show that it was a "who" behind the big bang. As a Matter of FACT all evidence STRONGLY suggests it was not "creationist design". The ultimate randomness of the Universe and all its bodies flying about via the process of "gravity" shows quite clearly that if you get in the way of gravity as it exists in the outer region or by chance we will get hit by something huge is NOT a good design. It doesn't make good sense to look for a "who" behind it all rather than evidence of a process. If it leads to a "who" then we will have evidence and understanding that it leads to a "who" and that would be a truthful answer for us. But right now the one truth we have is "that we do not know" nor does anyone else. That is the real truth. IF you have another truth please show us the evidence. As of yet no Intelligent design creationist has given anything but "faith" or "words" written down in a book equivalent to many other "holy" books with different and competing gods all throughout history that also have no verifiable evidence. For a god to exist why is there time and time again no reliable evidence?
therefore since its beyond human reasoning or random existence,every one can create a theory or any religion or assumption with regards to its origin,So atheists dont have any basis to claim that God donot exist because it has no solid basis of his argument,So he has to be agnostic to be rational,So atheist at the outset is already wrong.
This is where your logic falls completely off the rails. SIMPLY put again....it means we don't know. We admit that. Evidence shows up to this point "god" IS NOT the best or most likely choice. This means we are NOT looking for a "who" but a process that brought the Bang about.... god is the ONLY default you people always go to EVEN when the evidence points definitively in another more likely direction. You do this in EVERY single arguement but can NEVER provide even an admission that you in all TRUTH do not know. End of story. In all likelyhood it is EVOLUTION that will win the arguement ...the Universe EVOLVED from a process yet to be precisely defined but all processes LEADING up to this point...gravity, galaxie's' solar systems. atoms...all brought about by the scientific method have evidence as to their the reason why things are the way they are...NOT god......in EVERY instance god has proven not to be what it is....the reason a volcano explodes is not because the wrath of god is upon a community.....we understand the process behind the event but we didn't always KNOW that. People were SKEPTICAL that god made it happen so they set out to find the truth because the reason given (god) does not really add up.because evidence is pointing in another likely direction. This will also prove to be true for the big bang and it is already vastly vastly more likely than the god delusion.
science is not everything,the problem is when the critical and objective philosophy of science is accepted as absolute in reality.God is beyond logic at this point of our consciousness,The process of gods will manfistation is evolution which accepts all variables in the process,the input could be not what scienctists wants.Thats why faith or religion is part of reality.
Will someone please debunk for me the existence of the DMT "machine" elves? It seems to me that what we are able to perceive is limited by what chemicals our brans have available at a given time.
Bran has a different effect on me.
Try a combination of flax seeds and sesame seeds. It will clear you right up.
If consciousness could exist outside of the human brain and wasn't just something produced by the brain interacting with the environment, where would it exist?
As far as any can show, it would not.
But consider this.
We are all born with instincts, which include the inate knowledge to use our bodies...inate fear responses (fight flight or reason) etc....all incredible knowledge....yet ALL of that knowledge must come from ONE single cell...The information MUST be stroed electrochemically....but how?
If you could hack that you could hack the universe.
The universe is "hacked." Right now.
yes if thats part of his Will,the paradigm shift in our belief or faith to scientific foundations is the key to our evolutionay directions.With Him nothing is impossible,the law of mathemetical probability allows this.
Could instincts if stored chemically be stored within dimethyltryptamine?
instincts are stored in our subconcious mind,that part of our brain whose developement is influenced by genetics
There was a woman who was able to do this. I forget where she was from. Her name was Abby Normal.
Ad hominem
You don't even know what an ad hominem is, do you?
@ Doobz: ten points for your "Young Frankenstein" ref.
@ Guest
😉
consciousness is present in all matter, just like gravity it is inherent and innate to everything produced after the big bang,only its level of existence varies with evolution,highest is that of living things ,at the top is us humans because of the biological nature of our existence we evolve fastest and our brains has attained the highest level of complexity
Quite possibly, but this is a little different from what the OP is asking about which is matter and thought existing seperately.
every thing produced after the big bang has consciouness,its inherent to all matter,only its level of existence corresponds to its complexity,and relating it to faith its inharent to Him.
You can't ask this question while still starting with a premise of materialism. The answers would be a radically different understanding of reality, closer to idealism.(which might be a good mental exercise if you really want to imagine this).
That begs the question, where did consciousness come from?
Yes, I believe consciousness exists in a Superior Realm that is the "Origin" of our consciousness and all things, hence God.
Note that consciousness has never been explained scientifically. Science does not understand what consciousness really is in empirical terms, and that reality humbled Quantum Physics scientists by their own admission that it is above and beyond such discipline.
We are beginning to understand where intelligence comes from. no reason to leap to wild conclusions based on belief.
We can even see problem solving intelligence in slime mold, and our own brains work very much like the hive intelligence found in bees and ants....no sign of any "divine" influence but fascinating none the less.
But we still have no survival need for consciousness explained. We could function identically without it as mindless zombies or robots. If mind is entirely represented by matter, as is at least consistent with the evidence thus far, it is not in itself essential to the story.
everything came from Him after the big bang ,matter and cosciousness are some of the infinite.As explained,when the God particle or the Higgs boson existed immediately matter evolved,with it the fundamental forces came into reality ,with them is consciosness..it took billions of years for it to arrive of what is today,It is Him,God who is evolving from pure energy to every thing what we can comprehend today and the beyond.
@neve: XD
THAT HAS TO BE THE MOST IGNORANT,THUS THE MOST HILARIOUS THING ANY RELIGIOUS NUTT HAS EVER SAID.
Yes...humbleness...something god believers wouldn't know about. What scientists do have the integrity and honesty and humbleness to do is ADMIT when the don't know something. You say you BELIEVE god created this consciousness....then prove it. Science can't at this point and amiit this but YOU seem to know....we'd like to hear your EVIDENCE from your conclusion.
that is the foundation of modern faith. consciousness is Gods presence in us,because we are part of Him also materially.The true reality is beyond our comprehension,but He is revealing it to conscious being through natural process of evolution.Scientists philosophy of science strictly contradicts this,but thats modern faith in religion
Very wisely written. As a believing Christian, I believe it's important to reflect humility which promotes healthy dialogue and cooperation. The author has done that here and both sides would be wise to imitate this. An aggressive and adversarial relationship helps and benefits no one except those who are into generating pointless conflict. Not to mention from a true Chrisitan perspective, it's ungodly.
christianity and all religions from past to present is One in Him,Their is no conflict in believing in Him.The conflict among us is just part of the natural process of evolution,Survival and the betterment of humanity is the ultimate purpose because that is His will.We are Him.
to atheiststeve,I am based in my home here in asia, if you are in America, pls inquire at the University of Illinois regarding their Nautilus super computer that can predict the future and inquire about is potential capabilities.
This would not be relevant to a discussion of gods, at least not to a creator god who knows all. Such a computer is not claimed to be a creator and can only make very limited predictions. It is really the creation claim combined with knowing what that creation will do that lays responsibility at a god's feet.
Hmmm... yes... this computer seems to be able to tell you that areas that are in turmoil are in turmoil. Oh, wait, here's something impressive it did, it predicted the Egyptian revolution. After it happened. Say what? We interrupt your normal programming to bring you this latest piece of news. According to a supercomputer, the Egyptian revolution that took place only has a 65% chance of actually taking place.
" Nautilus super computer that can predict the future "
No...it can't predict the future.... a gross misrepresentation of the computers capabilities.
It can with SOME accuracy predict future outcomes of events based on previous history....that is far different than predicting the future.
It is not much different than this scenario:
I coach a terrible junior hockey program. The team has lost every game. I can watch the practice and see none of the kids trying hard, none of them are interested...I can predict that we will lose our next game, and likely be correct based on past performance....but through shear luck, they might just win one, so predicting the future? NO...making an educated guess as to the outcome that will occur in the future? YES.
the final moment is his will,the guess is yours
thats were faith is needed,Prayer ,a sincere one influence His will.try praying igaftr,you might become handsomer
remember that the hardware used is conventional and we are still in the infancy stage,we are just scratching the surface of its full potential,what is important that the direction of its development is ultimately to predict the future,and you know Who is the only one suppose to do that,Thats a demonstration of faith,at least at this point in time the netizens consciousness will be stimulated to the next level of complexity,which is synonymous with progress.
"you know who?"
No I don't...who? Kreskin?
I know you don't mean god, because that leaps to a conclusion that there is a god, something there is no evidence of whatsoever.
who is Who.?He is God the Father,Zeus,Allah and hundreds more,but the future will tell us what his name,im sure it would not be igaftr.
Educated guessing is not predicting the future in the sense of the unknown. That's what A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) is all about. A.I. employs a huge database of rules and bases to formulate a pattern of natural progress of a vast number of situations, in short. A common example is 911 service, it is based on A.I.
thats were faith comes in,after we evolved into an educated stage of consciousness,we developed the critical and objective method of scientific principles.We are evolving into that direction,the merging of scientific philosophy and theology,to integrate religion with science.never in the history of the world that civilization denies religion,atheism is just one variable to effect the equations of change,but is significant.
May I ask how you lost your faith AtheistSteve
I think you missed his response in regards to this...read a little further down. I can honestly tell you from knowing him personally, that he won't give you much different of an answer than what is already stated below.
John 3:16-For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son
See, you dumb closed minded Atheists...he gave up his only child so you could live. Stop being ungreatful for what He did for you or you will burn.
Except he gave up nothing. Did God lose Jesus completely or just for a weekend? The entire story you cling to so fervently is so full of holes that it stretches credibility beyond belief. Thus I withhold belief until such time as sufficient reason is provided. I won't be holding my breath.
Did God lose Jesus completely or just for a weekend?
More accurately did God lose Jesus completely or did he just allow Jesus to suffer for a few days. Apparently not the former and the latter has been endured in far greater degree by countless humans throughout history.
I've got to agree. This is one of the more blatantly absurd claims of Christianity. We have eternal beings and god sends a "son" for a few years, only a few days of which are really bad (and no worse than many humans suffer) and then takes him back for the rest of eternity. He wasn't "given up" in any sense and was only away and suffering for a tiny spec of eternity. Exactly what sacrifice to they think this god made? He made millions of humans suffer far worse than that.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Hebrews 9:22)
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Luke 24:44)
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins,the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins,should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24)
Many people find the idea of human sacrifice repugnant.
And yet, many find one giving up their life to save another to be noble.
Kev: Did you not read AtheistSteve's posts above? Plenty of humans have suffered at least as much as Jesus is reputed to have suffered...and they didn't have a god for a father or come back three days later. Are you completely missing the point about why so many find John 3:16 so meaningless?
Kev, you know what is not noble? Letting someone else take the punishment you deserve. This of course means that all Christians are immoral because they have no problem letting Jesus take their punishment.
DJ,
Kev: Did you not read AtheistSteve's posts above? Plenty of humans have suffered at least as much as Jesus is reputed to have suffered...and they didn't have a god for a father or come back three days later. Are you completely missing the point about why so many find John 3:16 so meaningless?
Steve didn't give any examples and neither did you.
Johnny
So, what's so immoral about taking the punishment for a loved one who wants to make amends but cannot on their own?
Kev : "Steve didn't give any examples and neither did you."
Seriously? You think the Romans invented cruel treatment and crucifixion just for Jesus? Check out what happened to those captured at the end of the Spartacus Revolt, for just one example.
If he was alone praying in the garden how did they come to know such detail as him sweating big droplets of blood.....what would common sense tell you? Or is that allowed in your religion?
DJ,
What makes you think that all the suffering took place during the crucifixion?
39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.
40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Luke 22:39-44)
So? Have you ever known someone who lost their young child? There's some suffering for you. Jesus knew he'd come through it ok in the end... not sure what he was so concerned about.
DB
So, what is the suffering o meter scale give for suffering for every single bad act for every single person who ever has or who ever will live? I also have family members suffering the same kind of loss you talk about who would very strongly disagree with you.
Kev – "So, what is the suffering o meter scale give for suffering for every single bad act for every single person who ever has or who ever will live?"
First of all, I'm not going to debate which form of suffering is the worst–that's a pointless debate. Second, where does it say that's what Jesus suffered?
DJ,
"First of all, I'm not going to debate which form of suffering is the worst–that's a pointless debate".
Well there is something we can agree on. After all when you posted that there were others who suffered at least as much and you really had nothing to base that on, I did get the assumption that you were actually claiming which form of suffering was worse.
Second, where does it say that's what Jesus suffered?
Well, there is what I originally posted:
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Hebrews 9:22)
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Luke 24:44)
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins,the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins,should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24)
Jesus suffered, sure, but now he sits at the right hand of the father, where he knew he would be. He had a rough weekend for your sins....that is an invisible disease in an invisible body part (soul), and if you don't chant a magic spell about him and your sins in the right order, you get tortured forever in fire by his disgusting azzhole of a father who could just as easily love his enemies as torture them.
urnotathinkerareu,
"If he was alone praying in the garden how did they come to know such detail as him sweating big droplets of blood.....what would common sense tell you? Or is that allowed in your religion?"
What makes common sense to me is that this is coming from the same volume of scripture that has within it revelations from the past present and future from the time in which the events that were written about took place. There is no referencing that the gospels were written at the time of when the events happened. In fact, I do recall that many historians believe that the gospels were written decades after the events that took place in the gospels.
So, its's not unlikely that the information given in Luke about what occurred in Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives may have been given through revelation and then written in the gospels. So, just like the other revelations given in the Bible, the acceptance of it is based on belief and faith just like whether to accept that Jesus did make the great atoning sacrifice for sins and that he overcame death is based also on faith and belief.
Cap,
What invisible disease in what invisible body? Also what are you referring to about not saying the magic spells right?
It looks as though that in a couple of posts I cited Luke 24:44 when it was actually Luke 22:44. My bad.
Kev – It seems the main point of disagreement between you and people like me, Capt Obvious, and AtheistSteve is whether or not it's much of a big deal that a god "had a rough weekend for your sins" (Capt Obvious). This is supposed to be a being who has always existed and always will exist, so what you make a big deal of was less than a blink of the eye in his existence. He is also supposed to be omnipotent, and so knew he was not in any sort of danger. So no, this does not seem like a very big deal to me, and a way convoluted way to fix a situation that god set up to begin with.
And I really wish Christians would make up their minds about Jesus's place in the big scheme of things: is he a co-equal third of a trinity of ent.ities who somehow make up one large god, or is he a lesser god sent by his greater father god to suffer in order to straighten out the weird sin situation he created and didn't get around to fixing for thousands of years (the whole John 3:16 thing people are so fond of quoting only makes any sort of sense in the second situation). I mean, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the father now, right? Sounds like a greater and lesser separate enti.ty situation to me.
DJ,
There definitely difference of belief here. Although you may see it as just some sort of rough weekend and not a big deal, or that the whole sacrifice thing may have happened on the fly to fix some faux pas by God the Father, I see it as something that was specifically planed right from before this world was created and that it was not some sort of ad hoc contingency, but something that was part of the Father's plan all along.
The Father wanting the best for us as his children , set up a plan for us to obtain true happiness that we can have if we choose to follow his plan. The thing is that it is my belief that in order to obtain that true happiness there are certain laws that have to be followed. These are laws that even God adheres to and is not above those laws and that is through following these laws in which God follows which allows God to obtain that true happiness. Any violation of those laws deters one from receiving that happiness or being blocked or damned from receiving that happiness.
God the Father's plan involves us the freedom to choose whether or not to follow that plan, which includes for us whether or not to follow the natural laws that even God adheres to. which is the reason why we are in this world going through mortal lives to see if we can by our own free will choose to follow the Father's plan and not merely because we have to.
The problem is of course when we are given the power to choose our destinies there are going to be times where each and every one of us will choose the wrong path and because of that comes an automatic price for making that bad choice (i.e. breaking those natural laws in which even God follows) . Since God needed to help us from certain absolute failure which is death both physically and spiritually, that is where he sent his only begotten son (that is son not only in spirit but also in the flesh) and having being born through a mortal woman (Mary) would be able to accomplish those saving tasks.
While being mortal Jesus was able to suffer for our sins through his blood to pay the price for our mistakes in judgement in violating those great natural laws that bring the ultimate true happiness and at the same time being God's begotten son in the flesh was actually able to have the power and ability to take on the suffering for all humanity. Also when Jesus was mortal he was capable to dying physically, he was also being God's begotten son in the flesh able to overcome physical death for us as well. Jesus was the only individual whatsoever to have been able to do this no one else would have ever even been even remotely close to accomplishing those great of tasks even if those tasks only took the span of a weekend
Even for a divine being Jesus had great difficulty drinking from the cup in the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives, and would have not drank from that cup if he could, but Jesus was still resolute in fulfilling the will of his father that he continued to suffer until the it was all paid out. This was something that even God the Father had great difficulty handling that situation that even he could not bear to watch, which is where Jesus asked why his father had forsaken him.
When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, it was not just to see if Abraham was faithful enough to follow his commandment, it was also symbolic of the sacrifice God himself would make in sacrifice his beloved and begotten son, but unlike Abraham who was spared at the last moment from carrying through with the sacrifice of his son, God the father actually carried through with the sacrifice and although it wasn't permanent it still did not mean that there was no anguish, it doesn't matter how brief it was, if it was enough for divine and eternal beings to have to go through such heartache, all of which for our lowly sakes, in my view that is quite significant and I believe that such suffering is actually beyond mine or anyone else's comprehension.
Kev, I'm familiar with the story, we just have a different take on how impressive it would be even if true. Agree to disagree.
Sure, it's a belief blog after all.
"God the father actually carried through with the sacrifice and although it wasn't permanent it still did not mean that there was no anguish, it doesn't matter how brief it was"
You're kidding, right? He knew it was very temporary and strictly symbolic, but it caused anguish anyway? That's just silly!
Tim,
So, jumping into a river of ice water isn't going to be a shock to the system if you know it is ice water and that you fully expect to get out of that river because you have line tied to someone on the bank?
Jesus suffered, sure, but now he sits at the right hand of the father, where he knew he would be. He had a rough weekend for your sins....that is an invisible disease in an invisible body part (soul), and if you don't chant a magic spell about him and your sins in the right order, you get tortured forever in fire by his disgusting azzhole of a father who could just as easily love his enemies as torture them.
And I explained what I meant by sin (invisible and undetectable "disease").
And I explained what i meant by soul (Invisible body part which contains the invisible disease which must be "cleansed")
And I thought that a critical reader would understand those explanations I provided and also extrapolate that "magic spell" refers to the prayer of salvation which is nothing more than a pattern of words said with particular feeling. The an@logy of "magic spell" is so perfect it's not even an an@logy. It IS a magic spell, or so bible believers claim.
Tim,
Plus the fact that you never plunged into ice water before.
Cap,
And I explained what I meant by sin (invisible and undetectable "disease").
One thing you should know is that what you define sin and what I define sin is not the same thing. The same thing goes for the term "magic spells". It's not unlike how different people have different definitions of what the term "having fun". So, it can help to elaborate, and as one who believes in the Bible and knowing many others who also believes in the Bible, the term "magic spell" isn't a part of a believer's commonly-used doctrinal vocabulary.
You also did not fully explain how your term "magic spells" applies to what my beliefs are concerning the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
The definitions are the same.
Magic spell: say words in a particular order and with particular feeling in order to cause a particular supernatural event to occur in reference to the one saying the words
Salvation prayer: say words (about sin and christ and his blood and redemption) in a particular order (so that it says what you intend the way you intend) and with particular feeling (faith/belief that the "prayer/spell" will work accordingly) in order to cause a particular supernatural event to occur (salvation).
You think that if people repeat words in a particular order with a particular feeling and intention that some invisible and undetectable force (the spirit will cleanse the believers/chanters soul). Any critical reader notices that this is the exact same behavior as someone who believes in magic chanting a spell.
And yes, sin is considered a "disease" by pastors and doctrine all across the globe and through generations and centuries.
Sin is a "disease" that infects the "soul.' Both of these are completely invisible and undetectable. No proof that either exist.
Are you really so stupid that you don't realize what you really believe? Your god and "sin" and the "spirit" and the "soul" are ALL invisible and undetectable by any and all means considered up to this date in history. Right? Right. You lack any evidence to the contrary, and since nobody can proof that an invisible and undetectable thing doesn't exist, the burden of proof falls upon you. And you have none.
Cap,
For a believer "prayer" isn't just a system of saying certain things. A bagel and a doughnut are not the same thing even though there are a lot of similarities. Where does a magic spell have to by definition have to involve any deity in any way?
In addition, my beliefs are just that "beliefs". I never said they were fact. This is a belief blog after all. The thing is the only facts ever established regarding the certified validity of a deity let alone what that deity does is that there is nothing proven that there is a deity AND there is also nothing proving that there is no deity who does not want to be made known but would rather have us development our own faith in said deity.
And yes, sin is considered a "disease" by pastors and doctrine all across the globe and through generations and centuries.
Not all pastors and other religious leaders automatically define sin by specific definition as a disease, and it doesn't actually fit my belief as to what sin is, which is an act to knowingly and willfully disobey a commandment from God. Sin can be like a disease in how it can effect the spirit, but "sin" is not a disease in of itself.
Also, just like when it comes to prayer and even God the validity is not proven but then again it is also not proven to not exist either. What one concludes on the matter is based on belief; both the theist conclusion and the atheist conclusion.
You're talking about invisible and undetectable beings and forces that are moved to action when particular words are said with particular intention in a particular order. If I gave you that definition without it being in the context of "salvation" or a salvation prayer, you'd immediately recognize it as a "magic spell." To seriously claim otherwise is disingenuous of you, in this case, I believe.
As to the unbeliever not having evidence, why should it be required? YOU are claiming that something invisible and undetectable actually does exist and act. I might as well claim that your heart pumps blood because invisible unicorns squeeze the sides of the muscle with their invisible wings, but you have to believe by faith because there's no way to detect them. I mean, can YOU disprove that? Of course you can't offer proof against it because the claim is that they are invisible and undetectable and of course you would be correct to remain skeptical and doubt my azzertion until I can prove it. I would be stupid to act as if you should believe until you prove that the invisible and undetectable unicorns actually don't act.
The burden of proof is with the person who makes the claim that something happens, not with the person who is claiming that nothing happens.
Cap,
So, you're saying that I have the burden of proof and I have to prove that it is a fact that there is a God, even hough I never did actually claim that it was a fact that there is a God, but rather that I believe. Since your going by that argument since you're the one claiming positively that there is no God then let's see the proof.
So, how do you prove a negative. As far as I know you can't so, if you can't prove a negative then why do you conclude a negative?
I'm not saying that you have to provide proof, and yes, you can't prove a negative, which is why it is stupid of you to act like an atheist has the same burden of proof for his skeptical position than a person who says that something actually does happen/exist.
I'm saying that my unbelief is a product of there being no proof from any believers, and that it is more logical to be skeptical and a disbeliever of an unproven, invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant (it would appear from the natural world) idea. What don't you get about this?
So, you're saying that it is illogical to conclude that that due to the lack of evidence that there is a God. I'm saying that is is also illogical to conclude to that there is no God for the very same reason. That perhaps there is logic to at least be open to consider the possibility that us, life, nature, the universe, and everything may have come about through design in some sort of fashion or another and just because you may not understand it all doesn't necessarily mean that that there is no purpose behind it all.
Kev,
I'd like to respond to this also if you don't mind.
Do you call yourself a Christian? If yes, do you claim there is a god or not? If you don't, then why call yourself a Christian? If you do indeed claim there is a god, then please provide some hard, verifiable evidence for your belief. If you have none–how do you justify your claim? And what makes your claim any different from the thousands of other gods that have been claimed over the centuries–none of which you presumably believe in? If you cannot justify an extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence, then it is illogical to make such a claim or believe in such a claim.
As far as being "open"–sure I'm open to the idea, but I will not actually buy it without some hard, verifiable, testable evidence. Until that day comes, I'm not likely to buy the God claim. It's a huge, extraordinary claim, and I don't believe in this type of claim without evidence. My mind is open, but not so open that my brains fall out. This is called "gullibility".
Finally, it is not accurate to say we "conclude" there is no god. "Conclude" means that you are done. You will not listen to any evidence. This is simply not true. If we conclude at all, it is provisional. I have yet to encounter an atheist who categorically says they are certain there is no god. Even Richard Dawkins, so famously atheist, puts himself on a scale of 1-7, puts himself at a 6–with 7 representing absolute disbelief. Christians on the other hand frequently announce their 100% certainty, say they KNOW there is a God, and that "nothing can shake their faith"!
If you wish, I can give you a list of things that I would find highly persuasive of God's existence.
Very close. I really appreciate your patience and willingness to clarify like you have. Thank you.
Yes, because of the fact that there is ZERO evidence for any gods, disbelief/unbelief (agnostic atheism) is the most logical position for a person (with critical reasoning skills) to hold. Because there is on evidence, there is no reason to believe. (Exactly as you would feel if I told you that I was an alien in an invisible and undetectable space ship between your eyes and your computer screen).
Yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider a deist/designer god much like the one Albert Einstein believed in. (He believed in a designer god who "was" the universe and who never acted in human affairs, never judged a single person, and never granted any human eternal life/afterlife). While that concept is perfectly reasonable to consider or "believe in," it doesn't make much difference because there is no practical difference to the believer of such a god. A believer of Einstein's god has no benefit over a nonbeliever in that sort of god. And if there are no good reasons to believe then the idea is just philosophical speculation. Lots of fun, but no real purpose in it.
Cpt. Obvious, I think there are quite a few otherpotential god concepts that meet the same standards you have set, which is basically just that the concept be internally consistent and not clash with observation. None of the current major gods meets the standards to my knowledge, but you could well have acctive gods as long as they weren't all knowing and all good, or kind of feeble good gods or trickster gods. I would imagine there are an infinite number of conceivable gods that would work.
Absolutely, Sara. I quite agree, and my own opinion on what this universe actually is probably would meet somebody's definition of a "god" of sorts. However, none of the gods I have been asked to believe match with the evidence the universe provides. My own opinion hardly matters to anyone but me, and it makes no difference whether or not I "believe" in my opinion or not. Belief simply doesn't do me any good (maybe a tad bit of peace of mind, but that's pretty easy to come by, so..."
My primary position is that critical reasoning be applied whenever a person is asked to "believe" in something. That is my goal–to spot the internally inconsistent ideas and expose them as such. For example, if a god believer would require more evidence of ownership before purchasing a house or gemstone than they require of their god belief, then that's just stupid, and the believer needs to realize this horrible bias they employ.
As far as I'm concerned if it's your belief that based on the lack of evidence that there is no God then fine. I wasn't figuring on converting anybody and besides I can't think of anything that would prove otherwise. I also figure that the same thing goes to any theist who aren't Christian. To me it all boils down to matter of belief, although I do admit that I do have an issue with those who figure that their POV is an established fact. Grant you I haven't spoken out in regards to the theists who figure their POV is fact, but from what I've seen on this blog argument regarding that particular issue has been pretty well covered.
For me as to why I believe in God and in Christ boils down to the personal experiences that I've had. It's not based on any flat out reasoning, or at least not based on any flat out reason by itself. For me I've concluded that despite straight out reasoning, there are certain things that cannot be truly known second-handedly. The one example I can think of is salt. When it comes to salt you can know second-handedly about salt , what it's chemical composition is made of, where you can find it, what can you use it for, but if somehow you never actually tasted salt before and you want to know what salt tastes like or if for some reason you should happen to need to know what salt tastes like, how are you going to know what salt tastes like second-handedly?
For me I figured that if there is a God out there who does who does actually have a plan for us and if part of that plan is to not be made known but would rather have us develop faith, and if the reason for why we need to have faith is to see if we are going to follow God because we choose to instead of being made to have to follow, and if the reason for all of those commandments is to somehow be for our benefit, and if I really want to and need to know, which I did, and that this supposed God wanted for us to find out through study, prayer and trying to practice those teachings to see for ourselves and then make our choice, then I figured to do just that and find out for myself.
Now of course this is something that can't be proven, and as to how I can be certain to choose to have that leap of faith and believe is not based on something that is shown to be set in stone. After all we don't have any God-written 10 commandments written on stone tablets before us. All I can say is that I did try those things out , that I felt good about those things, the gospel seems to apply well to my life, and so I choose to believe and take that leap of faith.
I can't say that everyone would experience the same thing if everyone did what I did because not everyone who claims to have done the same thing have also stated that they had the same type of experiences nor have they come to the same conclusions as I have. All I can say is that I've experienced what I've experienced, that there are certain things that cannot be made known without first hand experience, and that if you happen to find yourself in a situation where you want to know or need to know something that cannot be made known without first-hand experience there option of trying out for yourself and see if you like it, although I don't think there is any money-back guarantee, but then again I didn't have to pay any trial offer either.
Dandintac,
If you can show say from Reality 2 or from Crom that they were really not sure that there is no God and that they are open to the possibility that there could be a God I would be amazed.
Kev
".. and if the reason for why we need to have faith is to see if we are going to follow God because we choose to instead of being made to have to follow,..."
It is completely unfair to have someone make a choice without providing information that allows an informed choice. If your god (or any god) provides some concrete evidence of his existence, then there would be an actual choice to make; otherwise, it's just believing what someone else tells you without any real reason to.
"....and if I really want to and need to know, which I did, and that this supposed God wanted for us to find out through study,
..."
I hear this all the time: If you just study the Bible with an open mind it will all be revealed to you (ignoring the fact that plenty of people have done so and felt nothing). This is the point of view of an elitist from the first world with total disregard to the circu.mstances of lots and lots of people in much more difficult circ.umstances in the rest of the world who have neither the leisure time, education, literacy, or resources to "study" any religion, let alone choose yours to study.
But we want to make sure they at least hear about it, right, so they can make that "choice" to believe in it or not? And if after merely hearing about it they decide it's not worth their extremely limited time to investigate those claims that conflict with their local religion, or they don't have the literacy to "study" it, they'll probably make that "wrong" choice to not believe it, so we've just consigned them to hell, haven't we?
Again, any god just needs to provide some real evidence of their existence, not just word of mouth and a book that needs to be studied, if they really want people to have a real choice to make.
Hello again, Kev –
While I tend to agree with the views posted by Cpt Obvious, Tim, dandintac, et al, I do admire that you are presenting your point of view in a personal manner and seem to have put some actual thought into it and you recognize that not everyone will have the same experience as you, and you don't condemn others for not feeling the same way (although it does make me wonder what your thoughts are on eternal torment for non-believers). Refreshing change from the usual back and forth attacking.
Tim
"It is completely unfair to have someone make a choice without providing information that allows an informed choice. If your god (or any god) provides some concrete evidence of his existence, then there would be an actual choice to make; otherwise, it's just believing what someone else tells you without any real reason to."
Really, I'm suprised that you haven't presented the concrete proof that there is no God, because just not having the proof that there is a God isn't proof that there is no God, and yet you seemed to have already made up your mind. Now I agree one has to be informed to make a choice, but where do you get that it has to be concrete evidence because if that were the case the White House and Congress wouldn't get anything done. OH WAIT!!!!
"....and if I really want to and need to know, which I did, and that this supposed God wanted for us to find out through study,
..."
"I hear this all the time: If you just study the Bible with an open mind it will all be revealed to you (ignoring the fact that plenty of people have done so and felt nothing). This is the point of view of an elitist from the first world with total disregard to the circu.mstances of lots and lots of people in much more difficult circ.umstances in the rest of the world who have neither the leisure time, education, literacy, or resources to "study" any religion, let alone choose yours to study."
What I said was through study, PRAYER, AND TRYING TO PRACTICE THE TEACHINGS. You can study until your head explodes and it still won't get you anywhere unless do apply what you have been study. As how Socrates would have put it that to know the good is to do the good, and I believe that also applies to the gospel. You don't have to have a doctorate or have access to a library to "study", it cab also be done through discussion, going to church, and especially prayer and tying to walk the walk in order to learn, and I do believe God takes into account what someone had access to in life in making the judgement call.
""Again, any god just needs to provide some real evidence of their existence, not just word of mouth and a book that needs to be studied, if they really want people to have a real choice to make."
You mean like for a 16 year old to really know what it is to own a car by having the parent hand the kid the keys to a fully paid for car including gas, insurance and maintenance because there is no way for the kid to know by having to have the kid at least work their way and partly contribute to the whole thing since experience never teaches anything?
Kev, this is what you believers fail to recognize.
God, if he exists, ALLOWS humans to remain confused about his existence and will, but he communicated PERFECTLY the principles of math, chemistry, and atomic particles.
The reason I don't respect god and you shouldn't either:
God could make himself as obvious as gravity (since he made gravity as obvious as he made gravity), but he doesn't, and so there's no way to determine whether or not god exist and we continue to debate him without any solid proof or meaningful evidence (like we see in biology and chemistry and such).
God could make his will/plan as knowable as chemistry and math (since he made chemistry and math as knowable as he made chemistry and math), but he doesn't, and so there's no way to determine what is or is not his will/plan so religions and cults and private individuals continue to debate which books (written by men) are or are not part of his plan or will.
I don't respect god because he is purposely v.a.gue when he could be specific. Nobody fights wars over principles of math, countries fight wars over what they think god wants. Nobody debates the existence of gravity because it's obvious to every person every minute of every day; people debate god's existence because nobody can prove anything at all, ever, about god's existence.
That's not a stupid god, it's a devious one, and I don't think that a god who cared about humans and created this universe would be that d
DJ,
Sorry, this is getting a little overwhelming for me, but I'll try to at least answer regarding my beliefs about eternal torment for non believers. The thing is that I really don't have all of the insights, but I'll try to answer as best as I can. There is definitely one scripture that comes to mind in 1 Peter chapter three versus 19 – 20 where Peter talks about what Jesus did from when he died to when he was resurrected about where he went and preached to those spirits who were in prison, who were when alive were the disobedient back in the days of Noah. The thing is that if these spirits were just lost souls, why would Jesus even bother to preach to those spirits? It definitely gives me hope especially in regards to those who in life may have never even heard of Jesus or of the gospel that they would have the chance to learn and make their choices after this life.
As to those who in this life who did get the chance to learn the gospel and not accepted it, I'm not really sure as to what would be considered sufficiently warned, but then again I'm not the one who would make that call anyway. I figure that would be something between that individual and the all knowing deity who would be the one who would ultimately make that judgement call.
Kev – "So, jumping into a river of ice water isn't going to be a shock to the system if you know it is ice water and that you fully expect to get out of that river because you have line tied to someone on the bank?"
Terrible analogy, as are all you've used in this thread, since you're comparing the actions of an all-powerful, all-knowing super enti.ty to those of humans.
Tim,
Yes, that is a terrible analogy. After all I should have known you would know perfectly well what a God can or cannot feel.
"After all I should have known you would know perfectly well what a God can or cannot feel."
Um, you seem to think you know, right?
Tim,
No, I'm the one who seems to believe. You're the one who apparently seems to know silly.
Kev, this is what you believers fail to recognize.
God, if he exists, ALLOWS humans to remain confused about his existence and will, but he communicated PERFECTLY the principles of math, chemistry, and atomic particles.
The reason I don't respect god and you shouldn't either:
God could make himself as obvious as gravity (since he made gravity as obvious as he made gravity), but he doesn't, and so there's no way to determine whether or not god exist and we continue to debate him without any solid proof or meaningful evidence (like we see in biology and chemistry and such).
God could make his will/plan as knowable as chemistry and math (since he made chemistry and math as knowable as he made chemistry and math), but he doesn't, and so there's no way to determine what is or is not his will/plan so religions and cults and private individuals continue to debate which books (written by men) are or are not part of his plan or will.
I don't respect god because he is purposely v.a.gue when he could be specific. Nobody fights wars over principles of math, countries fight wars over what they think god wants. Nobody debates the existence of gravity because it's obvious to every person every minute of every day; people debate god's existence because nobody can prove anything at all, ever, about god's existence.
That's not a stupid god, it's a devious one, and I don't think that a god who cared about humans and created this universe would be that devious.
I believe it has to deal with ability to choose freely. If God was made known to be a fact and you were given commandments from God would you freely choose to follow or would you really feel more obligated to follow? It's kind of like the doubting Thomas scenario, I do believe you would be more blessed when you have faith and freely choose to follow. Relying on faith does show more of how willing you really are to follow the commandments.
And incidentally I do have an open mind. Just not one so open that my brains spill out on to the floor.
For some, credulity to the point of foolhardiness (at least when judging their particular claims) is the definition of an open mind. Sad.
Shouting about Jesus being the savior will not make it so. John 3:16 by the way is a single attestation in the NT and many contemporary NT scholars have concluded that it was not said by the historical Jesus. It was, they conclude, an addition to embellish the life of Jesus to gain converts/money to/for the cause.
See added commentary at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/350_Jesus_to_Nicodemus and in Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus.
You also are shouting without realizing that your God is guilty of filicide. Please peruse the following before another outburst.
(from Professor Crossan's book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)
"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."
"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."
"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."
,
I know we don't know why matter behaves the way it does. But even if abiogenesis created life, wouldn't there have to be some sort of sentience behind it. When I look at a hamster I expect not only sentience behind it all but also humor.
to make the leap from some sort of sentience to a god is a huge non sequitor
No. Sentience is a product of life. Not the other way around.
You are a hamster!
Applying an attribute like sentience to a chemical or molecular process can't simply be assumed. You need to demonstrate that it couldn't have happened any other way. It requires a confirmation that anything other than the explicit intent of a sentient agent is falsifiable. This goes to the core of every argument where science, or rather the inability of science, to fully explain something means that the God explanation is true. It's not. Showing that a God did it would require its own evidence, not a lack on behalf of science.
God is in control and you'd know this if you read your Bible.
I was raised a Catholic. Read the Bible and believed all it said. Then I started to care about the things I believe in. Further research into Bible was key in determining that the things I once believed were not real. The Bible is full of myth and superstition, nothing more.
There is no point to pondering whether or not there is a god....you would know this if you studied the Dharma.
I HAVE read my Bible. It's part of what has made me an atheist. It's always best to read it on your own, without someone glossing over things and telling you what to think. I find most Christians do NOT read their Bible–just a few passages here and there that conform and back-up their Western secular values–with a priest telling them what to think about it.
I find that atheists tend to know more about religion than most believers–or at least that is true of Christians in the US.
god being in control and free will are not compatible, d-bag
the proof of Gods presence in us is not limited to the material or biological evolutionary development only,but most important scientific proof is the effect of His will in historical development of the world.A computer program now used and tested a powerful machine by inputing all recorded events in history during the last hundreds years and found out that it has a purpose and not random.Meaning that an intelligent being could have influence it.It is now presumed by the religious observers that it could be His will.The process now is under improvement,because the computers is not powerl enough the deluge of information and data since the beginning of history,some analyst believes that in them
near future if the Quantum computers which is much powerful than the present coventional will be used,then dramatic results and confirmation will be at hand.
That's crap and you know it. Put up the citation of this computer simulation(and how it demonstrates a God) or shut up.
"scientific proof is the effect of His will in historical development of the world"
False. There is no proof obtained by any known scientific method that indicates the existance of any deity.
Just wishful thinking on your part.
Men created your god, and every god that has ever been known. There is a great deal of evidence to support this. There is none to indicate any gods created any men.
This is a pretty considerable claim, and I too would like to see a citation. I would think this would be huge front page news, and I'm surprised I haven't heard of it. My feeling is that this is almost certainly apocryphal, or there are major flaws in the findings. Let's see your source.
Neither emergentism nor panexperientialism (panspychism) imply a god. The universe could be filled with sentience or primarily composed of consciousness and it wouldn't mean anything resembling a god existed. If a single larger consciousness did exist under panextentialism (and this is not required) it would be a pantheistic one. But equally there could simply be disconnected sentience throughout the universe with a few pockets of true consciousness in more complex organizations...some of which we recognize, others which we may not.
According to expert .
#3 Parallel Worlds exist and will soon be testable, expert says
Ethical Technology
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pelletier20131227
You know what's fascinating? Cosmologists have already found evidence to support the theory of a multiverse–that is, a larger universe outside our own that contains multiple universes. One prediction of the theory was that there would be places in our own universe where there are bruises or impact points where our universe collided with others.
Turns out there do appear to be these "bruises". Astronomers have found places in the cosmic microwave background radiation where it appears a collision occurred. You can read the story in MIT Technology Review dtd 12-13-10.
Although there could be other explanations for these apparent "bruises"–it seems to suggest that the multiverse theory is a testable scientific theory.
In my opinion, albeit a non-professional one, I think if the multiverse actually exists, then our universe will NOT continue expanding forever. Eventually, something will stop it, and it may be recycled into another Big Bang. Of course, this is largely just speculation on my part, but it seems to be consistent with the idea of a multiverse.
Now why would a telepathic link to a different being in one of those multiverses be such a stretch?
@Dandintac
That's pretty cool. I wonder why there would be bruises though? I suppose that if another universe was more or less dense then ours it could leave a mark as it brushes up against us. Maybe dents instead of bruises.
To Damocles: The article I read called them "bruises"–but as I understand it they basically mean dents. Maybe the use "bruises" to indicate impact points, rather than actual indentations. And yes, that's the idea–the thinking is that our universe actually collided with others.
To So:
It IS a stretch, if you have no evidence, just your wishful thinking.
So
Like Dandintac said it is a stretch – but maybe if you met you and shook hands you would go BANG !
Only for the new members of this blog:
"John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent of the people of the world owe their religious affiliation to an accident (the randomness) of birth. The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when. Those born in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly be Moslems, and those born and raised in India will for the most part be Hindus. Nevertheless, the religion of millions of people can sometimes change abruptly in the face of major political and social upheavals. In the middle of the sixth century ce, virtually all the people of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were Christian. By the end of the following century, the people in these lands were largely Moslem, as a result of the militant spread of Islam.
The Situation Today
Barring military conquest, conversion to a faith other than that of one’s birth is rare. Some Jews, Moslems, and Hindus do convert to Christianity, but not often. Similarly, it is not common for Christians to become Moslems or Jews. Most people are satisfied that their own faith is the true one or at least good enough to satisfy their religious and emotional needs. Had St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas been born in Mecca at the start of the present century, the chances are that they would not have been Christians but loyal followers of the prophet Mohammed. “ J. Somerville
It is very disturbing that religious narrow- mindedness, intolerance, violence and hatred continues unabated due to randomness of birth. Maybe, just maybe if this fact would be published on the first page of every newspaper every day, that we would finally realize the significant stupidity of all religions.
religious diversity is part of natures evolutionary process,after the big bang,God ,Him start to evolved scientifically guded by His intrinsic will ,which is still beyond our comprehension because we are only part of Him in this process of evolution.
From my view on the fence up here I see Christians and atheists shouting at one another as they pass each other going in opposite directions. Neither of them imagining just how long and how often they'd been in the other guy's shoes.
Maybe the religious rights should be last on the menu !
For human rights to flourish, religious rights have to come second
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/human-rights-religious-rights-come-second#start-of-comments
Do you believe in any gods–based on the evidence you have right now?
Keep in mind, I'm not asking what you KNOW–just what you believe–right now. Do you believe in God?
Dandintac,
I am not sure how to answer your questions but I will try.
"Do you believe in any gods–based on the evidence you have right now? "
Undecided. I suppose the next question would be is vacillation truly belief?
Keep in mind, I'm not asking what you KNOW–just what you believe–right now. Do you believe in God
How can I know what to believe if I don't utilize what I know to form a conclusion. Even the question implies I must know what I believe or know what I don't believe which in either case on some level is a question about knowledge.
Now for what really trips me up...does belief exist?
Agnostic,
I assure you I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I certainly endorse the right of every person to self-describe and self-label themselves. I called myself agnostic for many years, but have come to realize I'm both agnostic and atheist. Let me explain why.
I'm agnostic, because I do not claim to have knowledge about the existence of God. We cannot be absolutely certain. But I'm also atheist. Belief is active. Think about what it means to BELIEVE in something. The meaning of belief–it means you have bought a claim. If asked "do you believe in God"–if your answer is anything other than "yes"–then you don't believe–right? So if you mean "undecided"–you do not currently believe the claim. You do not have to "decide" or "conclude" to not actually believe it. In fact, I would say anytime you do not believe something–that is provisional unless you declare certainty–at which point you are essentially claiming to know.
I think some people prefer the label "agnostic" to signal a greater degree of uncertainty to the God claim. For myself, part of my resistance to the label of "atheist" was the social ostracization and my failure to understand that "atheist" did not mean that I was close-minded to new evidence. I started accepting the label "atheist" when I realized it doesn't necessarily mean that at all, and also when I realized not only that the God claim could not be demonstrated, but also that there are sound reasons for doubting it.
Thanks
Some actual Christian Billboards:
"Where will you be sitting for eternity? Smoking or Non-smoking"
"Anti-God is Anti-American. Anti-American is Treason. Traitors Lead to Civil War"
"Worship at our Church or BURN FOREVER"
"Big Bang Theory? You've got to be kidding – God"
"God is angry. Hom-ose-xuality Abortion Democrats"
"Hom-ose-xuality is an abomination."
"The fool hath said in his heart there is no god."
"Imagine no religion? So did he" (with picture of Stalin)
"For me? Against me? There's Hell to Pay"
"Think about it–abortion is linked to 13,000 new cases of breast cancer per year" (flat out lie)
"Hom-ose-xuality is a sin, but Christ can set you free."
"Why do atheists hate America?"
"Humanism is anti-god, no right no wrong anything goes liberal religion"
"Pity the poor atheist who is grateful and has no one to thank."
"Don't believe in atheists? You're not alone."
A couple that are merely funny:
"Don't make me come down there" – God
"You did say you wanted a sign" – God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ
4
Texas Pastor John Hagee Tells Atheists To Get On A Plane, 'Leave The Country'
The Hu-ffington Post | By Shadee Ashtari Posted: 12/27/2013 5:10 pm EST
Certainly no need for him to "love his enemies" as Christ commanded. Then again, he's not advocating that atheists be tortured with fire for as long as possible, so you gotta give him credit for being more moral than his god.
he should get on the plane himself or shove his bile where it does not shine !
In a sermon on Sunday, Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee advised atheists and humanists to “take your Walkman and stuff it into your ears” or just “leave the country”
I listened to Pastor John Hagee quite often for a good while, he uses figures of speech all the time. On the other hand, Christians have been called to do worse than that. I guess everybody is enjoying the entertainment.
"Figure of speech"?? Really, Vic? It sounds like one of your bible defenses.
Not really. It is a personal observation. Pastor John Hagee is a very dynamic speaker, he is extremely knowledgeable, and he uses a lot speaking skills to communicate with his audience, including figures of speech. He is very funny too.
p.s. I beg to differ on a few issues though.
I'm sure he's as much fun as a June bug. But telling a group that he doesn't agree with to leave the country is a bit much. It's certainly not loving, or tolerant.
He is way out there Vic – are you that far gone too ?
In a 2006 interview with NPR, he also claimed that Hurricane Katrina, which killed more than 1,800 people, was an “act of God” to punish a Gay Pride parade scheduled in New Orleans.
Funny you should ask. Not at all. That's why I said I beg to differ with him on a few issues, which, BTW, are of apocalyptic nature. I myself am moderate.
Hagee, who endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president in 2008, has also declared on multiple occasions that God sent Adolf Hitler as a "hunter" to kill Jewish people for “disobedience and rebellion.”
I would not like anything this man says !
Umm..not sure about that. I would have to listen to that in context. Pastor John Hagee is pro-Israel, he advocates CUFI (Christians United For Israel.)
p.s. I like Sen. John McCain. I like good mavericks.
John McCain's image took a hit when he foolishly selected the "maverick" for vice president.
there is a link here if you would like to listen to it .
http://www.hu-ffingtonpost.com/2013/12/27/john-hagee-atheists_n_4509397.html
Oh..c'mon..that's what you're worried about?!
See, I told you, he is funny as always.
As funny as a bowl of fruit loops that have been in milk to long !
Funny how atheists can put up a billboard suggesting that people can enjoy the Christmas holiday without the belief in supernatural beings, and people go nuts and call it hateful, but Christians like Hagee can tell people who don't share their beliefs to leave the country–and it's just "a figure of speech".
And you're right Christians have said and done far worse. Please note the double standard–the reaction to the sign that's the subject of this article–and the reaction to it–even from atheists. And then compare to the passive reaction to hateful messages like Hagee, or Pat Robertson, or the late Jerry Falwell, or many others.
Christians put up signs across the country declaring that we are going to burn in hell forever–and everyone just takes it for granted and shrugs–even most atheists. Atheists have put signs with a benign message like "Don't believe in God–you're not alone..." and Christians complain about being "attacked" by it.
A technical note for what it's worth: (for everybody's benefit)
There might be an automatic cleanup service program on the CNN Belief Blog's Server to delete threads that outgrow a preset software limit.
Also, from own observations, it seems like registered users have unlimited reply nesting levels whereas unregistered users have only three.
Thanks, Vic. Interesting to hear that others have unlimited nesting abilities. I didn't realize that.
@Saraswati : THe egomaniac is still disregarding basic conversational etiquette and posting floating quotes to be sure that his every word of wisdom is seen by all.
Sure am! It's great to cut lose and act like the rest of you for a change. 🙂
<><
Condescending twit.
L4H is an irrational, diseased, gash
@Observer : If Live4Him was concerned about etiquette, she wouldn't support much of the etiquette shown in the Bible.
And if Observer had any topic to debate, he/she wouldn't stoop to nonsense like this.
<><
LIve4Him,
Nonsense? Do you consider it bad etiquette to discriminate against the handicapped like in the Bible? Is slavery good etiquette?
lol. Get serious. Get back to REALITY.
@Observer : Do you consider it bad etiquette to discriminate against the handicapped like in the Bible? Is slavery good etiquette?
Sorry, I was on a roll and didn't bother to read you prior post. 🙁 So, would you care to elucidate your posit? Second, given that the atheist doesn't accept life-after-death, what value does life have for you?
<><
Live4Him,
"what value does life have for you?"
The world is full of fascinating things to see and learn. Why do Christians keep talking about how worthless life on earth is? It seems that non-believers have a FAR greater appreciation for the world that you claim God built.
God doesn't want handicapped priests in his churches. You know, those with bad eyesight or crushed testicles according to the Bible..
@Observer : Why do Christians keep talking about how worthless life on earth is? It seems that non-believers have a FAR greater appreciation for the world that you claim God built.
That stands to reason. For a non-believer, this is the best it can get. If this is the best it can get, you want to see it in a positive light. However, that should never blind an individual as to the eventual outcome of this world – nothing means anything because in the end it all disappears. So, why do non-believers pretend that anything they do matters?
@Observer : God doesn't want handicapped priests in his churches.
So? Are you claiming that Obama shouldn't be allowed to determine who serves alongside of him in the White House? Probably not. So, why shouldn't God get a similar privilege?
<><
Christians ask obviously stupid questions. Like, "Why go to a movie if it will just end in two hours?" "Why have a birthday party if everyone just leaves at some point and goes back home?" "Why buy a house if you will eventually just sell it and move out?"
Live4Him,
"So? Are you claiming that Obama shouldn't be allowed to determine who serves alongside of him in the White House? Probably not. So, why shouldn't God get a similar privilege?
Of course God has the right to be a major HYPOCRITE and has demonstrated that often. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make up EXCUSES for it.
@Observer : God doesn’t want handicapped priests in his churches.
So? Are you claiming that Obama shouldn’t be allowed to determine who serves alongside of him in the White House? Probably not. So, why shouldn’t God get a similar privilege?
talk about changing the subject; a common debate tactic that shows your weakness.
that is why we need to shift our conscience from self centered salvation of our souls ,to performance oriented philosophy of humanism,
"Second, given that the atheist doesn't accept life-after-death, what value does life have for you?"
This idea is nonsense. The notion that for sometime to have value it must continue forever is not only wrong, it's ass backwards. Gold has value because it's rare. There is a very real and limited, finite supply. If it was plentiful it would still have useful properties but it would be dirt cheap. This remains true for anything that is scarce.
Life is precious precisely because it is finite...because it ends. A life that endures forever beyond this mortal one cheapens what it means to be physically alive to the point of insignificance. 70 odd years compared to eternity is effectively zero. Christians regard our entire mortal existence as merely a place where we wipe our feet before the real party begins. So sad.
@Saraswati : The amazing part is the level of arrogance required to ignore everyone who has explained that this is poor etiquette
Poor etiquette for what? 'Kill the man with the ball'? There are no rules in that game. So grow up. Debate or play childish games on etiquette complaints.
<><
If Live4Him was concerned about etiquette, she wouldn't support much of the etiquette shown in the Bible.
You really are that dense, aren't you?Arrogant git.
Stop pretending you know how to debate fairly when your tactics are to deflect, divert and obfuscate.