Alternative religions. Anyone follow one?

richardheath

My silly question to the atheist community is if you don't believe in gods or godesses doe this mean you also don't believe in the concept of extraterrestrials(sp?) influenzing the development of early humans and taken as gods ? Does it also then follow do you believe human beings are the highest form of sentient beings in the universe - just asking to know

I kind of have the opposite question, if you believe in a God do you believe in Aliens???

I raised the question as there has been much written on the subject like "Chariots of the God"s that attempt to redefine and rationalize God as a being within this universe that is in actuality an Alien. Hence God is not in a "spiritual" world outside of this universe, but living in this universe and we as early humans with no other ways of explaining their nature, noted them as Gods or God. These interventions over time became embelissed and evovled into the modern day religions we have today. Whether I support this is something else, but attempts to rationalize why so many early and separated societies had a common theme that gods or Gods came from the sky or stars.

I am an atheist because I have not been convinced that a god or gods exist. That in and of itself does not mean that I don't believe in extraterrestrials.

If the question was put to me simply "Do you believe that there is life on another planet?"

I would say:

"I am not aware of any evidence of life on another planet but due to the immense size of the universe and the number of planets that there are it is entirely possible that life may have developed on another planet. That said I doubt very much that aliens have ever flown here."

Maybe one day we will discover life on another planet and it may even be sentient but I would be shocked if I learned one day that aliens had anything to do with life on this planet.

Hi Soldier, I always like it when you're on a topic !!. Time for me to come clean. I'm sort of on the opposite side...show me proof that God does not exist. I think maybe the jury is out...science has a long way to go, and in a prior post I was on my soap box about the dynamics of science. Science to me has not proven the non-existence. As science goes on we continue to re-evaluate prior conclusions. Aka the first law of thermodynamics...matter canot be created or destroyed...but yet here we are. The second regarding entropy puts holes into evolution. The big bang ? What came before it ? As we progress and open a layer several other countless layers of complexity appear. And with that more and more questions. To me, science does not have the answer, so I tend to prefer the other explanation of a greater mind that helped put it together.Perhaps both explantions are invalid, but to me it's the best I can go with. Take Care !!!!

If your critique of science is that it doesn't have answers, you don't understand science to begin with. Science, by definition, can't do that.

Well thankyou. I'm an engineer who has spent his career in the sciences of physics, chemistry, water resources etc. I'm relating to soldier my opinion, based on my experience with science and education. If you think I don't know science and how it is influenced, well that's your opinion. Take care !!!

You cannot prove a negative though.

Prove to me that your water sample has no contaminating mercury. You can't. The best you could do is say it is below the level of detection for whatever test you used. So, based on that evidence, it is safe to drink.

I'm the same with a god. There is no positive evidence that one exists, but the possibility cannot be ruled out completely. I think it HIGHLY improbable, of course, but it never does to shut ones minds totally.


By the way:

Matter can be created on the quantum level. It has been observed.

The entropy of the system refers to the complete system (i.e. the planet in this case). Organization can occur on a smaller scale (i.e. crystals, life).

And what came before the big bang? In science (as you should apparently know) when we don't know the answer, we say "I don't know". Making up entities to explain unknowns defies Ockham's razor.

Kpablo

My mind is just now opening up to all the worldly religions. I am and have always been spiritual as a Christian. But I'm now starting to realize that may not be the only way. I don't know. I know there is God, and deep down I believe it's all one God.

I've been learning a lot about Buddhism, it really strikes me and I agree with so much of the teachings.

richardheath

I live in Canada, so although I do not believe in any First Nations beliefs they are beautiful and I smudge my house just for good measure LOL

But here is one Native story passed around that is a great one:


An Old Cherokee Tale of Two Wolves

One evening an old Cherokee Indian told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, ‘My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.’

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: ‘Which wolf wins?’

The old Cherokee simply replied, ‘The one you feed.’

This is such a lovely story: so simple and yet so true. I think each and every one of us has these two wolves running around inside us. The Evil wolf or the Good Wolf is fed daily by the choices we make with our thoughts. What you think about and dwell upon will in a sense appear in your life and influence your behavior.

We have a choice, feed the Good Wolf and it will show up in our character, habits and behavior positively. Or feed the Evil Wolf and our whole world will turn negative: like poison, this will slowly eat away at our soul.

The crucial question is “Which are you feeding today”?

Nice! I like it.

skparker2

Im a Jedi.

Jealous!

foxro

Hey soldier just got done my workout and noted your comments. You should really put thoughts to pen or keyboard. As you may note, I thirst for information and love the subject matter. Have a great one !!

Zomoniac

I follow the religion of pie. Every Sunday I sacrifice a pie to the Piemaster by eating it. The Piemaster is the creator of all pies on earth. He has blessed us with pie.

bdeezy3396

Or perhaps we are a simulation designed by our future selves. Like the Sims Game, just on a more magnificent level.

You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!

lilRicki

I believe in a higher spiritual power. I do reiki (Asian form of energy healing), and I meditate quite often. I have recently started rediscovering my meti roots (I'm a bi-product of residential schools) and I was raised Catholic. I am slowly learning how to send and receive love and light, see auras and sense spirits. Sounds flaky I know, and trust me it's a hell of a trip.

It sounds flaky because it's all been thoroughly debunked. But if it's not hurting anyone...

really????

Actually reiki has been proven in a clinical study to reduce pain, speed up healing, reduce stress and anxiety. The only thing reiki was not able to help were people with fybromyalga (spelling is off I know) . I am a reiki master teacher. If you want a copy of the article feel free to pm me.

I always say "even if it's all in your head, the mind is a VERY powerful thing"...Even if your intent for reiki energy is relaxation, it does a world of good.

Cajoke123

Would you consider this our conscience?

Sure, you could definitely use that term. But based not on what our belief system tells us is right, but by an innate sense of morality.

What would you consider to be the parameters of our innate morality? Human sacrifice, child brides and incest have all been considered natural and good at times throughout human history.

I think that many people go against their conscience (or innate morality) since sin (dare I use this word?) is appealing by human nature.

Well if by sin you mean any reprehensible or regrettable act then I would agree that it at least exists. If by sin you mean a transgression against a divine law then I would say the word is meaningless because I don't think that there is an actual divine law to transgress against.

While some actions that could be defined as reprehensible could be appealing to people. Take gluttony for example I do not think it would be accurate to say that "sin" is in general appealing to the nature of humans.

Torture for example is such a horrible thing in my mind that it makes me ill to even see it. I despise slavery and in general I do not find any action that has a victim to be "appealing." If "sin" was appealing to human nature then how is it that I do not find these sins appealing?

These are really quite interesting questions. I think that sometime our sinful nature over-rides our conscience, and sometimes our conscience wins out. If this were not the case and sinful nature ruled, then there would be no good in the world. Yet, I do think that everyone does have a sinful nature that sometimes does win out. Selfishness and etc. are very common sins.

Since we have established that people are somethings good and sometimes bad why then would we assume that it is our nature to be sinful? It would be the exact same result if we were good by nature and we occasionally transgressed. Essentially our world would look no different. For that matter our world would also seem identical to how it is now if we were all basically blank slates and we became X parts good and Y parts bad based on our life experiences.

We can reasonable conclude is that we are not pure evil or pure good but there isn't any logically justifiable reason to conclude that our nature is one way or the other based on the evidence that has been presented so far.

Sorry I haven't been able to respond to this sooner, I just haven't had time. The Bible teaches that everyone needs to believe in Jesus to be saved. Do you really think that if everyone felt like they were good by nature and just occasionally transgressed, that anyone would feel the need to accept Jesus as their savior? Plus, I don't think that we just "occasionally" transgress. At least I know that I sin frequently, like multiple times a day. It's not like I'm a notorious person, but I am commonly proud, selfish, and I don't always like to follow God's commands. I am working on these faults though. The bible teaches that we all fall short from the glory of God, and that our good works are like dirty rags compared to his perfection. This is the main reason why we need Jesus as our savior. (I hope I was able to answer the question!)

anonunga

Does Humanism count as an "alternative" religion?

By humanism I mean the innate humane morality that exists within us all.

Every chemically balanced human knows to do violence unto a newborn child is wrong. We don't need a book, tablet or guru to tell us. You just know as a child, teen or adult, that it is wrong.

This is an extreme example but I use it to build an inalienable basis for my premise of innate humane morality. Regardless of whether one believes in deism, monogamy, ownership or the million other Nurtured ideas, there is a Natural morality that is genetically imprinted upon us.

I believe in this innate humane morality as a foundation and build from it an ideology based on evolving logic that can be summarised as "Do unto". This doesn't include any "divine" laws against bacon, homosexuality, shrimp or even working on whatever day is called the "Sabbath" in your part of the world. It's just the kernel of what I instinctually know is right complimented by my most current thinking/learning/understanding on a given subject.

Combine innate humane morality with a mind open to perceive the everyday advancements in human understanding and you have a flexible belief system that is capable of refuting tradition in favour of truth in any given situation.

Cajoke123

My silly question to the atheist community is if you don't believe in gods or godesses doe this mean you also don't believe in the concept of extraterrestrials(sp?) influenzing the development of early humans and taken as gods ? Does it also then follow do you believe human beings are the highest form of sentient beings in the universe - just asking to know

I kind of have the opposite question, if you believe in a God do you believe in Aliens???

I raised the question as there has been much written on the subject like "Chariots of the God"s that attempt to redefine and rationalize God as a being within this universe that is in actuality an Alien. Hence God is not in a "spiritual" world outside of this universe, but living in this universe and we as early humans with no other ways of explaining their nature, noted them as Gods or God. These interventions over time became embelissed and evovled into the modern day religions we have today. Whether I support this is something else, but attempts to rationalize why so many early and separated societies had a common theme that gods or Gods came from the sky or stars.

I am an atheist because I have not been convinced that a god or gods exist. That in and of itself does not mean that I don't believe in extraterrestrials.

If the question was put to me simply "Do you believe that there is life on another planet?"

I would say:

"I am not aware of any evidence of life on another planet but due to the immense size of the universe and the number of planets that there are it is entirely possible that life may have developed on another planet. That said I doubt very much that aliens have ever flown here."

Maybe one day we will discover life on another planet and it may even be sentient but I would be shocked if I learned one day that aliens had anything to do with life on this planet.

Hi Soldier, I always like it when you're on a topic !!. Time for me to come clean. I'm sort of on the opposite side...show me proof that God does not exist. I think maybe the jury is out...science has a long way to go, and in a prior post I was on my soap box about the dynamics of science. Science to me has not proven the non-existence. As science goes on we continue to re-evaluate prior conclusions. Aka the first law of thermodynamics...matter canot be created or destroyed...but yet here we are. The second regarding entropy puts holes into evolution. The big bang ? What came before it ? As we progress and open a layer several other countless layers of complexity appear. And with that more and more questions. To me, science does not have the answer, so I tend to prefer the other explanation of a greater mind that helped put it together.Perhaps both explantions are invalid, but to me it's the best I can go with. Take Care !!!!

Hello Fox I enjoy our talks as well.

The burden of proof for the existence of something falls upon the person making the positive claim. I am not saying that your god does not exist. I am saying that I am not convinced that he does and I am not capable of believing that god actually exists in reality until after I have been exposed to the required evidence.

Burden of proof is very important because being aware of it can prevent us from approaching a topic from the wrong direction. If I were to claim that I rode a unicorn to work and one of my co-workers said "I don't believe you." it would not be appropriate for me to reply with "Prove that I don't have a unicorn." I am claiming that I have a unicorn so the burden of proof falls upon me to support that claim and my coworker would be rationally justified in not believing me until after I showed him the unicorn.

The same thing would be true if I said I drove my car. The only difference is I would actually be able to take him to my car and show it too him. Also the amount of proof required for me to prove that claim would be lower because it is a smaller claim. If I took him to a horse with a horn on its head he would be justified in asking to make sure I didn't just attach a horn to a horse. The reason for this is my coworker would not have to accept the existence of an entirely new species to believe me about my car. Lots of people drive cars and I can show him my car so the claim has more credibility.

The time to believe in a thing is after the evidence has been found and not before. If you have the evidence for the existence of god then you are justified in believing god is real but unless you are able to manifest that evidence for me I cannot join you in that belief. I could say that I believe in god to win the acceptance of believers but it would simply be a farce. I would just be saying it and not actually believing it.

As an atheist I have no choice but to accept this reality of my life. If there is in fact a god and it is the christian god and not believing in him is ground for eternal torture then I have to accept that is going to be my fate unless the actual evidence for his existence were to show up before my death. The reason for this is because while I could claim to believe in god to win the acceptance of believers the god as described in the christian bible would be able to see through all of that. He would know that I am was not actually convinced in his existence and my fate would be no different I would still be sent to hell.

Science really doesn't try to prove the non-existence of anything. It just tries to find out what is there. So science will never prove the non-existence of god because it is never trying to. We are simply looking for god and not finding him.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed but it can change form so it isn't a problem that we are here.

The second law of thermodynamics does not cause any problems for evolution at all because the planet earth is not a closed system. The earth receives outside energy from the sun.

The big bang is simply the idea of the expansion of a singularity and all the evidence that we have had access to so far basically brings us to that point. Not knowing what happened before it does not create an opening where you can simply insert your favorite god in to it.

Science is basically the best tool we have to decipher our world with but it is a growing thing. New information is discovered and some of it confirms what we already knew and some of it will force us to redefine things that we thought were true. It is like a blade that is constantly being sharpened. That fact that we don't know everything does not lend any credibility to the idea of a god.

I realize this is very long but you did give me a lot to go over and I didn't even go in to great depth on most of it to try and keep this readable. Still given as long and it is most people will not read this anyways so I hope that at least you do.

Take care and have a great day.

Could I ask just one question... Do you believe in Cells? You can't see them. No one has actually seen them. They have only been observed with indirect observation.

rebbylicious

I believe in a higher spiritual power. I do reiki (Asian form of energy healing), and I meditate quite often. I have recently started rediscovering my meti roots (I'm a bi-product of residential schools) and I was raised Catholic. I am slowly learning how to send and receive love and light, see auras and sense spirits. Sounds flaky I know, and trust me it's a hell of a trip.

It sounds flaky because it's all been thoroughly debunked. But if it's not hurting anyone...

really????

Actually reiki has been proven in a clinical study to reduce pain, speed up healing, reduce stress and anxiety. The only thing reiki was not able to help were people with fybromyalga (spelling is off I know) . I am a reiki master teacher. If you want a copy of the article feel free to pm me.

I always say "even if it's all in your head, the mind is a VERY powerful thing"...Even if your intent for reiki energy is relaxation, it does a world of good.

True- however recipients in a study had a mix of people who were attuned reiki practitioners and other people just doing reiki hand placements who were not attuned practitioners and the recipients who had "fake reiki" had way less results.

foxro

My silly question to the atheist community is if you don't believe in gods or godesses doe this mean you also don't believe in the concept of extraterrestrials(sp?) influenzing the development of early humans and taken as gods ? Does it also then follow do you believe human beings are the highest form of sentient beings in the universe - just asking to know

I kind of have the opposite question, if you believe in a God do you believe in Aliens???

I raised the question as there has been much written on the subject like "Chariots of the God"s that attempt to redefine and rationalize God as a being within this universe that is in actuality an Alien. Hence God is not in a "spiritual" world outside of this universe, but living in this universe and we as early humans with no other ways of explaining their nature, noted them as Gods or God. These interventions over time became embelissed and evovled into the modern day religions we have today. Whether I support this is something else, but attempts to rationalize why so many early and separated societies had a common theme that gods or Gods came from the sky or stars.

I am an atheist because I have not been convinced that a god or gods exist. That in and of itself does not mean that I don't believe in extraterrestrials.

If the question was put to me simply "Do you believe that there is life on another planet?"

I would say:

"I am not aware of any evidence of life on another planet but due to the immense size of the universe and the number of planets that there are it is entirely possible that life may have developed on another planet. That said I doubt very much that aliens have ever flown here."

Maybe one day we will discover life on another planet and it may even be sentient but I would be shocked if I learned one day that aliens had anything to do with life on this planet.

Hi Soldier, I always like it when you're on a topic !!. Time for me to come clean. I'm sort of on the opposite side...show me proof that God does not exist. I think maybe the jury is out...science has a long way to go, and in a prior post I was on my soap box about the dynamics of science. Science to me has not proven the non-existence. As science goes on we continue to re-evaluate prior conclusions. Aka the first law of thermodynamics...matter canot be created or destroyed...but yet here we are. The second regarding entropy puts holes into evolution. The big bang ? What came before it ? As we progress and open a layer several other countless layers of complexity appear. And with that more and more questions. To me, science does not have the answer, so I tend to prefer the other explanation of a greater mind that helped put it together.Perhaps both explantions are invalid, but to me it's the best I can go with. Take Care !!!!

If your critique of science is that it doesn't have answers, you don't understand science to begin with. Science, by definition, can't do that.

Well thankyou. I'm an engineer who has spent his career in the sciences of physics, chemistry, water resources etc. I'm relating to soldier my opinion, based on my experience with science and education. If you think I don't know science and how it is influenced, well that's your opinion. Take care !!!

You cannot prove a negative though.

Prove to me that your water sample has no contaminating mercury. You can't. The best you could do is say it is below the level of detection for whatever test you used. So, based on that evidence, it is safe to drink.

I'm the same with a god. There is no positive evidence that one exists, but the possibility cannot be ruled out completely. I think it HIGHLY improbable, of course, but it never does to shut ones minds totally.


By the way:

Matter can be created on the quantum level. It has been observed.

The entropy of the system refers to the complete system (i.e. the planet in this case). Organization can occur on a smaller scale (i.e. crystals, life).

And what came before the big bang? In science (as you should apparently know) when we don't know the answer, we say "I don't know". Making up entities to explain unknowns defies Ockham's razor.

The difference is how you approach an issue - aka "Innocent until proven guilty" versus "Guilty until proven innocent". My positive is that God exists. My quotes on science were to support a dynamic thought and investigative process. What we believed true yesterday, changes. The first law of thermodynamics - changed and if time allows us what we believed as truths or laws will change. My journey in this area is like many others, personal and you have do it yourself. Some given information will come to other conclusions and how that information correlates. I'm one of them, and I could be wrong. But for myself, what I believe in is based on the information at hand and whether I "trust" that information. I lived during the time of the moon landing. I did not witness the moon landing first hand but believe it happened. There are others who believe it did not. I did not live during the time of Moses or Jesus so I do not have concrete tangible evidence or artifacts that they exist. What I know is circumstantial what I have read and whether I choose to believe. This is same as other writings in time periods in which we did not witness. We can choose to believe or not believe what prior humans have written on any subject matter. So with the science thing I say yes, this is what we believe today, but I know that will change.

lilRicki

[/quote]

I always say "even if it's all in your head, the mind is a VERY powerful thing"...Even if your intent for reiki energy is relaxation, it does a world of good.
[/quote]

True- however recipients in a study had a mix of people who were attuned reiki practitioners and other people just doing reiki hand placements who were not attuned practitioners and the recipients who had "fake reiki" had way less results.
[/quote]

I definitely notice a difference the more reiki I do, and the more levels I get attuned for on my way to becoming a master. Would you mind sending me that paper? I would like to read it

soldier4242

Would you consider this our conscience?

Sure, you could definitely use that term. But based not on what our belief system tells us is right, but by an innate sense of morality.

What would you consider to be the parameters of our innate morality? Human sacrifice, child brides and incest have all been considered natural and good at times throughout human history.

I think that many people go against their conscience (or innate morality) since sin (dare I use this word?) is appealing by human nature.

Well if by sin you mean any reprehensible or regrettable act then I would agree that it at least exists. If by sin you mean a transgression against a divine law then I would say the word is meaningless because I don't think that there is an actual divine law to transgress against.

While some actions that could be defined as reprehensible could be appealing to people. Take gluttony for example I do not think it would be accurate to say that "sin" is in general appealing to the nature of humans.

Torture for example is such a horrible thing in my mind that it makes me ill to even see it. I despise slavery and in general I do not find any action that has a victim to be "appealing." If "sin" was appealing to human nature then how is it that I do not find these sins appealing?

These are really quite interesting questions. I think that sometime our sinful nature over-rides our conscience, and sometimes our conscience wins out. If this were not the case and sinful nature ruled, then there would be no good in the world. Yet, I do think that everyone does have a sinful nature that sometimes does win out. Selfishness and etc. are very common sins.

Since we have established that people are somethings good and sometimes bad why then would we assume that it is our nature to be sinful? It would be the exact same result if we were good by nature and we occasionally transgressed. Essentially our world would look no different. For that matter our world would also seem identical to how it is now if we were all basically blank slates and we became X parts good and Y parts bad based on our life experiences.

We can reasonable conclude is that we are not pure evil or pure good but there isn't any logically justifiable reason to conclude that our nature is one way or the other based on the evidence that has been presented so far.

Sorry I haven't been able to respond to this sooner, I just haven't had time. The Bible teaches that everyone needs to believe in Jesus to be saved. Do you really think that if everyone felt like they were good by nature and just occasionally transgressed, that anyone would feel the need to accept Jesus as their savior? Plus, I don't think that we just "occasionally" transgress. At least I know that I sin frequently, like multiple times a day. It's not like I'm a notorious person, but I am commonly proud, selfish, and I don't always like to follow God's commands. I am working on these faults though. The bible teaches that we all fall short from the glory of God, and that our good works are like dirty rags compared to his perfection. This is the main reason why we need Jesus as our savior. (I hope I was able to answer the question!)

I can totally understand what it is like to be short on time thank you for responding at all.

I am questioning the validity of what is claimed within the bible. Since that is the source in question we can't site the bible as a source to defend itself. The conversational equivalent to that would be "If you don't believe me just ask me." It is possible that the bible is wrong and the only way to determine that is to compare its claims to the actual reality of the world. You can twist your ideas to match up with facts but you can't twist facts to match up with ideas.

To address this question: "Do you really think that if everyone felt like they were good by nature and just occasionally transgressed, that anyone would feel the need to accept Jesus as their savior?"

Well if those transgressions would be reason to send you to hell then yes you would still need a savior. So even if we granted all of that the mere fact that Jesus is a savior would not be proof enough to justify the assertion that we are sinful by nature.

The fact that you transgress often is not enough to prove that everyone will transgress often. It could be that some transgress more and some transgress less and you just happen to transgress more often than others. Or it could be that you simply define more things as a transgression than there actually are. That would mean that you are counting things against yourself as transgressions and they are not actually transgressions at all. I think that last one is the case. You are a better person than you are giving yourself credit for.

There are horrible people in the world but that doesn't mean people are horrible by nature.

soldier4242

Could I ask just one question... Do you believe in Cells? You can't see them. No one has actually seen them. They have only been observed with indirect observation.

Actually we can see cells and there is are mature and vibrant fields of science that are dependent upon that fact. Cells are simply very small and as a result they have to be magnified greatly but yes we can see them.

But to address the heart of your question which is more along the lines of "Do I only believe in things that I can see?"

No, I believe in the existence of some things that I cannot see. Before you pop the bubbly let me explain. There is a specific range of light which we can see within and there is a specific range of sounds that we can hear. Through the use of specific instrumentation we can actually detect things like radio waves and we can do it repeatedly.

I do not have to be able to see and touch something for it to be rationally justifiable to believe in it. This would include your god. If he could meet the same level of evidence that radio waves have then I would believe in god just as much as I do radio waves. I might not believe the same things about that god that you do but at least then we would be discussing the properties of a god which we would both believe exists. While I would not necessarily be a christian we would at least both be theists.

So you see there is a threshold of evidence that I am waiting for your god to meet and once that day comes I would switch sides in the debate so fast it would make your head spin. I am not simply being as the bible would describe me "willfully ignorant" I am simply being honest about what evidence I have seen so far. To say I believe in god before I saw the evidence would be a lie.

richardheath

Snipped prior quotes for brevity!


You cannot prove a negative though.

Prove to me that your water sample has no contaminating mercury. You can't. The best you could do is say it is below the level of detection for whatever test you used. So, based on that evidence, it is safe to drink.

I'm the same with a god. There is no positive evidence that one exists, but the possibility cannot be ruled out completely. I think it HIGHLY improbable, of course, but it never does to shut ones minds totally.


By the way:

Matter can be created on the quantum level. It has been observed.

The entropy of the system refers to the complete system (i.e. the planet in this case). Organization can occur on a smaller scale (i.e. crystals, life).

And what came before the big bang? In science (as you should apparently know) when we don't know the answer, we say "I don't know". Making up entities to explain unknowns defies Ockham's razor.

The difference is how you approach an issue - aka "Innocent until proven guilty" versus "Guilty until proven innocent". My positive is that God exists. My quotes on science were to support a dynamic thought and investigative process. What we believed true yesterday, changes. The first law of thermodynamics - changed and if time allows us what we believed as truths or laws will change. My journey in this area is like many others, personal and you have do it yourself. Some given information will come to other conclusions and how that information correlates. I'm one of them, and I could be wrong. But for myself, what I believe in is based on the information at hand and whether I "trust" that information. I lived during the time of the moon landing. I did not witness the moon landing first hand but believe it happened. There are others who believe it did not. I did not live during the time of Moses or Jesus so I do not have concrete tangible evidence or artifacts that they exist. What I know is circumstantial what I have read and whether I choose to believe. This is same as other writings in time periods in which we did not witness. We can choose to believe or not believe what prior humans have written on any subject matter. So with the science thing I say yes, this is what we believe today, but I know that will change.

Firstly, I'm going to suggest one of my favourite essays by one of my favourite writers: Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong". http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Yes, science changes, but mainly by incremental steps. True paradigm shifts a la Khun are very rare.

Secondly, when viewing historical evidence (not that I am a historian) multiple sources are usually referred to to try and ascertain the veracity of any event or person. Unfortunately for the Bible, there are no external references to the Exodus (and the Egyptians wrote everything down! You'd think they'd notice all their slaves up and leaving one day), or even to Jesus (the mention of him in Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum appears to be a later insertion). No first hand accounts of Jesus or his life exist - kinda strange when you think about how important he supposedly was. The earliest Gospels as we know them were first written in 70 AD - decades after his supposed crucifixion. Note - absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, but it is very strange when you find nothing for events such as this.

If God existed and did the things he is claimed to have done, one would expect some sort of evidence. And yet we see nothing. Miracles don't happen today. Intercessory prayers are not answered (unless, like in certain heart attack/prayer studies, the results are fudged and the people who got better were belatedly put on the "prayer" treatment). So it is still your burden of proof to show your positive. Why should I believe in your god if it can't be shown?

foxro

Would you consider this our conscience?

Sure, you could definitely use that term. But based not on what our belief system tells us is right, but by an innate sense of morality.

What would you consider to be the parameters of our innate morality? Human sacrifice, child brides and incest have all been considered natural and good at times throughout human history.

I think that many people go against their conscience (or innate morality) since sin (dare I use this word?) is appealing by human nature.

Well if by sin you mean any reprehensible or regrettable act then I would agree that it at least exists. If by sin you mean a transgression against a divine law then I would say the word is meaningless because I don't think that there is an actual divine law to transgress against.

While some actions that could be defined as reprehensible could be appealing to people. Take gluttony for example I do not think it would be accurate to say that "sin" is in general appealing to the nature of humans.

Torture for example is such a horrible thing in my mind that it makes me ill to even see it. I despise slavery and in general I do not find any action that has a victim to be "appealing." If "sin" was appealing to human nature then how is it that I do not find these sins appealing?

These are really quite interesting questions. I think that sometime our sinful nature over-rides our conscience, and sometimes our conscience wins out. If this were not the case and sinful nature ruled, then there would be no good in the world. Yet, I do think that everyone does have a sinful nature that sometimes does win out. Selfishness and etc. are very common sins.

Since we have established that people are somethings good and sometimes bad why then would we assume that it is our nature to be sinful? It would be the exact same result if we were good by nature and we occasionally transgressed. Essentially our world would look no different. For that matter our world would also seem identical to how it is now if we were all basically blank slates and we became X parts good and Y parts bad based on our life experiences.

We can reasonable conclude is that we are not pure evil or pure good but there isn't any logically justifiable reason to conclude that our nature is one way or the other based on the evidence that has been presented so far.

Sorry I haven't been able to respond to this sooner, I just haven't had time. The Bible teaches that everyone needs to believe in Jesus to be saved. Do you really think that if everyone felt like they were good by nature and just occasionally transgressed, that anyone would feel the need to accept Jesus as their savior? Plus, I don't think that we just "occasionally" transgress. At least I know that I sin frequently, like multiple times a day. It's not like I'm a notorious person, but I am commonly proud, selfish, and I don't always like to follow God's commands. I am working on these faults though. The bible teaches that we all fall short from the glory of God, and that our good works are like dirty rags compared to his perfection. This is the main reason why we need Jesus as our savior. (I hope I was able to answer the question!)

I can totally understand what it is like to be short on time thank you for responding at all.

I am questioning the validity of what is claimed within the bible. Since that is the source in question we can't site the bible as a source to defend itself. The conversational equivalent to that would be "If you don't believe me just ask me." It is possible that the bible is wrong and the only way to determine that is to compare its claims to the actual reality of the world. You can twist your ideas to match up with facts but you can't twist facts to match up with ideas.

To address this question: "Do you really think that if everyone felt like they were good by nature and just occasionally transgressed, that anyone would feel the need to accept Jesus as their savior?"

Well if those transgressions would be reason to send you to hell then yes you would still need a savior. So even if we granted all of that the mere fact that Jesus is a savior would not be proof enough to justify the assertion that we are sinful by nature.

The fact that you transgress often is not enough to prove that everyone will transgress often. It could be that some transgress more and some transgress less and you just happen to transgress more often than others. Or it could be that you simply define more things as a transgression than there actually are. That would mean that you are counting things against yourself as transgressions and they are not actually transgressions at all. I think that last one is the case. You are a better person than you are giving yourself credit for.

There are horrible people in the world but that doesn't mean people are horrible by nature.

There is a modern example to "sin". Sin to me is not being trustworthy. It's like working for a boss or government and you cheat on them. They have trusted you to do the job or obey the laws of the land but you didn't want to do it. If you get caught, you go to jail, lose your job, get demoted etc. and not considered as being trustworthy. To me the Christian context is the same. God like an employer or government has a job for us to do and wants to trust us in doing it(whether you believe it or not). If you intentially scew up then you are not trustworthy. That is sin, to me it it not being good or evil, it's just the choices we make to those in charge or in authority or relationships.

soldier4242

There is a modern example to "sin". Sin to me is not being trustworthy. It's like working for a boss or government and you cheat on them. They have trusted you to do the job or obey the laws of the land but you didn't want to do it. If you get caught, you go to jail, lose your job, get demoted etc. and not considered as being trustworthy. To me the Christian context is the same. God like an employer or government has a job for us to do and wants to trust us in doing it(whether you believe it or not). If you intentially scew up then you are not trustworthy. That is sin, to me it it not being good or evil, it's just the choices we make to those in charge or in authority or relationships.

The thing is in that scenario we are talking about a boss who has 100% perfect knowledge of the actions of every single employee he has and his punishment for disobedience is infinite suffering for ever single moment of an infinite amount of time. Since we are finite beings we are actually incapable of deserving and infinite amount of suffering for any amount of time. So there would be no possibility that such a being could even be good.

This would be compounded even further by the fact that he would have 100% accurate foreknowledge of every single action taken by each of those employees even before they were hired. In other words there would never be an action taken by any of us that would actually surprise god. This means that anyone who went to hell would also not surprise him. In fact it is difficult to envision a scenario where in which any could occur outside of such a beings intention. Meaning if I went to hell it would simply be a result of god's choices.

The idea of god does not stand up to logic because free will and omniscience cannot exist at the same time. It would be like having two people and each of them is taller than the other. It just can't happen.

gypsyrose64

Wow, I came back to this thread expecting it to be gone today. Awesome that it's continued without belligerence. Made for some interesting reading at lunch time, and I've learned some stuff I'd never heard of before. I'll be 'googling' for days on some of it, lol