Let me use the example of culinary culture as an analogy.

This post is a response to society but specifically because of lack of clarity in peoples threads/posts in this forum.

There are certain fundamental's in cooking. Cooking can be regarded as a similar process across all culinary cultures, but at the same time it is not the same.

They motivation is to eat, both to appreciate and provide nutrition, but different cultures/people will use different ingredients and therefore the food is different across different culinary denominations (i.e. Asian, Indian, Mediterranean, etc).

It is a fact all of the food tastes like food, but it tastes very different.

Please when you are making your attacks on God, religion, faith etc be specific in your articulation. You might understand where your coming form but we dont.

In other words, there are various interpretations of god, so if you have a question of God make it specific to a specific interpretation.

I see alot of people attacking Christianity but they don't make this clear so this inhibits constructive feedback.

here is an example: following God will get you sent to hell.

all of the ways in which you can follow God or just the one?

you see what i mean.

People dont understand religion well, only in a certain context; which for most totse users is the western context so Christianity is the religion being questioned; and yet if one has a truly intrinsic problem and with religion, faith and spirituality then all aspects and types of religion would be comprehended.

But because this intrinsic motivation is lacking i am forced to conclude that the nay-sayers are the real sheep whilst those with an intrinsic motivation to be contructive with their life and act intrinsicly and in and of themselves are to be commended.

TL/DR Stop stereo typing religion.

TL/DR

There is no god.

tl/dr added

TL/DR

There is no god.

Please read the stickies and pay attention to them.

FYI, this sort of content-free post tends to get frowned on in these here parts, lil buckaroo.

Please read the stickies and pay attention to them.

FYI, this sort of content-free post tends to get frowned on in these here parts, lil buckaroo.

i see what you mean.

come to think of it this should have been made in B&M.

"all of the ways in which you can follow God or just the one?"


Not to mention, which conception of God? There are many.

I think we can stipulate that most people have a shallow conception of religion, and none more so than those who profess to be religious. So what?

How is our own spiritual growth--which is all we should really be concerned with--enhanced by pointing this out?

People will always have a shallow understanding. Most are superficial... This is why Jesus called the faithful his "sheep." They sheep because they follow they don't lead and yet we are told to be like Christ, this is a call to be individuals not group thinking peoples. The ignorance of group think is a symptom of the age we live in. This age is ending however, in time we will see more and more awareness of this fact. Blind adherence to whatever is going to end and we will all be one bit closer to reality.

But because this intrinsic motivation is lacking i am forced to conclude that the nay-sayers are the real sheep whilst those with an intrinsic motivation to be contructive with their life and act intrinsicly and in and of themselves are to be commended.



You have a shallow understanding of people.

We fear the unknown, and desire it at the same time

Religion dilutes our fear of the unknown after death and recognizes the desire to not stop existing.

Something to cling to

My question is this: If there is a God, something that can create anything, do anything, a [i]higher[i] power than yourself, why do you people think that you can use your mortal logic to try and disprove this being?

Its like a dog trying to disprove the existence of its owner.

My question is this: If there is a God, something that can create anything, do anything, a [i]higher[i] power than yourself, why do you people think that you can use your mortal logic to try and disprove this being?

Its like a dog trying to disprove the existence of its owner.

no i dont think you could use that analogy. One of things that deviates us from animals is our sense of ego - our ethnographic bias; "my way is better than your way". This is what gives us the sense of entitlement to claim something as property or having ownership of something, but at the end of the day its only an idea. Seeing as how spirituality/religion is generally about transcending the ego- i drought a concept that has been derived from the ego could be use as an analogy for denying an alpha omega, in a way they are opposites.

God is the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

God is a concept unvalidated by any evidence.

No matter what God you worship, that fact applies. If that fact applies to one God it obviously applies to pantheons as well, so when I say...

"Your God is bullshit", rest assured no matter what God(s) you worship, I am talking directly to about your God, and do so not with a shallow understanding, but with an understanding of the definitions of the words I use.

My question is this: If there is a God, something that can create anything, do anything, a [i]higher[i] power than yourself, why do you people think that you can use your mortal logic to try and disprove this being?

Because a God that can create/do anything is impossible. It is best summed up in the old question "Can God create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it". This is a riddle that leads one to believe the ability to anything is impossible.

That is just my mortal logic talking, but mortal logic is ALL WE HAVE. You trust it in your everyday life when it comes to everything else, why doubt it where an impossible zero evidence having entity is concerned?

Could it be b/c it gives a warm fuzzy feeling to think you will see grandma in the afterlife, or is it a secure feeling you get when you think about how the most powerful thing in the entire universe, knows you, and loves you eternally.

Don't get me wrong, this is a very romantic and pleasant concept, but that alone, does not make it any more true or correct.

That mortal logic tells me, people would rather believe in a pleasing lie, than face a rather droll or cold reality.

My question is this: If there is a God, something that can create anything, do anything, a [i]higher[i] power than yourself, why do you people think that you can use your mortal logic to try and disprove this being?

Its like a dog trying to disprove the existence of its owner.

Donkey. According to this, I guess we would all just be default agnostics or ignostics, better yet. If we are so feeble-minded, we shouldn't take any position. But really, it is all we have to form arguments from, there is no other way for us rationalize things.

It's strange that a person who uses an offensive tag would feel moved to criticise others for having a shallow understanding. Reflection perhaps?

My question is this: If there is a God, something that can create anything, do anything, a [i]higher[i] power than yourself, why do you people think that you can use your mortal logic to try and disprove this being?

Its like a dog trying to disprove the existence of its owner.

You sir, are retarded. And you've made quite possibly the poorest analogy of the year. EPIC fail.

People with religion have a shallow understanding of how the world works.

I think that's a more accurate statement.

People with religion have a shallow understanding of how the world works.

I think that's a more accurate statement.

word. the OP had some good points, but he just missed the slight detail that all of it was false.

let me just clarify this thread.

When i say people have a shallow understanding of religion i was saying that people lack a breadth of understanding.

People who are atheists are defining themselves by what they are not; they are not christians, and christians are not athiests.

Dont people understand that atheism and Christianity make up a fraction of knowledge?

People are assuming that christianity is the only spiritual knowledge and atheism is the only material knowledge.

For instance

"I hate God, church is boring, jesus is bullshit i want to be an atheist".

Hold the fucking phone.

What about Vedic philosophy? Jainism? New Religious Movements? Abraham religions?

Do a bit of research on spiritual understanding and come to your own conclusions?

I realise what you do is our of my hands but it makes me sad when people dont know why they believe what they do, that is the clear advantage of the believer over a non-believer.

"I hate God, church is boring, jesus is bullshit i want to be an atheist".



That's certainly not why I became an atheist, nor do I know any other atheist with that mentality.

For me it was something more along the lines of

"I don't need to be scared into being a good person, I don't need an invisible best friend, I don't need ancient texts stating obvious morals with fancy wording to tell me what is right and wrong, and I certainly don't need the close mindedness that religion so heavily emphasizes."

Atheism isn't a religion, you don't choose to become an atheist, you choose to reject religion.

I realise what you do is our of my hands but it makes me sad when people dont know why they believe what they do, that is the clear advantage of the believer over a non-believer.

A vast majority of believers, believe whatever they are taught by their parents and/or culture.

Does not sound like a deep understanding to me.

Dont people understand that atheism and Christianity make up a fraction of knowledge?

Atheism is not a fraction of knowledge any more than non-astronomy is.

Christianity is not knowledge, cannot be a knowledge WHEN IT IS A BELIEF!!! Which it is.

----

There does seem to be a lot you don't understand as you indicate in your last post. It is just not the shit you think it is.

A vast majority of believers, believe whatever they are taught by their parents and/or culture.

Does not sound like a deep understanding to me.



Atheism is not a fraction of knowledge any more than non-astronomy is.

Christianity is not knowledge, cannot be a knowledge WHEN IT IS A BELIEF!!! Which it is.

----

There does seem to be a lot you don't understand as you indicate in your last post. It is just not the shit you think it is.

i didnt say christianity was knowledge stop calling spirituality christianity.

That's certainly not why I became an atheist, nor do I know any other atheist with that mentality.

For me it was something more along the lines of

"I don't need to be scared into being a good person, I don't need an invisible best friend, I don't need ancient texts stating obvious morals with fancy wording to tell me what is right and wrong, and I certainly don't need the close mindedness that religion so heavily emphasizes."

Atheism isn't a religion, you don't choose to become an atheist, you choose to reject religion.

isnt theistic religion just as dogmatic that in insisting their is a god as Athiesm is dogmatic in insisting that their is no God.

Protip: Theism is not a fundamental or necessary aspect of religion.

isnt theistic religion just as dogmatic that in insisting their is a god as Athiesm is dogmatic in insisting that their is no God.

Athiesm means "without theism". That is the only common thread that binds atheists. THE ONLY.

That being said....I think some athiests who may insist their is no god are no more dogmatic than a parent who insists to a child that a monster does not live under their bed. Or insisting that Bigfoot is a myth, or that Elvis died in the 70's, or any number of other basic common sense things a person may insist.

Protip: Theism is not a fundamental or necessary aspect of religion.

Believing in a god (theism), whether that god be the collective force of the universe itself as in pantheism, or monotheism (christianity), theism is a fundamental part of every religion I can think of.

If you have just made your own, right now, that just so happens to be an extreme exception, it is hardly worth a protip.

i didnt say christianity was knowledge stop calling spirituality christianity.

Don't be this guy. Don't be the guy on a thread who forgets what the fuck he said in what context and endlessly backtracks in a pathetic attempt to not appear wrong/stupid.

YOU SAID: Dont people understand that atheism and Christianity make up a fraction of knowledge?

Will not revisit this any longer. Either you will realize what you said, and re-read my post, or you won't. You realizing that I am right, is not needed for me to be right.

common sense

Atheists claim this all the time: Just because you say it doesn't mean its true. Likewise just because society projects a "common sense" or a common belief is the aggregate of all beliefs or the sum of individuals who share the same viewpoint; just because they say it doesnt mean its true - therefore common sense is not necessarily synonamous with virtue.

Atheists claim this all the time: Just because you say it doesn't mean its true. Likewise just because society projects a "common sense" or a common belief is the aggregate of all beliefs or the sum of individuals who share the same viewpoint; just because they say it doesnt mean its true - therefore common sense is not necessarily synonamous with virtue.

Of course not.

Parents the world over could mistakenly believe monsters do NOT live under their children's bed based on the following facts:

They have never seen, heard, felt nor seen any indications whatsoever of the monster's existence, or have had anyone with any valid evidence in the history of mankind come forward with said evidence.

They could STILL be mistaken, however, and monsters could be living under their children's beds. Common sense doesn't mean it is true after all. Just common and making sense.

But for the most part, they are going to trust the eyes, ears, senses, and brain that they trust on a daily basis to get them through various complex facets of this existence, that all suggest to the person monsters do not exist. Otherwise known as common fucking sense.

Give it a try sometime.

Of course not.

Parents the world over could mistakenly believe monsters do NOT live under their children's bed based on the following facts:

They have never seen, heard, felt nor seen any indications whatsoever of the monster's existence, or have had anyone with any valid evidence in the history of mankind come forward with said evidence.

They could STILL be mistaken, however, and monsters could be living under their children's beds. Common sense doesn't mean it is true after all. Just common and making sense.

But for the most part, they are going to trust the eyes, ears, senses, and brain that they trust on a daily basis to get them through various complex facets of this existence, that all suggest to the person monsters do not exist. Otherwise known as common fucking sense.

Give it a try sometime.

No because common sense is as i defined it before, what most people think; that is not a good enough justification for belief; exactly have you have explained it.

Yes most people have this "common sense" you are talking about; they are in the material consciousness

Only small minority are engaged in the spiritual consciousness not including both secular people and religious people

You dont understand religion which is as feeble as your atheism let alone spiritual realization.

Thanks for revisiting

let me just clarify this thread.

When i say people have a shallow understanding of religion i was saying that people lack a breadth of understanding.

People who are atheists are defining themselves by what they are not; they are not christians, and christians are not athiests.


Atheists are also not jewish, muslim, hindi, etc etc. I don't think anyone is proposing that the polar opposite of atheism is christianity.


Dont people understand that atheism and Christianity make up a fraction of knowledge?

People are assuming that christianity is the only spiritual knowledge and atheism is the only material knowledge.

For instance

"I hate God, church is boring, jesus is bullshit i want to be an atheist".

Hold the fucking phone.

What about Vedic philosophy? Jainism? New Religious Movements? Abraham religions?


I was under the impression that atheism was a rejection of the idea of supernatural beings, not the belief that jesus is bullshit. If I reject the Christian God because there's no evidence of his existence, why would I even think about converting to a religion rife with supernatural beings? If I reject the christian god because I don't agree with jesus, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But then you're not really an atheist, and I doubt many atheists reject religion just because of jesus or the church.



Do a bit of research on spiritual understanding and come to your own conclusions?


Obviously the most prudent road to take in any situation


I realise what you do is our of my hands but it makes me sad when people dont know why they believe what they do, that is the clear advantage of the believer over a non-believer.

Its ironic you should mention that, in my experience it is the believers who do not know why they believe what they do (or what they believe for that matter, but that's a different topic). When confronted with the question, "Why do you believe in the religion you do?", most will reply with, "i dunno lol", or , "because I was raised that way". People who do a little research and take an objective look at religions in general are usually called atheists. :)

No because common sense is as i defined it before, what most people think; that is not a good enough justification for belief; exactly have you have explained it.

Yes most people have this "common sense" you are talking about; they are in the material consciousness

Only small minority are engaged in the spiritual consciousness not including both secular people and religious people

You dont understand religion which is as feeble as your atheism let alone spiritual realization.

Thanks for revisiting

Are you saying there are monsters under my bed? :confused:

In any case, as the saying goes, common sense isn't. Lets get away from that. Empirical scientific data which relies on our 5 senses is, however, a great benchmark for judging reality.

If you want to argue that our 5 senses cannot be used to accurately judge reality, then that, my friend, is another whole can of worms, one which I'm not sure you can handle the consequences of opening.

Consider: If a supernatural being can be said to exist without any empirical evidence (that its existence has evaded our perception), then any number of things can be said to exist without empirical evidence. Flying spaghetti monsters and giant pink dildos would be the most benign of these.

What if, however, you operated under this principle in everyday life? As God (or any supernatural being) exists even though I cannot perceive him, so does the force field that will protect me if I try to crawl across an 8 lane highway. Also, there is a nuclear bomb in your house waiting to go off at any moment. People who believe this kind of thing are usually deemed clinically insane.

You see how silly it all is. The only reason the concept of a supernatural being is given any credence whatsoever is that many people have believed in it for a long time. That is it. Lemming mentality at its worst. For you to try and justify it with jibber jabber about different planes of consciousness is plain bullshit.

The burden of proof is on the theists to prove the existence of their god.

Atheists never made any claims, they arose from rejecting the claims of others due to lack of evidence.

Also I would like to note that Buddhism lacks any form of theism, and for that reason is often referred to as a philosophy more than a religion. Lots of people think that Buddha is the Buddhist god, but really anyone can become a Buddha by achieving the mental state of nirvana.

It is possible to be both an atheist and a Buddhist.

Are you saying there are monsters under my bed? :confused:

In any case, as the saying goes, common sense isn't. Lets get away from that. Empirical scientific data which relies on our 5 senses is, however, a great benchmark for judging reality.

If you want to argue that our 5 senses cannot be used to accurately judge reality, then that, my friend, is another whole can of worms, one which I'm not sure you can handle the consequences of opening.

Consider: If a supernatural being can be said to exist without any empirical evidence (that its existence has evaded our perception), then any number of things can be said to exist without empirical evidence. Flying spaghetti monsters and giant pink dildos would be the most benign of these.

What if, however, you operated under this principle in everyday life? As God (or any supernatural being) exists even though I cannot perceive him, so does the force field that will protect me if I try to crawl across an 8 lane highway. Also, there is a nuclear bomb in your house waiting to go off at any moment. People who believe this kind of thing are usually deemed clinically insane.

You see how silly it all is. The only reason the concept of a supernatural being is given any credence whatsoever is that many people have believed in it for a long time. That is it. Lemming mentality at its worst. For you to try and justify it with jibber jabber about different planes of consciousness is plain bullshit.

I give up;

This interaction will never result in anything

its just back and forward over and over

i dont understand you and you dont understand me

I give up....i dont understand you and you dont understand me

Could you be any more angsty teenager? I think we understand you just fine, it is just that you cannot argue against the rational minded. You are not alone.

You dont understand religion which is as feeble as your atheism let alone spiritual realization.

How can my non-participation in something be feeble?

It is like me berating you because you are feeble at designing a nuclear reactor.

--------

I do however understand various religions quite well, have studied plenty, and have practiced two. I was a Baptist most of my life, participating in church functions, singing in choir, attending bible study, helping out in Sunday School, and helping to organize retreats.

I practiced the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism, good 'ol Lotus Sutra, and was an active member of the Soka Gakkai International.

Before I became an atheist, I rejected organized religion and decided to be spiritual. For a time I walked this, the path of the pretentious, until I figured out, the only reason I thought a spirit existed, was b/c someone told me so.

Having a soul is not self evident. This truth got the better of me, and I decided to stop ignoring my brain. I slowly became an atheist, and gained a greater appreciation for things like science, truth, reality, reason, logic, etc. Found them to be most helpful, when not ignored for the sake of a comforting belief.

I gave up the warm fuzzy, for cold logic, and love it.

--------

Now it seems, you like to think "This guy doesn't know what it means to spiritual like me, he just doesn't get it, like me", which may make you feel better as I make a point or three you cannot begin to intelligently address, but you are just flat out incorrect in thinking that.

I gave up the warm fuzzy, for cold logic, and love it.


You have to admit its a love hate relationship though.

Are you saying there are monsters under my bed? :confused:


Maybe the monster is made of dark matter