[gecko]

cant we all just come to our senses and realize theres no god?
 
i mean really. knock it off!

[bostjan]

roman catholics were not the 'original' christian religion.  that'd be the twelve disciples.  the coptic christians are much closer than roman catholics to the practices of the disciples.

but yeah, that's a great point!  what if only jehovah's witnesses are right?

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by bostjan

roman catholics were not the 'original' christian religion.  that'd be the twelve disciples.  the coptic christians are much closer than roman catholics to the practices of the disciples.

but yeah, that's a great point!  what if only jehovah's witnesses are right?

Technically, the twelve disciples were Jews, not Christians.  Exactly where one draws the historic line between early Christianity and Judaism is difficult.  Clearly, by the time the Roman Empire adopted Christianity (and not Judaism) they were separate, but what the Roman Empire adopted was what we now regard as the Greek Orthodox form of Christianity, but by the time that was adopted there were already many different variants of Christianity (in fact, since there was not prior to Christianity becoming the State religion of the Roman Empire and standardising body for Christianity, there would have been no standard Christianity).

George

[RMorty]

Ah I see, I was taking the solipsism thing as being a way to say that you cant use science to disprove or prove anything because you dont know its real.

 

quote:However, you have explained you simply meant reality is only what it is toeach of us differently. kinda?  It is a very confusing concept. i got cross eyes reading If what you are saying is that we need to define an arbitrary reality as being an arbitrary absolute starting point, I have no problem with this. All I was trying to say is that you cannot state any reality as being guaranteed to be the only possible reality; but that does not stop you from selecting a reality as something that you choose (out of expediency) as being real (assuming you actually exist ).

I got a little confused, but I now see you meant that as exactly, reality is only as real as it is to each of us.

[bostjan]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by bostjan

roman catholics were not the 'original' christian religion.  that'd be the twelve disciples.  the coptic christians are much closer than roman catholics to the practices of the disciples.

but yeah, that's a great point!  what if only jehovah's witnesses are right?

Technically, the twelve disciples were Jews, not Christians.  Exactly where one draws the historic line between early Christianity and Judaism is difficult.  Clearly, by the time the Roman Empire adopted Christianity (and not Judaism) they were separate, but what the Roman Empire adopted was what we now regard as the Greek Orthodox form of Christianity, but by the time that was adopted there were already many different variants of Christianity (in fact, since there was not prior to Christianity becoming the State religion of the Roman Empire and standardising body for Christianity, there would have been no standard Christianity).

George

I have to disagree with two things you said.  Christian means literally 'follower of Christ.'  If you believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the one called 'Christ,' then a) The disciples were the first followers of Christ, because they not only followed him around, but they followed his teachings and b) the start of Christianity was the same as the start of Jesus's teachings.

It is semantical and quite a simple line of thinking.

But yes, of course the disciples were Jews.  If you read my post, I mentioned 'coptics.'  If you do a little research, you will find that the coptic denomination was spread by Jews like St. Mark and Theophilus, but I didn't say they were the first Christians, just that they are closer than Roman Catholics.

[RMorty]

Right, but did they follow the same teachings of the original bible. Whatever that may be?  What I mean is, if the 12 dudes and the roman catholics believed the same things, then are they really different at all.

  Also, what do Christians have to say about people living before Christ?  Did they all go to hell for not believing in god?  See that sounds friggin dumb! How can that be explained?

[simeonie]

I am a christian myself =D and to be honest i dont know the answer to that question but i can deffo find out  from my pastor or something.
To be honest though perhaps they went to hell? no one deserves to go to heaven, if justice prevailed then everyone would go to hell. But God showed mercry and sent his son so that didnt have to happen.
   As the Bible seems to indicate, some people did go to heaven even before christ like before they died then went up to heaven
   I dont know for sure the answer to ur question and i am myself interested in the answer. I am just thankfull that god gave me a chance to go to heaven

[Mjhavok]

Read "The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins and "The End of Faith" By Sam Harris.

I think religions cons out weight any pros it may have.

People who say they find it comforting to think they will go to heaven or that when a loved one dies they go to heaven, I can totally understand that they would find comfort in this. That said, just because something is comfortable doesn't make it true. Like Richard Dawkins I care about what is true. If I had cancer I would want to know about it even if it was terminal.

In science we can't yet understand everything, we might never understand the theory of everything. Just because we don't know or can't understand something doesn't mean god did it. That is a cowardly cop out and highly insufficient.

The latest attempt by Intelligent Design and creationist nuts is to try and equate out lack of understanding of quantum mechanics to someone prove god. This is intellectual criminalism in my opinion. Just another snake oil salesman. Morally reprehensible.

My tired is over :-S.

www.richarddawkins.net is a great site for Secular, Humanists, Atheist freethinkers or anyone who feels they are the edge with regards to religion.

I'm not Richards PR agent by the way lol, just a huge fan.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful,without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too."
-Douglas Adams

[gecko]

this is my real advice people, if you think you need moral guidance, read aesops fables. its morals dont contradict each other like the bibles do. no one is ever brutally murdering each other cause a bully in the sky said so.
it has more complicated morals than "dont steal cause god will punish you". in fact, it involves things like not getting tricked, pacing yourself, and not taking advantage of others kindness. it doesnt rely on punishment and bribery to teach lessons.

if youre having trouble with not knowing what to believe; in general terms: study logical fallacies. read each one of them, recognize what is illogical and start to notice these arguments presented in everyday life. i have never heard "proof of god" that didnt involve a logical fallacy. but it is a good thing to have in mind no matter what your stance on god, in regards to what human beings try to convince you of.

i suggest this, because i did it. so after this, after i have learned many complex moral dillemmas and truisms to live my life by, after i know when someone is trying to lie to me or trick me, what can god do for me?

[Mjhavok]

When Napoleon asked the Mathematician and Astronomer Laplace where God fitted into his model of the universe, the scientist’s answer was: “II ne me faut pas de cette hypothése-la” (I have no use for that hypothesis which you mention).

[nature boy]

If is he is,If isn't he isn't.It all depends on what you perceive as god.

Nature is my relegion and science is my language.So,i feel god everywhere,because nature is ubiquitous.

Let me explain it using the uncertainity principle.

If you define the position of god in churches temples snd mosques,there will be an uncertainity related to his effect,he is ineffective.

On the other hand if you attach an uncertainity in his position by saying nature is god , he is effective.(there will be a positive impact.

 beleive in god and not in relegions.

[Mjhavok]

This is all good and well. A kind of Einsteinian religious feeling. You don't believe in an invisible sky daddy though.

[nature boy]

What does that mean ?Invisible sky?

[Mjhavok]

Invisible sky daddy. Invisible and Sky in the sentence are both used to describe the word daddy (god). I'm sorry I left out the footnotes for dummies.

[nature boy]

Thanks Dummy(whatever that might mean).

[Mjhavok]

You asked.

[nature boy]

So ......?

[Titanscape]

Many founders of science held the belief there is a god. Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, RJ Oppenheimer.

Where does the idea come from? Homo Sapien hardwiring, ancestry, hearing, seeing, reading then.

Motive and reason are different.

People actually love God/gods.

People ask, "where did I come from, where am I going?"

People sense a need to attribute good and evil to sources.

So science doesn't prove He isn't, it suggests He is, but belief only comes from revelation and testimonies and evidence, not scientific proof. Such as in a test tube.

Aristotle I think deduced gods, the Greeks had gods and started science off. And that there are gods too.

The sky and earth are an awesome richly detailed enduring abundance, begging a source and sourcing promise of more and the unseen. An intelligent source says the ancient Greeks. For me it is family tradition, based on history and Jesus.

[Mjhavok]

Ok you know nothing about Einstein. He didn't believe in a Christian type god or afterlife. This is a typical argument from christian apologists. It is called "the argument from great men". They usual say "oh Isaac Newton was a smart man, a scientist, he believed it god." Typically they use a scientist that is pre darwinian before anyone really knew better. Also in the past Atheist or people who didn't believe where killed because of it. Aristotle I think had doubts but probably was religious as back them everyone was, Newton was religious, Einstein did not believe in god in the sense that he listens to prayers or punishes sin.

At most Einstein was a deist.

He said "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

[another_someone]

Since Einstein was a Jew - he may have believed in a Judeo-Christian type God, but not a strictly Christian type God in any narrower sense.

The ancient Greeks had quite a lot more diversity in their beliefs, and the notion that you were somehow persecuted if you did not believe – just look up Epicurus , or his later Roman counterpart, Lucretius.

It was the Jews who introduced the idea that religion was a matter of social loyalty (Judaism has always been a nationalistic religion – and while Christianity and Islam may have gone further, and become supra national, they still demanded unconditional allegiance).

One also has to bear in mind that in past centuries, the accusation of atheism had a different meaning to what it has today – and atheist was not one who did not believe in God, but rather one who was not God fearing, and thus was judged as amoral.

As for whether people who, in the Christian era, genuinely believed in God, or just found they had to use the language of God to express ideas for which they had no other widely accepted language, that is a matter that is always difficult to debate, because how can one look behind that which is said, to ideas that could not be expressed at the time.  If we try and apply modern language to past ideas, we come across the problem that people of the past would have no understanding of the modern language, and would have found it as alien as we find their language.

Ofcourse, when we get to the Oppenheimers and Einsteins of this world, we are talking about substantially modern personages, who had access to much of the vocabulary we use today, so the argument that they simply could not have expressed themselves in any other way does not hold true.

I think the bigger problem when we discuss the Einstiens and Oppenheimers, is our own attitude to these people (and to great scientists in general), that we regard them in some way as great prophets of life in general – these guys were good at what they did, but it does not follow that everything they said and believed must somehow be superior to the rest of humanity – they were still, outside of their own field, just ordinary human beings.