death challenge for ex-christians

[Totallyatpeace]

How about choice 3?  I don't know, and I'm willing to admit it.  Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? 

 

Personally, I'm open to the concept of reincarnation, but I realize there's as much evidence for that as there is the Bible.  Still, I like the concept better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amethyst~

 

"I don't know" has most often been my standard answer regarding many topics that have come up. And yes, it would be choice three.

 

Nicole Smith~

 

I'm taking the high road. Have a nice day.

[Totallyatpeace]

Nicole Smith~

 

I'm taking the high road. Have a nice day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I love my signature. It was a gift from a member here when I needed it most.

 

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned."

[Lizard]

How about choice 3?  I don't know, and I'm willing to admit it.  Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? 

 

Personally, I'm open to the concept of reincarnation, but I realize there's as much evidence for that as there is the Bible.  Still, I like the concept better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like the option of gettingto do it all over again..but I would like to stipulate..I'd rather remember "here" and "now" next time. Or would that be "there" and "then"?

[Rachelness]

Well, once death has been declared, health insurance payments end, property is transferred, social standing and social titles are transmuted (e.g. widows, orphans, etc. appear).

 

After death, the body will begin rapidly to decay, unless it's frozen, or preserved in some other way.

 

There are numerous ways of legally disposing of a cadaver, such as burial and cremation. Whatever method is used the result is the same: ashes to ashes, funk to funky; your dead body will be consumed by worms and microbes, and the elements contained in your remains will eventually return to the soil and atmosphere to be recycled by other organisms or washed into the sea.

 

Why, where do you think you go when you die?

[Amethyst]

like the option of gettingto do it all over again..but I would like to stipulate..I'd rather remember "here" and "now" next time. Or would that be "there" and "then"?

 

Ditto. Then I wouldn't make the same mistakes all over again. Who knows how many times I converted to Christianity (or another religion) and deconverted?

[Nicole Simon]

Nicole Smith~

 

I'm taking the high road. Have a nice day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well my oh my, God's little helper is taking the 'high' road. Is that the road that allows you to follow the 'nine' commandments?

[Totallyatpeace]

Well my oh my, God's little helper is taking the 'high' road. Is that the road that allows you to follow the 'nine' commandments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I have no idea what you are talking about....but...........okay.

 

Take care.

[Mythra]

Nicole - in your upcoming reading list, might I suggest "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie?

 

Just a suggestion.

[Lizard]

Ditto.  Then I wouldn't make the same mistakes all over again.  Who knows how many times I converted to Christianity (or another religion) and deconverted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably other religions..and we just keep trying until we find the "right" one?

[Caretaker]

 

Muskrat

[Mythra]

ps Nicole:

 

Your use of the word misanthrope clearly comes from extensive experience.

Near as I can tell, the feeling is mutual.

[Nicole Simon]

Nicole - in your upcoming reading list, might I suggest "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie? 

 

Just a suggestion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not 'just' a suggestion -- it's an 'unsolicited' suggestion. There's a monumentally huge difference, but apparently not huge enough for you to grasp.

[crazy-tiger]

That's not 'just' a suggestion -- it's an 'unsolicited' suggestion. There's a monumentally huge difference, but apparently not huge enough for you to grasp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to make an "unsolicited" suggestion...

 

 

Do something about your attitude.

[Nicole Simon]

I'd like to make an "unsolicited" suggestion...

Do something about your attitude.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This! Coming from a man who lists among his friends, '"a BASTARD!, Fucking deceiving little shit."

 

Well if that's your Friend I can see why you'd want me as an Enemy

[crazy-tiger]

This! Coming from a man who lists among his friends, '"a BASTARD!, Fucking deceiving little shit."

 

Well if that's your Friend  I can see why you'd want me as an Enemy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That, coming from a man who no longer lists "a BASTARD!, Fucking deceiving little shit" as a friend...

 

And if you want to call yourself my enemy, be my guest. It doesn't mean you are, just that you WANT enemies.

[Amanda]

  Probably other religions..and we just keep trying until we find the "right" one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow Lizard, in regards to reincarnation... I think that is basically the purpose!

 

Not that we find the right religion...

but that the 'right' spirituality evolves and projects itself, perfecting more and more each time here on earth. I think it could happen.

 

Maybe your subconscious is trying to tell us all something profound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding about that last part!

[XCrispyKFC]

This is what I personally believe...fully illustrated in Jack T Chick style!

 

This is Your Death

[Lizard]

Wow Lizard, in regards to reincarnation... I think that is basically the purpose!

 

Not that we find the right religion...

but that the 'right' spirituality evolves and projects itself, perfecting more and more each time here on earth. I think it could happen. 

 

Maybe your subconscious is trying to tell us all something profound. 

Just kidding about that last part! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wouldn't that be a Buddhist philosophy? I'm not Buddhist..I just have a vivid imagination from years of watching SciFi.

[pug]

In Search of the God

 

 

 

 

“Does God exist?” is the most popular question in our mind. Whenever I sit alone, I try to find the answer to this question and every time I get more and more confused. Today I will try to get answer by steps. So let’s start from the origin of the universe.

 

I am in my chair, my chair is in my home, my home is in building, my building is in small street, my street is part of big city, my city is in state and state is in India, India is in Asia, Asia is on the earth, Earth is part of the solar system and there are billions of the solar systems in this universe. Oops I am so small in this universe. And I am thinking about the God. It is said that God made this universe. So the maker of the universe must be too great. Now how to define the god? It’s difficult to make definition. But there are few definitions

 

1: God is an uncreated, self-existed Being, without cause.

2: God is eternal, without limits, almighty and omniscience.

 

Since these definitions break all the scientific rules, there are lots of debates. But science is limited to a process defined by that which is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him.

 

All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins. Science deals with the nature but God is out of the nature. So science always fails to tell about existence of God. With the help of the science we neither prove that God’s existence nor His non-existence.

 

There are problems to whose solution I would attach an infinitely greater importance than to those of mathematics, for example touching ethics, or our relation to God, or concerning our destiny and our future; but their solution lies wholly beyond us and completely outside the province of science. – C.F. Gauss.

 

William of Occam formulated a principle which has become known as Occam's Razor. In its original form, it said "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily." In simple words it says, ”Take the simplest solution". Here we can see three possible explanations for what we see around us :

 

There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, which came into being as a result of natural processes.

 

There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, and there is also a God who created the universe. Clearly this God must be of non-zero complexity.

 

There isn't an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there. We just imagine that there is.

 

Given that first two explanations fit the facts Occam's Razor might suggest that we should take the simpler of the two – solution number one. Unfortunately some argue that the third explanation is simpler. But this third option leads us logically towards solipsism, which many people find unacceptable.

 

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. According to Hindu philosophy there are 330 million gods. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow? Or is there one God in different formats and with different names? If that’s not true then does one God punish other’s follower? Is God so cruel and selfish? If this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. I think I am now going away from my original discussion. It always happens with large subject. So let’s get back to original subject.

 

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness. Einstein has also said:

 

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

 

Now I feel that God is the source of energy. I know that energy cannot be created or it cannot be destroyed. But since there is energy everywhere in this universe the whole energy is the God. Also we require God for our mental satisfaction that there is someone who can protect us, who can help us in worst situations. Finally according to Pascal, God is the safe bet. And I feel his quotes are the best to end this discussion for today. He says :

 

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing – but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

 

– Bhushan Parulekar

June 19, 2002

[Fweethawt]

Pug,

 

You really can't formulate a response of your own, can you? Your keyboard is probably really sticky from all of that pasting that you do.

 

Your post up there is regurgitated garbage that has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb and utterly destroyed with logic and reason so many times on this site that it isn't even funny.

 

Pascal's wager is about the lamest thing that you could have possible brought here.

[All Gods Fail]

In Search of the God

Finally according to Pascal, God is the safe bet. And I feel his quotes are the best to end this discussion for today. He says :

 

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing – but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

 

– Bhushan Parulekar

June 19, 2002

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oy...Pascal again. Well, I can cut and paste, too:

 

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal

 

Pascal's Wager (God is a safe bet)

 

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

 

This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.

 

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

 

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

 

Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.

 

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

 

Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

 

Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

 

One does not know whether God exists.

Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.

Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.

Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.

There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.

 

The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.

 

Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.

 

Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.

 

In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

 

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

[Ouroboros]

In Search of the God

“Does God exist?” is the most popular question in our mind.

Nope. My favorite question is "why do people believe in a God", not really if God exists.

 

 

Whenever I sit alone, I try to find the answer to this question and every time I get more and more confused.

Good. That's what religion does to you

 

Today I will try to get answer by steps. So let’s start from the origin of the universe.

 

(...)

 

But there are few definitions

 

1: God is an uncreated, self-existed Being, without cause.

2: God is eternal, without limits, almighty and omniscience.

3. God doesn't exist

4. God is evil

5. "God" is a group of scientific superbeings that play tricks on us (GOD=Group Of Doom)

 

(...)

 

With the help of the science we neither prove that God’s existence nor His non-existence.

Correct.

 

(...)

 

William of Occam formulated a principle which has become known as Occam's Razor. In its original form, it said "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily." In simple words it says, ”Take the simplest solution". Here we can see three possible explanations for what we see around us :

 

There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, which came into being as a result of natural processes.

 

There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, and there is also a God who created the universe. Clearly this God must be of non-zero complexity.

 

There isn't an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there. We just imagine that there is.

 

Sure. You simplifed the universe to the essence that Quantum mechanics and Relativity are so complex that they can't be true either. Science do observations, and try to find the simples explanation for that observation. Not trying to find the "simples" answer to the non-observed phenomenon. We can't reduce the explanations down below the observed reality. We can't reduce the explanation of rain down to "God is crying", just because it's a shorter definition than explaning the whole process of how water is gathered in clouds and such. Occams razor was not intented to explain things in the most absurd ways, just because that explanation would be shorter and simplier.

 

(...)

 

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. According to Hindu philosophy there are 330 million gods. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Because there are no commandments to follow. But we have a law to abide to. The law is not the same  as the commandments.

 

Or is there one God in different formats and with different names? If that’s not true then does one God punish other’s follower? Is God so cruel and selfish? If this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. I think I am now going away from my original discussion. It always happens with large subject. So let’s get back to original subject.

The monotheistic view of God is that God's goodness is displayed in his justice. But his justice is totally unreasonable. We, us humans, show more mercy to our own, than God does. If we would follow the moral code of the Bible, we'll end up with: "and eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind."

 

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness. Einstein has also said:

 

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

 

So Einstein believe in a non-personal God (Deism). There are scientists that are atheists. So should we become deists, because Einstein was, or should we become atheists because Hawkins is? Besides Deism is NOT the same as Theism.

 

Now I feel that God is the source of energy. I know that energy cannot be created or it cannot be destroyed. But since there is energy everywhere in this universe the whole energy is the God. Also we require God for our mental satisfaction that there is someone who can protect us, who can help us in worst situations. Finally according to Pascal, God is the safe bet. And I feel his quotes are the best to end this discussion for today. He says :

 

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing – but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

If religion creates societies that kill thousands of people, and this life is the only one we get. Then religion plays it unfair against the people that don't believe, and in the end, we loose people, life, fairness and freedom. And we have not gained moral and ethics. Therefore it is inhumane to be a Theist.

 

– Bhushan Parulekar

June 19, 2002

[Skankboy]

Also we require God for our mental satisfaction that there is someone who can protect us, who can help us in worst situations. Finally according to Pascal, God is the safe bet. And I feel his quotes are the best to end this discussion for today. He says :

 

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing – but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

 

We require god for our mental satisfaction? I'm pretty sure this entire site is a testament to how untrue that is.

 

And as other here have pointed out, Pasacal's wager is flawed at best, downright hypocritical at worst and has been refuted a hundred times over.

 

[Eponymic]

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing – but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

 

 

Right... This is just like saying, I'd rather support the man committing genocide than not support him and suffer the consequences. It's inherently the same.

 

 

I'd rather be wrong and live a positive, constructive life than cause others harm by believing in a negative, destructive tome.

[Ouroboros]

Pascal never took into account the destructive forces fundamentalistic religion and extremists can be to society, freedom and peoples lives. If that is mixed into the wager, the scale actually tips over to the atheist side. I rather have a stable and safe society from the chance that this is the only life we get, than let people be killed in Gods name under the presumption that there is a life after death.

 

*edit*

 

The safe bet is on the life we know we do have, and make it long and happy.

 

Than killing ourself and others for an afterlife we don't know if we'll get.