Copenhagen, the wash up

[Thales750]

God is not supposed to be an entity people. He is supposed to be LOVE. And through love, you can create his presence within yourself. And he decided to turn that love that he is into a human being. Hence, the comming of Jesus.

Yes, you have touched upon my own view of the power of God.

 

[Thales750]

So Joshua was aided in the Hebrew Promised Land massaces through God's love? The Crusaders fought for Juruslem on the power of love? Christians burned "witches" because of love? The Coalition of the Willing wrought havoc upon Iraq through love? Priests molested children motivated by love? Hmmmm?

I do accept that a greater consciousness may be created through mass hypnosis. However that need not be a universal love and casual observation suggests that it is more often built on greed and hatred. This is why religion is so dangerous.

Interestingly though, you blame religion for the atrocities of man, yet denying God means religion is a construct of man.
According to you, man needs to create mechanism to support death and destruction.
What do you suppose we should replace religion with?

I mean of course; in order to fullfill our need to destoy.

 

[Thales750]

I think there are some significant differences between those blokes and the Bible. Firstly, they did not really start from scratch. The Bible has set the scene for different religions, spititual experiences etc. and etc. Secondly is the short term and limited number of followers.



A couple of very basic things. The first one being as I said earlier is it just seems to me that such an enduring story (or news report if you like) of events that are quite fanastic has to have some basis of truth. The second reason is quite simply my own experiences and observations. No matter which way I examine things I keep coming up with the most likely option being a life force and also possibly some form of telepathy between humans.

Some people can with one breath accept quantum entanglement, and in another deny the possibility of an all encompassing force binding the universe.

The closer we get to understanding the nature of things the more evidence there is for an underlining power.

Funny though, it seams that mostly high IQ people see that.

 

[Rich]

Interestingly though, you blame religion for the atrocities of man, yet denying God means religion is a construct of man.
According to you, man needs to create mechanism to support death and destruction.
What do you suppose we should replace religion with?

I mean of course; in order to fullfill our need to destoy.

"Our" of course being plural for America

 

[chergh]

Some people can with one breath accept quantum entanglement, and in another deny the possibility of an all encompassing force binding the universe.

Quantum entanglement has evidence but there is no evidence to support your zombie messiah.

 

[Rabbie]

Interestingly though, you blame religion for the atrocities of man, yet denying God means religion is a construct of man.
According to you, man needs to create mechanism to support death and destruction.
What do you suppose we should replace religion with?

I mean of course; in order to fullfill our need to destoy.

Not sure what you mean by "our need to destroy". I personally think that religion can be replaced by people having a mutual respect for each other and "doing as you would be done by". As far as I understand it this would not mean a fundamental change for most people except they would have to take responsibility for their own actions and not hide behind an imaginary friend

 

[Mike375]

Quantum entanglement has evidence but there is no evidence to support your zombie messiah.

I think there is plenty of evidence.

Firstly, if we assume there is a superantural being or beings then obviously he/she/it/they could create the whole show or perhaps lay down the basics to kick start things. I don't think anyone doubts that. So the issue here is if the supernatural exists or existed and that is the only issue.

Bear with me

If I go to Google and Big Bang the basic results are support of the Big Bang plus those who don't agree. So we have two opposing views and in both cases there are lots of "ifs" etc. at best each is a rough shot at things. But the third view is support for the supernatural. If there is or was the supernatural (s) then no "ifs or buts".

Note: I am just using Big Bang as an example.

So can support of a supernatural be based on logic and not wishful thinking, I think so.

Hawking has said that pre Big Bang there is no physics, time etc. I think he also said that is the reason they can't go to pre Big Bang. So pre Big Bang is either no form of natural laws or a completely different set of natural laws.

Pre Big Bang must be either "something" or "nothing". If there was "something" then that operated under a different set of natural laws. On the other hand if it all came from "nothing" then that surely must be a set of different laws.

Either way you are left with a supernatural, that is, a supernatural when related to our natural laws.

You have to completely remove from the equation a connection between a supernatural and any religious connections.

A supernatural is the only explanation that is 100%. Every other explanation blows around in the breeze. If Hawking is correct then there must of been a supernatural pre Big Bang.

 

[Rabbie]

If Hawking is correct then there must of been a supernatural pre Big Bang.

I don't think Hawkings actually says that. Evidence Please. Hawkings actually says there is "no before the bigbang" as that is when time was created.

And if you are correct where id your "superatural" come from?

 

[Thales750]

Quantum entanglement has evidence but there is no evidence to support your zombie messiah.

There you go once again, atheist incivility.

How can you prove a point with words like that?
Unless your objective is to prove your lack of abilities.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist?
I forgive you, your trespasses.

 

[Thales750]

Not sure what you mean by "our need to destroy". I personally think that religion can be replaced by people having a mutual respect for each other and "doing as you would be done by". As far as I understand it this would not mean a fundamental change for most people except they would have to take responsibility for their own actions and not hide behind an imaginary friend

The point is that if you do not believe in God, then blaming religion is mute. It is a devise of man.
Mankind has always made excuses to attempt to destroy each other.
You a bright person Rabbie, you know exactly what I am saying.
The more accurate analogy is to blame organization modeled after the KKK, where wealthy, evil, fanatics, brain wash the poor and susceptible.
Most truly religious people that I know, would not waste their time trying to convert you, they would instead rely on their actions.

 

[Thales750]

"Our" of course being plural for America

How long is the journey to enlightenment Rich, and how short is life?

 

[chergh]

A supernatural is the only explanation that is 100%.

Putting things down to the "supernatural" does not explain anything. Once upon a time the sun was considered supernatural and that would have been equally the only explanation that is 100% with your argument.

 

[chergh]

There you go once again, atheist incivility.

How can you prove a point with words like that?
Unless your objective is to prove your lack of abilities.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist?
I forgive you, your trespasses.

lol.......

 

[Rich]

There you go once again, atheist incivility.

How can you prove a point with words like that?
Unless your objective is to prove your lack of abilities.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist?
I forgive you, your trespasses.

And one day we may forgive you your imaginary friends

 

[Galaxiom]

There you go once again, atheist incivility.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist? [/quote]
(WTF has happend to the open square bracket? If you enter one yourself becuase of the over zealous highlighting it doesn't work as a quote.)


Atheists are not fanatics. Theists are just very uncomfortable when asked to justify their influence on the values and policies of wider society.

"Because God said in the Bible" just doesn't cut it, particularly when the "wisdom" is provided in parables that are open to wide interpretations and often contradictory.

For example. Genetic engineering is opposed by many believers on the grounds that "we should not play God". Nowhere does it actually define maniulation of lifeforms is "playing God".

Indeed it clearly says in the Bible that we were made "in His image". Therefore since He is able to create life we are similarly empowered. Moreover we were "given dominion" over the plants and animals of the Earth. Sounds to me like we are duty bound to engage in genetic engineering.

Besides the life that God created is so full of design flaws and operational bugs that I have no doubt we will make a better job of it than His cobbled together constructions.

 

[Mike375]

I don't think Hawkings actually says that. Evidence Please. Hawkings actually says there is "no before the bigbang" as that is when time was created.

And if you are correct where id your "superatural" come from?

Because whatever was before Big Bang must be above our natural laws and that makes it supernatural.

 

[Mike375]

Putting things down to the "supernatural" does not explain anything. Once upon a time the sun was considered supernatural and that would have been equally the only explanation that is 100% with your argument.

The sun is not the same as pre Big Bang.

 

[Rich]

The sun is not the same as pre Big Bang.

Proove it

 

[Thales750]

There you go once again, atheist incivility.
Are you incapable of seeing that the true fanatics now days are the atheist? [/quote]
(WTF has happend to the open square bracket? If you enter one yourself becuase of the over zealous highlighting it doesn't work as a quote.)


Atheists are not fanatics. Theists are just very uncomfortable when asked to justify their influence on the values and policies of wider society.

"Because God said in the Bible" just doesn't cut it, particularly when the "wisdom" is provided in parables that are open to wide interpretations and often contradictory.

For example. Genetic engineering is opposed by many believers on the grounds that "we should not play God". Nowhere does it actually define maniulation of lifeforms is "playing God".

Indeed it clearly says in the Bible that we were made "in His image". Therefore since He is able to create life we are similarly empowered. Moreover we were "given dominion" over the plants and animals of the Earth. Sounds to me like we are duty bound to engage in genetic engineering.

Besides the life that God created is so full of design flaws and operational bugs that I have no doubt we will make a better job of it than His cobbled together constructions.

Then why is it that many of the post on this sight, from atheist are so blatantly condescending and filled with derogatory language.

You really must take a look at the facts.

Socially unacceptable atheist by far outnumber theist on this site. Furthermore atheist are much more fundamentalist than theist, in that they are on a crusade to prove they are right.
Sounds like the basis for a war.

 

[Thales750]

And one day we may forgive you your imaginary friends

You have become old, my friend. Your words sound like echos from a much stronger past.