Hi Vova,

Its cool that you are getting interested in philosophy and religon. Many contemporary religous believers and philosophers have adopted the reality that most religous text is a metaphor for life with lessons that can be meaningful. My interpretation of Jesus Christ would be that he was the most accomplished circus performer/juggler there was or ever will be. That interpretation lets me get at least some meaning from Christianity's stories. I compare Christian "God" to the eastern philosophy of Taoism, which is much easier to incorporate into my life.

XOX
Shea FreeLove

I agree with you, as long as you believe in something I'm fine with that and the thing about faking religious belief but my Idea is that when I was little I enjoyed making domino raleys,

ya know where you stack up dominos hit one and it starts a chainreaction and they all fall eventually.
pretty simple.

my Idea is that the universe couldn't have come out of nothing something has to start the chain-reaction.

What I think about religion Vova is that many different religions have a different name for one and the same God. A name is a name, god has many names but that doesn't make him many God, he stands one. Also if you look into the Bibl Christ says something along the lines of "If thy eye be single thou shall be filled with light", this is an esoteric meaning that is refering to meditation. In meditation you concentrate your attention at the eye center(between the 2 eyebrows) and when you are fully concentrated you can view inner scennes. In fact many religions have mentioned meditation in different ways. But as always in every practice it is best to go through it with someone who is an Adept in that particular practice or you could be doing it wrong and it will do you no good. As for Christians yes they are shallow believers, but if you look at all the founders of the religions they mention one god. So they are all mentioning one god.

It seems like you have alot of religous topics lately. Is there a specific reason for that?

Vova,

Another lucid and clear headed post.

Only one correction. There is evidence of the existence of a creator God. Plenty. Only you are unsatisfied with the substance of that evidence. That's perfectly fine, but the evidence is there nonetheless. Perhaps a more persuasive argument for you might be the teleological argument. Though for me I often regard the argument from changed lives as the strongest...but it helps to know people whose lives have been changed. Perhaps you would be intrigued by the story of David Berkowitz, AKA the Son of Sam. But I doubt that. Evidentiary arguments are only valuable to those who are open to the conclusions they may lead to. I am glad for you that at the age of 18 you have so clearly defined your spiritual(or non-spiritual) perspective. At 18, I was far from the assurance that you have that I was right in what I believed.
Imagine the benefit from knowing there is no God at such an early age. Wise and intelligent men and women across the eons have spent their lives in a quest for such an assurance of belief and faith probing openmindedly all manner of philosophies and study. Just think of the time you will have saved at the end of your life.

I agree. Pascal's wager is a very weak theistic argument in a post-modern culture.

Vova,

I think Pascal's Wager is rediculous, and I will assure, although I am agnostic I was raised Christian and have been to church many times and have been around many christians, that most Christians believe the Pascal Wager to be Sacrelege, and the only way is to TRUELLY believe whether there is a reward or not.

On a side note I would like to add my thoughts on why religion is becoming so unbelievable these days. It is mostly due to the fact the religion is unadaptable, yet science is COMPLETELY adaptable.

Because I know Christianity the best, I will use it as an example. The Bible never states anything about Dinosaurs or any other prehestoric creatures, and to say it does is a load of rubbish. The reason it doesn't is because the narrators didn't know Dinosaurs existed. Unfortunately you can't update the Bible like you can a Science book.

Dinosaurs are just one example of many.

On another note Christianity is a great way of life, and has many lessons to teach. Sure there are many Hipocritical believers, but what religion doesn't have them?

A Fellow Juggler and a Fellow Thinker,

Austin

Sacrednarrative, you seem to have a habbit of debating vova's logic, then failing to back it up. If there is a lot of evidence of a creator God, explain it in your post, otherwise it isn't even worth typing in the first place.

Austin, in what way is Christianity a great way of life? First of all you have to give yourself up from reason and logic, and even deny yourself from science (for Protestantism anyways). Secondly, the majority of christians are abstinent, a physically, and even mentally unhealthy way of living as it causes both stress, and unnatural psychological harm by attemtping to destroy thoughts and actions which are meant to further our race. Thirdly, you have to put your own reasoning and logic towards morality below that of a set form of rules apparantly placed by this God, which of course causes you to close your mind in many aspects. Fourthly, time "with God", for Catholics especially, is absolutely mandatory. Apart from the obvious fact that it uses up valuble time which you could be doing something product for this earth, it defies logic. God obviously created everything, or else he would not be considered a God, so therefore he is found in everything, not just an inclosed church. The church itself doesn't contain any special powers, because that would also defy the logic that God is just, making everywhere a sacred ground, for those unable to find a church. Finnaly, God put us on this earth, obviously partly seperated from him, so via logic, we should find him through the earth, not an enclosed stuffy place which is great for bacterial breeding.

Adam,

I mentioned 2 evidences. The teleological argument and the argument from changed lives. Simply because one chooses not to believe a certain evidence as satisfactory does not negate its condition as evidence. In a court of law, testimony is often more than enough to convict someone. All that is necessary is to acertain the reliability of the witness. Therefore testimony is plenty of evidence. Does that help?

Adam,

The rest of what you said is so innane it's barely worth responding to. It's stereotypical and fallacious axioms that are biased and for the most part baseless.

Sacred Narrative,

Why does the argument from changed lives indicate that there is a God?
At most it would indicate that some people believe very strongly that
there is a God, which is hardly the same thing.

The teleological argument (i.e. argument from design) would, IMHO,
have been much more compelling back when we believed the universe was
much smaller. It's a little easier to believe in design when the
Earth is the center of all things and the universe is a few thousand
miles across. I find it a little tougher when the universe is
billions of light years across and consists, generally, of empty
space.

I would further note that neither of these arguments lead on
particularly toward the Christian God. That may not bother you, but
most Christians find it very irritating when I take Pascal's Wager,
the teleological argument, prime mover, what have you, and turn it
into an argument in favor of Flibber, the Giant Porcupine who loves us
and wants us to have lots and lots of sex.

Finally, does it bother anyone else that Vova can spell English better
than most of the people on this forum?

Adam,

As I said, the argument from changed lives depends upon the witness who is giving testimony.

The teleological argument is much more compelling as we find out that the universe is far more complex than we ever imagined. I struggle with the teleological argument because it often devolves in a "god in the gaps" theory. But as we find out more about some things, we are discovering them irreducibly complex and there are certain complexities that seem to cry out for a designer.

However, there is no argument powerful enough to sway someone who an abiding faith in a creatorless universe. Faith is a powerful thing as you are aware.

BTW, Flibber the sex porcupine never changed a serial killer into a gentle and humble philanthropist. Unless you happen to know of one? IF he had, I'd like to hear that story...

I suggest you go see a pastor... Its is really hard to believe especially if you were raised not to but no questions are to be asked if you really believe...its as easy as that...

"Secondly, the majority of christians are abstinent, a physically, and even mentally unhealthy way of living as it causes both stress, and unnatural psychological harm by attemtping to destroy thoughts and actions which are meant to further our race."

If the majority of Christians are abstinent, how do a majority of them have children?

Supressing thoughts and actions causes psychological harm?? Don't we all do that every day? Isn't that one of the strengths of humans?

I've never even heard of the "argument from changed lives", but it strikes me as very weak.

First of all, pretty much everything changes ones life.

Second, I'm sure that for pretty much every wacky belief (like astrology, homeopathy, channeling, ...) you can find somebody whose life has been changed by it, that being evidence for what?

Third, what if you find somebody whose life has been changed by ceasing to belief in god? Would that be evidence for the non-existance of god?

The teleological argument leads directly into an infinite regress. If the universe needs a designer, then so does the designer, and the designer's designer, and so on. That some people still use this argument blows my mind.

Schani,

There are always counter arguments. That doesn't mean that the arguments given are not evidences. The anthropic priniciple and the experience of changed lives can be powerful evidences for those who believe them. Once you have made your decision against them though they are as meaningless as a fairytale. Antony Flew argued persuasively against the teleological argument for decades...he was at one time one of the most famous atheist apologists in the world...but now he is a theist.

Evidences are malleable by the human mind which is capable of believing anything..even something like, "there is no God." Our minds are capable of incredible feats of juggling facts, if you will.

For example, one could say that the bullet hole in a man's skull came from a gun fired by his wife, but as is often the case, the defense attorney for the wife will often provide an equally plausible possiblity for the hole in the man's skull. There is no apologetic for God that cannot be reasoned away. That is the miracle of the minds of humans. We are blessed to have this ability. Each person must decide for themselves their own resolution.

But whether of not you choose to believe the evidence is up to you...the jury.

The argument from changed lives can not constitute evidence in any way for anything because it is a non sequitur. It's like saying "I saw a red car on my way to work today, therefore Santa Claus exists.".

I'll give you another example: "When Tim started believing that he is Napoleon Bonaparte, his life changed, therefore he is Napoleon Bonaparte.".

Maybe you can finish this sentence: "When I started juggling, my life changed, therefore ..."

Oh, and the teleological argument: Please explain to me in simple terms how you get rid of the infinite regress.

And yes, of course, "The anthropic priniciple and the experience of changed lives can be powerful evidences for those who believe them.". That's just saying "If you believe something, you'll think it's correct.". Which isn't saying much, really.

Schani,
I am amazed at how strong atheists have such a basic disrespect for the experiences of their fellow humans. In order to be a strong atheist, you must turn to the 5.1 billion theists in the world who say they have had a valid experience with the presence of God, "You are deluded and confused. You are under an illusion of chemicals and a rush of endorphines. Your experience is a meaningless combination of externals that have led you to a valueless conclusion."

In fact, true atheism must dismiss the integrity of theistic humans and must degrade their experiences by disregarding them. Everyone but you is hapless and fooled.

As a theist, I can turn to my fellow humans and truly engage them with conversation appreciating their experiences as valuable to me and meaningful. If they say they have experienced the presence of God, I can believe them and value their conclusions. If they say they have not experienced the presence of God and do not believe in God, I can believe them as well and value their conclusions as well.
I unlike you, am truly free to respect the experiences of the individual. You can take your dismissive cynicism and corrosive misanthropy. I choose to honor the individual.

I have read volumes of apologetics and have engaged in conversation with brilliant philosophers both theist and atheist. I have no interest in debate. Debate is often just a cry for attention or ego massaging rather than a true interest in progress.

You have no real respect for for my beliefs or experiences and you have nothing of value to say on the subject that is not either petulant or condescending. You consider me and most of humanity wrongheaded dupes. It amazing me how humanists think they have the answer for peace or the betterment of the human race when they so clearly believe that most of humanity are deluded sheep.

Even if you ignore the logical fallacies. It still doesnt hold up.

Lets assume there IS a god, and he will send me to hell. Lets also assume I buy into this and believe in god "just in case". Assume I die and go to heaven.

I will know that billions of "souls" are being tortured for eternity in hell. To me that IS hell, so it doesnt matter if I go to heaven or hell, it will be the same for me either way.

The argument lunatic christians come up with to deal with this, which is not backed up by any religious text by the way, is that god "erases that from your mind". Meaning god lies to you. This is a poor argument since if god will lie to you, then you cant accept "the word of god" as truth in the first place, so there is no reason to believe in the bible or heaven to begin with. God cant say everything he says is true, and then lie to you when you die. If he can lie to you, then you cant accept anything in the bible as true, even if you do believe it is the word of god!

Lars,

Lets say if you did decide to believe in God you would soon realise, if you had any devotion to your faith at all and learnt something about it, that after death you cannot compare it to anything you have experienced on earth. Why should heaven be anything like earth as we know it. Heaven, the bible says, will be 100% praising God. Nothing else. There will be nothing else on your mind. Oh, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't just get into heaven just because you believed 'just in case'.

Umm, oh yeah. Schani, regarding the birth of the universe, how do you believe it happened? The idea of the Big Bang to me is totally ridiculous and thats where science clearly and unmistakably contradicts itself. How do you get an explosion from absolutely nothing at all? One minute nothing. The next, for no reason whatsoever, a universe. You cannot make an explosion with nothing, try it. (Which, by the way is good news because if you could, we would have a much bigger problem with suicide bombers and the like). I realise you didn't mention that this was what you believed, just wanted to prove a point.

A good website:
www.jesus.org.uk

[Heaven, the bible says, will be 100% praising God. Nothing else. There will be nothing else on your mind. ]

This is inaccurate. WADR

Gert,

Your idea of the Big Bang is completely inaccurate. In no way did scientists say that there was nothing and then an explosion. The idea is that all matter was condensed into a very small area. This then "exploded" expanded across known space. The reason this theory is considered plausible by some is that we have notice that the universe seems to be expanding, so this is the idea that was conjured up to answer that. In no way is the Big Bang considered fact. It is just a possible explanation to keep us thinking about these sorts of things. The great thing about science is the ability to completely believe in something, find out something that contradicts that belief, and totally changing your belief structure because of that piece of evidence. That is Progression, religion is archaic.

you are so right...religion sucks.

My god is a God of changing revelations and adapting relationships and the freedom of explorations and discoveries and plot and story and crisis and restoration...the essence of life and growth and change.

Big bang? What a great way to create. And God said "bang!" and there was light, high energy multidimensional photonic pre-matter.

Super strings? What a harmonious and artful understanding of time/space.

Evolution?
What a lovely progression of creation and a beautiful precise method of making consciousness and ethics.

This is inaccurate. WADR

Where does it say otherwise?

Those who do not believe in god go to hell? This is CRITICISM. All things exist within our minds.

brockton attorney

tenormin

blackjacks

I came to this site because I'm such a fan of your juggling. You could do a 5 ball cascade when you were just a kid :( not fair, I've been working on it for months and am still struggling. You're incredible :)
I also agree with your views on the existence of God. There are so many reasons why I don't believe a god exists, ranging from my leaning towards science to parts of the Bible which seem just plain ridiculous to me.
Plus, religions are mutually exclusive. Only one interpretation of the Bible, or other holy texts, can be correct. Only one religion, if any, could be right, because they all disagree on fundamentals of their respective religions.
Creationists are the worst of the lot. Seriously, it's unbelieveable that so many people on this earth take it so seriously.
Rock on :D

I came to this site because I'm such a fan of your juggling. You could do a 5 ball cascade when you were just a kid :( not fair, I've been working on it for months and am still struggling. You're incredible :)
I also agree with your views on the existence of God. There are so many reasons why I don't believe a god exists, ranging from my leaning towards science to parts of the Bible which seem just plain ridiculous to me.
Plus, religions are mutually exclusive. Only one interpretation of the Bible, or other holy texts, can be correct. Only one religion, if any, could be right, because they all disagree on fundamentals of their respective religions.
Creationists are the worst of the lot. Seriously, it's unbelieveable that so many people on this earth take it so seriously.
Rock on :D

On Shank's mare... Justinian

On Shank's mare... Justinian

There is no place like home... Albert

There is no place like home... Albert

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly signs a $42.5m (£22m) film deal starring his character Bruno...

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly signs a $42.5m (£22m) film deal starring his character Bruno...

Life is not all cakes and ale (beer and skittles)... Cassandra

Life is not all cakes and ale (beer and skittles)... Cassandra

As the tree falls, so shall it lie... Jeremy

As the tree falls, so shall it lie... Jeremy

As the tree falls, so shall it lie... Jeremy

As the tree falls, so shall it lie... Jeremy

A curst cow has short horns... Charity

Put not your hand between the bark and the tree... Helegor

Put not your hand between the bark and the tree... Helegor