It's a small world after all. -- ZazuWe are part of each other. —Simba and Kiara
I find myself agreeing with the absurdity of claiming the Bible = proof that God exists.
That's a pretty utilitarian view of a Higher Power that might not even exist or might not even have an interest in you if it does exist.Humans have only scraped the surface of this Higher Power's capabilities. We'd be capable of so much more if we'd lose the doubt in It/ He/ She and have faith in this Power from which the ability to overcome entropy is derived.
Anchors are what keeps ships from being crushed to pieces against rocky shorelines and kites from being blown away to oblivion in a gale.Doubt in this Providential Higher Power (which exists independent of our own typically humanoid misunderstandings) is an anchor.
I don't think that's really a question. The question is more, how do you evaluate risk of faith vs benefit of faith. IOW, when you step out in the dark, will you eventually come out in a better-lit world, or will you fall to your death in a chasm you were unable to see?Faith is a light in the darkness. Yes the first few steps into the dark it is dark but faith gives one the confidence to take the risk.
(by the way I updated my previous post a little, esp the part defining my view on the definition of faith, hope you get a chance to digest that part)That's a pretty utilitarian view of a Higher Power that might not even exist or might not even have an interest in you if it does exist.
What are these mechanisms? I mean, if you define God as "that which allows thermodynamics and gravitation to function" then cool. That god totally exists. I would call that god "mass" instead of "God", but it's real either way.Just because most people can't presently appreciate the mechanisms by which this Higher Power operates doesn't mean It/ He/ She/ Whatever doesn't exist.
Whatever the definition, my primary point is that whatever it is, it must first be established that a Higher Power exists (whatever else that is or is not either in addition to or subtraction of) is for the next iteration of debate.What are these mechanisms? I mean, if you define God as "that which allows thermodynamics and gravitation to function" then cool. That god totally exists. I would call that god "mass" instead of "God", but it's real either way.
I thought I've been explaining several reasons why gods do exist whether one believes they do or not. Hell, even the mere idea of it exists because if it did not you wouldn't be reading and writing the word if there wasn't an idea of such a thing as god...and ideas certainly exist.Everything else was just an argument from ignorance. A god (a more classic idea than the one presented above) very well could exist. Why would we presume one does, though?
I'm sorry, then I must have not been clear. Yes the first few steps are into the dark but not without the light of faith to illuminate them.No it isn't; to think otherwise is simply delusional.
You said yourself the first few steps are dark; this is blind faith.
clever. see aboveI think he meant "redundant".
Personally I don't care about blind faith. Never will be able to stomach it, much less act on it.Isn't blind faith about taking a risk?
Actually, from a holostic perspective this is a win-win. Higher Order wins because thats one less moron wasting O2 on planet earth and their elements go back to the ooze for recycling. Entropy wins because it gets to eat what was temporarily taken from it.What if you have a "magic" bulletproof potion and smear it over your body, then ask your friend to shoot you because you have faith?
How do you backtrack this unprofitable scenario?
[This actually happened]
You're going to have to define "higher power", then. I don't like talking about ambiguous blobs.Whatever the definition, my primary point is that whatever it is, it must first be established that a Higher Power exists (whatever else that is or is not either in addition to or subtraction of) is for the next iteration of debate.
If they exist, sure. I have no reason to suppose any do, though. So I don't.gods exist whether or not they are denied
Just because you've been so nonsensical so far, I'm going to refute that in both the literal and figurative ways you could mean it.for example the devoted Darwinist's god is evolutionary theory
Projection, pure and simple.they are just as 501c3 as any organized church around (universities, public education system ad nauseum).
The idea of unicorns exist, that doesn't mean unicorns do. Further, if you define a god as some force of nature, then I'm forced to agree that god exists, I'll simply call it the force of nature it is instead of "god". If we're calling thermodynamics a god, then it sure does exist, there's just no reason to dress the concept up in the clothes of "god". Other, unknown, gods may exist... but they're unknown... thus we don't know about them, and cannot come to any rational conclusion based on them, just like with any information you don't have.I thought I've been explaining several reasons why gods do exist whether one believes they do or not. Hell, even the mere idea of it exists because if it did not you wouldn't be reading and writing the word if there wasn't an idea of such a thing as god...and ideas certainly exist.
You claimed thermodynamics are evidence of a god, you claimed the theory of evolution contradicted thermodynamics, you said people were atheists for reasons I don't know any atheist to be an atheist for. You're wrong on basically every single statement of fact you've come to the table with. Either you're trolling, or you're sincerely ignorant. You don't even attempt to support your claims with any evidence or reason, you just say them and assume they're then carved into stone.I don't see how I've displayed any ignorance.
If you see the atheist point of view, explain it to me.I see the atheists point of view
You can say anything you like. Can you demonstrate your beliefs as true, somehow, though?but the die hard ones can't see the point of view typical of my position. I would say that atheists are the ignorant ones generally.
So what? What can be demonstrated as true? Epistemology, dude. How do you know what's actually correct?In summary: those with faith in a higher power (and can explain it using the laws of thermodynamics) have no issue understanding and believeing in both evolution + the necessary existence of a Higher Ordering principle/ power/ influence to input energy/ matter/ time into any given system.
Do you not suppose that an atheist could have spent the majority of his life looking for god, and simply never discovered it... thus is an atheist because he has no evidence of a god such that forming a belief in one is irrational? It's not half-assed to explain a thing with only the information you actually have about that thing. It's half-assed to presume you have information you actually don't have.Yet where atheists are half ass about their explanation of life & "god" is they only understand and see half the equation, i.e. evolution/ entropy.
Yet there's no need for this providence in order to explain anything, nor is there independent evidence of the providence itself, thus I don't presume it's actually a thing. There might be something, but I need evidence it exists before I actually believe that it does.The chicken & the egg coexist: evolved by the influence of Higher Ordering Providence (what that is exactly remains to be defined and is not in the scope of my interest in this thread at this time).
Superiority complex much?Actually, from a holostic perspective this is a win-win. Higher Order wins because thats one less moron wasting O2 on planet earth and their elements go back to the ooze for recycling. Entropy wins because it gets to eat what was temporarily taken from it.
Darwin award winners are humanoids being called up for an expedited return to a state of entropy. What dopes. Obviously and good riddance to bad rubbish. Goodness knows the planet could use fewer mouthbreathers and bipeds. Less hordes of low order zombies and more thinkers please. Next.
What if your mind* is filled with unicorns? Then their evidence is much more filling than their non-evidence.The idea of unicorns exist, that doesn't mean unicorns do.
That is an excellent thought. While there could be a higher power, there could be a lower "power" which causes the emergence of higher things ... like planets and people.I don't really understand why is there an assumption of some higher power? Why couldn't our universe be caused by some 8th dimensional bacteria that neither intended to do that nor could ever comprehend us, much less care about us? So maybe it was a lower power? Or a sidelong one?
That's more than one idea. I believe I read that married people do better (I forget in what way) than non-married. The reason could simply be that a married person gets support when something breaks. Same thing with people of religion. What if I kicked the bucket? Would my wife say, "Take him to Potter's Field and dump him? No. She'd go to the nearest church that we'd never been to and ask what to do. As a matter of interest we got married in a church we'd never been to. Everybody came to the wedding because they knew what a church was. Religion tends to provide a supportive social structure. All one has to do is say, "Hello religious organization", and they will support you. When atheists get this social support, atheism will flourish. Let atheism do its thing until it gets grounded. But I just hope if it gets power it won't beat up on theists claiming they are crazy. They aren't.Also, if theists do live longer, good for them. Just that a portion of most of their lives seems to be spent talking to an imaginary buddy. I would rather die sooner than do that.
I am content to be mentally ill by this definition.
There will always be people trying to convert others. There are already plenty of atheists doing just that. I mean those who call theists retarded, not those who defend their beliefs argumentatively because they want to live.But I just hope if it gets power it won't beat up on theists claiming they are crazy. They aren't.
Interesting idea. I do argue a lot inside my head and sometimes the arguments come from different perspectives. Now does that mean I can sustain several distinct threads of thought at once or is there more than one entity in my head? I decided that I can never figure that out, because I would either need to go out of my mind to some much wider place or to the place before my thoughts. So, I can't provide any proof that I do not have an imaginary friend. And four of us are pretty content with that, except for one, who thinks we are losers and gave up too fast.You mentioned an imaginary buddy. I don't but I could cook up some computer buddy who sits along side me to help me fix problems. It would be a fantasy. "God is an imaginary companion for adults" someone said. That doesn't sound too crazy to me. It's just an entity to lean on.
Either I don't understand what "hard materialistic materialism" is or we have different perspectives on it. To me it seems much more exciting and fun- c is the limit!Now one can go hard materialistic materialism. But that's the low level conception you mentioned. Kind of boring wouldn't you say?
Can't recommend any one specifically, but Thor looks like the guy who can get things done. I don't recall him being nailed to a tree either. Or just relax and chill, mods won't you keep here for a prolonged period of time. It would be irrational.I say people of religion are not necessarily fools. But not all people of religion are socially ept with those who don't partake ... as everyone well knows.
Indirectly I'm here in Siberia because I rubbed noses with an inept person of religion and got a little poisoned. Now whom should I pray to that out of self-interest I recover?