Question for Creationists

by stardesk Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

QUESTION FOR CREATIONISTS

For the sake of this argument we must assume God was responsible for the creation of all life on Earth. To put the question in the right perspective, a brief quote from Genesis:

Genesis 24: ‘And God went on to say “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to their kind.” And it came to be.’

Now the scene is set for this serious question to our Creationist members:
If God was/is so powerful, able to create suns and planets, and all the life on Earth, why create dinosaurs then allow them to be exterminated from the planet about 65 million years ago? This event was believed to have been caused by a meteor 6 miles wide, (and a couple of others) slamming into Earth. Coupled with huge volcanic eruptions such events caused a change in the atmosphere, consequently responsible for a climate change making food resources in short supply and the ultimate death of the dinosaurs, coupled with poisonous gasses from the volcanic eruptions. This was exacerbated due to thick dust darkening the skies for a year or more causing the death and destruction of a lot of plant life as well as the dinosaurs.

As asked above, why did God allow this to happen and have to start all over again with different, new species of life? Surely with his power he could have stopped the meteors, or was it beyond his abilities, thereby making him not so powerful as portrayed and believed?

Over to you folks.

by Lone Wolf Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:42 am

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:............................................................

the Dalai Lama has already made mockery of ALL his arguments. Because Buddhists can Change their system on encountering a better explanation..
Buddhist are encouraged to reach their own opinion through observation and meditation.. Science's Critical difference it the requirement of Mathematical evidence.. but apart from that the reach for the same goal... enlightenment through he attainment of knowledge about the universe

What a load of gobbledygook.
So now two brilliant liberal minded men are now some how racist based on no evidence other than you have no comprehension what racism is.

..............................

RUBBSH, Didgeri' !!!

POINT 1. NEITHER of them is a true particularly "liberal" minded person..

AS WITH your placing your own interpretation on the terms "left" and "socialist" in other threads, here again you appear to be placing an undeserved label on two men who don't deserve it ! Your apparent interpretation of the term "liberal" is at sharp odds with how much of the rest of the world understands it..

2. AS WITH other criteria, your claim that they are two "brilliant... men.." is a purely subjective opinion on your part...
A couple of boring old farts, and a good cure for insomnia, in my opinion.. Sleep

3.

OxfordDictionaryOnline wrote:
racism
[ ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m ]

NOUN
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
"theories of racism"

Powered by OxfordDictionaries · Oxford University Press

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:53 am

Lone Wolf wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

What a load of gobbledygook.
So now two brilliant liberal minded men are now some how racist based on no evidence other than you have no comprehension what racism is.

..............................

RUBBSH, Didgeri' !!!

POINT 1.
NEITHER of them is a true "liberal" minded person..

AS WITH your placing your own interpretation on the terms "left" and "socialist", here again you appear to be placing an undeserved label on two men who don't deserve it ! Your apparent interpretation of the term "liberal" is at sharp odds with how much of the rest of the world understands it..

2. AS WITH other criteria, your claim that they are two "brilliant... men.." is a purely subjective opinion on your part...
A couple of boring old farts, and a good cure for insomnia, in my opinion..

3.
OxfordDictionaryOnline wrote:
racism
[ ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m ]

NOUN

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
"theories of racism"

Powered by OxfordDictionaries · Oxford University Press

Atually both are reall liberals and that shows you do not understand racism which is centred around race which is a human concept. So my views that they aree liberal and are very much central liberals and not left really leaves you lloking blank Bee.
You claim it is subjective their qualifications?
Behave Bee, each of them hold liberal views. They certainly are not racist, which again is a human concept which makes Veya's view fall apart, if a God does exist as they would then have created humans as one race.
I am a Liberal Tory and it is you confusing factors where you can holds traits of both. How you think everyone has to have only one set of traits is just plain absurd.
So no evidence so far they are racist, even you have made a major cock up which I will show you and wish you to present the evidence which shows they are:

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Athiests are not a race, just as Muslims are bot a race.
Thanks for the giggle though

I shall await anyones evidence which shows they are racist.
Remember race is a human concept, there is only one biological human race.
You have to find where the human categories of race, wherer they view people of a given race as either superior or inferior.

Good Luck

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:59 am

Eilzel wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

Actually your whole argument about why it is not is RACIST and Disrespectful to ANY NOT ABRAHAMIST
Why do I OR ANYONE ELSE have to accept your White man's already proven Wrong Definition??? HE is RACIST because he is telling me I HAVE To use HIS definition ONLY, If I want to use a definition that is held by another race he is going to stick his fingers in his ears and sing LALALLALALAL.

AND 2 why on earth use a Definition that you know is wrong? that is either being disingenuous and not actually debating anything? Literally IF you tried that in any debating Club You would be Laughed at for being pathetic.
But No this guy has So many Blind Faithful that they lap it up like he was the fucking Pope.

AT no Point EVER in his entire career has he address Plato's Animus, He has never addressed Buddhism. Obvious from his statements he doesn't even understand the cross relationship Between Buddhism and Hinduism (Buddha is a Hindu God).
Man the Guy is So SMART he can Make up a definition then prove that Specific Definition is wrong Fuck me Why not just follow the bible if your gonna refuse to think

Yes as you point out he is taking about 1 VERY specific God and then proceeds to make claims about ALL religious people..
Gods are linked to Cultures and Races.
So Yes Very Racist TO TELL other people What they can believe, Even when Your really telling them what you believe or YOUR old culture did! how the fuck does that apply to them.

So even if NOT racist then he is Just Stupid

1. Racism is based on prejudice based on race- atheism, of which there are black, white, Asian, etc does not differentiate. Nor do the religious. That you want to pigeon hole religions according to race is actually the racist assumption here.

2. Dawkins' has talked little about Buddhism- but he doesn't NEED to. Since Buddhism is not in itself a THEISTIC religion.

3. Buddha is a Hindu god according to Hindus. He is an avatar of Vishnu. BUT according to millions of Buddhists around the world Buddha is NOT a god and the man himself did NOT consider himself to be one. So Buddhism and atheism can and indeed do co-exist often.

4. No atheism does not address one specific god. It addresses the god of the 3 core Abrahamic faiths, it also addresses the gods of Hinduism, and it also addresses the long 'dead' gods of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt etc. It addresses ANY religion or believe which suggest a 'god' 'created' 'everything' one way or another- which all those faiths do- Buddhism and some others do NOT do that, ergo they are NOT the targets of atheism. Since 'theism' or even 'deism' are specifically beliefs about a creator god/s.

5. What do you actually understand by the word 'theism' (no a) because you are all over the show until you pin that one down.

6. If I tell you you MUST be a socialist, that is NOT racist. Nor is it racist to state it is silly to believe in gods of any kind. You are just using a stock word based on the simplistic background notion that all atheists are intelligent white men and believers are colourful tribal people.

+1

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:17 am

Ok Mono-culturally focused to the point of discrimination.. and really telling people not that it is just wrong but that they can't even use it to debate is Institutional Racism at it's finest...

Point 3 is irrelevant he also said not to worship him but many still do.. Plus promotion to being 'a Buddha through enlightenment' is 'godhood' by another name. Additionally being more familiar with Chinese Zen Buddhism the 2nd and 3rd Buddhas were better. Wink

And Really Disproves the Greek gods that DIDN'T create earth..
Cause the Greeks proposed that the earth mother and sky father Always existed
and we are meant to be living in the space between them.. as are gods and before them titans.
(actually not hard climb to the top of mount Olympus Rolling Eyes

they were too specific Cool

)

But Still Not Plato's Anima mundi often translated as 'world soul' but it is more complex than that

"an intrinsic connection between all living things on the planet, which relates to our world in much the same way as the soul is connected to the human body. "
"Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related"

He is referring to it as both energy and a being in one which brings me to my real reason for criticism of Dawkins form of Atheism.

it is not just that Tribal people, It is ME a White man I speak English and English does not contain the words to express what I want to propose, the closest we have is something between gods/divine and can only makes sense in the words of other cultures that we translate to either god gods divine.... or devils

(this is why I say 'institutional racism' we even built belittling other cultures and religions into our translations of their languages)
Junjinkai are not Devils bit not are they gods
Yhi I can translate as 'the sun's soul' but that is not really accurate as it is more god than that but not a god as Abrahamist would propose a god is.

Any way Men like Dawkins would try to shut me down before the debate began by forcing me to use a definition that I in no way agree with and I agree is indefensible.. Railroading me no different than a Churchman would.. he does not promote knowledge and thinking.
Plus all he does is promote Abrahamism as The 'go to' religion, Someone like me that feels that yes there is something more but not necessarily as educated in foreign/dead religions and cultures may assume that it is that or nothing so will choose that because they know (in their reality) there is not nothing.

AND the OTHER point where I use Sam Harris
Question for Creationists - Page 6 45412_445099555570237_939251506_n

Question for Creationists - Page 6 45412_445099555570237_939251506_n

Okay Sam why does the sun grow yet burn the fuel that is supposedly all it is made of? prove it..
I already KNOW science does not know the answer.
How much do we really know? a lot less than men like this would have you believe...

I couldn't find the one that i think is his about burden of proof but
"OK I don't know what number should be there to represent the 'divine/energy/Qi/soul' or 'Yhi/god'... but in the case of the sun WE DO KNOW we are missing something.. So why do you propose Zero? and where is the Physical mass? You are the one proposing a not only a finite number but Zero, the most profound number in Mathematics"
(there is Literally A Nobel Prize in answering that)

This one is not relevant but I can counter it too
Question for Creationists - Page 6 Tumblr_m8wxjvFNtq1rb8qy1o1_500

Question for Creationists - Page 6 Tumblr_m8wxjvFNtq1rb8qy1o1_500

Australian Aboriginals and the Wampanoag people (native Americans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampanoag_people

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:29 am

It really beggars belief.
Seriously.
Vaye has truely proven my point on where religion can make people irrational.
I really have had enough mumbo jumbo to last me a life time in the last 12 hours.

I mean now Veya is debating Sam harris if he is on the forum, for fuck sake.

Shocked

Here you go veya if you wish to believe he is wrong on many things you can take up a personal email exchange and post all the emails here for all of us to read.

http://www.samharris.org/contact

Good Luck

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:51 am

@Brasidas

which again is a human concept which makes Veya's view fall apart, if a God does exist as they would then have created humans as one race.

Ok I do NOT BELIEVE in a Single 'creator' god but if I did and I was not an Abrahamist (too defined) but a general monotheist (like Eddie) I would say that god just needed to create the First single cell asexual carbon based life form on the planet he already but the sun Jupiter the moon and everything else in the right position and motion to ensure things proceed to god's will.

And No the bible says they became 3 cant be bothered to look it up but the 3 sons of someone or other went there separate ways (one to Europe one to Middle east one to Africa) this is also where the old testament endorses slavery saying that he said to the sons of those 3 that they were allowed to enslave anyone that was 'not their brother' which was taken as not your race.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:55 am

@Didge
You follow him like a he is a profit Rolling Eyes

he isn't even that smart.... Surely Even you knew about Cultures that were actually nice to early European settlers only to be killed or dispossessed of their lands..

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:06 am

veya_victaous wrote:@Didge
You follow him like a he is a profit
he isn't even that smart.... Surely Even you knew about Cultures that were actually nice to early European settlers only to be killed or dispossessed of their lands..

Well I gave you the link and now you are wimping out Veya of having the chance to prove him wrong, which is odd as you are so adamant you are right.

Enjoy

by Eilzel Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:02 am

Veya, the Greek gods created life on Earth, they were 'gods' in a traditional sense. That kind of belief is what atheism decries.

People may worship Buddha 'as a god', but that isn't even what he intended or taught them to do. Achieving nirvana is not achieving god hood.

And you still haven't defined theism or racism by your terms so your arguments here a slipperly for the sake of it- there is nothing clever about being loose in the extreme with language.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:34 am

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:@Didge
You follow him like a he is a profit
he isn't even that smart.... Surely Even you knew about Cultures that were actually nice to early European settlers only to be killed or dispossessed of their lands..

Well I gave you the link and now you are wimping out Veya of having the chance to prove him wrong, which is odd as you are so adamant you are right.

Enjoy

Well As to answer one of them he has to win the nobel prize Rolling Eyes

I thought it was pretty obvious that I already know he doesn't possess the answer..

And as I am a polytheist agnostic I am by his own rules in the position to ask for evidence as he is proposing a finite number as variable when I propose the variable is unknown.
there is no evidence either way So it is currently impossible for him to do so.
I cant Prove him wrong... I can just prove he doesn't know.

You really cant keep up with the finer points of Philosophy Suspect

Claiming I claimed things I didn't ..... Except the Peoples one That is definitely wrong Even you have to admit that. Many a Peaceful peoples have been destroyed by a violent one.

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:53 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Well I gave you the link and now you are wimping out Veya of having the chance to prove him wrong, which is odd as you are so adamant you are right.

Enjoy

Well As to answer one of them he has to win the nobel prize I thought it was pretty obvious that I already know he doesn't possess the answer..

And as I am a polytheist agnostic I am by his own rules in the position to ask for evidence as he is proposing a finite number as variable when I propose the variable is unknown.
there is no evidence either way So it is currently impossible for him to do so.
I cant Prove him wrong... I can just prove he doesn't know.

You really cant keep up with the finer points of Philosophy Claiming I claimed things I didn't ..... Except the Peoples one That is definitely wrong Even you have to admit that. Many a Peaceful peoples have been destroyed by a violent one.

His qualifications:

Mr. Harris is a cofounder and the CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. He received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.

I think he will have a way better grasp on philosophy than you will ever hope to achieve.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:00 am

Eilzel wrote:Veya, the Greek gods created life on Earth, they were 'gods' in a traditional sense. That kind of belief is what atheism decries.
http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/greek_myth/creation.html
Yes but they are still no the creators of everything..
http://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/The_Myths/Creation_of_Man_by_Prometheus/creation_of_man_by_prometheus.html
even Man was made by a Titan not a god
Zeus had Hephaestus create a mortal of stunning beauty. The gods gave the mortal many gifts of wealth. He then had Hermes give the mortal a deceptive heart and a lying tongue. This creation was Pandora, the first woman.
they did make Woman

People may worship Buddha 'as a god', but that isn't even what he intended or taught them to do. Achieving nirvana is not achieving god hood. Yes it is If gods are beings that poses enlightenment than it is

And you still haven't defined theism(cant really, not in English) or racism( I conceded Racism should be Mono-cultural focus or the broader 'Institutional Racism' You Win that point) by your terms so your arguments here a slipperly for the sake of it- there is nothing clever about being loose in the extreme with language. NUP totally missed my point. it is too simple for it doesn't have enough words to reflect the potential variables once you start using it to define philosophy... i.e why do Eskimos have so many words for white.. same thing

I really hope I am not annoying you too much but I like to debate philosophy of theological nature... So I have already made very complex arguments in my head Question for Creationists - Page 6 3893789544

Question for Creationists - Page 6 3893789544

And I'm pretty sure that is annoying for some people

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:06 am

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Well I gave you the link and now you are wimping out Veya of having the chance to prove him wrong, which is odd as you are so adamant you are right.

Enjoy

Well As to answer one of them he has to win the nobel prize I thought it was pretty obvious that I already know he doesn't possess the answer..

And as I am a polytheist agnostic I am by his own rules in the position to ask for evidence as he is proposing a finite number as variable when I propose the variable is unknown.
there is no evidence either way So it is currently impossible for him to do so.
I cant Prove him wrong... I can just prove he doesn't know.

You really cant keep up with the finer points of Philosophy Claiming I claimed things I didn't ..... Except the Peoples one That is definitely wrong Even you have to admit that. Many a Peaceful peoples have been destroyed by a violent one.

His qualifications:

Mr. Harris is a cofounder and the CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. He received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.

I think he will have a way better grasp on philosophy than you will ever hope to achieve.

I already know that. I said YOU ... again claiming things I didn't Question for Creationists - Page 6 3201073460

And Yes He Probably Knows enough not to Answer them.. The Sun one is a Quantum Mathematics problem LIKE I said Nobel Prize Worthy...

by stardesk Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:17 am

Good morning folks. WOW! I didn't expect this topic to go so far. It seems to have diverted though, therefore, and in answer to Veya:
I would suggest you read the works of Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Brian Cox, and several other well educated, open-minded, non-racist professors. They have spent their time studying their subjects in geat depth and their findings are without doubt.

Another important point: Evolution has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. There is incontrovertible evidence for a slow progression from the first single-celled life to a process of division and progression to multiple life-forms, up to and through to the 30,000,000 species now on Earth. My favourite piece of evidence is the fossil Archaeopteryx, a transitional mammal displaying the rudiments of feathers. And of course we musn't forget the Baleen whale, a whale that has legs and feet inside its flippers, the remants of the time it was a land animal.

There is so much evidence for evolution, and so many contadictions to creation that God now has no place in a modern, technological, educated environment. Pimitive people had no idea about the Universe or Earth's bad hair days, therefore they attributed such catastrophes to a God, (and many a Goddess.)

Brasidas and Eilzel have made some good points and racism doesn't come into the arguement, and may I say nothing to do with this topic. Such diversionary tactics spoil what could have been a good, interesting topic.

Whinge over, time for coffee, catch you all later.

by Eilzel Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:27 am

You're not annoying me at all veya I just feel like you are on a tangent here, perhaps based off your own other thinking- the points you may have mulled over in your head are not the points being put to you here. It seems to me you have an unshifting view of 'what' an atheist is and how one thinks.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:04 pm

Well That I will admit..
Two of my School friends now have Doctorates in Quantum Stuff (one Physics one Mathematics). And we are all very good at maths thus most of these things comes down to mathematics... 'from my perspective'... an Atheist is Proposing a finite number to a problem.. specifically zero... we don't know so you could fairly argue it is 50/50.. but (this is where they are better at maths than me) there is actually better odds than there is something (theoretically) simply because the zero is normally very obvious and all the obvious zero using theories have failed to explain the suns power/mass/heat it gets tricky because most theories get at least one right mathematically but not the others..

So My issue with atheism is the same with any religion that provides a definitive definition for something it doesn't know...

And the Sun is one of the most common gods based on the amount of times humans have created a deity in honor of it... rather than number of followers.

Also I am Multicultural.. I was actually thinking about this the other day from these discussions I'm not sure I'm a westerner anymore confused

I have white skin but most of my 'ways of thinking' are more inline with Eastern/Other.... I find a lot of western held 'ideas/preconceptions' frustrating... although I'm not sure if i am just head of the curve when it comes to whole hearted adoption of Multiculture/Hybridculture (which demographically is likely, I'm Half caste and most of my friends are half caste, first gen or immigrants because they are the people that I grew up with)

Most Buddhist would refer to themselves as non-theists not Atheists.. I really did go spend a week in monastery living like a monk when I was 20.. it was actually that, that convinced me I didn't believe in Buddhism as an institution... the philosophy is good .. but basically the thing that made me decide that it is the Institution not the beliefs themselves are actually the problem with religion/faith..

there are Scientifically proven benefits to having faith and if they can be achieved through saying hello sun every so often why not
lol!

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:30 pm

@Star
Brian Cox is good I actually use some of his work to come to my conclusions Smile

Infinity is also a very Telling 'number' Like I said 50/50 in absence of a provable answer which may come.. but I suggest it will be in the form of pure energy that is different from any energy currently defined in science.. we are still defining stuff.. the 2002 Nobel prize was for essentially defining two of the variables need to get closer to an answer.. a new subatomic particle that only exist in the sun(or similar stars) and are pretty much as close to pure energy as matter can be. and change as soon as they leave through process of Solar neutrino oscillations..
But even then the knowledge about neutrinos in general is limited we still don't know how they actually work as they act like they have mass but don't have mass. confused

Will be interesting what they get from this
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-neutrinos-detected-borexino/

Solving the neutrino mass puzzle, in turn, could point to a deeper theory of particle physics than the current Standard Model, which does not account for neutrino masses. Borexino’s latest feat of precision neutrino measurement suggests that experiments are finally becoming powerful enough to pry such secrets from the evasive particles.

Unfortunately the facility wont be finished until 2022

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:02 pm

stardesk wrote:
Another important point: Evolution has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. There is incontrovertible evidence for a slow progression from the first single-celled life to a process of division and progression to multiple life-forms, up to and through to the 30,000,000 species now on Earth. My favourite piece of evidence is the fossil Archaeopteryx, a transitional mammal displaying the rudiments of feathers. And of course we musn't forget the Baleen whale, a whale that has legs and feet inside its flippers, the remants of the time it was a land animal.
Sorry i 100% believe it but it is not proven beyond doubt or more correctly we are not yet 100% certain of the mechanics by which it works the obvious does seem reproduction but then things like Ants make it tricky.. So no one is arguing against Evolution and Although i am not a monotheist...
God could Simply have created the first single cell organism(science has barely touched 'the first life') Since he also placed the planets and sun in their orbits he thus caused his will... sure from the beginning of time to now might seem like a long time to us but time should be irrelevant to a god.

Brasidas and Eilzel have made some good points and racism doesn't come into the arguement, and may I say nothing to do with this topic. Such diversionary tactics spoil what could have been a good, interesting topic.
Yes it does because You keep framing god in the definitions of Abrahamism.... Eilzel has made some good points like forcing me to define theism which i cant because I am using a concept of a soul/god as one, Since I, from Buddhism, believe that one attains godhood through enlightenment of the soul.. I also believe in reincarnation so it is very difficult to explain to people that don't also have preconceptions of reincarnation and even more so when they have preconceptions of an monotheist all-power god

And What if God is as Proposed by Futurama

Don't take it lightly because it is a cartoon they also Mathematically proved that a monotheist god that was all powerful all knowing would have no free will in another episode

by Eilzel Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:19 pm

But atheists do also dismiss Hinduism, since the absurdity of their gods (physically) aside, their gods were involved in creation.

Ok, if you can and do frame this as anything linked to racism then can you tell me which 'races' atheism discriminates against?

Once again 'a-theism' is a direct response to 'theistic' gods and religions. If a god or religion is not 'theistic' then atheism is not interested in it- which is not the same as claiming it isn't true entirely.

And though we do consider the answer to is there a god, zero, yet again it must be emphasised that like everyone there is always openness to being proven otherwise- we just don't think any current claim to the existence of a theistic or deistic god exists.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:39 pm

Eilzel wrote:But atheists do also dismiss Hinduism, since the absurdity of their gods (physically) aside, their gods were involved in creation.

Ok, if you can and do frame this as anything linked to racism then can you tell me which 'races' atheism discriminates against?

Once again 'a-theism' is a direct response to 'theistic' gods and religions. If a god or religion is not 'theistic' then atheism is not interested in it- which is not the same as claiming it isn't true entirely.

And though we do consider the answer to is there a god, zero, yet again it must be emphasised that like everyone there is always openness to being proven otherwise- we just don't think any current claim to the existence of a theistic or deistic god exists.

I never said Atheism in all forms was racist.... Sam Harris and Dawkins explanations for Atheism are Racist.. but as said I really should have used the broader institutional racism or Mono-culturally centered

Institutional racism or systemic racism describes forms of racism which are structured into political and social institutions

And now I think you are taking your beliefs and applying them to Atheism, as it is specifically 'there is and can be no god(s)' from a philosophical rather than an 'practicing atheist' which is a bit of an oxymoron.. Suspect

Yes even if you claim Atheism today you can convert to something else tomorrow.. free will includes changing you mind Wink

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:44 pm

on Hindus their one saving argument is that since they elevated Buddha
they can rightfully claim to be allowed to follow his teachings.. which them allows them to follow science.
the condition which is debatable even among Hindu Authorities is whether there is supersede or precedence in relation to which rules they follow as Buddha is a newer addition if it is supersede than they can by Hinduism follow Science

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:06 pm

there is no difference between a practicing atheist and practicing agnostic.

it is only the institutions that make the difference between those with faith and those without in practice.

and Atheism could still become an institution in which case it could fall into the same things many religious institutions have... I can see in some people it already they are taking men like Dawkins and Harris on faith they are not reasonably considering all the perspectives (Dawkins is better than Harris)

Like one of the points that didge ignored that reasonable peoples in the past have been essentially destroyed by more violent, less reasonable ones (in many cases our ancestors) But even beyond that the Etruscan are first with roads and aqueducts and a lot of the trappings of 'civilization' yet still gone to Roman might.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization
Question for Creationists - Page 6 Tumblr_m8wxjvFNtq1rb8qy1o1_500

But it sounds so good and is so inline with promoting atheism and secularism thus people take it as a fact when it doesn't take much thinking to see that is a nice sentiment but not actually true

by stardesk Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:53 pm

Veya, concerning Buddhism, a religion/faith which has as its roots mythological gods: Vairocana, Akshobhyra, Ratnasambhava, Amitabha, Amoghasiddhi. These gods with their personal attributes are invoked during meditation. As for Creation, Buddhism incorporated into its beliefs that Creation was the result of the actions of a number of gods and demons that reside in countless locations of power.

Like all the religions of this world, Buddhism too has no place any more in a world that has moved on from ancient myths. Yes I know, many millions of people still believe in and worship their gods, but honestly, we can achieve so much and open our minds to reality with the education and knowledge that is now freely available to all and everyone.

BTW, you mentioned the Etruscans are gone to Roman might, and where are the Romans? Gone, like all civilizations before and after them, and I hate to say it, but one day our civilization will also be gone. Nothing lasts forever, not even our sun which is middle aged. Our planet and indeed the Solar System will disappear one day. So once again I have to say God doesn't come into the equation.

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:43 pm

stardesk wrote:Veya, concerning Buddhism, a religion/faith which has as its roots mythological gods: Vairocana, Akshobhyra, Ratnasambhava, Amitabha, Amoghasiddhi. These gods with their personal attributes are invoked during meditation. As for Creation, Buddhism incorporated into its beliefs that Creation was the result of the actions of a number of gods and demons that reside in countless locations of power.

Like all the religions of this world, Buddhism too has no place any more in a world that has moved on from ancient myths. Yes I know, many millions of people still believe in and worship their gods, but honestly, we can achieve so much and open our minds to reality with the education and knowledge that is now freely available to all and everyone.

BTW, you mentioned the Etruscans are gone to Roman might, and where are the Romans? Gone, like all civilizations before and after them, and I hate to say it, but one day our civilization will also be gone. Nothing lasts forever, not even our sun which is middle aged. Our planet and indeed the Solar System will disappear one day. So once again I have to say God doesn't come into the equation.

+1 Stardesk

Fair play to you and Eilzel continuing this with Veya, as have seriously lost the will to continue this after reading some of most craziest babble I have ever heard and even worse claiming racism in regards to criticism to religion. Antisemitism is hostility or prejudice to Jews whether by ethnicity or those of the faith (where some are not ethnic Jews). Antisemitism does not include being critical of the Torah or Judaism. How he is claiming people are racist based on the criticism of a religion is just plainly absurd and is to me using anything in his power to protect religion from any criticism. Even worse claiming we should respect a religion. People can believe in what they want to believe in just as I have the right to be critical of a religion, which again does not have any evidence that such a God exist.
As I say I hold my hand up to you both for being extremely patient here.
Seriously how many pantheon of Gods have come and gone throughout history Stardesk out of interest, as I know this is your forte?

Good luck here though with the rest of the debate.

by stardesk Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:15 pm

Hi Brasidas, thanks for the +1. I'm not surpised you're loosing interest in this debate, I know how you feel. I've crossed swords many times with creationists but get nowhere. Whilst Evolutionists have an open mind and will consider all manner of opposing ideas, Creationists seem to me to be so closed-minded and wont consider alternatives. I've often had it said to me 'prove God doesn't exist.' And of course I come back with 'you prove to me he does exist and I'll join your congregation.' But of course all they can say is: 'It says in the Bible...blah blah...etc.'

BTW, I don't like the word atheist, never have. I much prefer evolutionist. As regards how many gods, I had a count up not so long ago and worldwide, there were over 200 Goddesses responsible for creations, and only 100 + Gods. Being in Australia Veya should know of an Aboriginal legend concerning the Wagilak Sisters, who sowed the seeds of life as they travelled across the land.

Bye for now.

by eddie Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:34 pm

Eilzel wrote:Eddie, spirituality does not = to a belief in god.

You can be a Buddhist atheist, no one would say a Buddhist isn't spiritual.

And you can't really compare your experience with god to Zack's. His god is much different to your god. His god has massive expectations and endless rules (many nonsensical) about how humans should behave. Fact is you, Zack, George W and a Hindu guru all believe in something very different BUT you are all resolute that YOU believe in the TRUE god.

Nope. You assume you know what we all believe.
Nope. You assume I believe my "God" is real and Zack's isn't; how about God is what each individual sees and hears?

See les, you keep assuming that I have this fixed notion of god and his abilities and his this and that. I don't.

YOU have fixed notions of what you THINK others think about God.

And I said I agreed with a lot of what Zack said. I didn't read every post and most of his posts about Islam and Muslims didn't interest me. I like his views on what he believes God needs and IS.
Not,what his religion says.

I think religion and God are two different things.
God is God (light, energy....whatever) and religion is man-made words and impressions that may or may not hold significance.
But mostly its hypercritical.

by eddie Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:44 pm

veya_victaous wrote:@Brasidas

which again is a human concept which makes Veya's view fall apart, if a God does exist as they would then have created humans as one race.

Ok I do NOT BELIEVE in a Single 'creator' god but if I did and I was not an Abrahamist (too defined) but a general monotheist (like Eddie) I would say that god just needed to create the First single cell asexual carbon based life form on the planet he already but the sun Jupiter the moon and everything else in the right position and motion to ensure things proceed to god's will.

And No the bible says they became 3 cant be bothered to look it up but the 3 sons of someone or other went there separate ways (one to Europe one to Middle east one to Africa) this is also where the old testament endorses slavery saying that he said to the sons of those 3 that they were allowed to enslave anyone that was 'not their brother' which was taken as not your race.

What's a monotheist? Shocked

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:55 pm

Someone who believes in one god.

by eddie Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:30 pm

Ah. Right. I guess I do yes. But not sure what form he might take.

by Eilzel Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:33 pm

So eddie, is your god the creator of life and the universe OR is god your own conciousness?

And you compared your 'spiritual experience' with zack's, hence my comparison. Zack's god says there are no other gods but Allah and we're inevitably screwed if we don't follow him- so if Zack's right then you are wrong- we can of course believe what we want and if we 'feel' our god is real then that's splendid, but so is a kid believing in Santa. Certain faiths however are exclusively 'our way or nothing'.

Anyway as I said, is your god creator of life OR is he your own conciousness (or both)? I mean come on, we can all use the whole 'if I think he's real he is real' line.

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:36 pm

eddie wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Eddie, spirituality does not = to a belief in god.

You can be a Buddhist atheist, no one would say a Buddhist isn't spiritual.

And you can't really compare your experience with god to Zack's. His god is much different to your god. His god has massive expectations and endless rules (many nonsensical) about how humans should behave. Fact is you, Zack, George W and a Hindu guru all believe in something very different BUT you are all resolute that YOU believe in the TRUE god.

Nope. You assume you know what we all believe.
Nope. You assume I believe my "God" is real and Zack's isn't; how about God is what each individual sees and hears?

See les, you keep assuming that I have this fixed notion of god and his abilities and his this and that. I don't.

YOU have fixed notions of what you THINK others think about God.

And I said I agreed with a lot of what Zack said. I didn't read every post and most of his posts about Islam and Muslims didn't interest me. I like his views on what he believes God needs and IS.
Not,what his religion says.

I think religion and God are two different things.
God is God (light, energy....whatever) and religion is man-made words and impressions that may or may not hold significance.
But mostly its hypercritical.

Actually Eddie we just show clear aspects "if" a deity existed, that it either is incapable of doing anything to stop the worst imaginable suffering to people, it just does not care or does not exist.
The problem you have though Eddie, what you believe in regards to a deity is not shared by the many religions in regard to their God. So there views on God will be at odds with yours, where the likes of Christianity and Islam would claim your God is false. So Eilzel and myself have a very good understand of what the many religions teach. Your belief tends to be just a personal belief that a God exists and no doubt one based of love etc that after creating the universe allows humanity to get on with things.

If that is the case, then that deity allows suffering and to many people, even more so babies who have not even been able to lead a full life. Most people if they could save someone they would save someone, not all of course but many would and there is countless evidence of people being saved by others. Now this bit is important, if we have been created to care bout others to the point of saving them, then why is this loving caring deity indifferent to the countless suffering created either by nature or humans? The notion clearly contradicts a loving caring God, because it either is unable to do anything to help people or it chooses not to help, which is then uncaring. I men in the Christian death cult, as it basically is Jesus is sent down to die horribly, rise again so all sins can be forgiven.
Sins? The God can clearly forgive and yet feels the need to make Jesus endure horrible pain, to the view of proving a point and only that sins will be forgiven if you believe in that God. Thus not really forgiving all sins

Your last point is very interesting. Of which I have an uptake on, What if a God exists and it does not register emotions being so powerful? Why would it ever need any emotions, which would then fit why this deity would be inactive. If emotions get in the way of making many sound decisions, then a supreme intelligence would not be afflicted by emotions, a they would be illogical or needed to such a high state of intelligence. Think about it the more intelligent people become the less need of emotions people will need, because your decisions would be made off sound reasoning and not plagued by emotions. If this hypothesis is true and there is God and it created the universe and is without emotion, they the sheer combination of luck and timings allowed life to form on earth. Why would God be concerned about the planets inhabitants, as it is just one planet out of billions he is again a guess making an experiment with the Universe and we are thus then insignificant. A tad like ants are to us, if we are really being honest and we are not of supreme intelligence. It would just be one gargantuan test with countless variable results for this deity to monitor the outcome of. Again we would then only be one of the variables of this test and humans just like all the other species of life that has been crated are just a by-product of this test. maybe even the creation of life as we know it is his first success after countless attempts. Which would mean as the first success out of this we would be nothing more than guinea pigs for his test. No more special than any other species.

by Guest Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:57 pm

Interested in regards to if deity did exist what others think of my hypothesis to god or Gods. Where supreme intelligence would not need emotions. That the earth was nothing more than a fluke. Or after many attempts and the remotest of chances combined that evolves living species. This deity would have no care either way then to our existence the same as any other species.
Interested to know and I know it seems weird that I m an atheist coming out with this, but such a hypothesis would not require any need to worship, there is no life after death and we are just some scientific experiment, allowed to run its course. To me it would be the only feasible explanation for a a deity not needing to care what in fact happens to us. Lets face it, humans think they are special in regards to an after life, where this type of deity created all species out of default and not love, just a scientific experiment. Where our lives would be very insignificant. Other than if we have any affects on this experiment throughout this Sun's lifespan.
It would mean people are worshiping something. Where the deity rationalize what possible species would evolve, being unconcerned (being unemotional) of what happens to us.
You then still only have one life, no after life and it then explains why this deity would not concern itself over any suffering to us.

by Eilzel Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:13 am

It is an interesting idea didge, and one I have thought about too in the past. However, such an 'experimental' god would not itself be all knowing (since why experiment then) and shows it to be also subject to improvement. We can assume then that this god, improving as it would, must have a beginning and so a creator itself. Which brings us full circle to the infinite regression which is arguably the keystone argument as to why no god/s exist in the first place.

by Guest Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:20 am

I dont think we are an "experiment" as such

i think the creator (and all other ensouled beings) came from the same source....which theory is a bit uhm...mathematical

however the creator "created" ...because being the first soul to move from the zero domain was alone.

the whole of creation is a "mathematical construct" a "program par excellence"

the creator is the first (but NOT the only that will ever be) "truely competant mind"

he/she/it

wants company

the mathematical laws of the universe preclude "him" (for simplicities sake) from merely "creating another"
these laws also forbid his direct interference within the model

It seems likely from my musings that he did however create a regent, "female attributed" partner "within the model that is the universe... who although powerful in many ways can only act within the constraints of the model...so no "miracles" but teachings yes...for those who seek them....

in general...we are of little importance....we have to go looking for her and what she can offer....

we are of little interest as such to the creator EXCEPT that each of us ...everyone...is a god in the making, but we could just as well be reptiles ar insetcs or.......

once we understand the workings and our minds become "competant we will achieve parity with the creator...which is what he wanted

we (humans) are NOT unique there are plenty of others scattered across the cosmos....

next time round any one of us could chose to be something diferent and some place else....

the creator neither wants nor encourages "worship"
he cant answer prayers

he built the universe
gave us brains

and said....get on with it

evolution is inevitable due to the mathematical nature of the universe

so is organic life

the "lady" can help with wisdom....

we are ...as a "life force" (soul?) immortal
we go "round and round"

organic immortality is within our grasp...but do we want it ?
or is it merely interfering with the cycle....
or could we nonthe less still advance to godhood but in our organic framework?

now I'm rambling so I'll shut up.....

by Guest Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:26 am

Eilzel wrote:It is an interesting idea didge, and one I have thought about too in the past. However, such an 'experimental' god would not itself be all knowing (since why experiment then) and shows it to be also subject to improvement. We can assume then that this god, improving as it would, must have a beginning and so a creator itself. Which brings us full circle to the infinite regression which is arguably the keystone argument as to why no god/s exist in the first place.

The concept of an all knowing deity is a religious one. It could be a being of such higher intelligence and form not even within the sphere of our universe Eilzel. So in this it would not need to be all knowing, and could no doubt predict with some accuracy if life took hold what creatures might evolve, based off the ingredients that helped kick start of life here. So in this hypothesis, it would not be an all knowing deity, just something of supreme intelligence over us and just a science experiment. If this deity is of another dimension, time may not even exist Eilzel. If time does exist within this creator's dimension. There then has to be a creator of this highly intelligent creator. Then we do go back to square one to know our creator having a creator themselves of an even higher and more powerful entity is something we are not even aware of. I know I m kind of being devils advocate here, which is more to explain a rational more viable kind of God if one existed. Again it would explain why we would be seen just like any other species and left to our devices.
Maybe God is the wrong word and creator for the sake of this hypothesis would be more apt mate.
In factthat sounds better to me

by Eilzel Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:27 am

But if the laws were already in place vic and even the first mind came from nothing then isn't it more likely everything else (life, planets etc) came from nothing the same way?

That's not to say you're wrong, just that your suggestion seems pointless since the universe already did most of the work itself.

by Guest Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:35 am

Eilzel wrote:But if the laws were already in place vic and even the first mind came from nothing then isn't it more likely everything else (life, planets etc) came from nothing the same way?

That's not to say you're wrong, just that your suggestion seems pointless since the universe already did most of the work itself.

Have to go Eilzel and Victor, but this has opened up another avenue on this debate which I find interesting.
Personally again I do not think there is a creator being as such and being as we still have much to learn about our Universe, one day science will find the answer.
As I say, the hypothesis was to me showing the only possible type of deity if one existed, other than the view of not being able to do anything to explain its action to suffering. It would not care because it would be devoid of emotions due to its high intelligence.
Which would though bring in a puzzle. If this deity was devoid of any emotions, having no need for them, where did we and other species obtain ours?

Night chaps

by Guest Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:45 am

ah...now this is where it gets all mathematical Eil.....
as veya has hinted at zero is a rather special "number"
actually it is more that special it is both a number AND an "operator" like + - x etc

and there are at the bottom line of mathematics 2 "domains"

the zero domain

and the domain of numbers NOT equal to zero

noe to coin a phrase...."in the beginning"

there was only zero.....thats right...nothing ........not even......nothing (wrap your head round that...I dare you)

logically this can be assumed as the "staus quo" because it is the simplest of all possible states

all time is zero all distances are zero

but within that nothing was the timeless, dimensionless "will to be"
it was everywhere and nowhere (baby)
it could travel everywhere instantly since neither time nor distance existed...
but it wanted TO BE.

and eventually after infinite time (which was no time since all time was zero) ....(ok so my maths cant cope...what do you want the mathematical model of the universe???)

It BECAME , it managed to become ....and indoing so forced the creation of the universe and the domain of numbers other than zero (big bang? ) (little squeak?) who knows....

now we are no different ...we are all "becomming" part of that is being here....next time round???
but what we are is Gods ..each and every one of us.....we are ALL "becomming"

even ants

and smaller things....

(this leads to an interesting philosophical argument about killing them and thus helping them on the way but hey...thats another argument...(and one I dont subscribe to directly))

by Guest Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:51 am

Brasidas wrote:
Eilzel wrote:But if the laws were already in place vic and even the first mind came from nothing then isn't it more likely everything else (life, planets etc) came from nothing the same way?

That's not to say you're wrong, just that your suggestion seems pointless since the universe already did most of the work itself.

Have to go Eilzel and Victor, but this has opened up another avenue on this debate which I find interesting.
Personally again I do not think there is a creator being as such and being as we still have much to learn about our Universe, one day science will find the answer.
As I say, the hypothesis was to me showing the only possible type of deity if one existed, other than the view of not being able to do anything to explain its action to suffering. It would not care because it would be devoid of emotions due to its high intelligence.
Which would though bring in a puzzle. If this deity was devoid of any emotions, having no need for them, where did we and other species obtain ours?

Night chaps

one can only presume as a consequence of our being "biological machines" and our evolutionary heritage
clearly emotions must carry an evolutionary advantage otherwise they would most likely have been eliminated
It is entirely possible that we could evolve away from them in the future as we achieve that "godhood" we are driven to seek

by Guest Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:52 am

and with that...for tonite...good night...i'm off to me pit

by Eilzel Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:23 am

Catch up with this later, I'm just about to start work, I'll be home as you guys are waking up lol

Fascinating stuff though, night guys Smile

by veya_victaous Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:12 am

stardesk wrote:Veya, concerning Buddhism, a religion/faith which has as its roots mythological gods: Vairocana, Akshobhyra, Ratnasambhava, Amitabha, Amoghasiddhi. These gods with their personal attributes are invoked during meditation. As for Creation, Buddhism incorporated into its beliefs that Creation was the result of the actions of a number of gods and demons that reside in countless locations of power. WTF NO not even close that is Hinduism that while Buddhism is part of Hinduism Hinduism is not part of Buddhism... Seriously That is one of the most uneducated things I have ever heard someone say about Buddhism in a non-thiest philosophy IT specifically has no gods the closes thing is life's that have lived enough lives to reach nirvana

Like all the religions of this world, Buddhism too has no place any more in a world that has moved on from ancient myths. Yes I know, many millions of people still believe in and worship their gods, but honestly, we can achieve so much and open our minds to reality with the education and knowledge that is now freely available to all and everyone.
I liked you but Seriously That is Dumb
LES this is INSTITUTIONAL RACISM some old European Saying Buddhism is the Opposite of what the Dala Lama Says it is..
StarDesk Why don't you Ask question and Go read some of Buddhist Philosophy It say NOTHING about Gods or creation at all!

BTW, you mentioned the Etruscans are gone to Roman might, and where are the Romans? Gone, like all civilizations before and after them, and I hate to say it, but one day our civilization will also be gone. Nothing lasts forever, not even our sun which is middle aged. Our planet and indeed the Solar System will disappear one day. So once again I have to say God doesn't come into the equation.

UMm that last part SO YOU AGREE Sam Harris is Good at making nice saying but is Not in anyway true.

You really need to open your mind No one is talking about a god of any organized religion But based on what you said about Buddhism it is YOU that is severely lacking in knowledge about others.

by veya_victaous Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:27 am

stardesk wrote:Hi Brasidas, thanks for the +1. I'm not surpised you're loosing interest in this debate, I know how you feel. I've crossed swords many times with creationists but get nowhere. Whilst Evolutionists have an open mind and will consider all manner of opposing ideas, Creationists seem to me to be so closed-minded and wont consider alternatives. I've often had it said to me 'prove God doesn't exist.' And of course I come back with 'you prove to me he does exist and I'll join your congregation.' But of course all they can say is: 'It says in the Bible...blah blah...etc.' So you don't think the sun exists OR do you deny sciences statements about what it is responsible for. If Science if Right we have an awful lot to be thankful to the sun for and as it functions of energy is still unexplained and all formula that try to base it on the forces we perceive have failed to explain it .. if someone want to call the god a sun they have every right to since it is responsible for life on earth.. as not a single person has used the bible at any stage of this debate to prove their points IT IS YOU that has a closed mind and NO ONE IS DENYING EVOLUTION.. it does not belong to Atheism.. SO by that your whole point is gone.

BTW, I don't like the word atheist, never have. I much prefer evolutionist. As regards how many gods, I had a count up not so long ago and worldwide, there were over 200 Goddesses responsible for creations, and only 100 + Gods. Being in Australia Veya should know of an Aboriginal legend concerning the Wagilak Sisters, who sowed the seeds of life as they travelled across the land. Yeah only one of dozens different creation sub tales specific to only a few of the 200 nations that made up the aboriginal people.. bit they are not all powerful at all either they were spirits on a journey and once completed their dreaming ended ... I don't expect you to understand the complexity of the dreaming since you seem very stuck on abrahamist interpretations of what is divine and it is probably the most complex spiritual idea.. Plus they cannot be written down no written language contains the words with the correct meanings

Bye for now.

by veya_victaous Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:39 am

darknessss wrote:I dont think we are an "experiment" as such

i think the creator (and all other ensouled beings) came from the same source....which theory is a bit uhm...mathematical

however the creator "created" ...because being the first soul to move from the zero domain was alone.

the whole of creation is a "mathematical construct" a "program par excellence"

the creator is the first (but NOT the only that will ever be) "truely competant mind"

he/she/it

wants company

the mathematical laws of the universe preclude "him" (for simplicities sake) from merely "creating another"
these laws also forbid his direct interference within the model

It seems likely from my musings that he did however create a regent, "female attributed" partner "within the model that is the universe... who although powerful in many ways can only act within the constraints of the model...so no "miracles" but teachings yes...for those who seek them....

in general...we are of little importance....we have to go looking for her and what she can offer....

we are of little interest as such to the creator EXCEPT that each of us ...everyone...is a god in the making, but we could just as well be reptiles ar insetcs or.......

once we understand the workings and our minds become "competant we will achieve parity with the creator...which is what he wanted

we (humans) are NOT unique there are plenty of others scattered across the cosmos....

next time round any one of us could chose to be something diferent and some place else....

the creator neither wants nor encourages "worship"
he cant answer prayers

he built the universe
gave us brains

and said....get on with it

evolution is inevitable due to the mathematical nature of the universe

so is organic life

the "lady" can help with wisdom....

we are ...as a "life force" (soul?) immortal
we go "round and round"

organic immortality is within our grasp...but do we want it ?
or is it merely interfering with the cycle....
or could we nonthe less still advance to godhood but in our organic framework?

now I'm rambling so I'll shut up.....

+100
YAY Someone that understand the divine/universe maths

But the other way to look at immortality is the cybernetic one which is actually closer, there would be a point where we could reduce 'ourselves' to pure binary energy. And if given enough Hard drive space to 'build' our entry onto a Blank drive would essentially create a new universe for the same reason as you have put from 0 to something Question for Creationists - Page 6 202592697

Question for Creationists - Page 6 202592697

Maybe we are on path Wink

by Ben Reilly Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:39 am

I for one am very happy that the sun is there, giving energy to our planet ... but knowing what I know (thanks to those who have taken the time and done the hard work of studying it, rather than just shrugging their shoulders and worshipping it), I'm not about to call it anything more than a very long-lived nuclear reaction. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it is not sentient -- but it does radiate light and warmth, and for that I love it.

by veya_victaous Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:50 am

eddie wrote:Ah. Right. I guess I do yes. But not sure what form he might take.

Call yourself monotheist Agnostic
It means that you believe if there is a god there is just one but your are unsure and don't believe it is possible to be sure of the details

NOTE: I'm not sure if you believe the underlined part but i have seen you express the rest?

by Ben Reilly Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:05 am

veya_victaous wrote:
eddie wrote:Ah. Right. I guess I do yes. But not sure what form he might take.

Call yourself monotheist Agnostic
It means that you believe if there is a god there is just one but your are unsure and don't believe it is possible to be sure of the details

NOTE: I'm not sure if you believe the underlined part but i have seen you express the rest?

I've tried to explain this before, but for you, I'll take another crack at it.

When I embraced the idea of dealing with the world rationally, I gave up on the idea of certainty -- I taught myself not to seek false comfort in the idea that I was certain about anything.

That means that I do allow for the possibility that the supernatural exists in some form -- whether it's God the father, Gods the feuding, faulty pantheon of several different civilizations, God(s) the positive creative force, God(s) the indifferent clockmaker(s), God(s) the unsentient primordial life-generator, the advanced alien Gods or some other iteration of God or Gods or Goddess or Goddesses or asexual, bisexual or gender-transcendent God or Gods or Goddess, or for that matter ghosts or goblins or leprechauns or whatever-the-fuck-ever (henceforth to be referred to as "the supernatural").

Instead, I focus on what I reason to be probable and improbable. I think it's probable that I'm really typing on a computer at this moment; I think it's improbable that I'm a figment of a bisexual Jupiterian Goddess's drug hallucination. I'm not certain, though, about either, so I accept the explanation that has the most evidence going for it. I like being uncertain, it makes me open and able to be surprised.

So. Seeing as I have never seen convincing evidence of the existence of the supernatural, I don't accept that it exists. So if you have to put a label on that, I would prefer "humble atheist" over that "monotheistic Agnostic" crap you suggested.

Smile

by Ben Reilly Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:09 am

And just to add, the fact that I have my own method of distinguishing between what is real and what is not real does not mean I have a faulty imagination.

by veya_victaous Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:26 am

Eilzel wrote:It is an interesting idea didge, and one I have thought about too in the past. However, such an 'experimental' god would not itself be all knowing (since why experiment then) and shows it to be also subject to improvement. We can assume then that this god, improving as it would, must have a beginning and so a creator itself. Which brings us full circle to the infinite regression which is arguably the keystone argument as to why no god/s exist in the first place.

Yeah and then Quantum Physics Multiverse Hypothesis shatter that keystone
As now the most advanced science is suggesting that are universes not just our one and that light/matter was first created by some contact between them a.k.a Branes theory.

So IF we are to take Stardesk's advice and learn the knowledge available to us we have to accept that argument has is now faulty. geek

by eddie Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:35 am

darknessss wrote:I dont think we are an "experiment" as such

i think the creator (and all other ensouled beings) came from the same source....which theory is a bit uhm...mathematical

however the creator "created" ...because being the first soul to move from the zero domain was alone.

the whole of creation is a "mathematical construct" a "program par excellence"

the creator is the first (but NOT the only that will ever be) "truely competant mind"

he/she/it

wants company

the mathematical laws of the universe preclude "him" (for simplicities sake) from merely "creating another"
these laws also forbid his direct interference within the model

It seems likely from my musings that he did however create a regent, "female attributed" partner "within the model that is the universe... who although powerful in many ways can only act within the constraints of the model...so no "miracles" but teachings yes...for those who seek them....

in general...we are of little importance....we have to go looking for her and what she can offer....

we are of little interest as such to the creator EXCEPT that each of us ...everyone...is a god in the making, but we could just as well be reptiles ar insetcs or.......

once we understand the workings and our minds become "competant we will achieve parity with the creator...which is what he wanted

we (humans) are NOT unique there are plenty of others scattered across the cosmos....

next time round any one of us could chose to be something diferent and some place else....

the creator neither wants nor encourages "worship"
he cant answer prayers

he built the universe
gave us brains

and said....get on with it

evolution is inevitable due to the mathematical nature of the universe

so is organic life

the "lady" can help with wisdom....

we are ...as a "life force" (soul?) immortal
we go "round and round"

organic immortality is within our grasp...but do we want it ?
or is it merely interfering with the cycle....
or could we nonthe less still advance to godhood but in our organic framework?

now I'm rambling so I'll shut up.....

I quite like most of the end of this post vic
I don't think god is infallible

Les I will try to answer your questions and didge if I can, later x

by Sponsored content