God doesn't exist in any religion.

Please keep this simple - no long winded sermons.

Yes he does........

neener neener neener.

Whether a God/(s) can be demonstrated to exist or not through philosopical reasoning is, IMO, of little value for anything other than a purely academic exercise. The question really should be "is God an ontological reality?" or something similar... IMO anyway.

There is no philosophical discussion possible here. The only 3 answers are "yes", "no", "I don't know". These answers are absolute and not subject to reason.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

Yes he does........

neener neener neener.

That made me laugh.

O, how it made me laugh.

*giggles*

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

God doesn't exist in any religion.

Please keep this simple - no long winded sermons.

Why don't you prove God doesn't exist?



You made an assertion, now prove it.



.



Bonus points for naming the logical fallacy I just commited.

in a word? no. god cannot logically exist. first you need to define what god is, which in itself is a task. if you ask anyone what god is , or what god means to them you will get a different answer... so the first task is to define what god is. What are its characteristics? how can I tell if god is present? what are some characteristics of god? if god has no detectable characteristics how can we assume that it is real? something we cannot detect or know what it is cannot exist in "reality"...

anyone who wants to be able to prove that god can not exist should read "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

That made me laugh.

O, how it made me laugh.

*giggles*

Cheers,

Lost



Me, too...Tribe is always good for a laugh.

What an old soul. *LMAO*

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IndicaSativa:

in a word? no. god cannot logically exist. first you need to define what god is, which in itself is a task. if you ask anyone what god is , or what god means to them you will get a different answer...so the first task is to define what god is. What are its characteristics? how can I tell if god is present? what are some characteristics of god? if god has no detectable characteristics how can we assume that it is real? something we cannot detect or know what it is cannot exist in "reality"...

it seems to me that you actually proved yourself wrong.

You said that God cannot logically exist, before you defined what God is, His characteristics, His 'detectabilty'.

Not to mention, whether or not He would allow Himself to be 'detected' at any given moment.

At most, you disproved your statement. At best, you pointed out that we can't prove or disprove His existance, without His allowing it.

quote:Originally posted by IndicaSativa:

in a word? no. god cannot logically exist. first you need to define what god is, which in itself is a task. if you ask anyone what god is , or what god means to them you will get a different answer... so the first task is to define what god is. What are its characteristics? how can I tell if god is present? what are some characteristics of god? if god has no detectable characteristics how can we assume that it is real? something we cannot detect or know what it is cannot exist in "reality"...

anyone who wants to be able to prove that god can not exist should read "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.

On the same note I could say to you that "anyone who wants to be able to prove that a god CAN exist should read 'Refuting Evolution' by Jonathan Sarfati and Ken Ham."

Both of these men are professors of science and they both say that a god does exist. So both sides of the argument have credible(sp) sources to support their cause. It all depends on the person that's receiving the message and how THEY interpret it. So it doesn't really matter what book they read. Don't get me wrong, I do see where you are coming from, I just thought I would make that point.

quote:Originally posted by LinkinParkSucks:

On the same note I could say to you that "anyone who wants to be able to prove that a god CAN exist should read 'Refuting Evolution' by Jonathan Sarfati and Ken Ham."

Both of these men are professors of science and they both say that a god does exist. So both sides of the argument have credible(sp) sources to support their cause. It all depends on the person that's receiving the message and how THEY interpret it. So it doesn't really matter what book they read. Don't get me wrong, I do see where you are coming from, I just thought I would make that point.

That would be possibly the WORST approach to the issue.

I think that was his point.

Well, I was hoping that this forum would start itself off to a certain extent, and it has. But, now I see I am going to have to add some arguments of my own. It's difficult to argue a point that has no precise point but rather an incredibly broad topic, but I'll give it a try.

God does not exist in any sense of the word. He does not exist most simply because he has been created by humans. It can be seen clearly throughout history - humans slowly adjust their beliefs to suit themselves. God used to be a completely different character in the past than he is today. He has changed from a simple "presence" to a powerful, vengeful supreme being, to merciful and good, etc. The point here is that it is clear that humans are able to and DO change their gods - they create them and modify them. God is a ball of play-do - he is molded differently by each individual. This is what at first swayed me away from my childhood religion (christianity).

That's called the 'cycles of decadence.' And, once again, you too closely associate 'religion' with Christianity, which you need to stop doing immediately.

Most of my other explanations are far to difficult to explain with words due to the fact that I don't completely understand them myself. It's sort of like when you are high or drunk. Things become more clear in these instances, or so it seems. I have moments of clarity frequently and these, primarily, have led me to believe that gods do not exist.

Why is it incorrect to associate religion with Christianity? And please refute your point on 'that's called the cycles of decadence' or at least add to it.

1. Because Christianity is one of dozens of religions on the planet, and just because you've developed some negative imprinting a la Desmond Morris against Christianity doesn't mean that there are no gods.

2. The cycles of decadence is a universal religious principle that states that, in opposition to evolution's theory of continual progress, we are in a state of spiritual (and, as a result, mental and physical) entropy, leading from a Golden Age of spirituality to an Iron Age of anti-spirituality, progressing through Silver and Bronze Ages in between. In Hinduism, this is called the "Yugas". Christianity has Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel with a giant human statue with, descending from head to toe, metals of degrading quality, which is interpreted by Daniel to be the destiny of the kingdoms of man.

Read Julius Evola to learn more.

Sounds like you know what you are talking abuot. I'll take your word for it. My initial post in this forum was that no gods exist (I think) so when I say religion I am naturally including all gods - this is what I believe.

Right. This inclination is a symptom of the age in which we exist now - the Iron Age. Any sense of genuine spirituality, and the ability to integrate this spirituality in order to ordain a person to become aware of higher truths and higher planes of existence, are foreign to modern Man.

This does not mean that no gods exist. However, I would be inclined to agree with Nietzsche in respect to the general consensus of modern man, especially concerning this modern day and age - God is dead.

Now, I'm sorry. That sounds like a 'religious' defense. You are defending you religion by saying that atheism and "non-believing" are simply a cause of the times; a "fad". You are dismissing the fact that atheists believe what they do because of intelligible reasons, which is the harsh truth of it. If humans were a little smarter and less submissive they would also realize that gods do not exist. Through your 'it's the iron ag'e buillshit you are attempting to defend your beliefs - and you do so weakly.

So, your response ultimately amounts to, "Gods don't exist, atheists have valid reasons for not believing in God, cos they don't exist. The Iron Age is bullshit, cos there is no God."

Let me clarify. The Iron Age is not just an term invented as a reaction to atheists proclaiming there was no God. The Iron Age is a description of circumstances that ultimately separates a person from the daily experiences that necessitated the formation of religion in the first place.

Explain your atheism to me, if my defenses are weak.

if God were to simply mean a higher power, than i think the case for it existing outways the case for it not existing.

The Iron Age it seems to me is an excuse for people not believing in a god. It may be a legitimate word and idea but it is still offering up a sort of excuse for the way the world is turning away from religion. I am not saying the Iron Age is bullshit - I just think your inclusion of it as an argument is bullshit because it's an excuse.

My atheism cannot be explained in a short paragraph. Hopefully you will be able to understand it throughout the course of this topic. Or ask a specific question - your question is simply too broad (similar to my beginning question).

Far from excusing; a tragic lamentation would be a better description.

Let me be more concise in my definition. The Iron Age is part of a historical cycle, during which the civilization in question completely abandons and forgets its traditional religious institutions. Having destroyed any possibility of recommuning with the forces and principles that made them complete, they look to atomistic sciences and physical, economic 'progress' to justify man's existence reduced to itself. What results therein is a descent into nihilism, and the collapse of absolutes (I am preparing to write a concise description of this process in the alleged 'juicy, neutral topic').

This will eventually (if it hasn't happened already) bring mankind into a surrealistic Skinner-box of democratized values, refusal to impose one value as intrinsically greater than another, conditioned reaction as a value synonymous with religiosity, and the prophecied 'simplest surrealist act' of André Breton will become a constant, a priori nightmare from which there is no escape.

So, if I understand you correctly you are explaining the move this generation and others are taking away from religion. You are offering an explanation rather than an argument?

Now that this has been made clear, I am sorry for my out of place emotion and attack.

No worries.

Dont yell at him! *wispers* (hes watching right now!)

Declined.

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:



Bonus points for naming the logical fallacy I just commited.

argument from ignorance, or lack of imagination?

You give an invitation to go head-to-head philosophically and then say to keep it simple.

Wow you're dumb.

If philosophical/theological/etc. debate were simple and didn't have to be backed up by "long winded sermons" then it wouldn't even really needed to be debated. It would have the difficult and importance of "today is a good day." "nah, I think it's a little cloudy."

Kudos to Traffic for noticing that.

It was the first thing that came to my mind. (not that he's dumb, but simple to the most primitive degree)

I think one thing the author of this thread has missed (however systematically) in Tyrant's message was that the illustrtation of the "statue", which represents the different ages and fallen empires of man, was an interpretation of a dream by Daniel.

Tyrant made that clear (what he was referencing), yet said author took it as a personal philosophy of Tyrant's, and accused him of using it as a scapegoat.

It was a metaphorical picture...and that is all it is meant to be.

I don't see how it could be argued with, since it wasn't presented as an argument. Rather, it was given as an example of our times; recent, and past.

Anyway, I have no comment directly on the subject matter, for the very reasons that you pointed out, Traffic.

I'm glad you all liked my joke.

But basically, I was saying the same things as Traffic and Digital just said.

He presented a ridiculously broad statement, then tries asks to keep it "simple".

So I did so.

quote:Originally posted by TOL 3000:

argument from ignorance.





+1 logician strength.

Keep it simply, meaning state your point simply and efficiently. This does not mean say something short and meaningless. It means I value simplicity and don't give a shit about anyone's life story. I want an argument, information, or an opinion - not the third and fourth chapter of some philosophy book I've never read and probably don't care to. Simple and to the point. If you wanna criticize then save your time and keep it your yourself.

People spend their entire lives trying to come close to answering the question you've so succinctly dismissed. While explanation for why a person believes what they do doesn't necessarily require a life story and shouldn't ever be read from a book as that is not a personal belief, it DOES take a bit to explain and back up.

It's about understanding. These understandings are overwhelming complex and.....you know what. I'm through with you, waste your life without me.

Again, I am not saying the explanations needed aren't complex. I am asking for brief answers that, with time, become a well structured debate. Granted, many times a long explanation is necessary to communicate a point. I just wanted to avoid any sermons, life stories, etc. that many people tend to include in their arguments or commentaries.

image ur a parent and u have 2 children u love more than anything u love them and they r fighting over something u said they just misheard u and they r about 2 kill each other over this most people will stop there children from fighting and simply restate what they said

from that story is y there is no god because he swear's he loves u he swear's he'll protect u and he will b ur savior and u r his children but we have countr's playing nukeluar can u top this over what they believe the simpliest thing 2 do is have god step in and say hey look this is what i meant and sense he doesn't have the intellignce 2 do that and he is all knowing and all hearing then he can't exists noone that stupid can exists

quote:Originally posted by Shaokhano:

image ur a parent and u have 2 children u love more than anything u love them and they r fighting over something u said they just misheard u and they r about 2 kill each other over this most people will stop there children from fighting and simply restate what they said

from that story is y there is no god because he swear's he loves u he swear's he'll protect u and he will b ur savior and u r his children but we have countr's playing nukeluar can u top this over what they believe the simpliest thing 2 do is have god step in and say hey look this is what i meant and sense he doesn't have the intellignce 2 do that and he is all knowing and all hearing then he can't exists noone that stupid can exists

You're confusing absolute literal translation of the bible with a bearded guy in the clouds with God.

This doesn't really help out when you talk about all encompassing religion.

View the bible for it's lessons not it's fear mongering. Or look into other religions.

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

Keep it simply, meaning state your point simply and efficiently. This does not mean say something short and meaningless. It means I value simplicity and don't give a shit about anyone's life story. I want an argument, information, or an opinion - not the third and fourth chapter of some philosophy book I've never read and probably don't care to. Simple and to the point. If you wanna criticize then save your time and keep it your yourself.

wrong forum.

Should God exist...then God cannot be contained within anything.

Just as the temple could not contain his spirit...I think that neither can any specific religion...however, within these religions are man-received concepts of God. They are all expressions of what seems unknowable.

Very much like how I can express my concept of you...of who you are...but I cannot contain your reality within me...so there are things that I am most certain to miss...and what is most easily noticed is your appearance.

However, we do not have an external experience of God...that is an internal experience. Except...maybe...when i look upon you...and I am moved to love you...that is when I 'see' God in you...and 'feel' God in me.

But no...God surely cannot be contained. Not in any physical reality...not in any idea...not in any religion...

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

God doesn't exist in any religion.

Please keep this simple - no long winded sermons.

So...I guess I agree with your statement. In a way....

[Is this short enough, btw?]



[This message has been edited by outcast (edited 01-14-2005).]