close to God!?

[Topper]

The Dalai Lama is pretty close to God.

[CaliGuy]

Pastor Rick Warren last weekend at Church said he was in a debate with an atheist and the atheist said "I am 100% positive there is no God."

 

Rick said: "100% huh? Tell me, would you agree than mankind knows about 0.01% of all there is to know in the universe?"

 

The atheist said "Yes, I would agree with that."

 

Rick replied: "So with only 0.01% of all there is to know in Universe, you are 100% sure there is no God?"

 

Kind of hard to argue with that. Definitely made me smile

[LaughMachine]

If you are not 100% for christ, and you can't enter the gates of heaven. You will be able to work your way through heaven.

[Topper]

If you are not 100% for christ, and you can't enter the gates of heaven. You will be able to work your way through heaven.

 

yes they ad up your life times earnings they they deduct for things like donations to charity. They then come up with the amount after those deductions They then ask you to pay 10% of that. If you can't pay. You can work it off at one of heavens fast food joints. Turns out all those Saints and Angels, like cheese burgers and french frys. Who would have figured?

[LaughMachine]

yes they ad up your life times earnings they they deduct for things like donations to charity. They then come up with the amount after those deductions They then ask you to pay 10% of that. If you can't pay. You can work it off at one of heavens fast food joints. Turns out all those Saints and Angels, like cheese burgers and french frys. Who would have figured?

 

 

Well I guess towards the end of your post was when I realized you were being sarcastic

 

Darn! lol

 

Who knows. I have along time ahead of me of wondering to do...

[Moai]

Does anyone actually believe that when they die, they flat out don't exist any more. No more thinking, nothing. Can you imagine that? You can't imagine it because if you were non exisiting spiritualy and physically you woulden't be able to imagine anything.

 

Yes, when you die you don't exist anymore. Before you were born you didn't exist, and according to your logic above I can't imagine that, because I wasn't here to imagine it.

 

The fact is you need not imagine it. When you are dead, your mind is gone, so there is nothing to imagine.

 

You are not aware the entire time you are asleep. You go to sleep, and some time later you awaken, with no memory or knowledge of the time in between. When you are dead, that just goes on and on and on. Simple.

[Moai]

Pastor Rick Warren last weekend at Church said he was in a debate with an atheist and the atheist said "I am 100% positive there is no God."

 

Rick said: "100% huh? Tell me, would you agree than mankind knows about 0.01% of all there is to know in the universe?"

 

The atheist said "Yes, I would agree with that."

 

Rick replied: "So with only 0.01% of all there is to know in Universe, you are 100% sure there is no God?"

 

Kind of hard to argue with that. Definitely made me smile

 

Actually, it is really easy to argue with that.

 

I need not know the entire universe to know that there is no god. I need not know the entire universe to know there are no unicorns, elves, or gnomes, do I? I do not need to know the entire universe to know that there is no such thing as magic, do I?

 

To say that I must know EVERYTHING in order to reach conclusions about reality is nonsensical.

 

We now know enough to have a very good understanding of the Universe, and it operates EXACTLY as we would expect if there is no god.

 

Why postulate that which is unnecessary? God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

 

Now, I would agree that to be 100% sure of anything is rather foolish, as there is always room for evidence to change the current view. Even the faithful who claim 100% certainty in god's existence make the same mistake.

 

I, for one, am as certain as I am about anything that there is no god, gods, or the like. I am as certain of that as I am what my own name is.

[bluetuesday]

I need not know the entire universe to know that there is no god. I need not know the entire universe to know there are no unicorns, elves, or gnomes, do I?

 

surely you can see that belief in woodland fairy folk and belief in god are different, moai.

 

belief in god is the belief, based on observation, that the universe must have been designed and created by an intelligent being. considering there is no evidence to the contrary, i would think you gave the notion of god more credence than you do.

 

incidentally, no atheist has ever been able to explain to me how, if there is no designer, the world appears to have been designed. i asked you once to give me an example of anything in the world that appeared to be designed and hadn't been - as evidence that some things that looked designed aren't - and you never answered me.

 

funny, that.

[alphamale]

belief in god is the belief, based on observation, that the universe must have been designed and created by an intelligent being.

how do you know, BT, that the universe and all we know was "designed" by a being, let alone an intelligent being? Maybe it wasn't "designed" at all. If it was designed maybe it was by something we cannot even comprehend that exists in a parallel universe. The point I'm trying to make is that NO ONE KNOWS. The religious people and texts are most likely wrong and the scientist are most likely wrong.

[Moai]

surely you can see that belief in woodland fairy folk and belief in god are different, moai.

 

Nope. They are identical. There is the same amount of evidence for each--none--and in point of fact belief in woodland spirits evolved into the god-belief we have now.

 

belief in god is the belief, based on observation, that the universe must have been designed and created by an intelligent being. considering there is no evidence to the contrary, i would think you gave the notion of god more credence than you do.

Two things: You cannot prove a negative, so I don't have to prove god doesn't exist, it must be demonstrated that he/she/it DOES exist. Second, there is certainly evidence to the contrary.

 

There is certainly design in nature, but it is not INTELLIGENT design. There is so much jury-rigged "design" in nature that to assert that there is a designer would be to assert and incompetent one. The human eye, the prostate gland and its location, the way our backs are formed, the way our organs are attached inside our torsos scream "no designer."

 

Here is a link to many more examples in nature:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

 

Even a basic web search will turn up almost limitless examples.

 

As an interesting aside, amongst scientists the fewest number of theists work in biology. How can this be, if design is so obvious? Two answers leap to mind: 1) the study of biology is "satanic" and these scientists are all being misled; or 2) those who know best how biology works see no evidence for a designer. Occam's Razor favors the latter explanation.

 

And now for a couple of quotes:

 

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

-- Richard Dawkins

 

"The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight -- that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must either be turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned altogether."

-- Daniel Dennett

 

Note the two above men probably have forgotten more about biology than you and I will ever know, and those are the conclusions that they reached, based on the evidence. I suggest if you even bother to glance at any of it you will think the same way. I did, and do.

 

incidentally, no atheist has ever been able to explain to me how, if there is no designer, the world appears to have been designed. i asked you once to give me an example of anything in the world that appeared to be designed and hadn't been - as evidence that some things that looked designed aren't - and you never answered me.

 

funny, that.

I do not recall your asking me that, and I have addressed that on other threads. I am amazed that I missed it, as it is such an easy question. I will do so again here, as you asked...

 

In order to determine that something is intelligently designed, one must have an example of something that is not. I can tell that a car is designed because it is so unlike a tree, or a rock, or a dog. To then leap from that and claim that the tree is in fact intelligently designed is flawed, since something cannot be both designed and not.

 

When one finds an arrowhead it is obvious that it is designed because it is so different from other stones. It has obviously been fashioned by intelligence. How then can you apply a supernatural intelligence to everything, when it does not appear designed at all?

 

Further, the appearance of design in not evidence of intelligent design. Life on this planet has been undergoing evolutionary pressure since it first appeared, constantly adapting to the environment. Those life forms that can best adapt and reproduce will replace those that can't. It is through this process that life is refined and shaped. Frogs look "designed" to live in ponds because they evolved in ponds, and that environment shaped them. Animals go extinct all the time, simply because they cannot adapt, or a particular mutation that was once beneficial is no longer.

 

When you look at the fossil record, you can see this process in action. You can also see it if you watch a toad population for a few generations, or insects in your backyard.

 

If there was an intelligent designer, why do species go extinct at all? The vast majority of life to have inhabited this planet is extinct now. Was the designer just testing out different models, or what? Bear in mind that the vast majority of extinctions had nothing to do with man destroying their environment. The species died, or morphed into another form. All life we see is actually a transitional form that will eventually become something else, or die off.

 

You can look at the human genome and see this process. We are 99% the same as Bonobos. We share a gene for vitamin D synthesis, but ours is dormant and theirs is not. If it is not dormant in humans, it results in retardation. No gene acts independently, by the way. The point is, why would an intelligent designer include a gene in us that when working is harmful? Why include a code that isn't used in the first place?

 

The evidence against design is so great that to postulate otherwise is rather silly. I recommend availing yourself of the biology section of your local library if you desire more clarification.

[bluetuesday]

how do you know, BT, that the universe and all we know was "designed" by a being, let alone an intelligent being? Maybe it wasn't "designed" at all. If it was designed maybe it was by something we cannot even comprehend that exists in a parallel universe. The point I'm trying to make is that NO ONE KNOWS. The religious people and texts are most likely wrong and the scientist are most likely wrong.

 

you see, i don't subscribe to the theory that no one knows. if there is a god, it makes no sense that god is incomprehensible. and if there is no god, it makes no sense that we exist.

 

there is intelligence in nature and to debate whether that intelligence is designed or not is just mental masturbation. intelligence does not arise in a vacuum. the human brain is bewilderingly clever. if i brought you a machine that was a millionth as clever as a brain, you'd insist it had been designed. yet when i give the example of a human brain as evidence of design, many people would deny the same process which they can see clearly in an aeroplane or a toaster. they claim the brain formed by a process that was intelligent (as moai above has claimed) but they can give no answer as to where that intelligence came from. if it is an innate quality in nature, who or what put it there? what gave nature the capacity and the laws in order to choose intelligently?

 

i don't think there's anything supernatural about the process. it's not magic, it's the basis for the principles of the universe that are all stunningly complex and consistent. opening my eyes taught me this, nothing more 'magical' than that.

 

but i agree that both religion and science are wrong about the universe. the truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between.

 

moai, several years ago i had an interesting conversation with the head of theology at london's university college. i don't know whether she was a theist or not, but i assume she was. i had been doing some research into the philosophy of religion, and noticed that all the philosphers i'd studied had missed something that to me was very clear - they had tried to prove the existence (or not) of god without considering the concept of plausable deniability.

 

this world is designed with sufficient plausable deniability that god WILL remain hidden to anyone who doesn't want to believe. this is the only way free will can work on this planet. however, plausable deniability ceases to exist once you seek god with an open heart. in that case, when you have sought freely, god WILL make itself known to you in a way that is unmistakable.

 

so whether you're a biologist, a nuclear physicist or moai the loveshack atheist, god will remain totally hidden to you as long as that's what you want to experience. consider it god's gift to you. god will hide from you if that's what you want to experience.

 

but for those of us who don't want that (people like me), god will be revealed in a way that is impossible to deny. it is a simple as that. you and richard dawkins see no evidence because god wants you to have free will to deny him if you so wish. you see what you choose, but not everyone sees what YOU choose.

[pricillia]

all hail the resurrection of Christ

 

 

and then there was silence...

[lonelybird]

And now for a couple of quotes:

 

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

-- Richard Dawkins

 

"The kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight -- that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must either be turned into a symbol for something less concrete or abandoned altogether."

-- Daniel Dennett

Moai, do you think this is rational?

Suppose you are talking your gf.....

 

you: would you marry me?

gf: why?

you: well, honey, based on the theory of Richard Dawkins there is no purpose

 

gf: do you love me?

you: well, honey, love is too irrational, I would like to say that we need produce offsprings, we need survive this world by having babies.

 

gf: so you don't have feeling for me?

you: ummm, Richard Dawkins said nothing but blind pitiless indifference

 

gf: ...........

you: you know, no pun intent, there is no evil and no good

 

gf: but I think love is irrational

you: you have mental illness, and image things up, you need to be locked up

[Moai]

you see, i don't subscribe to the theory that no one knows. if there is a god, it makes no sense that god is incomprehensible. and if there is no god, it makes no sense that we exist.

 

there is intelligence in nature and to debate whether that intelligence is designed or not is just mental masturbation. intelligence does not arise in a vacuum.

 

Why, because you say so? I notice that you don't address any of the evidence that suggests there is no design, you just wipe it away because you wish it to be so. There is no intelligence in nature. A basic examination of nature bears this out. It is most certainly NOT mental masturbation, as understanding such a thing is essential to understanding nature itself.

 

You assert that there is intelligence in nature. Fine. How can we determine that this is the case? I would expect this intelligence to be AT LEAST as intelligent as I am, and clearly it is not. I know it is not because not only can I see the flawed design, I can imagine a better design myself. So if there is intelligence in Nature, it is not as intelligent as I am, so why call it god in the first place?

 

First off, the Earth is not a vacuum. Second, intelligence does not necessarily incur evolutionary benefit. If it did, tuna would be doing calculus. Third, just what is intelligence? The only intelligence we can approach understanding is our own, and that by definition is limited.

 

the human brain is bewilderingly clever. if i brought you a machine that was a millionth as clever as a brain, you'd insist it had been designed. yet when i give the example of a human brain as evidence of design, many people would deny the same process which they can see clearly in an aeroplane or a toaster.

 

Thank you for making my point. A stapler is nowhere near as complex as my brain, and yet it is obvious that it is designed. I know it is designed because it is totally unlike my brain, or my liver, or my hands. Or a tree. Or any other natural thing.

 

Complexity does not equal design, either. If you were to pick up a sac of marbles and spill it onto the ground, the marbles would end up in one of billions of configurations. You would get a different pattern each time, and each would be so complex that it would be near impossible to accurately predict each outcome. But there the marbles are, all laid out. Is this the result of design, simply because the matrix of marbles is difficult to predict or map out? No.

 

The same goes for grains of sand on a beach. Each grain of sand is unique, and in a specific spot. It is very complex. Am I to assume that the ocean has intelligence because the pattern is so complex, and the ocean deposited the sand?

 

Your above example is an excellent one of the fallacy of the Argument From Personal Incredulity: "I can't fathom that it can happen by itself, therefore it did not."

 

they claim the brain formed by a process that was intelligent (as moai above has claimed) but they can give no answer as to where that intelligence came from. if it is an innate quality in nature, who or what put it there? what gave nature the capacity and the laws in order to choose intelligently?

 

I never said that the brain was formed by a process that was intelligent. I suggest you read my post again. Nothing in nature was formed by anything intelligent. Not one solitary thing. Not you, not me, not trees, mountains, birds, insects, or mollusks.

 

Chemicals behave according to their properties. It is that simple. It so happens on this planet these chemicals have been able to combine in such a way as to reproduce--which is the essence of life. Why do they have properties at all? Unknown. Why is there "something" and not "nothing"? Again, unknown. But it fallacious to suggest that because there is no current explanation (and maybe never will be) that your god-being is real. Beyond that, you must then answer who created your god-being, and who created that being, and on and on. The concept of matter existing is fine without adding a supernatural being to the mix.

 

Your above paragraph is a great example of the Argument From Ignorance. "Because there is no alternate explanation, my explanation must be true."

 

i don't think there's anything supernatural about the process. it's not magic, it's the basis for the principles of the universe that are all stunningly complex and consistent. opening my eyes taught me this, nothing more 'magical' than that.

 

To suggest that a supernatural being is behind is certainly magical. I could suggest that a sea turtle blinked and it all came into being, and it would be just as rational as your assertion. We are back to the question as to why your supernatural explanation is any better than any other. They all have the same amount of evidence.

 

but i agree that both religion and science are wrong about the universe. the truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between.

 

Why? Science not has not only described much of the natural world, it is the only system that has predictability. And not "prophetic" predictability, either.

 

moai, several years ago i had an interesting conversation with the head of theology at london's university college. i don't know whether she was a theist or not, but i assume she was. i had been doing some research into the philosophy of religion, and noticed that all the philosphers i'd studied had missed something that to me was very clear - they had tried to prove the existence (or not) of god without considering the concept of plausable deniability.

 

Actually, it is because of plausible deniability that we can assert that god does not exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without such evidence, the claim can be shown to be false.

 

this world is designed with sufficient plausable deniability that god WILL remain hidden to anyone who doesn't want to believe.

 

Argument by assertion. You claim that the universe is designed, by present no evidence. You just wish it to be so.

 

You also beg the question as to why god would want to be hidden in the first place.

 

You mentioned the human brain before. I'll mention the mind. Our minds are great little "meaning" finders. The mind will find meaning even when none is there, and causative relationships when none exist as well.

 

this is the only way free will can work on this planet. however, plausable deniability ceases to exist once you seek god with an open heart. in that case, when you have sought freely, god WILL make itself known to you in a way that is unmistakable.

 

Really? Unmistakable? That's interesting, seeing as how so many people who are actively seeking out god come up with so many different ideas about who god is, what god wants, etc.

 

Does god want women to wear burkhas? The Taliban thought so. Does god want me to castrate myself and then commit suicide to meet up with a spaceship? The Heaven's Gate people thought so. Does god want me to sarifice animals? The ancient Hebrews thought so. Is Pharoah god? the ancient Egyptians thought so. Should we sacrifice humans? The Aztecs and Mayans thought so. Every single person involved in all those ancient beliefs had no doubt whatsoever that what they were doing was right and that such was exactly what god wanted. They actively looked for him, as do you, and yet got a totally different answer. You say that god will make himself known in a way that is unmistakable, yet I see a lot of mistakes throughout history. Why isn't your belief also a mistake, given religion's track record?

 

What would possess god-seeking people to believe these things?

 

This question is never answered, all theists of any stripe ever say is, "They were misguided" or "It was really Satan" or any number of other ad hoc explanations.

 

so whether you're a biologist, a nuclear physicist or moai the loveshack atheist, god will remain totally hidden to you as long as that's what you want to experience. consider it god's gift to you. god will hide from you if that's what you want to experience.

 

That's nice of him. Notice that science only works when we behave as if god doesn't exist. Lo and behold, mankind is better off, and advances in leaps and bounds. It is nice of him to create such a place where we are better off ignoring him. Or he could not exist at all, and you are just imagining that is what he is doing.

 

Would you say that Love Hurts and lonelybird are hungering for god? I certainly would. Yet they experience god in a much different way than you, and have a totally different idea of what god wants than you. Yet they seek, just like you. They have found, just like you. They believe differently. I don't even know how many different religions exist on this planet, but there are an awful lot of people out there seeking god and getting very different answers. But you claim that when you seek, you will find in such a way that it will be unmistakable. I think that it is very easily mistakable. The fact that there is such a class as "World Religions" in every major university on the planet suggests that I am right, and you are wrong. But, believe as you choose.

 

but for those of us who don't want that (people like me), god will be revealed in a way that is impossible to deny.

 

People who believed in witches felt that they had evidence that was impossible to deny. They tortured and killed people based on this evidence, all the while believing they were doing god's work. I don't find their evidence, or yours (because there isn't any) difficult to deny at all.

 

it is a simple as that. you and richard dawkins see no evidence because god wants you to have free will to deny him if you so wish. you see what you choose, but not everyone sees what YOU choose.

 

How are you in a position to know what god wants or doesn't want? You aren't. You think you are, and it just makes oh so much sense to you, but it doesn't to anybody else--even other theists. There is a small group who thinks as you do I am sure, but what does that matter?

 

And I do not see what I choose, to use your terms. I accept things based on evidence. I think that it would be great if there was an invisible superbeing up there caring about me, protecting me, planning for where I am going when I die, and all the rest. It would be great if there were miracles, and if prayer worked. I would really, really like to see that. I would choose to believe that I am irresistible to all women, yet that is not the case, either.

 

Actually, let's look at that. I believe that all women find me irresistible. I choose to believe this. Women reject me, but I use logical fallacies to explain such behavior away, like "She's a lesbian" or "She's blind" or "There are evil forces at work in her" to keep what I choose to believe real. I do it so much that it becomes second nature. When other people try to explain to me that there is no evidence for my belief, I just tell them that they don't get it, that they must have faith, or that they are just choosing to see the world in a particular way. And my delusion continues.

 

Or, I could confront my belief and examine the evidence, and when the evidence shows that I am not irresistible to all women, I could abandon the notion, and accept reality in spite of what I wish to be true.

 

I'd love to believe in an omnibenevolent god, ogres, elves, magic, ghosts, telekinesis, astral travel, spells, love incantations, a unifying intelligence behind all reality--lots of supernatural ideas are really very attractive. But there is no evidence for such things. None. There never has been, and it doesn't look like their will be any time soon. So I don't believe those things.

 

I suppose on some level I "choose" to believe based on evidence, but I do not have any agenda as to where that evidence will take me. You choose to believe in god, and lo and behold it conforms to your idea of what god wants, how he interacts with us, and the rest. Surprise.

[Moai]

Moai, do you think this is rational?

Suppose you are talking your gf.....

 

you: would you marry me?

gf: why?

you: well, honey, based on the theory of Richard Dawkins there is no purpose

 

Richard Dawkins did not suggest that there is no purpose to life. i don't think that, either. The Universe is indifferent to my existence, but that doesn't mean that there is no purpose. In fact, there is a great deal of purpose on a great many levels.

 

gf: do you love me?

you: well, honey, love is too irrational, I would like to say that we need produce offsprings, we need survive this world by having babies.

 

Yes, love can be irrational. It is an emotion, after all. But just because we feel things for irrational reasons it does not follow that we must act irrationally. You are correct that we have a biological need to reproduce. There are a myriad of feelings associated with this basic function in humans.

 

gf: so you don't have feeling for me?

you: ummm, Richard Dawkins said nothing but blind pitiless indifference

 

Well, first off things aren't so because Dawkins says they are. I just think he put it is such a way that I found it eloquent. I happen to agree with his assessment of the evidence.

 

I am not pitiless and indifferent, the Universe is. I am not the Universe.

 

gf: ...........

you: you know, no pun intent, there is no evil and no good

 

Dawkins doesn't imply that with the quote I posted, he doesn't believe that, and I don't either. I certainly believe in good and evil. They are human constructs and define how we deal with one another, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real.

 

I think that the Holocaust was evil. I think that Mao's Great Leap Forward was evil. I think that Pol Pot was evil. I think that Benny Hinn is evil. Dawkins thinks religion is evil, and I lean that way myself.

 

gf: but I think love is irrational

you: you have mental illness, and image things up, you need to be locked up

 

Who said that love is a mental illness? Love is an essential part of being human, and as I stated above it can make people bizarrely irrational, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, isn't necessary, or isn't beautiful.

 

Dawkins was talking about the Universe being indifferent to human suffering--actually, the suffering of all life in general. And he's right. Either you are imagining meaning in that quote (and my position) that isn't there, extrapolating in such a direction that is clearly not implied, or didn't understand it. I hope that things are a bit clearer now.

[LaughMachine]

I think people are stating their opinions as facts and none of us really truly know the truth.

 

What I do know, in my heart. Is that when you die, your soul goes up........................YOUR butt haha jk

 

No your soul is everlasting love :-p

 

There is no such thing as flat out nothing, and not thinking any more. If that were the case, well we coulden't imagine it

 

If our soul doesn't go anywhere, than maybe we get reincarnated in to something else. Lets use the word maybe so we don't sound as if we know what we really do not know at all.

 

I have my own theory on things and no one else is going to bother me of them.

[Moai]

I think people are stating their opinions as facts and none of us really truly know the truth.

 

What I do know, in my heart. Is that when you die, your soul goes up........................YOUR butt haha jk

 

No your soul is everlasting love :-p

 

There is no such thing as flat out nothing, and not thinking any more. If that were the case, well we coulden't imagine it

 

I disagree. Not only can I imagine it, I experience it every time I go to bed.

 

If our soul doesn't go anywhere, than maybe we get reincarnated in to something else. Lets use the word maybe so we don't sound as if we know what we really do not know at all.

 

I have my own theory on things and no one else is going to bother me of them.

 

And you are entitled to them, of course. But realize that there is no evidence that we even have souls, let alone immortal ones. All ideas about life after death are equally valid, and have just as much evidence to support them. Namely none.

 

I don't know that when we die everything just ceases, but because I understand that we experience reality through our senses and our brain interprets these sensations, no brain/no body=no perception. So that is what I would assume happens. I am sure we will all find out eventually.

 

Also, you cannot imagine infinity, either. The human mind cannot grasp it. So immortality must not exist, as the human mind cannot fathom it. (I do not reject the immortal soul for this reason as it is fallacious reasoning, but it follows from your above assertion.)

[burning 4 revenge]

I think that when we die we continue to be undetectably conscious and sensually feel our slow decay.

[CaliGuy]

I, for one, am as certain as I am about anything that there is no god, gods, or the like. I am as certain of that as I am what my own name is.

 

I hope for your sake, and I say this in all kindness and sincerity, that you one day change your outlook.

 

After all if you are right and there is no God, no harm will come to me.

But if I am right and you are wrong, boy, you would certainly be gambling a lot.

 

I used to believe as you do. It wasn't until my darkest hours that God finally revealed himself to me. Maybe that's what it will require of you as well.

[Topper]

CaliGuy, Check all of Moai's Post You might come away with a different opinion.

[LaughMachine]

You haven't imagined it yet. If you were to have imagined it than you woulden't be able to come here today stating that you do.

 

Do you not have any dreams? I have dreams everynight and if I don't remember them right when I wake up, I'll remember them later on.

[riobikini]

re:

 

LonelyBird: " Have you ever been scared by this idea, close to God? "

 

 

The whole idea of God -much more the idea of being *close* to Him, is enough to scare most people.

 

The common concept is that -to even think about religion, or God, or involve yourself in any way, is sucking all the fun stuff right out of your life.

 

And the way God-stuff is presented -no wonder people run! -those who are really "into" God are either too chummy and nice, and "just want to love you", and "want you to feel the peace and love through God that I feel" that you feel all queasy and sick and defensive.

 

Or they're preaching the gospel night and day to everyone they meet and can *never* seem to have a normal, everyday conversation with anyone.

 

If they could *only* present God-stuff in a way that makes it attractive -and doesn't make people avoid the "apostles" bringing such good news!

 

(Smile)

 

It's one thing to sit down and have a conversation on the patio with someone and get to hear about their vacation, their kids and family, and a few other interesting things that you can reciprocate with your own account of what's going on in *your* life.

 

But it's quite another when the conversation drones on and on -one sided- all about God, God-stuff, religion, what's going on at church, what last Sunday's scripture reading was all about, and how God can bless, bless, bless my life if I'd only pattern myself after others who are in hot pursuit of God.

 

(Smile)

 

Frankly, I don't think you have to go -or look- very far to "find" God.

 

It also occurs to me that God probably doesn't want to be the center of *all* our conversation every second -and that He'd probably like it very well if we'd just try to enjoy the life He has -indeed- blessed us with.

 

Acknowledgment of God -and praise, and thanks to Him- varies in method from person to person.

 

For myself -I don't have to spout verses all day long, or always refer to Scripture in conversation to convey a point, or stop to make a demonstration of prayer in a restaurant.

 

I don't feel *compelled*.

 

And I certainly, don't feel as if I'm shutting God out.

 

Instead, I feel free to enjoy the life He's given me.

 

And that freedom makes me as close as I can get to Him -without all the hoopla.

 

-Rio

[LaughMachine]

re:

 

 

 

 

The whole idea of God -much more the idea of being *close* to Him, is enough to scare most people.

 

The common concept is that -to even think about religion, or God, or involve yourself in any way, is sucking all the fun stuff right out of your life.

 

And the way God-stuff is presented -no wonder people run! -those who are really "into" God are either too chummy and nice, and "just want to love you", and "want you to feel the peace and love through God that I feel" that you feel all queasy and sick and defensive.

 

Or they're preaching the gospel night and day to everyone they meet and can *never* seem to have a normal, everyday conversation with anyone.

 

If they could *only* present God-stuff in a way that makes it attractive -and doesn't make people avoid the "apostles" bringing such good news!

 

(Smile)

 

It's one thing to sit down and have a conversation on the patio with someone and get to hear about their vacation, their kids and family, and a few other interesting things that you can reciprocate with your own account of what's going on in *your* life.

 

But it's quite another when the conversation drones on and on -one sided- all about God, God-stuff, religion, what's going on at church, what last Sunday's scripture reading was all about, and how God can bless, bless, bless my life if I'd only pattern myself after others who are in hot pursuit of God.

 

(Smile)

 

Frankly, I don't think you have to go -or look- very far to "find" God.

 

It also occurs to me that God probably doesn't want to be the center of *all* our conversation every second -and that He'd probably like it very well if we'd just try to enjoy the life He has -indeed- blessed us with.

 

Acknowledgment of God -and praise, and thanks to Him- varies in method from person to person.

 

For myself -I don't have to spout verses all day long, or always refer to Scripture in conversation to convey a point, or stop to make a demonstration of prayer in a restaurant.

 

I don't feel *compelled*.

 

And I certainly, don't feel as if I'm shutting God out.

 

Instead, I feel free to enjoy the life He's given me.

 

And that freedom makes me as close as I can get to Him -without all the hoopla.

 

-Rio

 

 

You always have the best replies.

[Moai]

I hope for your sake, and I say this in all kindness and sincerity, that you one day change your outlook.

 

After all if you are right and there is no God, no harm will come to me.

But if I am right and you are wrong, boy, you would certainly be gambling a lot.

 

I used to believe as you do. It wasn't until my darkest hours that God finally revealed himself to me. Maybe that's what it will require of you as well.

 

What if we are both wrong? It could be that god is more angry at the person who worshiped him incorrectly than at the person who didn't worship him at all.

 

And how did you come to your understanding of god in the first place? Am I correct in assuming that you live in the West, and the god you chose is the Christian one? Did you try every other religion or manifestation of god and then settle on this one, or did you pick the religion dominant in your culture?

 

The fact is, you are taking the same risk as I, I just go one further than you do. You have rejected every other religion but one. I just reject them all. Do you lose sleep over whether you picked the right religion? Are you afraid that you may have angered Vishnu? Billions of people believe Vishnu to be real, you know. How can you reject his reality so cavalierly?

 

I doubt you worry about rejecting Hinduism or Islam at all. That is because it is easy to reject the superstitions of others.

 

I don't think that god will reveal himself to me regardless of the circumstances, since I don't think that there is such a thing. But anything is possible, I suppose.

[Moai]

You haven't imagined it yet. If you were to have imagined it than you woulden't be able to come here today stating that you do.

 

Do you not have any dreams? I have dreams everynight and if I don't remember them right when I wake up, I'll remember them later on.

 

Sure I have. To think of it is to imagine it, in a way.

 

And sometimes I remember my dreams, sometimes I do not. Are you saying that you can recall each minute of each dreams you have over eight hours of sleep? That's cool if you do, I don't. I fall asleep, and I wake up.

 

All that need happen is me not to remember dreaming ONCE and I have experienced it--that is to say, had no experience. Eight hours of my life gone, no recollection.

 

As I have mentioned before, there was a time when I was not alive. I cannot imagine that per se, but that doesn't mean that I always existed, does it?