Jump to content

God botherers, I want your opinions.


346 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

we are not free !!

....

--.>If every waking thought you have is colored and influenced by the knowledge of God, is it possible for you to have free will?

 

this question, would have a meaning, if we where truly connected to God.

would mean, bidirectional, with communications, and conscience .

 

- at the current state , I don't like organized religion

- whether God is or not, has little bearing on our free will

- might want to read Georg Orwell 1984

 

- ask the question , an Robot on an assembly line !

- ask the question , yourself !

 

in science, nothing is proven until proven.

and it's only proven, if it is repeatable.

 

so prove it, test!

prove to yourself, there is God !?

prove to yourself, that you have free will !?

 

Now the Robot, could probably come to the conclusion, there is God , ( almighty programmer, - see the Matrix)

he can, probably convince himself, that he has free will , too;

but does he really ?

 

here is a new one for you:

- ... say, we are the only intelligent life on this planet , in our solar system,....

.... what if , the only non-intelligent life ( aka free will), is our planet ?

- ...say, there must be, alien life, out there, somewhere ,...

... what if , the only alien life form on this planet, are humans ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Religions, including the big C (Christianity) are based almost entirely on astrology. Much of this relates to the Sun, seasons, etc. The themes that are presented in Christianity have been presented thousands of times before. (12 disciples [12 months of the year, zodiac], virgin birth [constellation virgo], jesus fish [age of piscies, an age is 2150 years], 3 kings [3 stars that align with the brightest star in the sky sirrius], december 25th birthday [the date the sun perceivably starts to come back from the death of winter, and the date that the sun aligns with sirius and the 3 kings]) just to name a few astrological connections.

I's rather say that there are some numbers that appear several times in a lot of places (not only religions), notably 3, 12 and 40. Some "Christians" believe that these numbers are kind of magic (e.g. say a prayer 40 times, and it will be fulfilled), but it has nothing to do with the original Christianity.

December 25th is (probably) not Jesus' birthday. IIRC, it was previously a pagan feast that simply got "converted". There are some indications in the gospels that it was late autumn or early winter, but that's all there is.

The number of kings that brought gifts to Jesus is actually never told, it just states that "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi [Kings] from the east came to Jerusalem" (Mat 2:1).

I really can't see why virgins and fishes necessarily must refer to astrology. Fish was a common meal at Jesus' time. Mary being a virgin IMO (and IM pastors' O) is a sign of purity.

The fact is, religion is slavery. Most religions teach human beings to follow a certain set of rules and to not ask questions, this scheme promotes ignorance, and lets the elite control everything about us they want, using religion as the justification. This is slavery, plain and simple.

You're right. Most religions, as in majority of religions. Not (originally) Christianity. Paul said "Everything is permissible- but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible- but not everything is constructive." (1 Kor 10:23). Basically, the same reasons we have laws; for our own good, not for God's. Not asking questions and promoting ignorance may be called conservative, but, once again, I can't relate this to the original Christianity. Letting the elite control everything about us, has, as you say, nothing to do with the religions themselves: it's got to do with the leaders.

Now, you may ask: who cares about the "original" Christianity? Short answer: I do. Long answer: this has been the goal of all the reformations: to go back to what Christianity once was (that is, before it became the state religion of Rome). I guess we'll always have to live with apologizing for what has been done in Jesus' name through the centuries, and now, I do it again.

"This machine...is the slayer of god..." (Xenogears, Weltall)

 

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

 

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

 

(Yeah, you know the third one :P )

 

 

But let's not go too much offtopic.

 

woteva and rschultz101: I'm sorry, but I just didn't understand a single thing in your posts. :D Either I'm too tired, or you're too dopey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I's rather say that there are some numbers that appear several times in a lot of places (not only religions), notably 3, 12 and 40. Some "Christians" believe that these numbers are kind of magic (e.g. say a prayer 40 times, and it will be fulfilled), but it has nothing to do with the original Christianity.

December 25th is (probably) not Jesus' birthday. IIRC, it was previously a pagan feast that simply got "converted". There are some indications in the gospels that it was late autumn or early winter, but that's all there is.

The number of kings that brought gifts to Jesus is actually never told, it just states that "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi [Kings] from the east came to Jerusalem" (Mat 2:1).

I really can't see why virgins and fishes necessarily must refer to astrology. Fish was a common meal at Jesus' time. Mary being a virgin IMO (and IM pastors' O) is a sign of purity.

 

You're right. Most religions, as in majority of religions. Not (originally) Christianity. Paul said "Everything is permissible- but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible- but not everything is constructive." (1 Kor 10:23). Basically, the same reasons we have laws; for our own good, not for God's. Not asking questions and promoting ignorance may be called conservative, but, once again, I can't relate this to the original Christianity. Letting the elite control everything about us, has, as you say, nothing to do with the religions themselves: it's got to do with the leaders.

Now, you may ask: who cares about the "original" Christianity? Short answer: I do. Long answer: this has been the goal of all the reformations: to go back to what Christianity once was (that is, before it became the state religion of Rome). I guess we'll always have to live with apologizing for what has been done in Jesus' name through the centuries, and now, I do it again.

 

 

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

 

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

 

(Yeah, you know the third one :P )

But let's not go too much offtopic.

 

woteva and rschultz101: I'm sorry, but I just didn't understand a single thing in your posts. ;) Either I'm too tired, or you're too dopey.

 

Virgo means virgin in latin.

 

If you want to study one such parallel between the Jesus myth and another myth, look up the Egyptian god Horus. The parallels are insane.

 

Jesus most likely didn't even exist. And if he did, he did not exist as we "remember" him. If somebody died, was resurrected and ascended into heaven for all to see, then one would think a single historian from that time period would have written about him, but this was not the case. No historian wrote of Jesus until many years after his supposed death.

 

Virgin births are impossible, this whole entire story is a complete myth, one which many people believe to be true, but is in fact false.

 

Jesus was the patron deity within the Gnostic sect of Christianity. This Gnostic sect is what eventually became the established religion of Rome, and the established vein of Christianity that we still "enjoy" to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to study one such parallel between the Jesus myth and another myth, look up the Egyptian god Horus. The parallels are insane.

There is a whole category about Life-Death-Rebirth gods on Wikipedia. The idea of resurrection is far from new. This means that if Jesus is a myth, less fantasy was required to come up with it. It says absolutely nothing about whether this is true.

 

If you mean the "Son-is-father" idea, you should note that Horus was supposedly born after his father's death, which means that this is simply a tale of reincarnation.

 

Jesus most likely didn't even exist. And if he did, he did not exist as we "remember" him. If somebody died, was resurrected and ascended into heaven for all to see, then one would think a single historian from that time period would have written about him, but this was not the case. No historian wrote of Jesus until many years after his supposed death.

Have a look at Historicity of Jesus. The conclusion is "Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians."

 

Virgin births are impossible, this whole entire story is a complete myth, one which many people believe to be true, but is in fact false.

I have a hard time believing that God would have problems doing what a scientist can. Even if it was impossible for humans, God is usually said to be almighty. You might want to look up the definition of that.

I'm amazed by atheists' use of "in fact". For certain values of "in fact", the earth is in fact flat and the zombie rabbit on your head is in fact pink.

 

 

Jesus was the patron deity within the Gnostic sect of Christianity. This Gnostic sect is what eventually became the established religion of Rome, and the established vein of Christianity that we still "enjoy" to this day.
It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict.

Neither Damasus nor Peter were gnostics.

By "the established vein of Christianity", I suppose you mean catholicism. FYI, I'm not a catholic, and I do not intend to defend catholicism.

 

 

We are really going offtopic now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here is my standpoint on God

 

HE DOES EXIST. HE IS AMAZING.

 

We have free will. God gave us free will. God WILL help us if we ask him for help, or even if we don't ask him, we simply believe. If you do not believe in God, and you want free will, I believe God will give that to you, but, there will be punishment in the afterlife.

 

That is my belief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to hear from those that do believe there is a god, do they think they have free will?

If you are talking about God then yes of course.

 

If you are talking about religion, then no.

 

There is a BIG difference, and you need to qualify which one you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"..too dopey" Low indeed. What are you, 10!

 

To dismiss an entire response in such a way, without even an attempt to unpack it.., with one word, one flick.., is to demonstrate an unparalleled arrogance. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the notion of praxis as a demonstration of your beliefs and consider that English, like Christianity is not the only knowledge on this planet. And an avatar is never the book by its cover. kapishka!

 

However, others may like to consider this:

 

" ...Every [person] is what they are through their will and their character is original, for willing is the basis of their inner being. Through the knowledge added to it, they get to know in the course of experience WHAT they are; in other words, they become acquainted with their character. Therefore they know themselves [or, they may demonstrate themselves without knowing this. ed.] in consequence of and in accordance with, the nature of their will, instead of WILLING in consequence of, and according to their knowing, as in the old view. " [Like discovering God and then doing his will. Or, I was lost now I'm found etc.]. Schopenhauer: The world as Will and Representation, trans EFJ Payne, Vol 1, pp. 292-3

 

Repugnant ontological argument logic aside (for that is the only proof of God), it then follows that the immediate inner knowledge of one's own will affords a particular temporal manifestation of will not just in its outward aspects but as a thing in itself.

 

Will for Schopenhauer is pre-eminent. And knowing is the faculty of will. 'Freedom', in this sense is the action of willing (verb), not a consequence of it.

 

Will cannot negate itself, if a characteristic of it is a belief in God. Rather, it is just simply one of its properties. God is not before will, and thinking and acting about God would not prevent one from thinking.

 

The consequence of this view for Schopenhauer is that he did not believe in any personal freedom of the will. He held that the law of causality determined our actions and that motives determined our volitions – an inward aspect of our actions. However, will-in-itself is not and cannot be determined by anything, for it is the originating source of our actions and of everything that happens and we cannot therefore probe beyond it. All we can know is that we will our particular acts in consequence of what we are; but can know nothing of how we have come to be what we are.

 

As for organised religion, its parallel can only be observed in the actions of the spider, which, when illuminated by lights to film it web spinning ability – to observe and investigate this property, to see it's very nature, and because of the heat can no longer produce web silk, it will continue to attempt to do so, to try and spin it web regardless, without ever understanding it predicament. If God then is light, such a spotlight only reveals its darkness when turned back on itself.

 

woteva. apple anyone? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"..too dopey" Low indeed. What are you, 10!

 

To dismiss an entire response in such a way, without even an attempt to unpack it.., with one word, one flick.., is to demonstrate an unparalleled arrogance. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the notion of praxis as a demonstration of your beliefs and consider that English, like Christianity is not the only knowledge on this planet. And an avatar is never the book by its cover. kapishka!

 

I did not dismiss your post: I probably wouldn't have responded to it anyway (after all, that's my own choice, isn't it?). However, I considered your post hard to understand (either because I was too tired or because you were too unclear), and said it as a "BTW" (i.e. not intended as a response) with a smiley at the end. I'm sorry if you feel like I insulted you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If every waking thought you have is coloured and influenced by the knowledge of God, is it possible for you to have free will?

 

May I ask you another question?

Why do you think that free will and God existance are alternative things?

I think we all have free will and God do exists. Or you think our actions and wishes are all God's actions and wishes?

On the other hand there is a saying: If you want to make God laugh tell him about your plans! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel God's love so much, I think I want to have sex...(with Jesus)

 

sorry, I just feel like being ridiculous.

 

Edit: Moderator contacted me about this post. In the interest of peace and good-will I will just explain it.

 

The day I posted this, I was walking through my town that I've lived at for two years now (I live in a really liberal town [bellingham]...so the people who tend to be religious are kind of fanatical about it.)

 

So the day I posted this, I ran into about 5 people that told me that I was going to hell unless I accepted Jesus into my heart and felt his overwhelming love. Forgive my Vulgarness but whenever anybody talks like that my mind immediately jumps to sex and I laugh haha. I wasn't trying to offend anybody or anything, just putting that out there hehe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free will (the ability to determine one's choices) requires a determined universe, and any determined universe can be created by a determined Creator.

 

What we know today that wasn't clear even 50 years ago, is that determinism actually grounds unpredictablity. Even very simple non-linear models can result in chaotic behavior (i.e. where small errors in initial condition measurement result in vastly different outcomes.)

 

Indeterminism boils down to a random, capricious, unknowable Fate ruling supreme. Choices of will must not be detrmined by anything within or outside the individual. It may be that many have this Fate as their God, but we can have no evidence for such a Fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free will requires a determined universe

Free will has NOTHING to do with the universe :(

 

Ones will is the capability of conscious choice and decision. A person with stage 5 Alzheimer's does not have free will, and the "universe" has nothing to do with it. Really, did you even think about what you posted, or did you just do it out of some sort of a knee-jerk reaction? What in your mind made you think that it was even remotely correct? The rest of what you said, while correct, has no function and therefore off topic.

 

Free will is simply the power of making choices unconstrained by external agencies. Nothing more, nothing less. You can do this whether or not you believe in God, but ironically you cannot do this many times while belonging to a religion. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free will is simply the power of making choices unconstrained by external agencies. Nothing more, nothing less. You can do this whether or not you believe in God, but ironically you cannot do this many times while belonging to a religion. Weird.

I think our will is competely contrained (determined) by who we are and able to respond to what we observe. I bring up the universe (space-time, energy-matter, creation) because we are natural. We are part of it all. What we call will is not something outside nature.

 

I happen to think that most of our choices are not so unconstrained by external agency. Though the idea of agency is a little beyond the scope of a predictable model. It seems impossible to get around recognition of either an ultimate determinism or indeterminism. Personally, I think the former is much preferable. If even one small thing/event is indeterminant one must question all reality/knowledge.

 

Religion can involve both belonging and seeking. I tend to err on the seeking side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, erei33, this was exactly what I meant by "can one be accused of doing something that he is pre-destined to do?"!

Yes, how can one be accused of doing something that was not predestined? Think in civil law, can anyone be accused of commiting a crime that didn't involve an action forbidden by a previously existing law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our will is competely contrained (determined) by who we are and able to respond to what we observe.

Well obviously if a person is unable to respond to what they observe then they are either comatose or an infant, so what you said was moot.

 

I bring up the universe (space-time, energy-matter, creation) because we are natural.

As apposed to what, unnatural? :P

 

We are part of it all.

Of course we are. If we weren't then we wouldn't exist, so that's a no brainer. None of this has any bearing on God/free will.

 

It seems impossible to get around recognition of either an ultimate determinism or indeterminism.

 

That's just a fancy way of saying that we either have free will or we don't, so yeah, it would seem to be one or the other but that has no bearing on this topic.

 

Religion can involve both belonging and seeking.

WRONG! Religion has nothing to do with seeking the truth, and everything to do with perpetuating the religion in question. Not only that but it has been shown that people are attracted to religion for the same reasons that a person can be attracted to drugs, so by definition those involved with religion have no real free will. However a person that for one reason or another happens to believe there is a God (or whatever you choose to call him) does have free will in the fullest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel God's love so much, I think I want to have sex...(with Jesus)

 

Actually you touched something quite interesting.

In the Roman Catholic Church, nuns are "married" with Jesus, priests love Jesus...

Plus how many times has been said that Jesus naked on the cross is a sexually charged image...

 

Okay, here is my standpoint on God

 

HE DOES EXIST. HE IS AMAZING.

 

Who told you that God is a "He"? Couldn't God be a "She"? Or, much better, an "It"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who told you that God is a "He"? Couldn't God be a "She"? Or, much better, an "It"?

I think they were only using a figure of speech...

 

The ancient Aztecs probably summed it all best by saying that "No word or sound could ever describe God". Mankind tends to always put things in it's own image for ease of understanding, however truth be told mankind probably couldn't understand God, anymore than an ant could understand algebra :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not dismiss your post:

 

I take it you mean you did not understand you did?

 

However, ... I'm sorry if you feel like I insulted you.

 

"I'm sorry for such an unintended insault' would have been better, if that is what you are suggesting?

 

But, we move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they were only using a figure of speech...

 

The ancient Aztecs probably summed it all best by saying that "No word or sound could ever describe God". Mankind tends to always put things in it's own image for ease of understanding, however truth be told mankind probably couldn't understand God, anymore than an ant could understand algebra :P

 

Well said. You are very near to my way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...anymore than an ant could understand algebra :D

 

Now dont go talking for Ants, nor Algebra for that matter, now.

 

<"No word or sound could ever describe God">

 

Incorrect. Every autre, in this sense, does just that. This is the falacy of all religious doctrine: to know is to not know... [i would hasten to add, and the problem of organized religion and sects and with deeds done in its name. But hey, observe the inherent nature of nasty 'miricles' and 'divine direction' of Gods Will.]

 

<Mankind tends to always put things in it's own image for ease of understanding...>

 

Indeed. But rather would suggest : 'the man kind' and, 'their own'. Collective consiousness still is just that -a collection, of seperate enties. There are and will always be as many Gods as wills that have entertained the notion; and such an observed property dos not suggest unity, only that which is observably common.

 

In nut shell: the social hyjacking of personal sovereignty, negated by influence, does not produce a common wealth in the name of a thing so it maybe rendered easily.

 

<...own image.., ...using a figure of speech... >

 

I find these propositions fasinating. Can the image before the mind be uttered?

 

< however truth be told>

 

Why not: Truth - the universal binding of desire with sysmetry in an attempt to negate entrophy?

 

<probably couldn't understand God, >

 

I would say nice byte. more apple.

 

Who told you that God is a "He"? Couldn't God be a "She"? Or, much better, an "It"?

 

God is He only by virtue of historical nessissity. The blokes had the charcol and wouldn't let the girls play. 'own image and to do Gods Will' are relevent intercedere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that but it has been shown that people are attracted to religion for the same reasons that a person can be attracted to drugs, so by definition those involved with religion have no real free will.

 

Hmmm.. Are you saying that individuals whom indentify attractions to religion, or drugs do so because of their inherent will. Or, that the drugs made them do it?

 

If there is a shared pychological state that govens their actions then it can only be in the observation of things done on mass, or perhaps, of a desire to be again in a state of pre-lanuage (Lacan), which of course is something we all share - and even relish in our death, at times, as well.

 

However I don't think Dawkins et el, has ever provided such proof. Is there such evidence in the liturature? Meme theory would tend to suggest the possibility of such evidence, but I have not seen any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. Every autre, in this sense, does just that.

Perhaps we should have said "No word or sound could ever describe God - accurately".

 

Can the image before the mind be uttered?

Every thing ever done by mankind, every invention, every technology ever designed, every building ever built, every advancement, first started with a thought in someone's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every thing ever done by mankind, every invention, every technology ever designed, every building ever built, every advancement, first started with a thought in someone's mind.

 

I would say all things. But they don't disappear when I turn away. well, not without being a little more than mildly intoxicated they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...