Harder To Believe In - God or Aliens?

Oh dear. Your last posts lacked your usual flair, jakko. Not happy when you're on the ropes?

Thank you so much for your charitable assessment that I was "playing dumb" (yet another example of your propensity to label all non-Christians - or maybe just me - stupid). The thing is, I really didn't understand your point. So c'mon, help me out here...

Do you or do you not believe that the bible - the word of your God - is so fundamental and clear than it's easy for anyone to understand?

It's understandable for anyone who is willing to open the bible and read what's there

Everyone is able to understand the bible, as long as they read it in context and ask the right people to explain.

It is simply not possible to create a book that's both equally clear to everyone, and communicating some very complex concepts.

So which is it, jakko? Is the bible clear, concise and understandable by anyone? Or is it ambiguous, partisan, factually lacking and riddled with amateurish embellishment, thereby rendering it unsuitable as any kind of moral guide-book, let alone a foundation for a religion which dominates the lives of millions?

Or is it just that you�ll pull arguments out of the air to defend yourself against whichever evil Atheist dares question you on the details of your faith?

I wouldn�t make a big deal out of it, jakko, but I�ve enjoyed this debate, and I�d hate for people to read these posts without understanding the natural flow of the discussion and the inherent infallibility of Christians � sorry, I meant �real� Christians. I�m just worried that anyone reading your posts might think that you�re more interested in criticising the intelligence, tactics and debating skills of your opponents, rather than answering the big questions.

Oh, and just for fun, would you like to explain to everyone why you don't consider the Catholic Church to be Christians? It�ll be a hoot, I�m sure!

Originally posted by StrangeLands
help me out here...

You? Always.

It's understandable for anyone who is willing to open the bible and read what's there

The big question is, what is "it" here.
It is the main message, quoting me out of context like this will not make this discussion "flow" any better, and I hope you understand my point cause it can not get any clearer.

Everyone is able to understand the bible, as long as they read it in context and ask the right people to explain.

Everyone is able to understand the entire bible, not just one main message, but everything, as long as they look at things in context and seek answers to their questions.

It is simply not possible to create a book that's both equally clear to everyone, and communicating some very complex concepts.

See the term "equally clear to everyone"? What I mean with this is that some people may be better at understanding Gods word than others.
This is quite obvious, because everyone is unique, and not equally intelligent for example. So even though the main message (the most important core) of Gods word may be very easy to spot and understand, understanding every single thing that's in the bible is harder, because the bible is more then one single core message.

So which is it, jakko? Is the bible clear, concise and understandable by anyone? Or is it ambiguous, partisan, factually lacking and riddled with amateurish embellishment, thereby rendering it unsuitable as any kind of moral guide-book, let alone a foundation for a religion which dominates the lives of millions?

The bible is both clear, concise and understandable for anyone, and challenging, refreshing and sometimes even a complete mystery for anyone, it all depends what parts we are looking at.
That's also so great about the bible, that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the core message (just read the stories about Jesus), but there's enough to discover and learn for very intelligent people as well. (dive into the old testament; Gods history with humans)

Or is it just that you�ll pull arguments out of the air to defend yourself against whichever evil Atheist dares question you on the details of your faith?

You're not questioning my faith, not yet at least.
You're just showing me your lack of understanding regarding the bible and the Christian religion and I have no problem with trying to explain to you what I think I understand. (which is -just to make sure- not everything)

I�m just worried that anyone reading your posts might think that you�re more interested in criticising the intelligence, tactics and debating skills of your opponents, rather than answering the big questions.

I'd say the natural flow of any discussion can be ruined quite easily when people use all kinds of isolated quotes from different posts directed at different people in their attempt to make someones points look flawed.
Noone is going to go back to read what quotes came from what posts directed at who to find out wether you actually made a good point (which you obviously didn't), a rather easy way to "score" don't you think?

Oh, and just for fun, would you like to explain to everyone why you don't consider the Catholic Church to be Christians? It�ll be a hoot, I�m sure!

Ah yeah fun! I think I allready said this, but since I have been repeating myself over and over up to this point, I guess one more time will not do anyone harm.
Hey I have a cool idea, maybe if I make this text bold you will actually remember what I say, and not ask me to repeat myself again?
Who knows, let's try!
The idea of worshipping maria, worshipping saints, having a pope, having a strict system of authority and superfacial rules in a church did not come from Gods word, but from humans.
I can not look into the hearts of every single Catholic out there, but I am sure some are truly Christian and some are truly not.
This does not change the fact that if you want to talk about "Christians" the Catholics are not really a good choice because of their "changed ways" compared to the rest of the christians, that try to follow Gods word instead of the words of humans.

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by Jakko]

Here is more information on science finding that there must be a conscious observer before any matter is formed.

www.wie.org...
www.swcp.com...
www.rialian.com...
www.discover.com...
psychospiritualresearchinstitute.com...

And a scientific experiment on wave collapse and consciousness. (Make sure you read this!!!) Right click if you internet connection is not that fast, because it's a .pdf file.

a1162.fmg.uva.nl...

This page is an impressive one with online books with theories over God and the mind.

www.survivalafterdeath.org...

A quote:

The brain of matter may be a conscious entity or it may not. What this new approach shows, however, is that a primary consciousness lies at a sub-quantum level of reality: in the invisible! Mathematics throws up its fine structure. This created the universe of matter out of its own substance, by the clever use of vibrations, (using quantum waves) in order to provide an environment for mind.

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by TheBandit795]

And here's one with physicist David Bohm's ideas about reality...

www.vision.net.au...

is this all i big joke what is the purpose of everything?


why are we here who made god?

all i know is that its to complicated so i will drink beer eat bbq and try to get another girl to date me

Before I begin, I would like to mention that I too am a new member. I've read this whole thread, and found it quite intriguing; I'm guessing that's probably because I'm a philosopher in some respects. I would also like to say that once I voice my opinion, it's just that, my opinion. I'm not going to intentionally implicate anyone for anything, as I find that quite childish and a poor argumentative stragegy. However, that being said, anyone that makes an attack on anything I say shall get the same brash response, so bare that in mind.

Anyway, on with the post...

I have thought about this very question for many MANY years, and it still seems to ellude me as to how I never can come to a concise answer. It's probably because there isn't one.

As for the existence of aliens, it's almost assured. Just because we haven't seen them yet does not mean that they don't exist. To suggest, however, that they are here might be a bit of a jump, considering there is no scientific proof of any such of a thing. Too often people take a UFO to mean that aliens from Mars or some crap like that are here, when it's most likely a new weapon being tested by our govt. Conspiracy theorists abound, on this site and elsewhere, as to what those might be, but that's not a point to be argued here. What is to be argued here, however, is the EXISTENCE of alien species elsewhere in the universe/multiverse. That, as so many others have posted, is a mathematical certainty. And with that, on to the existence of God...

I find it difficult to see how people can't see that God exists, because it seems so prevalent to me, and I'm not even a "Bible-thumping" Christian. I am, however, a Christian. I follow all of the teachings of Jesus Christ to the best of my ability, and follow the basic principles laid out to me by him.

My personal belief is that the Bible was written to simply tell us that there is a God, and that we should try to be like him in our thinking. From there, the rest of the book is, in my very humble opinion, a guidebook ONLY!! I should also note that the Bible does have a lot of knowledge contained within the verses, waiting to be unlocked by the Holy Spirit. It's not meant to be used to throw at others to try and keep them subjugated like slaves. Many times in history has that happened. King James for one, took many books out of the Bible, namely the Apocrypha. He did this to control the populace, and then he tweaked the rest of the book to suit his ends, which were making the lower-classes subject to his rule, thereby making them his unwitting slaves. He did this all in the name of Christianity!! However, the basic message was preserved, that God IS!!

ALL of my experience shows that God exists, but whether anyone else believes that or not does not matter to me. What does matter, however, is trying to PROVE that he exists. To do that, I have to give a challenge to all those that don't believe. It should be noted here that whether you come to the same conclusion as me or not does not mean anything about you as a person, nor does it mean anything to me. I am just aiming to attempt to show another avenue of thinking, hence the "does not matter to me" comment at the beginning of the paragraph.

Anyway, I challenge all of those here that do not believe to do me a favor; take a look around you, and no, I don't mean just turn your head and look. I mean EXPERIENCE the environment that you were put into. From there, think about all of the strings that went into making all of the quarks that went into making all of the protons, neutrons, and electrons that make up the atoms that make up the elements that make up all that we know to exist. From there, look at the planets, then the Solar System, then the galaxy, then the universe, and then the multiverse(in all of it's theoretical splendor). You'll quickly come to the conclusion that there was some sort of grand design. All this makes my point very clear; that God cannot be PROVEN by the Bible, but only by viewing and EXPERIENCING the greater world around us.

I hope this sheds some light on an otherwise cloudy-at-best controversy. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to opine here in this thread. And GOOD GOD this was a LOONG 1st post. A record for me anywhere, and LOOK!! NO SPELLING ERRORS!!

Welcome. Borg, and thanks for your great post. Though I may disagree with your conclusions, it's clearly something you've spent a lot of time considering.

And thank you too, jakko - that was every bit as entertaining as I expected it would be! Actually, you put your theories regarding the validity of the Catholic Church in bold last time too, and they weren't any more convincing for it. Wouldn't it be just as valid to argue that Catholics are "real" Christians, and you belong to some other, lesser faith? But then, if you weren't a "real" Christian, you might have to start questioning your acceptance of the trappings of your faith, and that wouldn't be fun, would it?

Regarding the "depth" of the bible - I have read the "clear" stories of Jesus just the same as you have, and I have found them unconvincing. Since you suggest these stories are clear to anyone, does that make me stupid or just misguided? Also, it has been previously suggested on your "Christianity Controlling the Masses" thread that the Old Testament is no longer a valid reference, having been superseded by the New - so what possible benefit could study of the Old Testament have for biblical scholars? Is it your suggestion that the contradictions and conflicts between the OT and NT (and, in fact, between the OT and itself) be conveniently ignored? Or are they all written off as decontextualisation?

Work commitments require that I abandon ATS for a few days, but I'll be checking up on your answer.

And please, don't feel obliged to repeat yourself again. I can read your previous posts as well as anyone, and the reiteration of the same beseiged points doesn't get us anywhere. And before you jump on that statement as yet another opportunity to contradict me rather than answer my questions, the reason I repeat the same questions is that your answers aren't the same from one post to another.

Internal contradictions? Abrupt and unmarked changes of opinion? Statements of opinion as fact?

It's good to see that you're following in the biblical tradition.

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Actually, you put your theories regarding the validity of the Catholic Church in bold last time too

Then why did you ask me to explain it to you again?

Wouldn't it be just as valid to argue that Catholics are "real" Christians, and you belong to some other, lesser faith?

No it would not, because what they do and what rules they have has nothing to do with what is in the bible, as I allready stated twice before now.

Regarding the "depth" of the bible - I have read the "clear" stories of Jesus just the same as you have, and I have found them unconvincing.

It would be cool if you would actually explain what stories you are talking about, and what was unconvincing in your opinion. There's a lot of stories about Jesus in the bible you know.

Since you suggest these stories are clear to anyone, does that make me stupid or just misguided?

If you would bother to explain what you're talking about, I would probably be able to make a reply to that.

Also, it has been previously suggested on your "Christianity Controlling the Masses" thread that the Old Testament is no longer a valid reference, having been superseded by the New - so what possible benefit could study of the Old Testament have for biblical scholars? Is it your suggestion that the contradictions and conflicts between the OT and NT (and, in fact, between the OT and itself) be conveniently ignored? Or are they all written off as decontextualisation?

I think I allready explained this as well...
First of all, I never said the old testament is not a valid reference.
The whole concept of seeing the OT in the light of the NT seems very unclear to you, because you seem unable to lose the thought that there has to be a choice between the OT and the NT.
Jesus life on earth and his death changed a lot. Christianity has this name for a reason you know.
Jesus fullfilled the OT's prophecies and died and suffered for our sins.
This means that the stories and rules in the bible before he died talk about sins and how to deal with them in a different way than the stories and rules regarding sinning in the bible after he died.
Jesus actions changed a load.

Does this mean the OT is useless?

Not at all, the OT is more than just a speech about sins, it contains wisdom, the history of the interaction between God and humans, all kinds of lessons and explanations that are essential to the Christian religion.

Does this mean a part of the OT is useless?

Not even a part is useless, because it's never useless to know Gods rules for the humans that lived in the time before Jesus came to earth.

How do I know what rules still apply and what don't?

First of all, the Christian religion does not center around rules.
Rules were made to help us, for our own sake, not to keep us from living our lives freely.
Now some christians think rules are the most important thing in Christianity, and they try to extract as much rules as possible from the OT and the NT.
This makes no sense because of several reasons:

1. A lot of rules are not even directed at the reader/all christians, but directed at a group of people or at individuals that were having a hard time applying the "general rules" to all parts in their life.
If the bible tells us about a church that's falling apart because of several reasons, and a disciple makes additional rules for this church to help it get back on track, it does not mean these rules apply to all churches everywhere, let stand all people everywhere.

2. Most rules in the bible are placed in a context, for example when rules are mentioned in conversations between people.
Quoting these rules out of their context and conversation and applying this to yourself today makes no sense.
Remember God gave us brains, the bible is not a script we must execute, it's a guide from God to us, and we're supposed to think about it, and find answers through its stories.

3. There are rules at several levels, for example "treat others at your want to be treated" is a very general rule, where "do not cheat on your girlfriend" is a very specific rule.
If someone would truly treat others as he wants to be treated, he would most likely not even cheat on his girlfriend either.
See that the general rules are the most important rules of all, and that all very specific rules were written down in the bible as examples of applying the main rules to our lives.
These examples are supposed to help us, they were not made as an endless list of things to keep in mind.

Looking at it like this, it's not hard to know what rules did and did not change after Jesus died, and it also becomes clear that the OT is as usefull as the NT. They fullfill eachother in a way.

Strangelands: I'm really curious; what about my conclusions seem false? I mean all of them are completely logical, and they mesh Science and Religion.

Religion to me is a bad word, since it's been used throughout history to control people. Example: "If you don't believe in God, you're going to Hell!" That's a VERY vast generalization which needs rethought, I think. But, before I go off on a tangent that will result in the total annihilation of any semblence of direction in this thread, I'm gonna call it quits. I just am very curious about that man. Lemme know what you think.

Peace

P.S. Anyone else that feels interested in posting opinions on this, feel free. I'll entertain any ideas.

"If you don't believe in God, you're going to Hell!" That's a VERY vast generalization which needs rethought

isnt that gods word ? i didnt think you where supposed to rewrite gods word to suit

maybe im wrong , maybe its all the headcases i upset who knock on my door trying to convert me - who knows ?

Originally posted by acidhead

"If you don't believe in God, you're going to Hell!" That's a VERY vast generalization which needs rethought

isnt that gods word ?

Isn't God's word actually man's word!

First off, what was meant by that was that there are people that use that EXACT phrase to control others. That, in and of itself, is passing judgement, which reminds me of a verse: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Of course, if one doesn't believe in God, then there's no reason for him to give them passage into Heaven.

Secondly, and this is central to a question that might be best brought up in a fresh topic, what if when we die, we get asked then if we believe/still believe? No one has said that you MUST accept God here, while you're alive. Just a thought. If I didn't make it clear enough, I'm sorry.

Keep the conversation coming people. This is getting to be fun.

Hmmm, interesting thought about being asked one last time. My personal belief is that it does happen. While that may give comfort to some people, I wouldn't want to let my eternal future rely on it. The problem is that if we spend our entire lives denying his existence, how are we going to be able to accept it in a single instant. I believe that how we live shapes our future answers.

Originally posted by CommonSense
Hmmm, interesting thought about being asked one last time. My personal belief is that it does happen. While that may give comfort to some people, I wouldn't want to let my eternal future rely on it. The problem is that if we spend our entire lives denying his existence, how are we going to be able to accept it in a single instant. I believe that how we live shapes our future answers.

at this moment in time there is no proof of the existance of god for me to go in that direction , if god shows himself (which im sure he wont ) i will have proof of his existance , hence, instantly accepting god in a few moments

I don't think it's going to be that easy. If it were everybody would end up believing.

IMO God can not show up in front of you, it's not a person. I think that God is everything that is and ever has existed. Physical or non-physical. Every three, every grain of sand, every person... Everything.

god made man in his own image , read the story book

Originally posted by acidhead
god made man in his own image , read the story book

Which one?

God is what we imagine it to be until proof of its existence surfaces.

Edited to add: It's much easier for me to believe in the existence of aliens than the existence of a god.

[Edited on 5/28/2004 by Bangin]

Bangin,
You make the statement "It's much easier for me to believe in the existence of aliens than the existence of a god."

Why? Now, I've never seen a UFO or an alien, and quite frankly I have no need or desire to. The existence of God I see everyday in creation. Why is it easier for you to believe in aliens. BTW who made the aliens?

Originally posted by acidhead
god made man in his own image , read the story book

I know what's in the story book, you read the posts that I've made in this thread...