Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
Here are some good Wikipedia links for those who actually might be interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
I am certain Thomas Jefferson had an IQ well above that of a toaster as well as the teabag he used to enjoy a beverage with his toast.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
That can be used right back at you. You can't disprove his existence either.
No need to share your "new & enlightened" definitions of atheism. Everybody knows what atheism is. People have long known that long before the internet ever existed. Although I'm sure there is probably a new religion out there composed of younger folk who believe the internet is God and always existed, before the beginning of Time. They might be a pair of them knocking on your door soon.
The ones who have come knocking at my door so far have been "believers". The Christian Atheists I know are often sitting in the pews of well established Churches, including the same churches that belong to what some here have called the only true Christian Church.
lol k
This one might let you in on "the experience" so that you might finally know what it is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362
You'll just need a ticket on a slow boat to China Holland to get in on it.
This thread has survived for 2 1/2 years.
It's possibly a record for a thread of contentious subject matter....however recent comments suggest its life is going to be limited with closure imminent.
Argue the topic, not the person.
It does can potentially teach the "morality of Christ" so in that respect is can be a useful way to teach ethics. I went to Sunday school as a kid and I did learn there to "play nice" as one might say. I went to a Congregational Church which are autonomous so much is left up to the pastor. When I started going to services and in particular bible study that is when I really started to question certain things and I had a pastor who basically said it is up to the individual to define their personal God. So I did (and still do) and it always comes out much the same. An individual (man-made) concept which the individual defines for themselves. So it will always be much the same with me until something actually proves it is something more than that. I have no purpose for religious rituals or having another authoritarian tell me what to do to make my life more meaningful or give it a purpose. I can and have figured that out for myself without having to pass the collection plate to purchase an answer.
I could probably call myself a Christian but you know where that goes. Others I know who think much the same sometimes do call themselves Christians at times....after all for some "strange" reason not doing so can be "bad for business".
Everytime someone says something that makes you realize you're wrong. You get mad and just call people names and bitch some more.
MortalKhrist; every time someone says something that makes convinces me I am wrong … why I am amazed ... and then I change my opinion and trudge ever onward with something new in my arsenal ... more knowledge than I had before. Whatever you were trying to say I guess is between you and your maker ... because it is just balderdash … oh, IMO.
How could you possibly know? You can't know. You have not had the same "experience" as me!!
Oh wait. Nobody else has had the same experience as me....Geez never thought of that....DOH
What I said was fact, not opinion. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God.
Also, would you please think before you post? I feel like you don't put your arguments in a logical order. So I never know what you are trying to say.
What exactly do you think others have wrong? If it is specifically that God does exist to you and that God doesn't exist to someone else then only you are wrong. Wrong not because God does or doesn't exist but wrong because if you state that the other cannot prove or disprove it than neither can you prove or disprove it.
The "prove or can't prove" argument doesn't work because that would infer both sides were agnostic which obviously isn't the case here.
The point of view of an atheist is that to believe God as a supernatural being, would require a certain level of proof, and since adequate proof is determined by each individuals own unique set of life experiences, to that individual there is ultimately not enough proof or maybe no proof at all or maybe enough proof that reveals God to be something else altogether.
Maybe that was a goal or thought of Thomas Jefferson.
This is what I'm talking about. What does that mean?
You need proof to disprove something as well. Otherwise, all we have is opinions.
Well then disprove that apples exist.......otherwise the existence of apples is just an opinion.
If one person has proof and another person comes along and doesn't have proof--it does not invalidate any proof the first person has had.
Arguing, "Well since I don't have their proof and it never happened to me then it doesn't exist" is actually kind of asinine.
I find math meticulous and aggravating to perform at length but there are mathematicians who swear it's a transportive experience for them. If they fail to get me to understand math at their level of ability and fail to get me to try it, their experience isn't "disproved". They are simply experiencing something in a way I can't and don't understand.
And no...they don't have to "prove" their experience for it to be true.
apples have already been proven to exist - at least at a humans level of reasoning - so there is no point to disprove their existence. You need to try a little harder to find faults in my logic.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
