The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Would they tell us? religion debate

Would they tell us? religion debate

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
I have no intentions of hurting any one, or denying them the right to believe.
I believe in humanity but no God.
Can we talk about this?
If governments knew there was no God, if say ET,s landed and we knew at the highest levels there was no God.
Would we be told, could we handle it?
I could but many could not what set of rules of behavior would we live by?
I get a feeling one day the world may have to look at those rules to live by.
Just maybe this non believer would change little.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 6:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BELLY SAYS

I have no intentions of hurting any one, or denying them the right to believe. I believe in humanity but no God. Can we talk about this?

ALGORE "I am not a racist.. .some of my best friends are race xyz but.." :)

Just being a mirror there Belly.

You believe in "humanity"... ..that's ok..what exactly do you want to talk about ?

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

NICENE CREED-381AD
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 9:17:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ps...

BELLY SAYS "what set of rules of behavior would we live by?"

*bingo*... Have I been with you so long Belly and yet you do not hear me? :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 9:20:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Governments deny God we end up with Stalin and Mao or North Korea. A fool says in his heart their is no god so I am glad you said 'if'.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 9:54:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I believe in humanity but no God"

Before we can have any meaningful and clear discussion, we need to define the terms that we use. We have a problem however, because God cannot be defined (a god that could be defined must be limited by that definition, hence is just a limited being and not God).

Someone may perhaps be able to define "humanity", so then we could discuss what is there to believe in that humanity and whether it is wise to do so.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 11:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You got me Belly. If humanity is your god, that is your belief. That coincides with Christianity. Because Jesus Christ taught that humanity, created in God’s image, is paramount over the State, and set out the procedures where these humans in a collective, of two or more, never one, could call down the Holy Spirit, to be their Judge, and in Luke 12 Verses 10-12, made the only unforgivable sin blasphemy, the denial of the Holy Spirit as the third part of the Trinity. He condemned Judges.

The word in the Australian Constitution S 79 is judges, generic, uncapitalised, and plural. All substitutes are fakes. An uncapitalised court, is an ecclesia, a church where the community can gather, and collectively, never arbitrarily pass judgment. It used to occur sometimes under a tree, and the president sat on a woolsack.

Get on the blower to your Churchy mate in Canberra, and get him to restore your God, Humanity, in all Federal Courts, and restore to us the courts of Our God, mentioned in Psalm 92 Verse 13. Humanity in the form of a jury, is the only repository of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. Until you unbelievers realize that fact, and get away from your forelock tugging dependence on a Judge for justice, then we are in trouble.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 27 May 2010 5:16:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu...

you said:

(a god that could be defined must be limited by that definition, hence is just a limited being and not God).

Very profound :) and 'welcome to Christian apologetics 101'

That is *exactly* the point. God being infinite and eternal... we being finite and temporal (in this body at least) .. the only things we can ever know about God are those things which He Himself....reveals.

So..while we can have 'true' knowledge of God, we will never have 'exhaustive' knowledge.

I BELIEVE IN HUMANITY. Belly.. I find that history teaches that 'humanity' is not a reliable object of 'belief'.... the body count is way too high. (which includes those killed in 'religious' wars which were in reality wars of 'humanity' seeking power)

Right now, "humanity" is trying to lead us into a dark place beyond your wildest nighmares... but, like Satan to Eve, "humanity" is not blatantly bashing us with chunks of 2x4..it is 'raising questions'...and using soft politically correct language.

But I assure you.. the ugly truth is becoming more open as we draw closer to that horrible day when 'humanity' alone...is in charge.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41022/

See the video and then "read Obama's lips"
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 27 May 2010 5:35:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belive in Humanity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utBs417IU_c

Van Jones.. marxist as Green Jobs Czar.

Look at this.. the Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus bill.

They are the architects of the 'green jobs'..they are also rabid marxists.

The Green Jobs' they are talking about will goto MINORITIES.. not mainstream Americans. i.e.. they are race based!

Jeff Jones .. violent revolutionary marxist is on the Apollo Alliance and is on video record as saying, regarding Anti Communists "we have to jump on the table and tell them. we wilL BURY you"

Obama.. Apollo...Maxists.. one happy family.

Believe in Humanity? :) not a chance.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 27 May 2010 5:56:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like flys to a dead beast on a summer day my thread has bought only believers so far.
And our old mate Boazy, can you justify changing your name so often, what are you hiding?
A form of bigotry is on show here, not even close to the first time from Boazy.
The debate is not intended to center on one God, how truly strange Bizarre in fact, that In a world the worships many Gods we see a focus on only one.
I doubt if the proof came, it exists , many would change.
I understand we are educated in schools that we are a product of evolution.
And the wisdom of the men ,normal human beings reinventing storys of another God,who set down rules to live by, in say the ten commandments are hard to better.
But do others see the bigotry here, the need to keep the control Gods give them over us all.
Some, one always, launch into disgraceful insults about followers of a God other than his own, yet insult me for?
Just wanting an open debate.
PTB I think better of you, trying to mix contempt for Rudd your miss placed focus on laws few care about and the need to defend your God Color your post.
For a second open that big mind, tell me what you think the impact would be?
Would humanity rebuild a different set of rules to live by, what would they look like.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 27 May 2010 6:22:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH,

"Very profound :) and 'welcome to Christian apologetics 101'"

Thank you, but this was never my intention.

".. the only things we can ever know about God are those things which He Himself....reveals"

While we may know God, Knowing THINGS ABOUT God does not make sense, since God is not a thing.

Belly,

"I doubt if the proof came, it exists , many would change"

Every scientist knows that definition is a pre-requisite to proof (and so is proper grammar), yet you started this thread without even attempting to define what you are talking about, which as you can see, makes this discussion very murky. At least in the case of "humanity" you could offer some definition, but in the case of God, I'm afraid, whatever definition you could possibly offer, would make me respond with the same "Aha, so if that's what you mean by 'God' then you are right of course, for indeed no god LIKE THIS exists", then what change would it make? (and BTW, you never even stated what kind of change you want to see and why)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 May 2010 7:39:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Dawkins' book TGD, he refers to religion as a part of man's evolutionary process (my wording not his).

Our whole legal and values system was shaped through religion, in our case Christianity, which is similar in its value system to other major religions.

Religion did not shape those values alone. Without man's natural affinity with each other, natural instinct to protect those we love, and the instinct to survive (better done with a sense of the group rather than the individual) the values we hold dear today would not have held up with only a man-made framework like religion.

For it to work there had to be a sense of a supernatural force outside the 'human'.

Now that we are evolving, and our legal and value systems are set for me the question is do we still require religion (God) as a civilised people to uphold a moral code. (And bigger questions about morality)

The answer for me is based on the belief that

1. We can maintain a moral framework that is probably fairer and less judgemental than a religious one (that does less harm) and

2. We are more educated now - do we really continue to manifest the idea of a God in pursuit of a rigid moral framework that in many cases can be distorted to suit a limited view (eg. persecution of homosexuals, obedience to a man as in some religions etc).

3. If we, to use Belly's scenario, continued to believe in God knowing he/she did not exist, that is instrinsically working from a known falsehood.

4. Religion is just as corruptible as without if not more when those in power wield such influence and in some cases fear.

But these are interesting and far reaching questions Belly.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 27 May 2010 9:11:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly

And others

With respect, I think this is the wrong question.

I do not know whether there exists some entity who could be described as the creator of the universe. I doubt it. But who knows? I don’t even know how we could ever settle the matter.

The real questions are these:

--Does this creator ever interfere in the affairs of a Johnny-come-lately species we call humanity?

--Are any of humanity's so-called "holy books" really in some way messages from this creator?

--Has this creator given us a moral code revealed in some sort of "holy scripture"?

There is little doubt in my mind that the answers to these and similar questions is NO.

Message to believers:

The bible is not "inerrant" – the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, evolution happened and it is wildly unlikely that a God incarnate ever rose from the dead.

The creator of the universe did not use an "angel" to transmit the koran verbatim to a man called Muhammad 14 centuries ago. (I would at a minimum expect the creator of the universe to get the facts of mammalian reproduction right).

Regardless of the existence of a creator whom we may call "God" ALL human religions are false.

The question is not "does God exist?"

The question is which of humanity's religions are true.

The obvious answer – NONE OF THEM!
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 27 May 2010 10:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, I think that humans create god/s in their own image. While religions probably had some kind of adaptive function, as suggested by Dawkins, it's well past its use-by date. This is because they all tend to divide people and create conflict in the contemporary globalised world, rather than uniting people in the smaller scaled societies in which they evolved.

Religion is the human cultural equivalent to the physiological appendix, which was functionally advantageous for our ancestors, but has now become a mostly benign and occasionally dangerous inheritance from the past.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 27 May 2010 10:35:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

You would be pleased to have noticed that it is not just us filthy flies that have been attracted.

"The debate is not intended to center on one God, how truly strange Bizarre in fact, that In a world the worships many Gods we see a focus on only one."

Not so. The three major world religions all purport to subscribe to the same God even if they have different takes on God. It is not surprising that people assume that which is most likely.

"I doubt if the proof came, it exists , many would change."

You are in good company there. A wise man once said that if people are unwilling to accept religious teaching someone could rise from the dead and they still wouldn't believe.

"And the wisdom of the men ,normal human beings reinventing storys of another God,who set down rules to live by, in say the ten commandments are hard to better."

If you mean that is taught in schools I am not aware of it. I am not clear whether that is to be grouped with the preceding school comment or if you are expressing your opinion. If it is the latter I agree.

"Would humanity rebuild a different set of rules to live by, what would they look like."

That is a tough question given the small historical sample available to make predictions. I believe that the best guess is the mean based on the sample available. Therefore the best guess would be that it would be like those societies that have completely rejected religion. There have been a few examples. I can think of Cambodia with Pol Pot, the USSR with Stalin, Lenin etc. and China.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 27 May 2010 10:53:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stevenlmeyer,

You are entitled to your faith. Thank you for sharing.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 27 May 2010 10:55:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan,

The role of the physiological appendix was recently discovered. It is to be a store of "good" bacteria, where they can remain and re-inhabit the colon after being lost there by diarrhea and similar conditions.

Stevenlmeyer,

To measure God by the world, such as by referring to Him as "Creator", or "sending messages" is pretty primitive and trivialising. Such a god that is created by humans in their own image indeed does not exist.
Referring to religions as "true" or "false" is also a trivialization: Religions are just techniques, disciplines, etudes on the way to realize God. As such, they are suitable for certain people at certain times.

Pelican,

Whether or not humans maintain a moral framework is a human affair. Besides social values, having a moral framework is often also a useful spiritual exercise and most people practice it part-time.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 May 2010 11:34:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks

Yuyutsu wrote:

"To measure God by the world, such as by referring to Him as "Creator", or "sending messages" is pretty primitive and trivialising."

That is precisely what Muslims believe. Many mosque-attending Muslims have told me as much. All major Muslim webiste say it. Every Imam I have ever spoken to says it.

Why should I believe you over every Muslim source I have ever consulted?

You wrote:

"Religions are just techniques, disciplines, etudes on the way to realize God. As such, they are suitable for certain people at certain times."

Perhaps you would like to explain to the loved ones of this poor woman that she was stoned to death because her murderers were practising "disciplines, etudes on the way to realize God"

http://allafrica.com/stories/200911180938.html

Mjpb wrote:

"The three major world religions all purport to subscribe to the same God even if they have different takes on God. It is not surprising that people assume that which is most likely."

The three major religions in descending order of number of adherents are Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

Some Christians claims that they and Muslims "subscribe to the same God", a proposition every mosque-going Muslim I've ever spoken to VEHEMENTLY denies. Why should I believe you over them?

Hindus are not even monotheists.

CJ Morgan,

Religion is long past its use-by date. On that at least we agree.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 27 May 2010 12:32:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stevenlmeyer,

"That is precisely what Muslims believe"

Thanks, I was not previously aware that their religion was as advanced!

"Why should I believe you over every Muslim source I have ever consulted?"

You don't need to believe me - but would you believe science? would you believe logic? do you actually believe then that some god who was created in man's image have created this world and sent us messages?

"this poor woman that she was stoned to death because her murderers were practising "disciplines, etudes on the way to realize God""

No, I am not aware of murder being a useful discipline. Religion is etymologically derived from "religare", to bind fast (with God). Being so inwardly-directed and intimate, one can only practice it on their own. Practicing it on others is totally useless.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 May 2010 1:15:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stevenlmeyer,

I have always heard the third was Judaism. Hence my comment. If it is hinduism I'd have to stick to two.

There are many Christians who would also vehemently disagree but the reality (or so it is said) is that they both consider themselves to worship the same God as Abraham. Do you see what I mean as a different take rather than a different God? There is no reason for you to believe me over them. Why don't you ask your Muslim mates if my premise is correct and then use your own logic if it is confirmed?
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 27 May 2010 1:22:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Belly,

As you well know I was raised as a
Catholic and I shall be one until
the day I die, though I have to
confess I'm probably not a very
good one. I follow my conscience.
I don't seek to convert
anyone and I would never dream of
imposing my beliefs onto anybody
else. I believe in "live and let
live." My faith to me is a private
matter. And I certainly don't have
all the answers - my life's journey
is still a "work in progress."

Of course we don't need religion to be
moral, and I'm aware of the evil that
has been done in its name. However, it
works for me, and that's where I'll leave
it for now.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 27 May 2010 1:45:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu: << The role of the physiological appendix was recently discovered. It is to be a store of "good" bacteria, where they can remain and re-inhabit the colon after being lost there by diarrhea and similar conditions. >>

Yup. That appears to have been an adaptive function in our evolutionary past, but has now become largely redundant.

<< Nicholas Vardaxis, an associate professor in the Department of Medical Sciences at RMIT University, says the theory put forward by the Duke University scientists makes sense.

"As an idea it's an attractive one, that perhaps it would be a nice place for these little bacteria to localise in, a little cul-de-sac away from everything else," he said.

"The thing is that if we observe what's been happening through evolution, the higher on the evolutionary scale we are and the more omnivorous animals become, then the smaller and less important the appendix becomes and humans are a good example of that.

"The actual normal flora bacteria within the appendix, as well within our gut, are the same, so we've lost all of those specialised bacteria.

"So it doesn't have that safe house type of function anymore, I don't think.

"It's a vestige of something that was there in previous incarnations, if you like." >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/10/2055374.htm
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 27 May 2010 1:54:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu asks:

"…do you actually believe then that some god who was created in man's image have created this world and sent us messages?"

As I thought my posts on this thread made clear, I don’t believe anything of the sort.

To quote myself in my first post on this thread:

"The question is which of humanity's religions are true.

"The obvious answer – NONE OF THEM!"

It is a core Muslim belief that the creator of the universe used an angel called Gibril to transmit the entire koran to a human (of dubious historicity) called Muhammad.

Muslims believe – so they assure me – that when they recite the koran they are replicating that original message word for word, syllable for syllable, phoneme for phoneme. That is not what I believe. That is what every mosque-attending Muslim I've ever questioned tells me they believe. It is also what every Imam I've ever questioned claims to believe and it is what the most heavily trafficked Muslim website say.

Mjpb

Out of a global population that is approaching 7 billion about 14 million are Jews. Most of these are, however, only ethnically Jewish. Less than half of them practice Judaism.

By contrast we have the following numbers:

Christians: 2.1 billion

Muslims: 1.5 billion

Hindus: 900 million

Even Sikhs, numbering 23 million, outnumber practising Jews by around four to one. As a religious force Judaism is negligible.

Yes Muslims and Christians both claim to be worshiping the (non-existent) God of Abraham. However their understanding of that God, and the attributes they attribute to that God, are so different that they may as well be worshiping two entirely different (non-existent) entities.

Two people called Marmaduke may be completely different people. Just so two non-existent entities labelled "God of Abraham" can refer to two different non-existent entities.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 27 May 2010 1:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly asks:
"Would humanity rebuild a different set of rules to live by, what would they look like."

mjpb responds:
“That is a tough question given the small historical sample available to make predictions. I believe that the best guess is the mean based on the sample available. Therefore the best guess would be that it would be like those societies that have completely rejected religion. There have been a few examples. I can think of Cambodia with Pol Pot, the USSR with Stalin, Lenin etc. and China.”

Based on the sample available?

We don't have a sample available as no society has unanimously agreed that god does not exist and then decided to build a different set of rules based on this realisation.

The ideologies and most of the rules of the above (whom many theists just can’t resist the temptation of mentioning despite them having virtually nothing to do with atheism) were not a result of rejecting religion.

For this tired old argument to be true, you’d have to explain how one logically goes from:
“I don’t believe in god”

To:
“The working class must therefore seize political power internationally through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership.”

Communism is not the result of atheism (or the lack of religion) as there is nothing within atheism to support it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 27 May 2010 2:17:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stevenlmeyer, that was confusing.

I wrote:

"To measure God by the world, such as by referring to Him as "Creator", or "sending messages" is pretty primitive and trivialising"

To which you responded that "That is precisely what Muslims believe".

Which I understood as "Muslims believe that referring to God as Creator or as sending messages is pretty primitive and trivialising".

Great... I was not previously aware that Muslims agreed with me...

But then you write again, in contradiction, what you must have actually meant:

"It is a core Muslim belief that the creator of the universe used an angel called Gibril to transmit the entire koran to a human (of dubious historicity) called Muhammad"

Please be clearer next time.

Now, "The question is which of humanity's religions are true"

Suppose I asked you to inhale through one nostril, hold your breath, then exhale through the other nostril: would that be true? or false?
Neither of course, it's just a technique. It has beneficial outcomes in some circumstances. Fasting on Ramadan is no different. Similarly, reciting verses under the impression that they are word for word, syllable for syllable, phoneme for phoneme, identical to God's message, can be a very positive devotional technique, an act of love if you like, and quite appropriate at a certain stage of spiritual development.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 May 2010 3:01:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu ...

we can know "about" God to the extend he informs us (His creatures) of his nature.

To the faithful Jew, this means the Old Testament, the Law, Moses and the prophets.

To the Christian, is means all that plus the central point of all history the death and resurrection of Christ, the conversion of Saul, the exploits of the Apostles.. the diaspora of the church, persecution, survival, and final triumph (if it can be called that) over Rome when the irresistable power of the simple Gospel of Grace had changed so many hearts, minds and wills, that the Emporer could no longer ignore them. This is just history...pure and simple.

People may by all means take issue with the 'understanding/interpretation' of the facts, but the facts remain..and this includes the well attested resurretion. Even in a court of law the 'obviously guilty' defendant has a batallion of lawyers claiming his isn't....so.. the resurrection will likewise have it's detractors.

BELLY.. (Off Topic..answering Belly's question)

my nick is intended to put forward a *point*.. can you read it?

Look at this.

http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html see who is chairman ?

The name of that company is 'Generation Investments"
Now look at THIS one..

http://www.climateexchangeplc.com/investor-relations/shares-in-issue-top-10-holders

See what name appears from the previous link :) (5th from top)

"that" is why the nick. Now...you are up to speed. Anyone who voted Green after this would need to be a total moron. (lacking in judgement)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 27 May 2010 6:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Belly,

You ask, "What set of rules of behaviour
would we live by if there was no God?"

For the answer to your question I went to
the most obvious source - Richard Dawkins'
book, "The God Delusion." In it Dawkins
tells us:

"It would require quite a lot of low
self-regard to think that should belief
in God suddenly vanish from the world,
we would all become callous and selfish
hedonists with no kindness, no
charity, no generosity, nothing that would
deserve the name of goodness."

Anyway, in answer to your question here is
a set of "New Ten Commandments" which Richard
Dawkins gives:

1) Do not do to others what you would not want them
to do to you.

2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.

3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow
living things, and the world in general with
love, honesty, and respect.

4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering
justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing
freely admitted and honestly regretted.

5) Live life with a sens of joy and wonder.

6) Always seek to be learning something new.

7) Test all things: always check your ideas
against facts.

8) Respect the rights of others to disagree
with you.

9) Form independent opinions on the basis of
your own reason and experience; do not allow
yourself to be led blindly by others.

10) Question everything.

These are merely an attempt to summarize the
principles of the good life today; for comparison
with the biblical ten commandments.

It's the sort of list that any decent person could
come up with today.

Dawkins also includes a couple of extras:

11) Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it doesn't
damage anybody else) and leave others to enjoy
theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which
are none of your business.

12) Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of
sex, race or (as far as possible) species.

I hope this answers your question.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 27 May 2010 7:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH,

Women are usually more sensitive than men, which is why they often complain: "please don't treat me as an object, love and respect me for who I am rather than for my beautiful body".

How much more then, should God not be treated as an object either. Indeed, God is not an object.

One can only know things about objects. Anything you can describe or qualify is an object, and even if its description and all the facts are correct, it is totally incomparable to God.

Claiming to know anything about God is therefore a form of heresy, putting God down, attempting to limit Him, placing Him in chains. If you claim for example that He spoke at a certain time, but is not speaking now, you attempt to make Him subject to time. If you claim that He spoke at one place, but not in another, to a certain person but not to another, said certain things but not others, etc. you then attempt to limit Him to space and even by claiming that He spoke at all, you attempt to make Him subject to causality (and even worse, what's the meaning of speech without a body?).

So you see, such an approach to God is childish, naive and irrational. Note however that I am not trying to claim that God will punish you for it - that would be childish as well!

The aim of religion is to raise yourself towards God, not to lower God down closer to your own level.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 May 2010 8:27:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly I do believe that while ever Australia has a tax system in place, in turn to support Government, who in turn legislates policy, Acts and legislation across the board for the basic benefits by all to live or function daily, via law, rules and regulations, at the end of the day, this is what many people live by, with or without religion or belief in their God.

Put it this way, how much difference is there when you observe people from all walks of life, walking past an injured person, and not assisting, for fear of getting involved law wise. How many times do people walk past a mother who throws down their toddler onto hard tiles in a shopping complex, gives the mother a hard stare and continues on their way [for fear of ruining their shopping day or becoming lawfully involved]? On how many occasions do people not bother stopping to give statements after witnessing a full accident whereby they know darned well who was the cause of the accident. Instead they drive to their destination [Christian or non-Christian Believer or non-believer] protecting themselves and their precious time not getting involved. The list is endless when one pauses a moment and reflects.

Believers and Non-Believers: irrelevant in today's fast paced society with far too much heavy red tape [legislation]law wise.

On the other side of the coin: there are excellent laws in place to protect us from being murdered or at high risk of being murdered during our working and private lives during the day as opposed to many other countries.

Lets face it, without taxes and legislation implemented, our population [included ourselves] would not be as high, as a result of people doing the hell they wanted crime wise.

Here, it is the law and legislation that increases humanity and/or makes it bearable. Not religion or the belief in peoples' Gods, the Buddha, Hinduism, Islam and so forth. All people are sinners and run high on emotion, all capable of indifference, uncaring, selfish, cruel and out for number one in some areas of their lives.
Posted by we are unique, Thursday, 27 May 2010 11:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Belly, answering your original question, if Aliens landed and told us there is NO God, three things.

1- some people will think "Well that proves it"
2- some people will apply the same stance to the aliens as to atheists that they cannot prove so simply casually dismiss their suggestion as atheist aliens (most likely vast majority)
3- certain people (not mentioning any names) will think that they're not "aliens" but "demons" sent by Satan to try to disprove the existence of God.

In short, more or less the same really.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 27 May 2010 11:51:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont)
And of course, there are the warm loving compassionate attributes in people, that do surface, WHEN those people are not jeopardising their image, personal lives, or their income, by dedicating a few moments to assist others.

Then of course there is the minority, who will sacrifice most of their lives going all OUT to stop and assist people injured or involved in accidents, saying "bugger the consequences or cost of becoming involved to assist another person, I am doing the right thing, as this is how I WOULD wish to be treated, had it happened to me".

Yet not many people think this way, Christian or Non-Christian, Believer or Non-Believer!
Posted by we are unique, Thursday, 27 May 2010 11:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza has it about right.
Foxy I understand and respect your posts.
Remember folks I once said if you fall it will be a Christian who picks you up?
Little change would be needed, While I believe in no God I believe in humanity, we put our best into our holy books all of them, and our worst ALL of them.
Now one rather silly poster gets into me about grammar, do you really truly think your god will judge Us on that? foolishness.
Watch the bigotry on display in defense of Jesus here.
The Jesus I once followed if he existed would have thrown most of his supporters here on top of the money lenders he is said to have thrown out.
I charge many followers of every GOD with reinventing him/her to think and act as they wish, puppets in fact of theirs not the God they claim to follow.
Boazy? Can you be so self centered that you think I do not know you are trying to get a message across?
It worked, I found the same miss placed self assurance and selling of your self under the current log in that you had in the other two.
Still my childhood in harder times saw those changing names as moon light flit specialists, leaving unpaid bills behind moving home in middle of the night.
I have nothing to hide and will not follow your path.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 28 May 2010 3:44:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would they tell us?
No they have not yet have they?
In England for century's the English church[ one of my birth] was seen as the lifetime job of the second eldest son of the upper class.
Note not a calling a job.
I think we will never be told, yet are told every time we talk about the earths life span.
If all leaders thought GODS existed how could they wish to go to any war?
How could we see children raped by those who teach them of God if those teachers believe in God?
We would not be told we will not be told unless.
After if it comes a war based on religion if western side wins we may set out to rebuild our belief system.
Here I get into trouble, talking about a truly held belief even if shared by most brings PC police.
If followers of another God triumph we will take century's to find freedom from religion.
No I do not say that is My wanted out come but without reserve I want to be unchained from those followers of any God who think they can intrude on my life in bed or at play who use bigotry as seen here to stop open debate who are worse than those they insult yet think a God lets them do it.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 28 May 2010 3:56:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu

you said:

//One can only know things about objects.//

*stunned amazement*.... errr cough.. *rubs eyes*... r u serious?

Can we know nothing about 'people'....'personalities' ?

When we are introduced to a person.. all we know about them is their name. Over time.. more about them becomes revealed.

Why should it be different about the Creator?

Foxy.. this was a bit much for first thing in the morning....

12) Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of
sex, race or (as far as possible) species.

*species* ? I agree with the oppression bit (except that I eat meat and rather enjoy it.. so.. sorry.. on my watch the pigs and cows and sheep will still be 'oppressed', and sliced and diced and then eaten.

It is beyond self evident that we have to discriminate against 'species' as we are human and non us are well.. different. They would crap on our floor.. rummage through our pantry.. rip the furniture apart.. etc.. possibly eat bit or scratch us or our children.
*Down BUBBLES down!*

You want to stop us *discriminating* against animals ? yikes..try getting out of bed on the other side tomorrow..

Sounded very 'marxist utopian' to me. (but in soft language)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 28 May 2010 6:52:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ALGOREisRICH,

"Can we know nothing about 'people'....'personalities' ?"

Of course we can. People are limited, they live for a certain time only, they are only present at one place at a time, they have just one or two or five name(s), but not all names, they display certain behaviours but not others, so yes, to that extent people are objects and we can study their properties.

Those of us who are more sensitive do not like to be treated or to treat others as objects, because deep down we know that in our divine nature we are not objects, but on that level we are not people either.

"Why should it be different about the Creator?"

People are limited. God is not.

Your referring to God as "Creator", I take is a nick, as an expression of reverence, rather than an accurate statement.

Attributing any property is limiting, even the property of being a creator, but God cannot be limited (or else, by definition, he wouldn't be God).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 28 May 2010 7:58:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu...

an interesting discussion we are having :)

You said:

"our divine nature"

errr..? "our" ?

But you also suggested that to describe God is to fetter Him.

I don't see how, because does you knowing limited information about me fetter me ? I don't think so.

Limited information between a Creator and the created is an understandable situation. If the creatION...knew as much about the CreatOR as can be known..then the creatION would 'be' the CreatOR.

I think you are coming from a definite philosphical perspective which is what fetters 'you' :) in your inability to grasp the idea of a personal Creator who self revealed to His creation.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".....Gen 1:1

I don't see how such a description 'fetters' God at all.

That's also part of His self revelation. Moses could only know this by revelation or tradition which began as revelation.

We can pick this up later.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 28 May 2010 8:16:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stevenlmeyer,

Thanks for googling the religious numbers. That was educational for me. I have long thought Judaism was at number 3.

As regards the God thing what you say makes sense. Hopefully you can also see what I mean. There doesn't seem to be too much difference between my same God different take and your claim to be worshipping (a non existent) God of Abraham with a widely divergent understanding of God bearing in mind our different perspective as theist and atheist. Naturally I don't agree with the non existent bit.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 28 May 2010 9:24:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

From your initial post I don't think we will have a meeting of the minds. You sound pretty determined. But I'll respond.

You say that we don't have a sample available of humanity building a different set of rules to live by because no society has unanimously agreed that god does not exist and then decided to build a different set of rules based on this realisation.

But we do have societies where everyone was encouraged by the power brokers to believe that God does not exist. Indeed in the Soviet Union an estimated 21 million Christians were killed. They are atheist societies irrespective of whether it was forced upon people or they unanimously agreed that God does not exist and everyone amicably decided to take a different approach to rules. To date it has always been a Marxist type approach I believe.

"The ideologies and most of the rules of the above ... were not a result of rejecting religion."

Are you saying that they are consistent with religous values? They are excluded by religion and arise when it is absent. There may be other possible results but that has been the result to date.

"For this tired old argument to be true, you’d have to explain how one logically goes from:
“I don’t believe in god”

To:
“The working class must therefore seize political power ...”"

Ethical values are not given from above and handed down to us. Therefore we do not have to follow traditional values and are free to work out our own system. Lets create a society by using an objective standard to formulate ethics. If we look at history there appears to be economic imperatives driving human action and institutions. If humans are motivated by economic considerations then good must be equating the human economic situation. Given the current uneven distribution and economic imperatives being the primary motivator those who have more will never agree. What is needed is a revolution.

Is that reasonably logical?

CONT
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:12:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Communism is not the result of atheism (or the lack of religion) as there is nothing within atheism to support it."

With respect I think you have it the wrong way around. It is not that atheism shares a common philosophy it is just that atheism doesn't stop it. Atheism is merely the absence of religion so it is pointless looking to it as some type of philosophy to support anything. But it is a lack of religion and if religion is not there something needs to move in to replace its perspective. To date Marxism has stepped up to the plate. That doesn't mean nothing else will. But viewed scientifically it is the best guess as to what will happen if religion is eliminated whether by power or by unanimous agreement.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:13:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ALGOREisRICH,

"our divine nature:", "our?"

Well, can you imagine anything else existing but God?

"does you knowing limited information about me fetter me ?"

As feeble humans this is quite common. We tend to behave in such ways that are consistent with what we believe that others think about us.

In the deepest sense, of course, I cannot fetter you. The most I can do without your humane cooperation is to delude myself about you.

"Limited information between a Creator and the created is an understandable situation"

Of course, but we were discussing God, not a mere creator.

"the idea of a personal Creator"

If such a being existed, it logically follows that it would:
1) not be God
2) only be able to create the PERSON which I call "me", not myself.

As such, I find it less interesting and less awesome.

"who self revealed to His creation"

Again, this is possible with ordinary creators, but as for God, how can it be possible, since only limited objects can be revealed to our limited senses and mind.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Any action makes an actor. Any application of force produces an opposing force in the opposite direction (Newton). The act of creation, besides its obvious product (the created), also makes the creator a creator.

It is like saying that before a certain date, God was not a creator (at least not of this particular universe), but afterwards He was - but God is not subject to time, He cannot be affected, so be careful not to mix up expressions of great love, submission and awe with physical phenomenae (as lovers did through all ages and will always continue to do despite countless warnings by philosophers such as myself).

"That's also part of His self revelation"

For those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, everything is His revelation, for there is nothing else besides Him. If you want to experience Spirit, turn within, but if you want to learn about the world, turn to science.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 28 May 2010 11:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2
"But it is a lack of religion and if religion is not there something needs to move in to replace its perspective. To date Marxism has stepped up to the plate."

With respect, this is a misperception. If religion is absent then atheism by default is the condition that arises. Marxism is purely a political and economical system that became associated with atheism because theism already had been entrenched with aristocracy, power, wealth and privilege for centuries. The proletariat [for want of a better word], was cast in atheism's mold before they were aware of it by the two great forces that opposed their struggle for a share of that power and wealth.

"But viewed scientifically it is the best guess as to what will happen if religion is eliminated whether by power or by unanimous agreement."

I beg to differ. Atheism has no imperative to evangelise, so the rise to power of Maexism/Leninism could have no interest in intentionally spreading atheism. M/L's sole purpose was usurping entrenched power, wealth and privilege. That movement was M/L's alone and in Russia that power was vested in the Orthodox Church and the aristocracy/royalty. Both were crushed by ruthless violent political overthrow.

Religion had chosen early for itself to be part of and remain part of what eventually became an anachronistic corrupt social system. It was not overthrown because of it being intrinsically christian.
Posted by Extropian1, Friday, 28 May 2010 4:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb 28/05 10:12:44am P7 writes;
Part 1
"With respect I think you have it the wrong way around. It is not that atheism shares a common philosophy it is just that atheism doesn't stop it [communism]."

With equal respect, neither does religious faith. It may oppose communism, just as atheism may. An understanding of how and why theism and atheism/heresies occupied their places in societies and politics in past ages is fundamental to understanding their places in today's societies and political structures.

"Atheism is merely the absence of religion so it is pointless looking to it as some type of philosophy to support anything."

Neither has atheism ever had a rallying cry, a banner or flag, an escutcheon or shield, a motto or a body of admonitions. It has never been a cause that led armies into battle or to call men to the barricades. If anything, its creed and standard is the Golden Rule and if it has a philosophy it comprises the few concepts that developed therefrom which lubricate the wheels of social intercourse. Reciprocity is its core.
Posted by Extropian1, Friday, 28 May 2010 4:40:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A great number from all backgrounds believe in no God.
Most of them live by standards set out in the holly book of their birth.
And some who claim belief are n fact telling lies they in private do not believe.
Some always will need that straw, some would sit down and invent another God as soon as any Revelation was made.
I remain amused by the re shaping of God by followers in this thread.
it amuses me, an anti communist to see I as a non believer am branded by, lets be honest, Christian bigotry, one of that foolish and very bad anti worker movement.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 28 May 2010 5:39:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Belly,

I've posted this previously
but I thought you may enjoy it again:

"I come from a tribe of nature worshippers,
pantheists, believers in faeries, forest
sprites, and wood nymphs.
Who heard devils in their windmills, met them
in the woods, cloven-hoofed and dapper gentlemen
of the night.
Who named the god of thunder, who praised and
glorified bread, dark rye waving waist-high out
of the earth, and held it sacred, wasting not
a crumb.
Who spent afternoons mushrooming in forests of pine,
fir, and birch.
Who transferred Jesus from his wooden cross,
transformed him into a wood-carved, worrying peasant,
raised him on a wooden pole above the crossroads
where he sat with infinite patience in rain and snow,
wooden legs apart, wooden elbows on wooden knees,
wooden chin in wooden hand, worrying and sorrowing
for the world...

These people who named their sons and daughters after
amber, rue, fir tree, dawn, storm, are the only people
I know who have a diminutive form for God Himself,
"Dievulis," - "God-my-little-buddy."

Any wonder I catch myself speaking to trees, flowers,
bushes - these eucalyptus so far from Northern Europe.
Or that I bend down to the earth, gather pebbles, acorns,
leaves, boles, bring them home, enshrine them on
mantlepieces or above porcelain fixtures in corners,
any wonder I grow nervous in rooms and must step outside
and touch a tree, or sink my toes in the dirt, or watch
the birds fly by..."
(Al Zolynas. "LITUANUS: Qtly Journal of Arts
and Sciences." v. 49. No.2. Summer 2003.)
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 28 May 2010 11:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a lovely piece of writing.

Thanks Foxy :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 28 May 2010 11:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yest it truly is and thanks from me foxy.
I am afraid the thread never quite took the direction I wanted.
But it underlined and answered my questions.
Remember I once buried myself in the arms of Jesus.
I wanted to believe I did very much so.
But time and the school of life showed me some using him to control and direct even insult others.
I researched my faith, found it wanting and grew a little more.
I understand the best comes from Gods all of them.
Foxy so too I see the worst from them all.
Some know, even those on their knees tomorrow know, God is not watching them.
But what a fine dream to follow.
No they will not tell us.
If they intended to it would have been done before you and I got born.
In one hundred years I think we will still have Gods for those who need them, want them, and if only those Gods did not intrude in politics or human rights, internal bickering I would have no problem with any of them.
Internal bickering? Boazy and so very many insist only their God has the right to exist in the minds of the dreamers.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 29 May 2010 6:38:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy

That connection with the natural is something 'pagans' shared with the first settlers of Australia.

In its attempt to differentiate itself from other belief systems, by placing humans outside the natural, formal religion and dogma has alienated us from the earth.

Hence our (humanity's) current plight as oil spills smother, irreplaceable resources are devoured and the very environment that sustains us, wasted.
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 29 May 2010 10:35:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Belly,

You are somebody whose integrity to me is beyond
question and I feel it a privilege to share
cyber space with you. I count you as a friend.

Dear Severin,

Another friend...

Lithuanians have managed to preserve so many old
Indo-European forms in their language, and their
pre-Christian religion was very archaic.

Christianity of Lithuania began very late, at the
end of the 14th century. Traces of the ancient
faith can be found in folklore (tales, legends,
songs, incantations, et cetera) and in folk customs
as analyzed by ethnologists. Also certain features
of the ancient religion reveal themselves in
pre-Christian manners of burial and grave finds as
disclosed by archaeologists. An essential characteristic
of the ancient Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian)
religion was its animism, the belief that within each
object there dwells an individual spirit or force
guiding its existence. Such a belief gave rise to a
veneration of natural phenomena and influences.

My grandmother for example, even though she considered
herself a Russian Orthodox,
still retained some of the archaic
practices such as - when it thundered and stormed
heavily she would pray to the God of thunder.
And at funerals part of the funeral wakes and burials
were the lamentation songs...the "raudos" which have
survived up until modern times. The dead were lamented,
praised, and bidden farewell. Thus preserving beautiful
pieces of lyric and extremely touching folk poetry.

These pagan customs are combined with Christian customs
today. Since Lithuania has re-claimed her Independence,
many people today are re-discovering their ancient roots.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 May 2010 2:45:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear CJ,

I'm glad that you liked the work
I posted by Al Zolynas in my earlier
post. It made a huge impression on me
as well when I first read it.
Zolynas summed up Lithuanian beliefs so
beautifully.

I initially had that enlarge and printed on
a card which I gave to my nephew and his
fiancee at their wedding, along with a
marvellous wooden piece of Lithuanian Folk Art,
A sculpture of -
"Dievulis" or "Rupintojelis" (Man of Sorrows),
With All My Love.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 May 2010 2:54:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, Severin seen your puppy turn around and around before sleeping.
Or trying to bury a bone by scrapping non existent dirt with its nose?
Instinct, learned and instinctively done from generations it never knew.
We too have such instincts, wet and worn out in the middle of a bush trek I found it easy to understand a rainbow.
And just how easy it would have been once to be afraid or in awe of it.
The rainbow serpent of folk law lives and within us all is a need to worship some thing.
I can sit for hours on a rock I know of far from any place midst forest and just look at how good life is for every thing.
I am unafraid to say I love the idea of fairy's and elf's or such and to me it proves we humans are inventive and good comes from all of us some times.
That our dreams and storys are often just great.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 29 May 2010 3:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thread has run its course but I am tempted to remind posters of those who defended their view of God.
Ungodly comments are here to read.
I suspect we would not be told maybe in another few century's we will tell our selves but even then believers in even newly invented Gods, maybe just one?, will be seen.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 30 May 2010 7:41:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The thread has run its course"

This thread was supposed to be two-sided: "I believe in humanity but no God". The aspect of God was probably exhausted for now, but I am yet to get even a definition or explanation about this "humanity" aspect: what is it? what's there to believe in? and why?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 30 May 2010 8:11:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy & Belly

I have to confess that I believed in the idea of fairies well after I found Christianity to be highly dubious.

One of my favourite childhood experiences was to visit the Fairies Tree in the Fitzroy Gardens:

http://www.fitzroygardens.com/Fairies%20Tree.htm

Even now, if I chance upon a ring of toadstools I am careful not to disturb the ring.

I also can watch animals for hours, whether it is my pets in a game or even asleep or a magpie being chased off by a fairy wren - magical.
Posted by Severin, Sunday, 30 May 2010 10:14:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry truly did not think I needed to tell why I believe in humanity.
And forgive, re your swipe at my way of putting words together.
Unable to even read on leaving school I got very lucky.
Less than thirteen on first part time job I found reason to teach myself to read.
Education followed, never stopped.
Read any great book, know it came from the best in us or the worse.
In your post I think I see an unhappiness with humanity's crimes against some.
The ability to see our wrongs, know about them is in the end a good thing about us.
Every film made book written is a product of humanity, every song sang every poem every dream of a better world tells me we are worthwhile.
In my mind no doubt exists every holly book is man made man written and further proof we have the potential to become much better.
Truly you must lead a sad life if it needs you to ask such a question.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 30 May 2010 2:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

I am very happy with my lot in life, nothing to complain about, and I thank God for it.

If I were to attribute my happiness to anything less, then why to humanity in particular? Surely I could thank for example all those electrons who spin tirelessly around their respective nuclei, serving us with a rainbow of chemical elements that are necessary for human life. While humanity's life-span is only a few millions of years, most of those electrons lived and will continue to live on for billions of years, long after humanity is gone.

"every song sang every poem every dream of a better world tells me we are worthwhile."

Birds sing too. No doubt that we are worthwhile, and so are birds. Birds chirp away happily (well, not always happily, but human-songs and poems are not always happy either), but they do not dream of a better world. Humans are the only beings known to worry and complain, constantly looking for a better world rather than accept and appreciate the world right here and now.

"further proof we have the potential to become much better."

Is this a good thing? If one can become much better, it implies that they are not good-enough as they are already!

If I were to worship and adore anything less than God, I would choose birds and flowers, the sun and the stars, the elementary particles and the laws of physics that bind them together. Why this wretched, short-lived and constantly-complaining humanity of all things?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 30 May 2010 7:47:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I never intended we talk about the existance of God.
I knew we would, but may I say in defense of your God, we humans have very many, most have not advanced him here.
I have said the holly books give or gave us something to grow on.
You talk of things that will out last man but seem to include God in that?
I can not share your views.
I find more Christians with clay feet than not.
I prefer to think my actions make me what I am not a phantom God.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 31 May 2010 4:44:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, you wrote:

"I never intended we talk about the existance of God."

It is inevitable that if you mention the word 'God', people would start to belittle God by imagining Him as existing. Next down this slippery-slope they may discuss what He has for breakfast. If all you wanted was to discuss humanity, then why mention Him at all?

"I have said the holly books give or gave us something to grow on."

I certainly agree. So have also books on science and philosophy.

"You talk of things that will out last man but seem to include God in that?"

Certainly not! I stated here again and again that God is not a thing. It therefore makes no sense to attribute Him with longevity.

"I prefer to think my actions make me what I am not a phantom God."

It is your very right to think as it pleases you. Do you indeed believe that you created yourself? My view is that although your actions may to some extent modify your body, your mind and your environment, they cannot affect yourself. You are and ever been what you are, so there was never a need for you to be created, neither by yourself nor by God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 31 May 2010 10:20:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Belly,

Many of us become seekers as we begin to
question and search.
Then, as we continue our search
and deepen our commitment, something else
begins to happen. To be a seeker still
implies that there is a road to be found.
After sever years of searching, many people
find their roads; some kind of spiritual
path. At a certain point, the seeker becomes
a pilgrim. They are no longer looking for
the road they are on the road. The pilgrimage
is a process by which we can change what we
think and transform who we are...

Thanks for this thread.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 31 May 2010 11:02:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

This was beautiful.

Just one point puzzles me, your last one:

"The pilgrimage is a process by which we can change what we think and transform who we are..."

We can definitely change what we think, but how possibly who we are? Can we, by whatever process, become someone else? it just doesn't make sense.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 31 May 2010 11:11:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

As I've explained in the past
spirituality is an inner fire,
a mystical sustenance that feeds our
souls. The mystical journey drives us
into ourselves, to a sacred flame at
our center. The purpose of this
experience is to develop eyes by which
we see this inner flame, and our
capacity to live its mystery.

We shall become as different from who
we are now as the butterfly from the
caterpillar. We need to turn back into
ourselves, to the well inside from
which we are endlessly creative.

I can't explain it any better than that.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 31 May 2010 11:51:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you very much Foxy for your beautiful explanation.

I thoroughly agree. If I may suggest a better wording:

The pilgrimage is a process by which we can change what we think and transform our experience of who we are...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 31 May 2010 11:59:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You.

I don't have the answers to the
big questions in life. I'm still
on my own road to discovery. I find
that the more I learn - the more
I realise that there's even more to
learn. Each of us goes through
transitions and transformations.
The important thing is that we
acknowledge them and learn from them.

Someone asked
me once what made me the happiest. I couldn't
quantify it with possessions like a car or
property or something I could touch. It's the
spirit of the human being, which can fill me
with more joy than anything in the world.
I've met some amazing souls, including on this
Forum, and its their light that has filled me.

So, as I said earlier - Thank You Yuyutsu!
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 31 May 2010 1:35:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Extropian1,

"With respect, this is a misperception. If religion is absent then atheism by default is the condition that arises. Marxism is purely a political and economical system ....”

As I said atheism is simply the lack of theism so the fact that communism is a political and economical system doesn’t make a difference. Do you want me to spell out that because it is nothing more than the absence of theism it is not a political or economic system. As I said there are other possibilities (because there is no philosophical/political etc link between atheism and communism) than the historical ones. However historically Marxism has always been the one that has arisen.

I said: "But viewed scientifically it is the best guess as to what will happen if religion is eliminated whether by power or by unanimous agreement."

”I beg to differ. Atheism has no imperative to evangelise, so the rise to power of Maexism/Leninism could have no interest in intentionally spreading atheism…”

In any case that is what has happened to date when religion is absent so scientifically that would be the best guess as to what happens based on the small sample. It didn’t just happen in the USSR but in other places such as China and Cambodia. It isn’t obvious that Marxism lacks any interest in spreading atheism. I can think of two. One is that it has never got a foothold in a religious society. Two is the historical record. Every time theism falls communism moves in. It is no guarantee but it obviously doesn’t hurt.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 31 May 2010 1:57:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

“I remain amused by the re shaping of God by followers in this thread.
it amuses me, an anti communist to see I as a non believer am branded by, lets be honest, Christian bigotry, one of that foolish and very bad anti worker movement.”

I seem to be the only Christian discussing communism so surely I am the subject of your charming “Christian bigotry” label. I cannot find any accusations in my posts that a non-believer is a communist. To the contrary on a few occasions where I have pointed out that communism has historically moved in where theism moved out I have pointed out there are other possibilities. Logically if there are other possible consequences of atheism then I am excluding any suggestion that atheists are inherently communist. This was further supported by my noting that atheism is simply the absence of theism. Thus my posts actually contradict your accusation. So where did that accusation of yours come from? As I said I couldn’t find any other Christians even discussing the topic.

During your characteristically casual skim of the posts did you notice my respose to your question as to what rules would apply in an atheist society. I am wondering if you have a view on it?
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 31 May 2010 1:58:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb if today, think I said this, we heard proof no God existed, I would change little.
The Christian ten commandments are surely one of Foxys true works of art in the Bible?
I could not better it.
In truth most holly books have jewels just as impressive within them.
That day, we mankind would start to invent new Gods, more need to believe than not.
If I had a say it would be just one God for every human being in the world, Gods should unite not divide
I see reildgions as rules to live by invented by good men.
Within those books you can find reason to love and to hate to fight others or live with them without trouble.
True Christians, those content to follow their God not try to lead him, will feel sorry for me not anger that I no longer believe, am lost without fear of my death.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 31 May 2010 6:13:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,
>>Many of us become seekers as we begin to question and search, etc.<<
May I join those who admire you, also for this beautifully expressed wisdom. Perhaps you will find relevant also this:

“It is understandable that one may seek but not find; it is understandable that one may deny. However, it is not understandable that one may find oneself under the imposition: you are forbidden to believe” (Karol Wojtyla - later JPII - Epiphany 1978).

mjpb,
>>atheism is simply the lack of theism<<
I think technically this is called passive atheism, a passivity that those who denigrate any religious faith do not display, and definitively not what I experienced myself:

I grew up in a Communist country of Eastern Europe. I was never politically active and dutifully learned and passed all my exams in Marx-Lenininism, Dialectical Materialism, Scientific Worldview or what they were called. I was sacked not for political reasons but because of my faith (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#165874).

Yes, there were people prosecuted for their politcal activities or views, however, thousands lost their jobs, were transferred to menial positions, not because they were politically active or what, but merely because they refused to publicly renounce their faith or wanted to give their Children a Christian education (e.g. First Holy Communion). Many were even jailed for similar non-political and non-criminal reasons (my uncle was sentenced to 10 years for working on the translation of a prayer book).

Denying or explaining away these facts harms not the victims - most of them already dead anyhow - but ourselves. As the saying goes, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are bound to relive it.

So the claim that the prosecution of Christians in Communist countries was not done from the position of atheism (albeit not the “passive” version, the technical term for their position was “the scientific worldview”) but by the Communist system, somehow reminds me of the excuses for the Inquisition etc.: It was not us, Christians, who did it, it was the Devil who took possession of us.
Posted by George, Monday, 31 May 2010 8:15:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

<<I think technically this is called passive atheism...>>

At least now you're narrowing down your attempts to associate atheism with Marxism to just 'explicit' atheism (as opposed to 'implicit' (or “passive”) atheism).

<<...a passivity that those who denigrate any religious faith do not display, and definitively not what I experienced myself:>>

Interesting that you only mentioned denigration. What about those who fairly criticise religious belief, and for good reasons? Or is all criticism of religion denigration?

Then there's those who aren't implicit atheists like babies are (since they are able to say "I don't believe in god") but still not passive. Are they denigrating too?

I suspect you’ve only used the term “denigrate” (a term seem to be very fond of) to make explicit atheism sound worse than it is in preparation for a second crack at the whole “Atheist values” argument in which you had failed to justify in the thread you linked to in your last post:

“We shall probably not live to see if other attempts to build a society based on atheist values...” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176&page=0).

To which I successfully refuted... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#166101.

For the second or third time now, the Marxist regimes/countries of the 20th century were not ”atheist countries”, they did not have “athiest values” and they were not done “in the name of atheism” as there is nothing within atheism to support them - a simple fact that renders this totally beside the point...

<<Yes, there were people prosecuted for their politcal activities or views, however, thousands lost their jobs, were transferred to menial positions, not because they were politically active or what, but merely because they refused to publicly renounce their faith...>>

And this...

<<Denying or explaining away these facts harms not the victims - most of them already dead anyhow - but ourselves.>>

No one’s denying anything here, George. You are simply using your experience to push a tired old fallacious argument. It’s distasteful tactic and it certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It’s disappointing to see you didn’t learn anything from the last time we had this discussion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 31 May 2010 10:30:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One other point I forgot to mention is that there is a difference between ‘anti-religious’ and ‘atheist’.

To confuse the two by reminiscing on all the anti-religious actions of a Marxist regime and then subtly attempt to associate those actions with atheism or to imply that they were doing what they did in the name of atheism is slack.

The Marxist regimes of the 20th century set up establishments of atheism by outlawing religion, but again, they anti-religious societies - not atheist societies as there is nothing within atheism to support them.

<<So the claim that the prosecution of Christians in Communist countries was not done from the position of atheism but by the Communist system...>>

I may have been too quick to claim that you had learned nothing from our last discussion, George, since it is now “from the position of atheism” rather than ‘in the name of atheism”, or “based on atheist values”.

So are you saying that communists took the “logical” step of:
“I don’t believe in god”

To:
“The working class must therefore seize political power internationally through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership”?

Because that’s what it sounds like you’re implying.

If Marxists did what they did from the position of atheism and not communism, then what aspects and tenets of atheism did they derive their communist ideas from? How did they logically go from one to the other?

<<...somehow reminds me of the excuses for the Inquisition etc.: It was not us, Christians, who did it, it was the Devil who took possession of us.>>

Bad analogy.

Remember, you can’t just equate atheism with theism as they are not just two equally opposing views. Theists are the ones making the claim, and atheism is simply the response to that claim.

Big difference there - and one that renders your entire argument on this topic absurd to say the very least.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 31 May 2010 11:23:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

Thank You so much for your kind words.
And for sharing.

I'd also like to share something with you.

Five kilometers south of the small
town of Meskuiciai, near the hamlet
of Jurgaiciai, in Lithuania, is
"Kryziu Kalnas," (Hill of Crosses).

The almost perfectly round hill, flanked
on three sides by lowlands is completely
covered with wooden crosses. In 1900
there were about 130, and by 1938, over
400. Today, there are hundreds of thousands
of them. The crosses were built by the sick
and unfortunate making a pilgrimage to the
hill, especially on the Feast of Corpus Christi.
According to folk tradition, the first crosses
appeared after 1831 and 1863 uprisings, built
in memory of those exiled and killed.

After World War II the crosses were built by
Lithuanians returning from Siberia. In 1961,
the Soviet administration had the crosses
destroyed. They bulldozed them and burned them.
The next day the crosses appeared back on the
hill. Re-erected by young people.
This battle with the Soviet administration
continued for many years.
Today the "Hill of Crosses," is
known to every Lithuanian, and is a sacred shrine.

Self-actualized people are hard to manipulate,
difficult to control.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 31 May 2010 11:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since there has been some difficulty for some in understanding the significance of the fact that theists are the ones who are making the claim and that atheism is simply a response to that claim, I’ll run with the claim that Marxism is the result of atheism for a moment and posit that religion is therefore to blame for Marxism since without religion, we wouldn’t have atheists responding to it by adopting the position that no gods exist (and then taking that next “logical” step of concluding that therefore the working class must therefore seize political power internationally through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership).

Sheesh! Is there anything bad that religion can’t do?
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 12:47:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

I think your approach would be sound. If that were to happen I hope your view gains ascendency.

There is an analogy with the Christian idea that everyone is a child of God and should be respected as such albeit sounding more utilitarian. I have always been fond of the Buddhist scripture (since I identified as a Buddhist to now: "As long as we concentrate on others faults we deprive ourselves of the light that shines in varying degrees from everyone."

"If I had a say it would be just one God for every human being in the world, Gods should unite not divide"

I don't believe it is the Gods doing the dividing. I believe it is the people. Even when people arguably have the same God there is division.

"True Christians, those content to follow their God not try to lead him, will feel sorry for me not anger that I no longer believe, am lost without fear of my death."

I only feel anger for you when you don't read posts properly. I also have mixed feelings about your situation. When you did believe in God weren't you in a group that let a kid suffer for a couple of days instead of getting treatment? That doesn't sound like an ideal group to belong to. I'd love you to join a more mainstream Christian Church but where you have been so far it is hard to ascertain whether you have moved in a positive or negative direction. Belief in God is big so you'd think that that trumps anything but ... the poor kid! God can give us faith if we accept it but He gave us reason and we should use it.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 1:08:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

"... those who denigrate any religious faith do not display, and definitively not what I experienced myself"

I hear you. However in this country I have experienced predominantly passive atheism. Interestingly the head of the atheists foundation (society?) was in here supporting bus stickers vilifying religious belief and talking about the atheist "philosophy". I call that secular fundamentalism. I think Pericles is an example of someone who is more of a passive atheist abeit not necessarily a passive person.

"Denying or explaining away these facts harms not the victims - most of them already dead anyhow - but ourselves. As the saying goes, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are bound to relive it.

So the claim that the prosecution of Christians in Communist countries was not done from the position of atheism (albeit not the “passive” version, the technical term for their position was “the scientific worldview”) but by the Communist system, somehow reminds me of ..."

Again I hear you. Your experience is testimony to the folly of asserting a rigid dichotomy. You talked the talk as regards the political philosophy but got done over by the atheist powers that be. There is a difference between the dictionary definition type of an atheist and atheists who are hostile toward Christianity. However both claim the label. Are the hostile group imposters or are they legitimately atheists? This points to something else which isn't easy to articulate but does hover in the background.

Quite often those who are the first to hide behind the dictionary definition to distance themselves from atrocities in atheist societies seem to be the atheists actively hostile toward religion. They seem to want it both ways. They often claim that there is no belief system with atheism because there is no defined fundamentals. However even in Christianity there seems to be disagreement on what the fundamentals are between denominations. Then you get the bumper sticker atheist who claim the stickers are on behalf of all atheists because atheists share a philosophy.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 1:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually mjpb, if you scroll up a bit, you’ll see that I’ve already addressed George’s post and put this arguments into perspective. So unfortunately your last response was in vein.

Incidentally though, why do atheists (I presume you were talking about ‘explicit’ atheists specifically here) need to hide behind dictionary definitions?

If dictionary definitions are ever used, it’s only to clear up any deliberate obfuscation and blurring of issues to further a false claim. Quite similar to the false claim that yourself and George have made actually.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 1:51:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,
Talking dictionary definitions see what "vein" means. Then compare it with "vain", or "in vain".
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 3:43:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philo,

I apologise for the over-sight. It was careless of me, and as a follower of our ever-elusive Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ, who on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, I’m sure you’ll find it in your Christian heart to forgive me.

It’s just as well solid reasoning withstands typos though. I’d be in a lot of trouble if it didn’t.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 4:45:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb I was in that group but condemned and left it after that day.
The crimson idiots wanted God to heal a broken arm.
I can tell you the leader of that church went on to become one of this countrys best know tele avangelists.
Yes fair cop, I did miss read your post.
But two things in my favor, on seeing your last post here I came past the rest to answer you.
Do it often then return and read ALL posts.
Second my typing is one finger and thats the one I broke recently.
never going to mbe good again sometimes it hurts too much to post again.
I agree it is people who divid but they do it in the name of God.
And I can not ever forgive those who think killing followers of another God is justified because only the God they follow is worthy.
Tragic that humans can think like that.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 5:48:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,
Thank you for the story about the Kryziu Kalnas with its deep (and sad) symbolism. My knowledge of Lithuanian is non-existent, however I noticed that your word for “cross” resembles the Polish (and other West-Slavic), rather than the Russian, equivalent. It was only in Australia that I came to know and respect a number of Lithuanians, with sad reminiscences of their old homeland, perhaps not that unlike those of your parents’, if I read you properly.

And it was only in Australia that I learned to appreciate also my own “tri-ethnic” (Slovak-Hungarian-German) background. So sometimes in the seventies I wrote:

The advent of the Industrial society brought about a change in our attitude to our physical habitat. We had to invent ecology to protect what before used to be our enemy to be conquered. The advent of the Information society is changing our attitude towards our natural cultural habitat, which on both the individual and communal levels is religion in the broadest sense together with ethnicity. We will have to invent something that will bring the change in our minds, so that religion and ethnicity, that used to divide us, will be protected as something that will keep us separate and above the artificial inteligences that we are about to create. The smallest flower living in the dirtiest soil is esthetically preferable to the most magnificent plant made of plastic. We have learned that. We still have to learn that the same is true about natural and artificial cultures.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 8:08:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb,
Thanks for your reply. I reacted to your post because you complained that you were the only Christian discussing Communism. So I offered not another contribution to these never ending discussions on whose world-view is more right, not even an argument, but only a personal testimony. I think you understood that.

Communism, more precisely dialectical materialism, is just one among many particular world-view systems based on atheism. An explicit classification, or even discussion, of the many meanings of the term “atheism” is rather complicated, also because many atheists claim universality for their personal understanding and application of the term (see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8444#133584).

I agree that the majority of people who would describe themselves as atheist in any Western country could be called passive, as those who write books about “God delusion” could be called active. Of course, active atheists in our society are not supported by a repressive political system like those in (former) Communist countries, and have nothing to do with them. It is quite obvious you never claimed they had.

My experience is that often an explicitly anti-theist position (in distinction to opposition - shared by many theists - to this or that extreme form of religion) reflects a kind of “anti-faith”, an embittered state of mind caused by some negative life experience.

All in all, I think we do not disagree on these things.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 8:19:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I've recently acquired a book called
"Vilnius Poker," by Ricardas Gavelis
(Translated from the Lithuanian by
Elizabeth Novickas)published last year.

Ricardas Gavelis has been described as
the grand innovator of literature.
His work could be called magic realism
or surrealism, compared to Franz Kafka or
Roald Dahl by "Die Tageszeitung," (Berlin).

This book caused a controversy when it was
first published in Lithuanian (in
Lithuania) in 1989.

"Think of it as The Matrix behind the Iron
Curtain - unsettling and profoundly
interesting." - Kirkus Reviews.

Apparently it captures the world of Lithuania
under the Soviets. And that's something I
know little about, but am eager to find out.

Anyway, if you can get hold of a copy somehow,
it may be of interest - if you want a different
slant on Lithuania.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 11:37:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

Thanks for prioritising it.

It is scary that the leader of the group became a leading televangelist.

Maybe you need to give your finger a complete rest or start using another finger.

"And I can not ever forgive those who think killing followers of another God is justified because only the God they follow is worthy.
Tragic that humans can think like that."

True
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 2:18:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb more info on that bloke he went on to be extremely good at his job.
not calling for donations he bought many to his faith.
on first seeing him I though here we go and while a member of another church by then I just had to watch him.
He fell out of favor, was expelled, because he left his wife and remarried.
but went on to start another church still without calling for cash he is at least an honest Christian.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 5:50:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, it appears that “react” in, “If this means you do not wish me to react again to your posts, you have my promise I won't”, actually meant “respond” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10306#168772).

Thanks George. Very mature.

I can’t help but wonder either, if the word “react” was chosen over “respond” to imply that my posts aren’t worth responding to and only draw “reactions”.

Perhaps I’m just being a little paranoid there though.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 9:02:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OLO talks more about Gods than any other subject.
We come at it from every side all sides of the existance of God.
Upsetting references to child molestation in some Church's, more than one.
We talk about others Gods and here I wanted to talk about what we may do without a God.
Well known I am not a believer but even I think if we had no God we would invent one maybe many.
So over all I would like a few things to change.
I want an end to tax breaks just by being a church.
An end to interference in education politics and daily life of nonbelievers.
I want assurances children in care[ not thinking catholic] Church's and cults get proper education and a real chance to make life choices.
others could add to the list.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 3 June 2010 6:11:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Thanks for the info about Gavelis and his book. I probably won’t have time to read it (as you might know, I am more at home with maths and science than with literary criticism), however I googled it up.

I didn't understand what you meant by “a different slant on Lithuania”. Perhaps you were referring to something like what I found on http://quarterlyconversation.com/vilnius-poker-by-ricardas-gavelis-review:

“Gavelis is … is critiquing that which makes a people surrender its individuality to a corrupt state. What is it that makes a people … a willing participant in its own enslavement? Gavelis is not sympathetic and considers such people weak and undeserving.”

Here I would beg to disagree: Gavelis was too young to have personally witnessed the post-war years. I am old enough, and know that the Baltic experience must have been even worse than the Central European, namely the absolute HOPELESSNESS of their situation between the Soviets, the Nazis and back to Soviets. Like the girl, who having been raped, welcomes a “liberator”, just to be raped by him again and then thrown back to the original rapist. This is how some Ukrainians explained to me the situation, and I suspect many Lithuanians must have felt it similarly.

Perhaps hopelessness could provide - at least partly - an answer to the Gavelis/Vargalys question above. Hopelessness that finds relief in desperate conspiracy theories (Gavelis’ “Them, a shadowy group that’s taking over, crushing the souls of people”). Hopelessness, lasting for decades, up to those Gavelis himself did live through.

The inscription on the gates to hell in Dante Alighieri’s ‘La Comedia Divina’ is not a listing of all the tortures awaiting the hapless, but a simple “Abandon all hope, all ye who enter”. During the brief 1956 thaw (before the crushing of the Hungarian uprising) I could visit Vienna. I remember these words of Dante reverberating in my ears when crossing the Iron Curtain on my return home. For me the hopelessness lasted only another 12 years, others had to wait for 43 more years.
Posted by George, Thursday, 3 June 2010 8:30:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

>>I can’t help but wonder … if … my posts aren’t worth responding to<<
That is not the point. As you could read in my post to mjpb, “I offered not another contribution to these never ending discussions on whose world-view is more right, not even an argument, but only a personal testimony”. You did not accept it, fair enough.

Nevertheless, as I already asked you on another thread, please respect my negative personal experience with one version of atheist activism, the same as I respect your apparently positive experience with another version of it.

In particular, please understand that I cannot react or respond to attempts at explaining away what I personally witnessed, since the subject matter of that much suffering could make me too emotional, and I do not see any point in that.
Posted by George, Thursday, 3 June 2010 8:39:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,
Church has no products that produce income. Many of its services as to support the destitute and helpless. Tax is only payable on income produced from sale of services or product. Next you will want Schools, Colleges, Unions and those that give money as gifts to pay tax because they receive fees or gifts. The staff including the clergy pay tax like the rest of us. What do you want taxed? Tax has been paid by the people on the money given. The Church is these persons corporate meeting for fellowship and social care as a club or union. This is the sort of logic that would ask for tax from a sick person on a meal cooked for them by a friend because the sick person did not buy the ingreedients and it would be deemed as income.

Most Churches support charity giving to 3rd World development. Upon what do you want to apply tax? To do so means Charitable organisations under such a scheme would also pay tax which would mean that their giving would suffer to Government waste.

Charity shop fronts that earn an income from new products should pay GST tax on sales, and I am not sure they already do that. It is the unpaid volunteer workers that help them earn money to support needy families. Your views are ill informed, so I suggest you do some research on taxation law.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 3 June 2010 8:46:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,
Could you please identify how the Church is interferring in your education, politicts and daily life! [An end to interference in education politics and daily life of nonbelievers}.

Please identify how unbelievers conversely would not interfere in the Churches life; since you have already stated you would apply tax law to Charity.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 3 June 2010 9:43:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A J,

Yes you are being paranoid. That definitely isn't George.

Belly,

I sincerely hope this question isn't out of line and I apologise in advance if you find it offensive. But I can't help wondering if a contributing factor to leaving God straight after the girl with the broken arm is because if there is a God then you would have consequences for your actions but if there isn't then it makes no difference. I believe you are a good person and being a part of the group who did that to the girl would be very difficult for a good person's conscience. You presumably got involved with good intentions and then realised how silly you were being and realised in horror what you had contributed to. In atheism atheists would say that an all powerful God should have stopped your group from doing that to the girl or something (perhaps a localised flood?)and you could be further absolved of responsibility. It wasn't your fault but an imaginary God's. If I was to wonder out loud if atheism appealed more as a result of the escape it offered what would you say? The thought has been in my mind for some time.

The other thing I have been wondering is how you feel about Jesus?

If you don't want to answer these questions that is fine. But I thought I'd finally ask in case it is okay with you and it resolved my curiousity.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 3 June 2010 10:31:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First mjpb my life has changed, remember my education comes daily not formally.
I thought I found God in hard times , I basically want a better world and fell totally.
The broken arm was a small part of my defection, I saw that lady from that long ago thread climb on stage and leave her walking stick behind on leaving.
I knew she had never used one before.
And knew it was a show mans trick often seen in circuses, young fella on horse rope around his waist and a clown pulls his pance down,,, paid well the kid knows to be quite about rehearsals.
Mate not nice but once ham radio operators and 5 times as many radio fans could over hear telephone conversations.
Even now BE WARNED, some of those walk around the house phones can be monitored, as can the baby monitor from outside the house.
I over hear a minister I knew talking about financial gain by being? a minister.
Jesus was a good idea but I have moved on , understand however I live by most of the rules in that book.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 3 June 2010 5:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ok I have been taken to task for questioning tax relief for Church's just because they are Church's.
Answer me this friend do you think scentolegists should be tax exempt.
How about the exclusive brethren.
Know any cults you would not want to get it?
What non Christian Church's would you denie tax charges if any.
Soon maybe 50 years soon in the scheme of things the biggest Church in this country , maybe the world right now, is/will be Muslim.
Is there any church you doubt or would not give exemptions to.
You compare apples with pork chops in your display of loyalty to your church or is it to every church and every God?
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 3 June 2010 5:36:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> others had to wait for 43 more years<<
Ha-ha, a mathemaician should know that 1989 minus 1956 is 33, not 43. Apologies.
Posted by George, Thursday, 3 June 2010 6:16:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

I very much appreciate the response. I have been curious for some time.

What I always wonder about those fake healings is whether they are motivated by the buckets they hand around for contributions or whether they genuinely think that the deceit is for a good cause. I suspect the former.

As you know I identify with the Christian perspective and would rather people didn't lose faith. Therefore I hate reading about those type of situations. I know of a woman who was very non-skeptical about a weeping statue of Mary. Prior to that she was an enthusiastic Church goer. After the fraud was discovered she lost all faith.

By contrast, for me if someone fakes something I am not surprised and I don't relate to the loss of faith in this fashion. I don't expect anyone to be perfect even those who are quite devout, and I don't assume everyone is devout just because they go to Church. When people lose faith in those circumstances does this mean that when they identified as Christian they thought noone claiming to be one would ever be dishonest? Is there any insight you can offer on that?

I hear what you are saying about the rules from the book. That I believe is good. Thank you for expressing something obviously kindly motivated as reassurance.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 4 June 2010 11:59:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb while I get very cranky with some intrusions from reildgions I understand not all are frauds.
I bake with anger at silly fools, often Christians, who remove crosses from a church so not to offend Muslims.
Or the mad Fred Niles of this world while admiring Gordon whats his name the upper house member of family first not however his party.
In debate I know my views offend but if only we could stop justifying war and separation in the name of Gods?
Stop referring to sex as dirty while understanding why we have rules , no problems from me.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 4 June 2010 5:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You raise an interesting point, Belly.

I don't know how I'd react if I was confronted with the certainty that there is no God. I'd like to think that it would be business as usual, though. My behaviour patterns are based on a humanist model - not secular humanism, I'll admit, but the humanism espoused by people such as St Thomas More and St John Fisher. Both supported the notion that we serve God best by serving our fellow man, and the key to serving our fellow man is to love him (or her [or it, as the case may be]).

Thus I give a considerable sum to charity out of each pay packet not to secure myself a slice of heavenly real estate, but because I can afford to and believe that it is for the greater good. That these gifts are (in my understanding) pleasing to God is not the point. I give them because it is a way of doing the right thing. I believe that God would be happy with my mindset - much happier than if I grudgingly forked out some cash because I thought he wanted me to.

Do others think the same way? I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm unique, but I do think many charities would take a battering as people see no point in making donations if they get nothing out of it in this life or the next.

Perhaps we'd be better off not knowing. If we can overcome bigotry and hatred and accept that people will always follow different religions, then the pluralism would be quite nice. And the possibility that we'll be rewarded for leading a good life might be enough to keep some people on the straight and narrow.
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 5 June 2010 1:42:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko very interesting, lets see my view here.
I Received a small gift while stuck on a country roadside For days as a child.
Made up my mind I Would be giver not a taker from that day.
AS a Christian and still as firmly a non believer, I still give about them same as you.
Lets leave the details but a close blood relative is a pensioner.
And after rough times a commited Christian.
I gave the second last car this person owned, bought it , paid half of this one, gave fridge freezer slow cooker the list would be ten posts long.
He told our family the help came from God.
we no longer talk, another Christian has plans for me this morning, if I follow cost me money lets remember if any good acts we do are Gods work humanity is doomed, we Will never learn to be better, thankfully no one has their hands on My wallet.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 5 June 2010 5:52:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been a bit nice here but lets see why I am sure we would reinvent God.
From the first witch doctor to every current and past God both power and rules to live by bought Gods into existance.
Using both fear and promises even the most primitive God bought about stability in his/her followers.
It was often slavery or death for some but it seems humans are hard wired to want to think God is watching, we would reinvent him and make the same mistakes.
Many Gods each putting the view his/her followers are the true ones and even that we need to convert of even kill followers other Gods.
Unless that UFO brings their God then?
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 5 June 2010 6:00:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo you could have answered my question.
you tramp into threads not about Christianity and make them so.
You try to inhabit the high moral ground but back away from truth.
Was an interesting thread but remember if you refuse to give answers do not expect them in future
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 6 June 2010 6:41:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,
Sorry! you expected an answer?
If an organisation charges fees for services or goods then they ought to pay taxes. If gifts are given voluntary and of free will as a corporate group focused on charity or social benifit for the members or needy then it ought to be tax exempt.

Suppose a group of young mothers met each week and they decided among themselves to install a set of play equipment and each gave money to purchase the equipment then that money should not incurr tax. Suppose a group of retirees put money together to install a kitchen to serve disabled retirees then that money collected ought not be taxed. However if staff are employeed to cook the meals then the staff are required to pay tax.

I'm not sure what you want taxed; or what you expect tax to be paid upon.

My Church did a collection two week's ago for food parcels to struggling farmers in West NSW. Should tax be paid on this money by the Church, or the farmers receiving the goods; or neither; or both?
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 6 June 2010 3:32:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, you're confusing aid money with earned money.

This is how I think it should be: Churches should pay normal corporate rates of tax. They should then receive a tax credit at taxation time. The tax credit should apply **ONLY** to charitable works for the disadvantaged.

I believe the tax credit should be 100% of the donation, with a strict, mandatory paper trail to minimise fraud.

This way churches will pay ZERO tax on their charitable works and normal tax on all their other activities.

Churches should not be above moral law. They should pay their taxes like everyone else.
Posted by benq, Sunday, 6 June 2010 4:27:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like and agree with that benq.
But truly think Philo did no address my question, and after requiring one from me that I gave.
Do you Philo support the church of Scientology being taxed as a church?
Are you happy with the exclusive Brethren, a Church that is also very much a business being able to get the tax break?
Can you tell me if any other cults get tax protection?
Is that ok?
Is your Christianity strong enough to not be concerned about other non Christian Church's getting exemptions?
I find unquestioning tax relief for many Church's thieves from me and others.
Not all Church's not all income but your God said do not build temples in my name and that a rich man trying to get to heaven was harder than a Camel trying to fit through the eye of a needle.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 6 June 2010 7:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,
As much as you and I might dissaprove of certain religions, it is against the law to merely discriminate on religious grounds. However I do believe that Scientology do charge fees for servives which is an income. All income is to be taxed, as well as staff who are employed. With the Exclusive Brethren I believe they do not offer services for fees. If you can verify such is the case then it should be taxed. Fifty years ago I mixed and worked among EB and they were great and compassionate people. I saw no services then that required any set payments.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 7 June 2010 8:50:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy