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.
Gotta love BNL....Not so sure about the show though...........
http://christwire.org/2011/05/cbs-show-big-bang-theory-sinful-atheist-propaganda/
There is a horrible anti-christian television show on CBS that is known as “The Big Bang Theory”. Just like the supposed scientific theory that it is loosely based on, the show is viomently anti-christian and I strongly urge all Christians to boycott it.http://christwire.org/2011/05/cbs-show-big-bang-theory-sinful-atheist-propaganda/
Hahaha Best laugh of the month.
Thanks Smooth
There is actually a lot of truths in propaganda like that. They put enough in there to make it look valid then twist things around with innuendo and references from bible lore and then present a totally invalid conclusion, which in that case is partly "the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world". Last time I went to the library I am pretty sure the bible wasn't on the shelf amongst the history books.
Myfist0....I think you are sadly mistaken.....
That could easily be the best laugh of the century....but alas....if that wacko site maintains its holier-than-thou standards there is likely to be even bigger laughs.....
The scary thought is that its actually a scary thought....that nutters as derranged/deluded as them are allowed breath.
Free country for free-range loonies.
Then they get into your political system and America is dead and buried even BEFORE China replaces it as the most economically important/influential country on the planet.
UR welcome....did you look at some of the other stuff there?....Not as good as "The Onion" but there are a few hidden gems.
Smooth....every time I see embedded links in bodies of text I think 'spam'....and my trigger finger gets twitchy....
Ha HA ha Really?
I love the Big Bang Theory (the TV show). When one is confident in his beliefs, he can enjoy all forms of entertainment, and not be offended.
Those crazy sites are worthless, btw. I don't even know of most of them.
Edit: well, they are good for a good laugh Reminds me of the Onion for religion
I think the Big Bang's relentless assault on skeptics by portraying them as socially dysfunctional nerds incapable of coping effectively with human feelings is a plot against atheists and their ilk. Of course, as a degenerate believer who can't think for himself and is a danger to others, I fully support that.
For the record, both my wife and daughter-in-law refer to me as "Sheldon".
I am an atheist but I don't mind people with a religion who don't use that to belittle or manipulate others (note I am not referring to your statement in your last post Sinperium ). But the wonders of the World and the Universe(s) is something that will never be fully known, and I think it's good to keep that sense of wonder while still keeping an open mind and be able to be practical and evidence based. Like I said in the Quantum teleportation thread, the ability to shift between "what if" and concrete ways of thinking is very useful.
Yep--keeping an open mind.
Here's a perspective (Warning: I'm about to paste a scripture verse--it's to serve a point and not meant to proselytize or convert--so chill with the reactionary stuff there please, anyone).
Written around the 8 B.C. and recorded in book of Isaiah...
“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.”
At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”
I can't count how many times I have heard people say, "I don't want anything to do with a heaven where all we do is sit around playing harps and singing about God." I can relate to that--doesn't sound that much fun--especially since the premise is that it will be for "eternity".
But I heard an interesting take years back when someone suggested that it might not be a bunch of seraphim dutifully reciting a chorus as a hymn in heavenly church.
Instead, this person suggested that it was as the seraphim continually studied God from the vantage they had been given, they constantly were seeing and understanding new things regarding Him and His nature and they were so mind blown at what they saw that they were exclaiming, "Holy!" just as you or I might say "Oh My God!" when confronted by something like a...hmm..double rainbow.
When you talk about concepts of "God" you can limit your view to religion or some anthropomorphized intellectual/philosophical construct or you can look at it from the perspective of, "If such a being exists, what must it be like?". If anything exists that mirrors the scope of biblical expectations of God, it must be pretty much beyond our ken.
It's essential if you reject the concept of a knowable God in contact with mankind that you fully reject it--or you are left at a point where you have to consider your entire worldview is flawed and not complete. I think this is why atheists are so adamant on the point.
On the other hand, if such a being does exist, I'd want to know so I keep an open mind. I also don't want a religious counterfeit or lie either.
If you always go back to, "Inconceivable!" then that isn't proof of anything other than, "I have chosen to believe X is true and refuse to think otherwise". If someone could show me, I'd want to know and I'm not personally threatened by people trying. It's not offensive--even when I disagree with them...and I'd change my mind tomorrow if they showed me something I didn't know that merited it--either way.
OMT - ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD ... BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD.
Now with that being said ... what point are we being adamant on??? I reference the highlighted portion. Is there anything in my definition that implies an interest in god or the religions that support him? I am here defending my secular views (and slam the RCC) ... but am forced to deal with these voiceless and uninvolved invisible useless spirits and most assuredly the unheard communication command structure giving the few … dominion over the many.
And I can tell you that what you think about others is very wrong. Find the symbols in the scripture.
"Seraphim" The name, a Hebrew masculine plural form, designates a special class of heavenly attendants of Yahweh's court.
"Heaven" a sacred place or a state of being
What exactly do you think "Heaven on Earth" is?
To me as an atheist it means that the earth should be treated as "sacred" (worthy of respect) and that "heaven" is a sacred state of mind or existence.
I simply don't need to think that God or heaven or angels are something more than symbols to understand these things. When I was very young and only thinking of these things in material terms (because that was how it was taught), it actually hindered me from understanding such things.Too many people take too many things in scripture literally because they do not understand that myth uses material things (as symbols) to describe immaterial things.
Look at for example the Ganges River. It is "sacred" because it provides drinking and irrigation water for those in the society where that religious belief has its roots. Yet it is polluted as "hell" today because some people don't understand why it is "sacred" and/or what that actually means.
Much of religion is broken in society today because some people can't distinguish between what should be taken literally and what shouldn't and how it should be translated and applied. Not to mention "popular" religion which appears to me much the same as political pandering, the only difference being they are pandering for money as opposed to votes.
@Boobz
It was a general statement--not directed at "you" (there's that confusion again). You're not telling me anything. You're saying a lot but it isn't really of any use. Put up another prominent atheist video--then maybe I'll understand. I'm slow ya know.
@Smoothseas
Did you read the disclaimer--I'm using it to make the point how much a change of thinking we would need to really try to wrap our heads around the concept of an actual "God". You respond with an exegesis, biblical text commentary and word definitions.
You missed the point.
The point is that many people don't even know what they are reading so you won't figure it out because you put in within the realm of some fairyland instead of the immaterial thing that it is.
You were the one who presented the biblical text. I simply pointed out that what it represents cannot be found if you paint the picture in material terms as you did, as opposed to understanding the immaterial meaning it is trying to convey. A question of whether "God is ones consciousness" or not is really where the thin line between theism and atheism lies and not within some fairytale including heaven and angels.
Well, i plan to visit first the Jannah ( muslim heaven ) for my 70 virgin and end up in the Elysium ( Greek paradise ) for party with my friend Bacchus/Dionysus, enjoying his wine and my virgins...
Best to do it before you die because "heaven on earth" most certainly eclipses "life after death".
Who speak of spirit... The greek paradise ( Elysium )is located on earth and not in some upper spiritual plane...
These are two in number, separated by a very narrow strait; they are ten thousand furlongs distant from Africa, and are called the Islands of the Blest. They enjoy moderate rains at long intervals, and winds which for the most part are soft and precipitate dews, so that the islands not only have a rich soil which is excellent for plowing and planting, but also produce a natural fruit that is plentiful and wholesome enough to feed, without toil or trouble, a leisured folk. Moreover, an air that is salubrious, owing to the climate and the moderate changes in the seasons, prevails on the islands. For the north and east winds which blow out from our part of the world plunge into fathomless space, and, owing to the distance, dissipate themselves and lose their power before they reach the islands; while the south and west winds that envelope the islands sometimes bring in their train soft and intermittent showers, but for the most part cool them with moist breezes and gently nourish the soil. Therefore a firm belief has made its way, even to the Barbarians, that here is the Elysian Field and the abode of the blessed, of which Homer sang. Plutarch
For laugh a little more... the anti-christian scientific theory called big-bang was found by a guy from my country... The name of the guy is Georges Lemaitre ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ) and he was a :
Catholic priest !!!
Just remember.. the sex of those virgins is not divulged..... they could be fat sweaty geeks that never got laid
A Tale of Two Truths
I have some comments about science and God. I will begin with the 'beginning' and finish with my comments about a comparison between science and Catholicism and not between science and God since much of what I know about God is through Catholicism.
In the Bible, Adam and Eve represent the first people who developed their own idea about good and evil after they ate the fruit of knowledge from the tree of good and evil. That the fruit is from a natural source can also indicate that Adam and Eve's knowledge of good and evil can also be developed from a natural source that is different from the supernatural source of God. Their eating of the fruit helped them to internalize in themselves their own preferred sources of good and evil such as from the human mind or from nature independently from the source of God. As a result, God 'locked' them out of the Garden of Eden, and into a world of conflicts about ideas and practices of good and evil. All people who are born after Adam and Eve, from the perspective of Catholicism, are born with the ability for original sin. Reportedly, Judaism does not believe in the concept of inherited original sin. One story from Judaism is that God created Adam and Eve to be fallen to know the consequence of sin, and after possessing the knowledge of good and evil and understanding the consequence of sin to go out into the world (expelled fromEden) and do good. From Judaism: no person or group of people can fall into the pride of sin by claiming a nobler ancestry other than Adam and Eve from whom all humanity is descended from one image of God.
The question has been, is the story about Adam and Eve eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil a true story or an allegory? From the Catholic catechism paragraph 396, "The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits [of original sin, therefore humans should be] dependent on their Creator". I write "should be" because humans have free will. Also from the Catholic catechism paragraph 390, "The account of the fall [of Adam and Eve] in "Genesis 3" uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man".
That God prohibited Adam and Eve from eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil can symbolically represent God protecting Adam and Eve from the possibility of harm when they act without limitations. An interpretation about not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is to be free of death, perhaps spiritual death. An act without limitations has been defined by license. An act within reasonable limitations has been defined as a freedom. For example, actions that can be dangerous require a civil license usually sometime after proper training, such as for using a hand gun, driving a motor vehicle on a public road, or working as an electrician. A lack of a required civil license is a legal restraint. God does not give licentious behavior, which can be an excess of license, and which can be a cause for spiritual or civil disorder. Licentious behavior as an act outside of moral limits and can develop into hostility toward acceptable good behavior. Instead, God gives abilities for the purpose of good work, usually given as divine graces that can be used for a person's spiritual well-being and an abundance of life.
About Catholics judging good or evil, Catholics can acknowledge a true witnessing of good or evil, and Catholics can be a witness about God's words about good and evil; however, Catholics have been told not to judge a person as going to heaven or to hell. From the New Testament, John 5:22 (New International Version), "... [God] the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all [spiritual] judgment to the Son, ...".
The Catholic Church owns and operates the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Vatican City, established in 1603. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is reportedly concerned with objective science and not science that is subjective to politics, religion and personal agenda. The Vatican owns and operates a state of art telescope in Arizona, USA. Pope Pius XI wrote in 1936 that true science is never in contrast with the truth of Christian faith (a belief that truth cannot contradict itself); and, Pope Pius XI also wrote that for the progress of science, the Catholic Church and its members can work for the discovery and in the service of truth for science. For example, the science of archaeology reportedly has verified some place names mentioned in the Old Testament. Pope John II wrote in 1979 that faith and science can have a harmony of truth, and that believers can investigate nature to analyze and know the work of its intelligent creator. The Catholic Church reportedly is in a constant reconciliation with science as new truths are verified. In my words, examples of science that can oppose the Catholic faith are sciences that detract a person from the Catholic faith and therefore the possibility of spiritual salvation and an eternal life in heaven; science that can use truth to invalidate divine presence, purpose, cause, and will; and science that does not respect the dignity of life, which can dehumanize people by carelessly placing people at risk. Based on John 14:6 (New International Version), Jesus replied to Thomas, "... I am the way and the truth and the life. ...".
My answer to "Science and God (One and the same?)" is that science can be a search for truth in knowing and for applicable knowledge. Catholicism can be a desire for truth for knowing and not 'falling off' the way to heaven, and for promoting the well-being and the abundance of natural and spiritual life. Science and Catholicism often use different means for truth as in the scientific method of science where people can use their own efforts to discover truth, and in religion where truth is revealed by God from God's word and works from the past and hopefully in the future. Both people of science and religion can use reason, intellect and common sense for a further understanding and explanation of truth. Therefore, I think that in the tale of two truths the in between where science and God can meet is truth, however not always using the same method.
Oh, I DO hope so....otherwise his arse will be grass.
I think that side was made of trolls, not zealots. Her name was Susan B. XENU after all
Also, 'eternity' could mean extreme time dilation or existence outside of time (perhaps similar to being stuck inside a black hole ... only more)-> and yet still 'active' from some frame of reference-> not motionless, but not walking around either - 2 dimensional frames of reference would be meaningless.
I should have read your OP better … instead of just jumping right in the fray … a problem I will rectify in the future for sure. I wish I had reread your post before all the intolerance came out … You bring out some very interesting concepts and that could have been fun to dissect for merit. But now, I don’t think the religious folk would allow such pondering without continuous ‘interference’ and ‘corrections’ that always seem to boggle the mind. It would be nice if we got back on topic.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
