Common Arguments for "GOD" to Be Aware Of

reply to post by Annee

It is not about "I don't know" - - I fully admit I don't know anything. I could be an Avatar in Sim City for all I know. But then who or what is playing the game.

Then it really is about "I don't know", you don't know "who" or "what" is playing the game, or if a player is even a necessary assumption.

I have belief. I believe everything is Energy.

That's a generalisation, i don't know what you mean by "ENERGY"

Are you referring to energy in the same way that a scientist does in regards to "Laws of thermodynamics"?

It seems that the word "GOD" is just being replaced with "ENERGY". The Jedi Philosophy in Star Wars talks of "THE FORCE" - it's just referring to that which it doesn't not understand, the mechanic forces of the universe.

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature or "ENERGY") and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.

Again, i could call the power of the universe "The FORCE", it still wouldn't renounce my Agnosticism, or Atheism. I don't know if there's a magical creator behind "THE FORCE"

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Let's remember that mono-theistic doctrine is exclusive and absolute and not subject to change if the followers believe it is the TRUE word of God.

That statement is untrue. Some christians do not even bring God into the equation, instead following only the edict of "love one another." One can say they are some other type of belief system other than christian, but no one has exclusive or absolute rights to the definition. They claim themselves to be christian, they know better than a third party human commenting. Though, it does apply to mass organized religion when used as a form of control. If "they" are the only ones to have the answers, it is easier to control your followers (do note i did not say "believers"). To expand, i personally have a mono-theistic system, but it is not exclusive or absolute even within my own perspective. It is my conceptualization of something that is beyond human comprehension, and as such, it cant be exclusive or absolute by its very nature.

The reason i keep asking the box question is that you seem to do it. It may not be the intent, but thats the perception.

I figured id put a little more effort in before moving on

Peace friend

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

It seems that the word "GOD" is just being replaced with "ENERGY". The Jedi Philosophy in Star Wars talks of "THE FORCE" - it's just referring to that which it doesn't not understand, the mechanic forces of the universe.

True. If one is open minded enough to understand that.

I do not use the label "god" - - because of the perception religions have of "god".

I do use the label Creator - - as a point of reference - - the beginning - - the first energy consciousness. It helps simplify discussion. Plus Creator means to create - - it isn't just a label.

I believe everything is a creation of thought. Thought is energy consciousness.

Can I explain how energy evolved into consciousness and thought consciousness creates? NO. Its just what I believe.

reply to post by sinohptik

That statement is untrue. Some christians do not even bring God into the equation, instead following only the edict of "love one another."

Then why follow "Christianity" or any or schism of Christianity if you don't believe to the truth of metaphysical claim?

It's one thing agreeing with the ethical philosophy, to be a believer is to believe in the metaphysical claims, why else follow that religion? (and before you say, you can take in its moral messages without labelling yourself)

"love one another" is a concept than can be adhered to without labelling yourself with a Religion.

As an atheist, i can agree or disagree to the moral teachings of bible, a person of FAITH, is more likely to agree to them as they believe them to be the true word of God.

What you speak of is something called Vague Faith, the cherry pickers of religion, who pick and choose which bits THEY consider true. THUS CREATING THEIR OWN RELIGION. It's a distored view of an already PRE-MADE religion.

Compare the average american Christian (vague faith) to the evangelical fanatical Christian.

There are a lot of differences: -one preaches Gay hatred (because of the God's position on homosexuality), the other defies the word of their own God but also believes in some of the fairy tales. the fanatical may "believe" the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and teach against evolution.

I know those with vague faith are not necessarily harmful, but their beliefs ARE harmful especially when passed on to children. It's what's at the core of the belief that causes harm, superstition and irrationality.

This faith is based on an ancient doctrine, and metaphysical fears of a description of a dictator that is all powerful.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Peace

A&A

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Then why follow "Christianity" or any or schism of Christianity if you don't believe to the truth of metaphysical claim?

*shrug* You would have to ask them

Really my point was that your personal definition of religion, and christianity specifically, does not define anything other than your own perspective on the matter.

reply to post by sinohptik


What is my personal definition of religion? Mono-theistic, deistic, poly-theistic, Zeus, Ra, Wotan, Thor, Allah, Bhudda - i still think all of their metaphysical claims are at minimum; unreasonable, and at worst; untrue.

I have no concern with Bhuddism, Taoism, they're moral teachings specifically condemn violence(which is good), but i still think the metaphysical claims are irrational and intelectually bankrupt.

Mono-theistic religions are worse because they teach exclusivity, which causes prejudice. Sometimes it teaches Martyrdom and Jihad!

Obviously a Christian is going to think less of a Jew if he TRULY calls himself a follower, because he believes that Christianity is the TRUE religion as preached by "GOD" himself and that the Jew is a sinner, or a non-believer. This is an irrational belief that has an effect on human relations. That's all i'm saying.

You say it's my "perspective" i say that i have evidence for my perspective, there is evidence to the harm it causes, there is evidence that the preachings of some religions are irrational, there is evidence of religiously motivated war, there is evidence of suicide bombings in the name of religion, there is evidence that people do wicked things in the name of God, there is NO evidence of the metaphysical claims to this "GOD"'s existence.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I believe organized religion has a great influence in how people act, for better or worse. However, the individuals involved must also be held personally responsible for their choices. I dont think organized religion can absolve them of the responsibility for their actions. From their perspective, or from the perspective of more blame being placed on organized religion.

Mass organized religion teach exclusivity. Very few of the religions themselves propose that in their very core teachings. I think its mans corruption that has lead such things astray, and not the core beliefs themselves. I still feel that the personal journey must be navigated "alone" in the sense of realizing it its ones own perspective that gives personal meaning to these things. Using someone elses concepts can only go so far.

reply to post by sinohptik

I believe organized religion has a great influence in how people act, for better or worse

I agree, I'm not against all of the moral philosophy it teaches, but i think metaphysical claims "GOD", "AFTERLIFE", "REINCARNATION" "HEAVEN/HELL" are irrational beliefs, and unfalsifiable beliefs.

Philosophy built on the idea of arguments from ignorance generally have negative consequences. Obviously some more than others, Bhuddism is more tame in regards to philosophy and "commands", although the metaphysical claims could still be considered irrational.

People still thought killing, raping, stealing, unconcented adultry were bad traits of any society before metaphysical claims are introduced, before RELIGION was introduced, it comes from social responsibility. Our species would not have progressed if this was not the case. We have an innate sense of altruism and we can clearly see the benefits from it.

A&A

Please, you may understand why i have the feelings i do if you listen and think - Maybe we can open that box a bit more, i'm willing to entertain the POSSIBILITY of a God, but until definetly proved, i won't believe it - Especially religion, because it is nonsense:-