[gumby5647]

Just a random question...

How has these attacks affected your religious believes? has it strengthed them? Is your relationtship with your god closer because of this? Are you going to go to church again? have you lost all faith because of this?

(this is for a paper in english, thanks)


~gumby~

[TNproud2b]

I've lost respect for Muslims because of all of this.

Like most people have...only few admit it openly.

I think we should all learn some humility - that's what I think.

[anarkisst]

Myself I think it reinforces my lack of belief in any religion and my belief that we as human beings still have the capacity of reaching out to others who need help without caring who, why and what creed they are.

Still, religions finest element for us is it can restore faith in what seems to be a very hopeless situation. To anyone that believes that any religion is more evil than another surely doesn't understand what good can come from them. I have nothing against Muslims or any religion. I have faith in humanity and I saw it on Tuesday after the disaster struck.

[Millennium]

My own faith has been strengthened, for a variety of reasons.

[Korv]

I'm just as much an athiest as I was before these events. This event had no effect on my lack of faith.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>I've lost respect for Muslims because of all of this.

Like most people have...only few admit it openly.</STRONG>

Your comment angers me.. you're in Texas, no? Are you throwing Molotov Cocktails into mosques?

To say that you've lost respect for Muslims because of this is like someone of another religious faith saying they've lost faith in Christians as a result of something horrible that someone, under that faith, has done. It does not represent all Muslims....

Me? German/Irish..born Catholic, although I do not actively follow or practice.

Your thinking is backwards, as it seems often on this board... can you not have an open mind and see that ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT BAD?

Or is your head too thick for such things?

Many people born in our country with no intentions of bombing anything except the roaches in their kitchen, are Muslims... PEOPLE LIKE YOU have them scared to go outside of their homes, and that is an awful, awful thing.

I want the TERRORISTS removed from the earth.. tis all.

Ice

[cpatubo]

I was born and raised a Catholic girl, attending Catholic school for eight years. I am nonpracticing now.

The recent events have not strengthened nor diminished my belief in religon. I still feel the same. My faith, on the other hand is a completely different subject. You do not need to be religious to have faith. I have faith in the human race more than ever now.

On the subject of TNproud2b losing respect for Muslims, that has nothing to do with this subject. But I agree with iE, that is a very angering statement. Making generalizations like that makes you no more of a better person than a terrorist. They made the generalizations that all Americans are bad. Look what that led to.

I don't know if we can ever remove all terrorists from the earth. Like it or not, they are everywhere, even on our own turf. I guess all we can do is try to educate...

[Millennium]

To say that you've lost respect for Muslims because of this is like someone of another religious faith saying they've lost faith in Christians as a result of something horrible that someone, under that faith, has done.

Just replying to note that there are plenty of people who've done exactly that. I'm friends with more than a few (which isn't always the easiest thing in the world). There are several on this forum, even.

[Demonhood]

Here's a story of two well known men who continue to do damage to the perception of Christianity, with their ignorant views and hateful ways.

If I were a Christian, I'd be very pissed at these two. Someone should tell them to shut the hell up. They, like some extremist Muslims, are poor representatives for their faiths.

[Korv]

Originally posted by IceEnclosure:
<STRONG>

Your comment angers me.. you're in Texas, no? Are you throwing Molotov Cocktails into mosques?

To say that you've lost respect for Muslims because of this is like someone of another religious faith saying they've lost faith in Christians as a result of something horrible that someone, under that faith, has done. It does not represent all Muslims....

Me? German/Irish..born Catholic, although I do not actively follow or practice.

Your thinking is backwards, as it seems often on this board... can you not have an open mind and see that ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT BAD?

Or is your head too thick for such things?

Many people born in our country with no intentions of bombing anything except the roaches in their kitchen, are Muslims... PEOPLE LIKE YOU have them scared to go outside of their homes, and that is an awful, awful thing.

I want the TERRORISTS removed from the earth.. tis all.

Ice</STRONG>

Well said. Thanks.

[MikeM32]

I was raised a Christian, then stopped practicing, I'm agnostic now. I thought I was an atheist, but I realized even science couldn't explain what split the very first atom that caused the "big bang". I do believe in evolution for the most part however, but I won't pretend to be a science expert either. It simply makes more sense in the scope of all life on the planet.

I really don't believe there's a higher power "watching" over us however. This hasn't swayed that belief, but I still "feel" about the whole massacre.

What I weep about is that wer'e so advanced technologically, wer'e capable of doing such great things. We *should* be one united world, and have a true sense of brotherhood with everyone accross the globe, but we don't.

Wer'e still swimming out of the ocean and trying to grow legs to crawl on land like those things we evolved from. As a species we're still *animals*. And that's what makes me saddest.

This doesn't sway my belief in severe retaliation either. We are still animals after-all.

Kill or be killed.

Mike

[Timo]

Here (thanks to Amos Oz) is the analysis of the evil we face,

and here (thanks to Demonhood) is an example of the distortions we face.

These events have strengthened my thoughts along Oz's lines.

[simonjames]

This event has strengthened my choice of atheism.

It proves to me that if a god does actually exist then it is not the Christian one - it is the Muslim one.

[vega24]

America is my God and it's freedoms and liberties are my heaven.

Usama bin Laden is my Devil and his acts of terrorism are my Hell.

My faith in my country has been strengthened and my lust for it's freedoms and liberties have been strengthened and so has my determination to protect everything that is America.

[Matsu]

You atheists make me laugh, if only because you insist upon your lack of faith. Please be honest with yourselves. Since it cannot be tested to the satisfaction of a scientific mind -- I see no falsifiable position -- neither can it be disproved. Ergo, it is equally 'faithful' to deny or assert the existence of a god. So to all you religious types, please go easy on the 'godless'. They're just as faithful as you, they only pray in a different church.

I think most atheists are really just agnostics who want to have the edge and/or drama of philosophical commitment/certainty/purity. The vast cultural reserves present in religions shouldn't be discounted, but neither are they gospel. They rise and fall (religions), they undergo constant re-invention, and there is nothing to suggest that in 5000 years the world will still be (primarily) divided between Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. They might be mythologies by then, but not neccessarily more or less true than whatever follows after.

Agnosticism is the most philosophically responsible religious position. Probably the only one deviod of the arrogance of certainty. It accepts doubt, and eschews pretension. Religion and atheism both require of their congregations some profession of faith.

ahhh ... I think I'll stop the rambling here: I've no polemics in me today. About the question: does tragedy make me feel more religious?

I catch myself praying sometimes, and I laugh at myself.

[Cowdog]

I haven't read anything saying what religion the hijackers were, there were at least 14 of them on the planes, some of them very well could have been Christians, it is nothing but bigotry to say you don't like Muslims now because of the attack. I'm sure among the thousands of dead bodies there lay innocent Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Atheists and people of all walks.

Though this attack wasn't on religion, I don't think it had anything to do with it, it was an attack on the way our government rules it's people, our nation relates to others and the system in which Americans have setup to make their money.

People under every label do "ignorant" "bad" and "evil" things, our prisons are full of members of every religion, race and color, to single out one to hate and to build a stereotype upon is exactly the reason why the so many people died on Sep 11, because the terrorists decided they hated Americans.

As to the original question, why should it affect my religous beliefs? It is not a case of "Why does a good God let bad things happen to good people?" but more of a "Why do bad people do bad things to good people?"

It's because of hate and ignorance, don't willingly practice either...

Somewhat of a heavy post but this is a heavy subject

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Cowdog ]

[San Acoustic]

Matsu, why do you and everyone who has faith in a god insist you know better than I do what I believe? I could put up billboards and buy TV time stating my non-belief in god, and you would still think I don't mean it.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I don't believe in any god. Not the dhristian god or the muslim god or the islamic god. Someone correcty if i'm wrong but Budda wasn't a god right.

Matsu there's a logical theory called Achums Raiser(help spelling?). Look it up.

The base question to religion and athiesm is how you deal with something you don't understand. Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you know why planes really fly? Are you afraid of the dark?

At an instinctive level we're afraid of things that we don't understand. Watch a dogs reaction to something it's never seen before. Religion gives a nice clean answer to any question you ask it. Because God made it that way so just believe. You can't debate with a theologan because at the root of every position he has is faith. He can't explain it he just believes. Why? Because someone else who believes told him to.

Do you believe that a plane can fly? Do you know how it does it? If you don't know how why do you believe that it does? What if you hadn't seen one fly before and all you had to go by was the word of the stuard(ess)? Would you believe then? How about a parachute? Would you jump out of a plane with a sheet tied to your back if you hadn't seen some one do it? I have this very nice bridge i'm trying to get rid off. Anyone interested?

The question i'm asking was who told the priest to believe? And who told him? Who was the first one to say because God made it that way. Why are you afraid of the dark. That little noise you heard over in the corner of the room that you didn't recognize. Someone somewhere along the line came up[ with the idea of God to keep people who are to afraid to live with things they don't understand or can't explain from keeping them awake at noght just because there's a thunderstorm outside the cave.

[simonjames]

Matsu you're a twat - atheism is not a faith - it is merely the choice not to shove one's head up one's ar$e

[Matsu]

tsk, tsk... please don't confuse me with a religious person. I might have (very) well conditioned religious tendencies, but I realize they are what they are, and I could (most definitely) have been something else --were I born to different parents. I'm not even that great of an example of what I'm supposed to be. I guess no one understands sarcasm anymore. Occam's/Ockham's Razor doesn't really talk about whether an idea is testable, it's main push is not to complicate things needlessly -- where a simple explanation will suffice, that is the best explanation. Absolutely, it has some bearing on religious behavior, but I was talking about whether or not Atheism requires some act of faith. Clearly it does. If you want to say that there is no way of knowing, and hence you don't really believe, or you wish to reserve judgement because the information is specious, then my friends, you are agnostics. An atheist wants to claim that there is no God, period. This is indeed (on the surface) the simplest statement. But it doesn't do you or anyone any good. It's untestable and can never enter into the scientific discourse that validates Occam's Razor. The problem belongs to philosophers who can at least pretend to be objective.

A plane flies because the speed of air moving over the wing is faster than the speed of air under it. This is entirely different. We can create an experiment and test it. What will your experiment for the existence of god be? There is no experiment, you can only challenge the validity of claims. But the religious can turn around and challenge the validity of your claims with similarly annoying questions. You will engage in logical/linguistic tests of one another. You will be equally frustrated.

Fear, yep. That'll do it for most. Nothing quite like death to drive people into churches. Certainly, most faith is really just hope put on public display. An atheist has probably given up the often false pretension of true belief, but has he given up the pretension of certainty? Not at all. He/she is certain that there is no god. Faith is just certainty of the truth of a proposition and, my atheistic friends, you certainly have that.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I red an interesting article the other day about whay planes actually fly. The classic definition is that because of the wings shape air had to travel further over the top than the bottom and thus creates lower pressure on the top. This is incorrect. In order for that to work equal amounts of air would have to travel around both sides of the wing. This is wrong the air will follow the path of least resistance an more air will flow over the wing. Instead there's a phenomenon where the air travel across the surface of the wing will continue along the surface of the wing and the air layers above it will not creating a pocket of low pressure at the tail edge of the wing. It's the right idea just the wrong reason. So you didn't know how planes flew you only thought you did because someone told you and most everyone else wrong.

[Millennium]

I red an interesting article the other day about whay planes actually fly. The classic definition is that because of the wings shape air had to travel further over the top than the bottom and thus creates lower pressure on the top. This is incorrect. In order for that to work equal amounts of air would have to travel around both sides of the wing. This is wrong the air will follow the path of least resistance an more air will flow over the wing. Instead there's a phenomenon where the air travel across the surface of the wing will continue along the surface of the wing and the air layers above it will not creating a pocket of low pressure at the tail edge of the wing. It's the right idea just the wrong reason. So you didn't know how planes flew you only thought you did because someone told you and most everyone else wrong.

Actually, the first method is correct. The problem is that they didn't explain it fully.

The air does have to travel further over the top of the wing, because it is curved. But equal amounts of air travel aboveand below the wing. How is this possible? But because there's a longer distance, the air above the wing has to move faster.

This is important, because Boyle's Law states that a fluid (as air is) which moves faster will have a lower pressure than the same volume of air in the same space but moving more slowly. Since the air above moves faster, the air above is of lower pressure. The air below the plane then pushes the plane into the air.

Sorry to butt in, but I just had to correct that.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Thats the false assumption that i'm talking about. Why would equal amounts of air travel over both sides of the wing if there's lower pressure above?
http://www.eng.umd.edu/~jeffl/aviation_theory.html

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: BLAZE_MkIV ]

[golem]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>I've lost respect for Muslims because of all of this.

Like most people have...only few admit it openly.

I think we should all learn some humility - that's what I think.</STRONG>

What Ice said.

[Millennium]

Why would equal amounts of air travel over both sides of the wing if there's lower pressure above?

Because in this case, the pressure difference is caused by the speed of the air, not the amount of it. It has to do with Boyle's Law (I think; I might have the name wrong); I had a lot of trouble understanding this one myself.

Do you have a hole in your car's windows or windshield? Probably not, but if you do, there's an experiment you can do to illustrate this. from the inside of the car, put an index card or a paper plate up to the hole, and then drive (of course, you should only do this if the hole is in a position where you can safely do this). You would expect all the air rushing in to blow the paper plate away, and indeed it will do this if the card isn't right up against the windshield. But once you put the card up to it, it will stick. This is because of the lower pressure outside the car, such that the air inside the car pushes the card into the windshield.

Geez; we're really going offtopic now, aren't we?

[scaught]

Originally posted by simonjames:
<STRONG>Matsu you're a twat - atheism is not a faith - it is merely the choice not to shove one's head up one's ar$e</STRONG>

1. namecalling is sooooo boring.

2. matsu's point in comparing atheism to a "faith" is this, i believe. atheists, like those who claim a faith (christians, muslims, whatever) really have no scientific proof that there is or isnt a god. therefore they have the same amount of "feeling" that there is (or isnt) a god". what do we call that feeling? faith.

on topic: these attacks havent affected my religious beliefs at all.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Millenium check out the link and consider yourelf edumacated.

From my point of view the difference between the Religous and the Athiest is how you respond in the absence of proof. The Religeous believe and the Athiest does not. My issue is not wether or not there is proof but why the Religeous believe in the absence of proof.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: BLAZE_MkIV ]

[simonjames]

The reason why I got angry is because Matsu used the usual religious high and mighty stance "I know better than you" business.

At the age of 36 I think I know what I am and I am certainly not an agnostic. I take offense that someone treats me like an idiot saying I don't know the difference between atheist and agnostic - I take it that Matsu believes there are no Atheists.

Well you're wrong - I have no faith - there is no god.

While we're on this subject - how do Christian religious people explain what happened in NYC?

And assuming the terrorists are not Christian - what explanation do you think their religious people are currently sprouting?

[anarkisst]

Originally posted by Matsu:
<STRONG>You atheists make me laugh, if only because you insist upon your lack of faith. Please be honest with yourselves. Since it cannot be tested to the satisfaction of a scientific mind -- I see no falsifiable position -- neither can it be disproved. Ergo, it is equally 'faithful' to deny or assert the existence of a god. So to all you religious types, please go easy on the 'godless'. They're just as faithful as you, they only pray in a different church.

I think most atheists are really just agnostics who want to have the edge and/or drama of philosophical commitment/certainty/purity. The vast cultural reserves present in religions shouldn't be discounted, but neither are they gospel. They rise and fall (religions), they undergo constant re-invention, and there is nothing to suggest that in 5000 years the world will still be (primarily) divided between Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. They might be mythologies by then, but not neccessarily more or less true than whatever follows after.

Agnosticism is the most philosophically responsible religious position. Probably the only one deviod of the arrogance of certainty. It accepts doubt, and eschews pretension. Religion and atheism both require of their congregations some profession of faith.

ahhh ... I think I'll stop the rambling here: I've no polemics in me today. About the question: does tragedy make me feel more religious?

I catch myself praying sometimes, and I laugh at myself.</STRONG>

This is the reason I will always have faith in mankind and someday a relative peace and and understanding with all...but sadly, with people like these it sure as hell will never be in my lifetime.

Read my first post above again...whatever works for you to get through this...fine...as long as it isn't used to hurt others.

[macvillage.net]

I am Roman Catholic, and attended 8 years of Catholic school. I am somewhat religious, and I do think it has strengthened my religion.

I am ashamed that people are now treating Muslims the way they are. Think of the following:

• Look it up or trust me, all religions share more similarities than differences. We may have small differences, but I have yet to find one whose religion has different values. If you look at the Christian/Jewish 10 Commandments, they are virtually universal throughout religions, though they are stated differently. Does anyone really think that a religion says to kill? The answer is no... People tell people to kill. In many countries there is no separation of government and religion. The result is a few confused people.
• Does anyone realize that this is what started EVERY problem in this world? Think about it, religion is the reason why we haven't all killed each other yet, and then again, religion is the reason so many have died these past 2000 plus years. It all goes back to religion if you trace it down to the roots. Normal sinario is that someone can't accept the fact that someone is of a different religion, supresses that population, then they retaliate, then they retaliate back, and it's a chain cycle.....

It's now or never... learn from our mistakes.


I know many Islamic and Muslims people that would never do anything harmful. And I know many Christians who would... and that goes the other way as well.... why can't we learn to put asside our differences and look at the big picture?


Mankind makes me sick.

[Matsu]

It's not that I believe there are no atheists. But look around you, how many people have that kind of conviction? (Oops, conviction? more faithful language creeps in, sorry) Most atheists if they are coming from the perspective of proof are really just agnostics.

Just playing with the terms a little. Of course the modern speaker wants Atheist to mean, 'one who does not believe in the existence of a god.' And Agnostic, as it is often used, probably intends to mean, 'one that is dissatisfied with the machinations of a religion or all religions.' But as per their roots they have more primary meanings than the current popular use suggests.

Why does one turn to faith and the other not? Fear is always a good starting point. Freud is a good read here, but don't start with the stuff everyone knows. You need to go back to the stuff no one ever reads (from his early days). Then you can see why he argues, quite beautifully, that religion is a sort of mass fear reaction. But does the professed atheist have less fear? Maybe. Perhaps God is irrelevant to this person, and they would rather not waist the life they have worrying about a next life. The decision seems at least partially political -- some kind of attempt to cauterize the social wounds that religion does inflict. Such atheism cannot be true, it's more of a reaction to all those zealots with their heads up their ar$es. And much like the Mr. Simon, they get really sensitive when people point it out.

Of course, all the above assumes that man is a religious creature. The form a religion takes is not so important as the fact that it continually takes new forms. In the past this idea has been used as a kind of argument for the existence of god -- god signs his work by leaving an indelible mark on the minds of people. It doesn't need to be anything of the sort, but it does represent a pervasive social and personality psychology -- we are predisposed to quell the fears of the unknown through some kind of imagined super parent figure. If we all, or even most, are wired this way, then it stands to reason that most atheists aren't being honest/introspective enough about their motivations.

As for myself, I'm not inclined to think that all men are religious by nature (in their reactions to fear). A very small number might be wired differently; they just know there isn't any god. But these people would still have a neuro-social-biological conviction.

Any way you slice it, an atheist has faith (of a kind).


PS.

In many ways, one who professes atheism, is just trying to tell the world that he's not afraid, and has some how evolved beyond the rest of you -- isn't caught up in the same childishness anymore. This person probably is caught up more than most, the impact --even just the potential-- of that fear is so damaging that atheists will never admit to it. It's not that they don't believe; they just wish they didn't have to. If you pretend to give up interrogating the unknown, perhaps it won't be so scary any more? hmmm... both atheism and religiosity could be diametrically opposed fear ractions.

I guess, yeah, even at 36, you aren't really sure what you are, but don't worry, neither is anybody else. And don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud. That's the fun part.

[THT]

<STRONG>Re: how planes fly.</STRONG>

The explanations are orthogonal viewpoints. One discusses it from a pressure viewpoint, the other discusses it from a momentum viewpoint. Both are tremendously simplified, and shouldn't be considered in any other why.

The criticisms laid upon the "popular explanation" are out of place. The reason the "popular explanation" is popular is because it is the rudimentary basis for understanding and designing aircraft and for teaching aerospace engineering students. The reason the streamlines in the pictures look the way they do is because it is from inviscid (zero viscosity) flow over objects. Every aerospace engineering student begins their study with inviscid (incompressible) flow where Bernoulli's principle apply exactly.

The so-called "physical description" makes sense from a Newtonian point of view, but it is dead end for every aerospace engineer. I cringe every time people start mentioning Coanda effect to help explain how an airplane flies, or that wings are momentum changers.

I've been an aerospace engineer for nearly 10 years, and in that time (and I've met the titans of the industry), I have never ever heard one single person use the "physical description" to describe lift. I have never heard one single person make mention of the "principle of equal transit times". Heck, the so-called "Mathematical Aerodynamics Description" (panel methods) is only taught in college and all but forgotten most everywhere in the industry where everyone uses Navier-Stokes or Euler methods (CFD) which properly model the physics of fluid flow. It's mainly used for proof of concept shapes.

So it's pretty naive for one to think that they understand the "secret" of how an airplane flies when they start throwing around the "physical description" of how an airplane flies. It's strictly for laymen. If anyone wants to go in depth on the subject, they'll have start learning Bernouli's principle first and then move to viscous flows.

[THT]

<STRONG>Originally posted by Matsu:
Just playing with the terms a little. Of course the modern speaker wants Atheist to mean, 'one who does not believe in the existence of a god.' And Agnostic, as it is often used, probably intends to mean, 'one that is dissatisfied with the machinations of a religion or all religions.' But as per their roots they have more primary meanings than the current popular use suggests.</STRONG>

Let's not play with the terms, or at least come to an agreement about what the terms mean (and the dictionary definitions will do fine). For example, "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" all describe a specific entity which various people have built their beliefs around. That there may be some higher being out there does not mean that it is the same "God".

Agnostics profess ignorance, that they don't know, not that there could be one, so they can pretty much be left out of the argument.

An athiest is not an agnostic, they do not profess to ignorance. They deny the existence of a Levantine god specifically or supreme beings involved with the creation of humanity and the universe generally. A higher being may exist, but it would not equate to "God", just a being with some interesting characteristics. We could easily, easily deny the existence of the Levantine god, for all their assertions come without proof and require its followers to have faith. All inductive methods for proof point that their assertions are wrong.

<STRONG>But does the professed atheist have less fear? Maybe. Perhaps God is irrelevant to this person, and they would rather not waist the life they have worrying about a next life.</STRONG>

The fear is the same as any person would have. I would require some logical consistency.

<STRONG>It doesn't need to be anything of the sort, but it does represent a pervasive social and personality psychology -- we are predisposed to quell the fears of the unknown through some kind of imagined super parent figure. If we all, or even most, are wired this way, then it stands to reason that most atheists aren't being honest/introspective enough about their motivations.</STRONG>

No, I wouldn't think that we are predisposed to believe in some kind of imagined parent figure. The idea of divinity in many Eastern religions is a psychological state of mind, not a parent figure. That is, nirvana. We are mostly predisposed towards religion because religion is a socio-political method for binding communities together. It is a way for us to communicate.

<STRONG>Any way you slice it, an atheist has faith (of a kind).</STRONG>

But is equating it to the faith required in religion a logical thing to do? For instance, I design an airplane. I have faith it will fly. Would that be the same thing as having faith in God? To be more informative, the faith and fear I have before a flight is really a hope that I have done everything correctly in designing it.

<STRONG>In many ways, one who professes atheism, is just trying to tell the world that he's not afraid, and has some how evolved beyond the rest of you -- isn't caught up in the same childishness anymore. ... it's not that they don't believe; they just wish they didn't have to. If you pretend to give up interrogating the unknown, perhaps it won't be so scary any more? hmmm... both atheism and religiosity could be diametrically opposed fear ractions.
</STRONG>

Um, no, not this atheist. I love interrogating the unknown, and would love to understand how and why something happens. Believing in "God did it" would seem to be the easy way out to me. For example, the assertion of: God let us be bombed, we deserved it, because of the ACLU, homosexuality, et al. As an atheist, I would try to find out why the terrorist did it (which would involve the history of how it got up to that point), and do the necessary things to prevent terrorists from doing it again or create situation where terrorism should arise.

How would not believing the "God did it" explanation be not willing to interrogate the unkown?

[San Acoustic]

[QUOTE: Matsu said:] An atheist wants to claim that there is no God, period. This is indeed (on the surface) the simplest statement. But it doesn't do you or anyone any good. It's untestable and can never enter into the scientific discourse that validates Occam's Razor. [/QUOTE]

I don't want to claim it anymore than I want to claim 1+1 = 2. If logic, common sense and chance were the markers, people with faith would lose their bets. Occam's Razor cuts through the crap to the simplest, and therefore the most likely reason for anything.

Some complicated supreme being who had no beginning and no end, throws souls into a lake of fire while professing his love for them and lifts the cloak of invulnerablily from nations because of the ACLU is a poor excuse for a god. And if you say that's not your god, that's because ]everyone] has a different one � six billion gods. Occam's Razor cuts through that shite and says there isn't one, period.

I say again, he who makes the claim must provide the evidence. There can be no evidence of no god, that is why a negative cannot be proven. It is up to you to provide the evidence of a god you say exists.

You cannot argue for the existence of god and call it scientific discourse. The two are mutually exclusive. There is nothing scientific in faith and nothing scientific in god. Science illuminates superstition and eradicates it, which is why those silly creationists in the U.S. South use the term "scientific creationism." They try to muddy the waters for uncritical thinkers.

To whomever it is (I'm sorry, I forget who it is) who believes in god because science hasn't figured out how the first atom was split, you're wrong. That was figured out before the first atom bomb was tested in New Mexico.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]

[Millennium]

While we're on this subject - how do Christian religious people explain what happened in NYC?

A psychopath paid a bunch of people (who he/she had manipulated until they became psychopaths themselves) to fly planes into buildings, apparently including such benefits as room and board, false identities, and all appropriate training.

What, you were expecting something all mystical and stuff?

[Ca$hs Unemployed Mother]

Why would God let a Plane smash into a building and let over 5000 innocent civilians die horribly? Why would God let an incident like this start WW3?

[San Acoustic]

Why would god allow a rescue worker be killed by falling rubble when he took off his helmet to pray? Just heard it on the news.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]

[cheerios]

because he's not in direct control over eveyrthing. It's a spiffy little thing called free will that allows us to control our own destinys.

as for my religious beliefs... I don't know what to believe, but when things get rough, like that have lately, I'm more inclined to turn my face to the stars and let out a wordless cry of anguish that this **** could happen. I'd love to think someone hears me, and rubs my back while I cry, but i don't really know for sure. I don't follow a particular sect of Christianity, but I do follow the idea that there is someone who looks after me, and it's convienient to think of God, and his incarnation in Jesus, as that someone. It's all the same god... Christian, Islam, Jewish, whatever. Just relax all, and believe what you want to. We'll all figure it out when we die.

Don't worry, be happy

[BLAZE_MkIV]

You just can't get over the fact that your the result of a random convergence of chemicals in a prehistoric tide pool. My point with why planes fly is that people believe they know how planes fly and so they feel safe. Even though their just ignorant of whats realy going on they take the work of those who do know. The problem with that is were do you draw the line. How do you find out who actually knows?

[Millennium]

You just can't get over the fact that your the result of a random convergence of chemicals in a prehistoric tide pool.

Oh, I don't doubt the possibility that we're the result of a convergence of chemicals in a pehistoric tide pool, or something to that effect. I just don't think it was random.

Why would God let a Plane smash into a building and let over 5000 innocent civilians die horribly? Why would God let an incident like this start WW3?

Why would god allow a rescue worker be killed by falling rubble when he took off his helmet to pray? Just heard it on the news.

Well, OK, I'll tell you. But I'm going to warn you; this one is, quite possibly, the single hardest belief of my sect for non-Christians (and evan most Christians) to stomach, because of its implications; this one will piss several of you off. It's also not one that all Christian sects agree on.

because he's not in direct control over eveyrthing. It's a spiffy little thing called free will that allows us to control our own destinys.

What Cheerios said was correct, but there's more to it than that. God does not, in fact, have direct control over everything at this moment. However, it goes further than that: He (assuming he even has a gender; I have my own thoughts on that but that's for another post) doesn't have direct control over almost anything at this moment.

This, of course, begs the question as to why. And this is where I have to bring Satan into the discussion. The idea that he's (assuming gender has any meaning whatsoever to such beings) got some kind of bet with God is well-known, but many people are mistaken as to the nature of that bet. It is not about Satan ruling. The bet was that God was unnecessary; that His creations could rule themselves without Him.

Perhaps a valid point. So Satan is being given a chance to prove it. God stepped back, and has let Satan have power over this world. This goes back far enough, by the way, that recorded history does not reach back to any point before this occurred; it's not like we "turned against God" at any point we know of, as lunatics like Falwell would claim. If you want to look from a truly strictly biblical perspective, it happened right after Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden.

But the point is: Satan doesn't want souls (although I doubt he'd mind them). As long as it's not with God, he's satisfied. He doesn't exert direct control over most things, either. It's all humanity's work. And over the millennia, we're just proving Satan wrong: that God is necessary, because in the end, humanity is utterly incapable of ruling itself in a just manner. Not once has humanity ever created a true utopia; even those who tried to do just that (a list of names that included Washington, Lenin, and others, even though their methods varied wildly) either failed immediately, succeeded in the very short term but lived to see their methods fail, or they failed soon after the deaths of their originators and someone new came to power. And as long as man has power over man, this will continue. These men had good intentions, but humanity's very nature doomed them to failure before they had even begun.

I'm sorry. Even though none of you has read this as I'm writing it, I know I'm going to make several of you very angry with that, because it flies in the face of your faith in humanity. But I apologize only for making you mad, not for believing as I do.

[Ca$hs Unemployed Mother]

Originally posted by cheerios:
<STRONG>because he's not in direct control over eveyrthing. It's a spiffy little thing called free will that allows us to control our own destinys.</STRONG>

Oh that is nice of him. So we are free to get Cancer, we are free to hurt others, we are free to get AIDS and we are free to have earthquakes and hurricanes.

It seems that God said: "Satan, do what you will, I will just watch things happen. I will not help people, I will not get rid of any of the diseases that you spread, I will let evil take over the earth. And anything good that people do on their own such as cure or help others, is not done by their own free will, it is because I performed a Miracle". The only way I will show myself is not by helping others but by making religious Statues cry once and a while.

Thanks for clearing that one up. Makes perfect sense now.

[Millennium]

It seems that God said: "Satan, do what you will, I will just watch things happen. I will not help people, I will not get rid of any of the diseases that you spread, I will let evil take over the earth. And anything good that people do on their own such as cure or help others, is not done by their own free will, it is because I performed a Miracle". The only way I will show myself is not by helping others but by making religious Statues cry once and a while.

::sigh::
Seems you still don't get it.

All right. To continue, Satan did in fact bring up a valid question: "Is God necessary?" God thought the answer was no, but He is giving Satan a fair chance to prove Him wrong.

Satan, meanwhile, has made quite a few glorious PR victories for himmself: among them, the abuse of religion in such a way that people blame God for all of these evil things that we see today. He gets people to think that God is some kind of monstrous beast that sends down diseases or sends terrorists to kill people who aren't following Him; this is simply not so. But people think it is. And it drives more and more people away. A rather brilliant move, you must admit; if you want to drive people away from you rival, frame him for evil acts such that people hate him. Of course, Satan isn't the one doing these things, either; truth be told, he doesn't have all that much involvement either, preferring to let people screw themselves up, as they do a marvelous job of it when given the chance.

God could intervene prematurely. He could simply wipe out cancer, terrorists, or what have you, this instant. But that would be cheating, and it would keep the question from ever being truly settled. That's why He didn't just blast Satan out of existence when he posed the question; it was a valid question, and people wanted to see proof.

This is the entire point of the afterlife. It is a great injustice that people must go through these horrible things, just to settle this question. The afterlife is an attempt at compensation for that, and if most religions are to believe, it's more than fair. If we go by the story of Genesis (however literally or not you choose to interpret the wording), humans were not supposed to ever die at all, much less get sick or grow old; the human makeup has been tampered with. Since we now do die, something is needed afterwards, or how could people receive their just compensation for everything we have to put up with? And as for Hell... let's just say that there's no scriptural basis for it whatsoever; neither it, nor anything truly analogous to it, is mentioned even once. That abuse of religion I've spoken of in this and earlier threads? The doctrine of a Hell is a perfect example.

But anyway, I'll shut up about this now. If anyone really wants to hear more, just ask.

[Workers Comp Wampa]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
::sigh::
Seems you still don't get it.</STRONG>

Ok that makes more sense

One thing I have learned is to NEVER argue with Catholics and they always have an answer as to why their God allows sooo much suffering to happen even though "Good will always triumph over evil".

Maybe if we had PROOF of God and an Afterlife we would all be more well behaved. Other then a book and some stories.

[Millennium]

When I said "you didn't get it," I didn't mean that because you didn't agree. One can certainly understand something without agreeing with it. It appeared, though, that you did not understand what I was trying to say, and so I attempted to clarify it. Forgive my jumping to conclusions if that wasn't the case. But I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I would, however, appreciate it if people listened to what I had to say.

Maybe if we had PROOF of God and an Afterlife we would all be more well behaved. Other then a book and some stories.

Maybe, maybe not. Some people have had the proof set before them, and of those, several still decided not to. If we go from a biblical perspective then Adam, Eve, Cain (three of the first four, I might add!), and Judas Iscariot are four examples that come immediately to mind. There may have been others that I'm overlooking, or who weren't written about.

Besides, even offering proof at this point could be considered cheating. You said it yourself: if there were proof, then most people would follow along. But that wouldn't be giving Satan a fair chance to prove his point. You'll get your proof when it's all over, as will I, and if I'm right, you'll even get another chance to decide for yourself.

[simonjames]

Millenium I've re-read your posts and I want to say thanks for putting forward a good argument without condescending language and without bible-bashing non-believers. Most Christians force people immediately off-side by their "holier than thou" attitudes - you didn't do this - thanks.

My apologies if any of my language offended you.

regards

Simon

[cheerios]

Millinnium (crap, I KNOW I spelled that wrong, sorry!!),

Interesting view point, and not one I've ever heard before... it doesn't follow my own views, but it's completely valid that you have yours. Out of curiousity, are you Catholic, as someone suggested?

So, guess I'm gonna have to elaborate on my views on the whole free-will thing to keep from getting lumped in with Millenium's views... Here's my take on it:

1: there IS a God watching... who? dunno. Where? dunno. Guess we'll find out later...

2: He/She/It chooses not to interfere overtly in our lives.

Again, the why is unknown, but i can makes some guesses... I'd like to think that it's because he want's us to make our own decisions and choices in life, and not control us like some overprotective mother figure who won't let her baby out of the padded crib to ever learn to walk on it's own.

3: We, not God, not Satan, create our own misery, and our own happiness.

We make the choices. God doesn't make me choose whether to sneer at the handicapped woman who lives down the hall from me, or to help her open the door... God doesn't force me to be kind and friendly, but instead leaves it up to my concious to make those choices myself, I think, hoping that I will have the good concious to make the right choices.

And, related, although not directly is ..

4: no one religion has it all right.

The Catholics are no more correct about God, than the Muslims, than the Prodestants, than the Presbyterians, than the budhists, then any other sect of organized religion. THERE IS NO ONE TRUE WAY. But here's the thing... it doesn't matter. What matters is that you follow whta you believe, don't force anyone else to change their beliefs, and live a good life.

So, Ca$h's mom and all you other's who are attacking millenium for expressing his views, realize those are his beliefs, he's not recruiting you, only sharing, and if you don't agree, maybe explain why not, politely?? Thanks...

[Workers Comp Wampa]

Shame we have to DIE to find out the truth.

Why can't God just let us have 2 lives of paradise? Why does the one we are in now have to have pain and suffering before we have paradise?

Is this God's version of entertainment?

[cheerios]

Originally posted by Workers Comp Wampa:
<STRONG>Shame we have to DIE to find out the truth.

Why can't God just let us have 2 lives of paradise? Why does the one we are in now have to have pain and suffering before we have paradise?

Is this God's version of entertainment?</STRONG>

I sure as hell hope not... if so, God's got some explaining to do... but as far as I know and believe, it's not some grand experiment, just his way of allowing us to do our own thing without someone making all our choices for us.

As for 2 paradises... well, there's something I read somewhere... said "So long as the sun comes out, it can rain all the time" or something to that effect. Kinda the same idea, that good doesn't seem so good without the bad. Dunno the answer to your questions... no one does... Yeah, it sucks we gotta die before we find the truth, but that's the way it works. Sorry...

[Millennium]

Interesting view point, and not one I've ever heard before... it doesn't follow my own views, but it's completely valid that you have yours. Out of curiousity, are you Catholic, as someone suggested?

Nope. I know quite a few Catholics, and I've learned a fair amount about Catholiciam, but I am not Catholic myself.

And just to let you know, I respect your viewpoint as well. As with all others. I disagree with them, vehemently in some cases, but I do try and learn about them all the same, and try to understand where they are coming from. I don't always succeed -I'll be the first to admit that- but I feel that if I want people to understand my own viewpoint, then I owe it to them to try and understand theirs as well.

[Millennium]

Why can't God just let us have 2 lives of paradise? Why does the one we are in now have to have pain and suffering before we have paradise?

Why not one life of paradise? I mean, if it's paradise anyway, then why not just leave death out of the mix entirely?

That was the original plan. Sad to say, it's been derailed by this issue that has come up. And it's a valid issue, and one that should be settled. But what a waste, that billions (some 20 billion thus far, going by current estimates that one-fifth of all the people who have ever lived are alive today) will have to die before that happens.

Is this God's version of entertainment?

Quite the opposite, I think. But He's in a position not unlike the one we're in now, over how to deal with the terrorists: if it is going to be settled with any kind of surety, then the answer will not be an easy one. No doubt, He takes no joy in the situation. But if the issue is to be brought to a conclusion in a fair and definite manner, then it has to be.