Because I admit there might be a higher being up there? Science cannot prove a lot of things. For example, the most basic rule of modern science, something cannot come from nothing. Well where did the first something come from?
Well, not really.
Look at the Kasimir effect: If you put two (very good) mirrors (or metal plates) close to each other, in a vaccuum (!), they will feel an attracting force to each other. Even thouhg, their is “nothing” between them and “nothing” around them.
(The solution for this is pretty: the 2 “nothings” are different. Placing these mirrors exludes some of the so-called vaccuum modes (which is, no photon with a wavelength longer than twice the distance between the mirrors can exist between those mirrors). Thus, there are more vaccuum modes possible in the “outside” than in the “inside”. The inevitable fluctuations in these modes now result in the “outside” having a higher “vaccum-pressure” than the “inside”, and thus a force).
… people realize that the things they do wrong are the reason they are condemned to Hell. I think that it’s generally known that life is made up of opportunities and the choices/decisions that go with them. If someone goes to Hell it’s because they choose not to believe what Christ did. They choose to go to Hell.
In the first sentence it is the actions of people that condemn them to hell, later on you specify that to one action, which is not believing in christ.
More to that will follow.
… I don’t think that people who willingly die for their faith are wimps. It’s just the opposite. And, I realize that my knowledge is simplistic, but isn’t karma where good actions make good karma and vice versa? I haven’t grasped the more complicated side. In that case, if as a Christian, my focus is pleasing God by doing the right (or good) thing, I have good karma and move up in the cycle of samsara.
Again, you equate the actions of “doing good and pleasing god” with “going to heaven” (at least implicitly you do so).
And what has this “die willingly” to do with christianity? I don’t think that all christians are martyrs, or that you need to be a martyr for being a christian.
… Religion is a system of works. Since a philosophy is a “system of values adopted by an individual, group, etc.” (New International Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language) or “the general laws that furnish the rational explanation of anything” (same Dictionary) Hinduism could be considered either one. Semantics.
Call it semantics, then let me call it faith-arrogance ;).
Why does Christianity qualify as a religion, whereas Hinduism doesn’t?
(And i don’t really get what you mean by “system of works”)
Abrahams works were “counted unto him for righteousness.” Before Christ’s death I’m sure you’ve figured out that the way to Heaven was based on works - following God’s mandates on sacrifices and stuff. After Christ, it’s based on faith in the fact the He died on the cross, was buried, and resurrected three days later. He ascended into Heaven to sit at the Father’s right hand.
So, at one stage god changed the qualifiers for entry-to-heaven? And notice again that you say that for christianity it is only a question of believing and not action. From what i know, there are some differences in the christian churches wether that is true or not, depending on wether you are catholic, or calvinist for example, that’s AFAIR though i could be wrong there.
Just as it has been mentioned on a different thread: I could do whatever evil deeds that i want, as long as i say and believe that JC died for my sins, i am saved? I could do as much good as i want, and live after the philosophy that JC founded: if i don’t believe that he was the son of god i would go to hell?
Is that really what you believe? Then why does it seem to me that you mixed up this difference between action and believe to something like “you must believe in JC and act to please god to go to heaven”?
I’m detecting a little “hate-Atheism” from the author of this post. Clearly we all agree that the existence of any diety is beyond proof or disproof if you will. As stated earlier, all we have is our personal beliefs and/or opinions in which to conduct this discussion. It seems rather out of bounds to declare any belief system is invalid or wrong. A rather arrogant and ignorant statement. Our free societies are lucky to have religious freedoms. That includes (like it or not) us atheists. The right to believe or not without pressures from government or other groups. Places like this site where one can openly discuss it.
Please tell us Janus WHY you feel as you do. I hope it’s not because the malls are too crowded in December. It seems from your original post you need to brush up on pre-civilization human history if you want to know where beliefs in gods and the start of religion originates from. Our current groups are merely present day forms of our ancestors first take on the world and cosmos.
As an atheist I find myself defending the deists on this thread. That’s the problem with atheist’s - no central belief system. All have personal interpretations on even the simple dictionary definition of the word.
So what do you say Janus, tell us your thoughts…
i know jazz, thus the touche.
…as i know it to be so.
You know jack crap!
At least the ones who do believe in God have the humbleness to admit that they can’t be sure he’s out there, but it’s safer to side with believing in a God than not.
getting a little personal deviant:scripter?
You know jack crap!
perhaps my statement seemed a bit arrogant, if so, then i apologize. by “i know it to be so” i mean in a way like when you know somebody is lying to you in some way, but cant prove it, or you know someone has done something wrong, but cannot prove it. that is how i know that god does not exist. feel free to challenge it, as i certainly challenge your belief in the existence of god, but i will know for myself that god is not real.
but it’s safer to side with believing in a God than not.
this is one of the things that annoy me the most about people who believe in god. by this statement, it is implied that many of these people believe in god only to be safe in the unlikely event that god exists. that is pathetic. if your going to believe in god, i will challenge your belief, but if you truly believe in him, i will at least respect your stance (though i know it to be erroneous). but i cant respect someone who believes in god, just to cover their ass. a belief one way or the other should be something you truly hold to be so, not something to make sure your safe
by “i know it to be so” i mean in a way like when you know somebody is lying to you in some way, but cant prove it, or you know someone has done something wrong, but cannot prove it.
like… “You don’t need proof when you got instinct!” -Reservoir Dogs
I’m an atheist, by the way. Used to do the whole church thing, was raised as a Christian, but just gave it up by myself. No particular reason, just got tired of it. I found a reason to be against it the other day though! If I live a good life, I’m a good influence on other lives, I try to make the world a better place, I’m a nice person, if I had a family, etc, but just DIDNT believe in God or any religion…and me not being let into heaven for that. I think if there is a heaven, it should be for the decent people, regardless of religion :-?
getting a little personal deviant:scripter?
You know jack crap!
perhaps my statement seemed a bit arrogant, if so, then i apologize. by “i know it to be so” i mean in a way like when you know somebody is lying to you in some way, but cant prove it, or you know someone has done something wrong, but cannot prove it. that is how i know that god does not exist. feel free to challenge it, as i certainly challenge your belief in the existence of god, but i will know for myself that god is not real.
or more appropiately - you do not feel that God is real for you.
You feel something else. This is something that you can not put your finger on . . . just something. This something tells you there is no God. Weird. And yet you criticize those of us who feel strongly by something we can not put our finger on, but have experienced in a powerful way. Interesting.
@Deviant:Scripter:
… but it’s safer to side with believing in a God than not.
There is one thing that contradicts this statement:
More or less every non-catholic (and from what is written here, more or less everyone) is a heretic in the “strict formal” sense for orthodox catholics. Thus, even if you then believe in god, you do it the wrong way and will not go to heaven…
So you even cannot be sure that you are on the safer side, as you might be a member of the wrong denomination (correct word?) and thus not be a good christian …
(i am reading an interesting book at the moment, about the roman Inquisition, by a Kiwi who was the first to see those formerly secret documents even before they were declared “open for the public”)
@F_alk:
@Deviant:Scripter:
… but it’s safer to side with believing in a God than not.
There is one thing that contradicts this statement:
More or less every non-catholic (and from what is written here, more or less everyone) is a heretic in the “strict formal” sense for orthodox catholics. Thus, even if you then believe in god, you do it the wrong way and will not go to heaven…
So you even cannot be sure that you are on the safer side, as you might be a member of the wrong denomination (correct word?) and thus not be a good christian …(i am reading an interesting book at the moment, about the roman Inquisition, by a Kiwi who was the first to see those formerly secret documents even before they were declared “open for the public”)
F_alk - i’m not as smart as i think i am.
What are you referring to? And should you not be capitalizing “catholic” so i may separate the denomination from the concept of a “universal or catholic church” from the "C"atholic church?
I think i may know where this is going. Depending on the Catholic doc’s you are referring to, keep in mind that many of them were political state-driven policies that the Catholic church adopted to fullfill the mandate (read: greed) of some pope or to make life easier/harder for some political rular - many of these new documents at the various councils may not be taken seriously in this event.
@cystic:
More or less every non-catholic (and from what is written here, more or less everyone) is a heretic in the “strict formal” sense for orthodox catholics.
What are you referring to? And should you not be capitalizing “catholic” so i may separate the denomination from the concept of a “universal or catholic church” from the "C"atholic church?
True…. but as a german ESL, i tend to capitalize the wrong words :)…
Remember, in german every noun is capital, so, not to make that mistake, i often use too few capital letters.
You are right, i was speaking of the Roman Catholic Church and its roman Holy Inquisition (not the spanish Roman Inquisition…)… phew, did i do these ones right ;)
Depending on the Catholic doc’s you are referring to, keep in mind that many of them were political state-driven policies that the Catholic church adopted to fullfill the mandate (read: greed) of some pope or to make life easier/harder for some political rular - many of these new documents at the various councils may not be taken seriously in this event.
I have to disagree with this. There were a lot of orthodox C/catholic censors working, banning books on questions/diffferences of the dogma only. Some were banned due to inner-church power-conflicts (as some books of censors were censored), but many just because they disagreed with the T/truth of the Catholic dogma.
For example: A book of Leibniz was banned, because he said that the way the people believe is not that important, as long as they do it “in good will”. This freedom was classified as heretic, and thus his book was banned.
It was not so much the greed of a single pope that was the driving factor (in fact, the popes had very limited influence on the Inquisition), but the power and unity of the Catholic Church that, as they saw it, had to be defended.
The Roman Inquisition in the way we talk of it was founded after the book-printing was invented, as an answer to the “infectious” protestantism, in 1542.
It gained its power from Paul IV., and longer than the “counter-reformation” was the political course, it had a lot of influence in the Inquisition (and related congregations of the church).
I think the book was called something like “The secret inquisition” by Peter Godman. It’s not such a bad read :)
Is there sex in Heaven? I mean for pleasure,not reproduction…To me,thats one of the greatest things about being alive…I cant imagine eternal life with no pussy…I would rather go to Hell if this is true…
Was that really a neccessary comment? Seems a little inappropriate…. :(
not so much innappropriate as out of place
Quote:
… Religion is a system of works. Since a philosophy is a “system of values adopted by an individual, group, etc.” (New International Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language) or “the general laws that furnish the rational explanation of anything” (same Dictionary) Hinduism could be considered either one. Semantics.Call it semantics, then let me call it faith-arrogance .
Why does Christianity qualify as a religion, whereas Hinduism doesn’t?
(And i don’t really get what you mean by “system of works”)
A “system of works” is the things people do to achieve something. In this case it is the things they do to reach either heaven or the highest spiritual state, like nirvana. So in a non-spiritual sense, you could compare it to a businessman doing things to reach the top of the ladder. I’m sorry if I implied that Hinduism doesn’t qualify, but frankly I don’t see how you inferred that from my statement. It is a religion.
At least the ones who do believe in God have the humbleness to admit that they can’t be sure he’s out there, but it’s safer to side with believing in a God than not.
Excuse me as I make myself an exception. I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there is a God. This is where I differentiate between faith and science. Faith is where my convictions lead me to be sure that there is a God. Science also brings me to this conclusion, but I can’t scientifically prove it. I know that’s confusing. I’ll try to explain it better later if I can, but right now I can’t find a better way to put it. Science can just as easily be taken to point toward evolution, but there are infinite ways to explain away its discrepancies (did I spell that right?), and more keep coming up.
So call me prideful and arrogant, but I KNOW that there is a God.
I know I just opened up another whole can of worms, but oh well. I guess Janus and I could be called the “extremes” of both sides. :) Although maybe Janus won’t want to have anything in common with me. :wink:
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (I Corinthians 1:18, King James Version)
“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes.” (II Timothy 2:23, KJV)
not at all difrent, youve just made my statement seem valid. you KNOW there is a god, i KNOW that you are wrong, and there is no god. :). unfortunately, i can see the pro-god side on a few issues, but i refuse to play devils advocate in this case
dont mean to butt in but, it seems quite logical to express your veiws on a God/Religon but trying to convert others and trying to prove others wrong has no point to it.
This topic is one based on Faith, and Faith for most does not need proof or logic to it its just there.
the only way your gonna conver people who have solid beleifs is to either/kill them or force them to shut up or just brainwash their children, otherwise this topic is pointless
my 2 cents :)
well, in that regard, you could consider most topics pointless. but im not trying to convert anyone, im perfectly happy to let you wallow in your ignorance. :)
well, in that regard, you could consider most topics pointless. but im not trying to convert anyone, im perfectly happy to let you wallow in your ignorance. :)
As we are with you… :wink:
haha, touche DS
dont mean to butt in but, it seems quite logical to express your veiws on a God/Religon but trying to convert others and trying to prove others wrong has no point to it.
This topic is one based on Faith, and Faith for most does not need proof or logic to it its just there.
the only way your gonna conver people who have solid beleifs is to either/kill them or force them to shut up or just brainwash their children, otherwise this topic is pointless
my 2 cents :)
Butt in any time (and welcome to the forums).
It’s interesting. The two “extreme” sides - D:S/Me and Janus are working off of faith. We have faith that God has given us that God exists (not only that, but wants to have a relationship with us). Janus has a considerable amount of Faith that God does not exist. I think we’ve done an adequate job of explaining the source of that faith - if not using science to “prove” that which can’t be proven.
At the same time, Janus, does your faith come from a vacuum? If not, then which influence in your ideology generated it? Or is it something that you feel? And how do you feel it - like gravity? Like love (or the opposite . . . apathy)? Like the rest of us feel God?
