Did God Create Man?
- Thread starter Taipan
- Start date
rflmao.
i have nothing against someones beliefs. i just don't see why more people can't believe in themselves, first and foremost.
i'm coming back from San Fransisco today. just as i start to get on the bridge i see a patrol car and a work truck flying onto the bridge with their lights flashing. they fly thru traffic. the work truck is in back and turns on its lane closed light board. they shut the lane down. the patrol car stops and 2 guys are out at the edge of the bridge talking to some young boy, maybe late teens early twenties. he is leaning against the rail with a look like, "what?". they thought he was going to jump.
i'm still struggling to process this all.
ramblerpimp209
Well-Known Member
Loose as a goose? I don't think so. Sounds more like chicken little to me.
"why no answers?"
"what will happen?"
"will you really pray?"
"do you just say that?"
"will your prayers be answered?"
?how will I know you have helped me?"
Loose as a goose? Maybe you can fool yourself, but I don't really think you are.
i could really care less. this is just the type of nonsense i get from church people. i have no questions. i need no answers. oh, wait i'm lying. help me god!!!!!!!!!!
midgradeindasouth
Well-Known Member
Wisdom is what we seek.
It has been said the meek shall inherit the earth.
I feel this means after mankind nearly destroys itself a small few will be left to rebuild the human race.
This supposedly happened with Noah's flood.
Who is to say this is not just a statement of the obvious,
The dinosaurs, then on and on.
Anyone heard of the Akashic records that were supposedly written by Thoth?
It has been said the meek shall inherit the earth.
I feel this means after mankind nearly destroys itself a small few will be left to rebuild the human race.
This supposedly happened with Noah's flood.
Who is to say this is not just a statement of the obvious,
The dinosaurs, then on and on.
Anyone heard of the Akashic records that were supposedly written by Thoth?
midgradeindasouth
Well-Known Member
Life is a series of moments.
dumbassdrummer
Active Member
"and if you believe that god created man using evolution, it's possible YOU'RE reaching from some sort of compromise between religion and logic."
Just as the non-existence of reality is possible. Really, I see no difficulty with such a claim, that God, being responsible for existence of reality, would therefore be responsible for the process we call evolution. I don't see the reach.
"but, the god hypothesis lost footing a long time ago."
God as a hypothesis never had any footing, despite it's scholarly support. If you are examining the existence of God through a scientific process you've missed the point of religion, the spirituality, that which transends the apparent (physical) world.
"should anarchy be legal?"
If there is a legal system in place that could regulate "anarchy" you, at best, have an unusual lack of legal control, but you certainly would not have anarchy.
"if god created man then god is an asshole. to have the power of god and have to add misery and suffering to the equation is stupid. why not give man a full life of bliss? what the fuck is with the child molesters? for what reason did god create them?"
Ahh, the problem of evil, this is not a new objection, nor is it an objection to laugh at - such arguments carry a great deal of weight, though, a few responses surface, most notably the concept of freewill. If God is to allow man freewill, God must also allow evil (well, according to some philosophers).
Baked Jesus - I wonder what Stephen Roberts would say to the following:
'My religious beliefs and belief in God are rooted in my own personal spiritual experience. In the course of this experience my faith tradition has, thus far, satisfied my need for spiritual instruction.'
I find it odd that the belief in God is threatening to so many people. I am an ashiest, yet I have no trouble seeing the wisdom in the faith traditions. Certainly, there are members of each faith that are foolish to say the best for them - these fundamentalists who demand that you must believe as they do or you'll suffer some undesirable eternal fate - it's silly. My best analogy for the whole thing:
Everyone is trying to reach the top of the same mountain - we all seek happiness, true happiness, to be content with ourselves and our lives, and live happily regardless of whatever ills may befall us. It does not matter if you can admit this for yourself, you, me, everyone you know, wants to be happy. Happiness is the top of the mountain. And, as with all destinations, there are countless ways to arrive at the destination, as many paths as there are travelers - and there must be as many paths as travelers because we all depart from different locations on our path up this mountain. Who is to say that one path is superior to another? They all lead to the same place. If the Bible has laid out a path that you can understand, a path that works for you, bless you! If the teachings of Buddha, if the Upanishads or Koran, or whatever guidance you have found provides a path to the top of the mountain, a path that works for you, bless you on that path.
Even if you are like me, spiritually reluctant (to say the least!), we still are trying to get to the top of that mountain. Perhaps you have found a path that is not explained in a spiritual context - again, bless you on your path.
For an atheist to demand that there is no God and that belief in God if foolish is just as outrageous and dogmatic as the televangelist demanding that either you repent or you'll go to hell. Both claims follow the same thought process - both demand something that no evidence can be collected for or against.
Just as the non-existence of reality is possible. Really, I see no difficulty with such a claim, that God, being responsible for existence of reality, would therefore be responsible for the process we call evolution. I don't see the reach.
"but, the god hypothesis lost footing a long time ago."
God as a hypothesis never had any footing, despite it's scholarly support. If you are examining the existence of God through a scientific process you've missed the point of religion, the spirituality, that which transends the apparent (physical) world.
"should anarchy be legal?"
If there is a legal system in place that could regulate "anarchy" you, at best, have an unusual lack of legal control, but you certainly would not have anarchy.
"if god created man then god is an asshole. to have the power of god and have to add misery and suffering to the equation is stupid. why not give man a full life of bliss? what the fuck is with the child molesters? for what reason did god create them?"
Ahh, the problem of evil, this is not a new objection, nor is it an objection to laugh at - such arguments carry a great deal of weight, though, a few responses surface, most notably the concept of freewill. If God is to allow man freewill, God must also allow evil (well, according to some philosophers).
Baked Jesus - I wonder what Stephen Roberts would say to the following:
'My religious beliefs and belief in God are rooted in my own personal spiritual experience. In the course of this experience my faith tradition has, thus far, satisfied my need for spiritual instruction.'
I find it odd that the belief in God is threatening to so many people. I am an ashiest, yet I have no trouble seeing the wisdom in the faith traditions. Certainly, there are members of each faith that are foolish to say the best for them - these fundamentalists who demand that you must believe as they do or you'll suffer some undesirable eternal fate - it's silly. My best analogy for the whole thing:
Everyone is trying to reach the top of the same mountain - we all seek happiness, true happiness, to be content with ourselves and our lives, and live happily regardless of whatever ills may befall us. It does not matter if you can admit this for yourself, you, me, everyone you know, wants to be happy. Happiness is the top of the mountain. And, as with all destinations, there are countless ways to arrive at the destination, as many paths as there are travelers - and there must be as many paths as travelers because we all depart from different locations on our path up this mountain. Who is to say that one path is superior to another? They all lead to the same place. If the Bible has laid out a path that you can understand, a path that works for you, bless you! If the teachings of Buddha, if the Upanishads or Koran, or whatever guidance you have found provides a path to the top of the mountain, a path that works for you, bless you on that path.
Even if you are like me, spiritually reluctant (to say the least!), we still are trying to get to the top of that mountain. Perhaps you have found a path that is not explained in a spiritual context - again, bless you on your path.
For an atheist to demand that there is no God and that belief in God if foolish is just as outrageous and dogmatic as the televangelist demanding that either you repent or you'll go to hell. Both claims follow the same thought process - both demand something that no evidence can be collected for or against.
skunkushybrid
New Member
This is a new one for the bible bashers. It seems they are learning. Not really a new one, the intelligent ones think it up and then it spreads to the dumb ones (which with god believers is the majority).
They swap the word evolution with adaptability. Extremely hard to argue against, which must be a first for the believers. In that a god or gods placed this adaptability within us.
It is their argument against evolution. Christianity has always been very good at moving with the times. They use music, even heavy metal to evangelise.
Where this adaptability fails is with the animals. Particularly the ones that live in the deepest of oceans. A place where evolution is rife. Creatures will develop eyes to see as they forage for food a certain level up in the ocean. Gain fins as they move up again to become new creatures.
Germs too that evolve from nowhere. Are your gods still active in creating new life? If so, why must they create life that is going to kill us?
They swap the word evolution with adaptability. Extremely hard to argue against, which must be a first for the believers. In that a god or gods placed this adaptability within us.
It is their argument against evolution. Christianity has always been very good at moving with the times. They use music, even heavy metal to evangelise.
Where this adaptability fails is with the animals. Particularly the ones that live in the deepest of oceans. A place where evolution is rife. Creatures will develop eyes to see as they forage for food a certain level up in the ocean. Gain fins as they move up again to become new creatures.
Germs too that evolve from nowhere. Are your gods still active in creating new life? If so, why must they create life that is going to kill us?
Baked Jesus
Well-Known Member
Who is demanding there is no God? I'm demanding that there is no evidence whatsoever proving the existence of God. Of course there is always the possiblity that God exist, but I'm not going to believe it just because it is possible and cannot be disproven.
Why don't you believe in the tooth fairy? I mean, you cannot prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, so why not believe in the tooth fairy?
Most christians go by what they were taught as children. And I'm willing to bet money that the majority haven't even read the bible. And even if they have read the bible, I'm sure none have read the quaran. So what makes the christian God any more believable than the muslim God? How can you even choose between the two when you haven't read both holy books to compare?
Oh my bad, here comes the christians little friend called 'faith'.
unoitmakesense
Well-Known Member
bible bashersdumbassdrummer
Active Member
"Who is demanding there is no God? I'm demanding that there is no evidence whatsoever proving the existence of God. Of course there is always the possiblity that God exist, but I'm not going to believe it just because it is possible and cannot be disproven."
Nor should you believe in God because God cannot be disproved, you and I both agree that accepting something as true because something cannot be proven untrue is silly. But here is the problem: there is evidence for God, just not evidence that can be presented in a scientific fashion (hence it's spiritual nature). And, no, I do not mean faith, either. Rather, I present spiritual experience (something all faith traditions speak of - Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Pagans, they all have their own variation of meditation for the purpose of spiritual realization, some of these meditations even include the use of drugs). Such evidence, by nature, is useless in convincing others of a particular religious perspective (then again, I'd argue that demanding any particular spiritual practice to be the "true" path is silly) as it is personal - particular to the individual. Further, even a simple explanation of such experience is impossible to craft without using allegory or figurative language, remember Plato's cave?
Now, unless you have any particular argument as to why such spiritual experience is necessarily bunk, you have little room to criticize the possible existence of God, much less the belief in God - even if many who claim God are fools.
If you cannot find evidence for something, nor scientific evidence against it, meanwhile there exists thousands of years of records of experience with something, across all cultures, with such experiences occurring independently of each other, you must at least say "I don't know".
"Most christians go by what they were taught as children. And I'm willing to bet money that the majority haven't even read the bible. And even if they have read the bible, I'm sure none have read the quaran. So what makes the christian God any more believable than the muslim God? How can you even choose between the two when you haven't read both holy books to compare?"
To judge the whole by the acts of some, or even a majority, is unfair, don't you think? You would not judge all Americans based on the actions of George Bush, now would you?
Nor should you believe in God because God cannot be disproved, you and I both agree that accepting something as true because something cannot be proven untrue is silly. But here is the problem: there is evidence for God, just not evidence that can be presented in a scientific fashion (hence it's spiritual nature). And, no, I do not mean faith, either. Rather, I present spiritual experience (something all faith traditions speak of - Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Pagans, they all have their own variation of meditation for the purpose of spiritual realization, some of these meditations even include the use of drugs). Such evidence, by nature, is useless in convincing others of a particular religious perspective (then again, I'd argue that demanding any particular spiritual practice to be the "true" path is silly) as it is personal - particular to the individual. Further, even a simple explanation of such experience is impossible to craft without using allegory or figurative language, remember Plato's cave?
Now, unless you have any particular argument as to why such spiritual experience is necessarily bunk, you have little room to criticize the possible existence of God, much less the belief in God - even if many who claim God are fools.
If you cannot find evidence for something, nor scientific evidence against it, meanwhile there exists thousands of years of records of experience with something, across all cultures, with such experiences occurring independently of each other, you must at least say "I don't know".
"Most christians go by what they were taught as children. And I'm willing to bet money that the majority haven't even read the bible. And even if they have read the bible, I'm sure none have read the quaran. So what makes the christian God any more believable than the muslim God? How can you even choose between the two when you haven't read both holy books to compare?"
To judge the whole by the acts of some, or even a majority, is unfair, don't you think? You would not judge all Americans based on the actions of George Bush, now would you?
nothing you say makes sense
its not just a coincidence that the 3 religions of the world all center around the same god. with life comes evolution. whether its in nature or personal evolution.. to believe that since evolution exist god cannot or vis versa is believing in your own ignorance. adaptation is part of evolution and without 1 the other cant be made possible.. its all part of the creators design. nothing exist by itself.. not even the chicken
