Christian Fundamentalists...
- Thread starter Missy-Q
- Start date
Polly ... do you believe there is no god?
I can understand why you might not believe in religion but these are two distinct entities ....
Do you deny there's a higher being??
I can understand why you might not believe in religion but these are two distinct entities ....
Do you deny there's a higher being??
Yeh i believe there is no god. I believe that some things, like the beginning of time/"creation" of the universe, are just too huge for the human mind to even begin to contemplate because we have not and will never experience an event of that magnitude, we cannot fathom infinity and fill in the gaps with god.
Hmmmm ..... interesting ....but ..... you seem to be implying that just because the human mind is unable to comprehend things like the beginning of time and creation of the universe etc, this then leads you to conclude there is no god, leastwise that is what you've said.
You suggest the use of God as a gap-filler for all those things you cannot comprehend is hardly conclusive proof... in fact, it's the opposite.
God isn't a convenient gap filler for the human race's lack of knowledge at all .... he's the creator of all .... this is the natural [and quite logical] conclusion one can make when realising we cannot answer questions like creation etc ..
I'm not sure if you are getting confused with religion here but god and religion are two entirely different subjects with the latter being man made.
How do you suspect the universe came into being then?
It created itself?
If so, in this universe you construct where it created itself out of nothing then wouldn't you tend to think there might be other examples of this phenomenon in the universe that created itself .... as far as I know, there are no examples of something coming out of nothing .....
I'd be interested in knowing how you think this universe got created ....
For what it's worth, I don't believe in any higher being or omnipotent creative power. I'm in Polly's camp.
I see no logical reason to replace a lack of knowledge about the origins of the universe with an anthropomorphised creative being, and I don't really see why it should be seen as the norm to - especially in a society in which science and objective reasoning have such standing. There has never been any evidence to suggest a creative power in the way we assume.
One such argument surrounding consciousness can be likened to this situation. For centuries (referring only to the musings on consciousness), and still even now, the writings of Cartesian Duelists (ie: Descartes) have been the accepted paradigm: that there is an immortal soul in a material body, and that this soul is the objective experiencer of our subjective experiences. To describe it in a way that you could picture easily: a little person sitting in our mind, watching our vision on our screen and listening to our hearing through headphones, controlling our body through a control panel. This conclusion mainly came about through a tug of war between religion and the newly forming natural sciences, and is slowly being seen as a complete fallacy. It's wrong, and it's only wrong because we tried to understand something that we had no idea how to comprehend, which is exactly what happens with religion and creationism. Read up on the Cartesian Theatre to get the full picture of my badly written synopsis, preferably by the works of Daniel Dennett.
Coming from an evolutionary background, I see spiritualism simply as a behavioral trait within our (and a select few other) species that simply improves our ability to survive and reproduce within our environment. Like EVERYTHING about our physiology, it's only as good as it needs to be for us to survive, and is in no way perfect or objective. The same is true for vision, sensory functions and consciousness - we're limited in our own function without even being aware of it, because we assume that our experiences are objective windows to the outside world - which they most certainly are not.
I see no logical reason to replace a lack of knowledge about the origins of the universe with an anthropomorphised creative being, and I don't really see why it should be seen as the norm to - especially in a society in which science and objective reasoning have such standing. There has never been any evidence to suggest a creative power in the way we assume.
One such argument surrounding consciousness can be likened to this situation. For centuries (referring only to the musings on consciousness), and still even now, the writings of Cartesian Duelists (ie: Descartes) have been the accepted paradigm: that there is an immortal soul in a material body, and that this soul is the objective experiencer of our subjective experiences. To describe it in a way that you could picture easily: a little person sitting in our mind, watching our vision on our screen and listening to our hearing through headphones, controlling our body through a control panel. This conclusion mainly came about through a tug of war between religion and the newly forming natural sciences, and is slowly being seen as a complete fallacy. It's wrong, and it's only wrong because we tried to understand something that we had no idea how to comprehend, which is exactly what happens with religion and creationism. Read up on the Cartesian Theatre to get the full picture of my badly written synopsis, preferably by the works of Daniel Dennett.
Coming from an evolutionary background, I see spiritualism simply as a behavioral trait within our (and a select few other) species that simply improves our ability to survive and reproduce within our environment. Like EVERYTHING about our physiology, it's only as good as it needs to be for us to survive, and is in no way perfect or objective. The same is true for vision, sensory functions and consciousness - we're limited in our own function without even being aware of it, because we assume that our experiences are objective windows to the outside world - which they most certainly are not.
I see where you are coming from Robbo, but it is the same place everyone that believes in a god comes from. The whole you cant create something out of nothing argument is still thinking very much inside the box. The box being what we as humans can actually comprehend.
I have no idea how the universe came into being, i dont think it did come into being, i think it has always and will always exist, but as we cannot comprehend infinity, we cannot grasp this concept. Also, if the universe was created (or the tiny bits of something within the infinite nothingness which is the universe) we have only even begun to look at the tiniest bit of space, as space is infinite, so there being no examples of something being created out of nothing in this tiny area of infinity doesn't really mean much.
I have no idea how the universe came into being, i dont think it did come into being, i think it has always and will always exist, but as we cannot comprehend infinity, we cannot grasp this concept. Also, if the universe was created (or the tiny bits of something within the infinite nothingness which is the universe) we have only even begun to look at the tiniest bit of space, as space is infinite, so there being no examples of something being created out of nothing in this tiny area of infinity doesn't really mean much.
You gotta come harder than that Pete (and I know you can). I mean, in the same line of reasoning, who or what created (the) god(s), if something can't come out of nothing?
Personally, I don't believe in one sentient overlord, desinging and creating things. I do believe in the power of the collective of all things. So in a sense, in my mind, the universe is god (which would enable it to create itself).
Any zealot, whatever their cause, should raise concern. The reality is that this man does not represent the millions of ordinary Christians worldwide just as the handful Muslim extemists the media is intent on portraying do not represent British Muslims as a whole.
Incidents like this are not the norm and the chances of being involved in a terrorist incident are extemely remote but fear sells papers. Politicians feed of this fear and rush policies through that are ill conceived and stoke the fire. By playing on this fear it alienates individuals and becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
All those seeking power need to demonise a particular group or race - it distracts the masses. Hitler had the Jews, McCarthy reds under the bed, Lenin had capitalists etc. Its easier to fear the 'bogeyman' than accept the real risks in your life