Supposing He Doesn't Exist

2007-09-06 [thoughtfox]: There's actually no real evidence either way, I don't think. The arguments against God have as many flaws as arguments for God. What things would you say deny God's existence, Nazarath?

2007-09-07 [Nazarath.93]: Corruption in all his institutions are one, Hypocrisy in his holy book and among ways of following him (peace and war oriented sects for example), Science disproving many of the Old testament books, the fact that the bible's stories were mostly all stolen from older stories, Evolution (Hereditary also follows those lines, etc), Psychology (particularly the human animal relations that were separated in the bible), The ridiculous stories, also the new age "Christian-Atheism" that is going on in the world right now (please look it up) is fair indication that the Christian religion is going in a downward spiral. And last but not least the misunderstanding of a majority of followers, almost all christians do not read the bible, and they do not understand what stories are meant to be metaphorical or not thus the many interpretations of God.
While these all help show the faults of the Christian religion, I do not deny the Possibility of a "God", as I said I think Miss Bukowski has the right idea, if there is a god then he would be more indescribable therefore there should be no religion(s) forming around a god, religion should be a personal thing, no cathedrals or churches, no groups or sects just faith with one persons ideas of the god having no effect on the others. So yes there is no evidence proving the theory of A god, but I doubt he is anything like the Christian religion would even fathom to describe.
I however do not believe in a God, because I am not a pragmatist, I am an evidentialist, If the Deity cannot prove himself to me I feel no need to believe in one. I think pragmatism is a sanctimonious belief of weak minded people who will cower at the thought of punishment. They also forget one very important fact: If they are just believing in a Deity to escape punishment then they are in fact just kissing the God's ass and they do not really believe they are just being cautious in a sanctimonious way, in which case if that displeases the Deity then perhaps they will suffer the punishment they seek to avoid, or suffer it even worse should the Deity be non merciful.
I think if there were such a God it would be forgiving in my lack of belief because he designed me to be this way, perhaps he would see me as more intelligent for my skepticism who knows? I dont think it exists, but if it does I feel no need to fear punishment, from what ive heard from certain people he is very forgiving.
But my main point is, I dont deny the possibility of a Deity, but I am wholeheartedly against the Christians stupid outlook on God.
Sorry for the long comment you have just read, I summed it up as best I could.

2007-09-07 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Actually, Nazarath was right when he said God would be forgiving. I can't recall where this is from, perhaps the Bible, but it is said that it is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. That is, either believe or not believe but do if fully. If you sort of believe and play the part to escape punishment, like Nazarath brought up, that's BAD.

But yes, I do agree with Nazarath that institutionalized relgion is bad. Maybe there should be no mass, but what about people gathering to worship as a group? Not just in religion, but in many aspects of life, doing things together is better. For the mind mostly. It gives a person a sense of community. But all the different names we think are so important, the ritualistic masses, the pompous cathedrals, all that can go. Take the Vatican for example. The Pope sits high and mighty on a throne in a palace of luxury trying to get others to stop world hunger, when the riches in his bedroom alone could probably feed a third world country for a year. Hipocracy.

2007-09-07 [Nazarath.93]: Too true.
But then again worship groups are how larger groups are formed...yes this might sound socially controlling, but I dont think people should be allowed to share faith with one another. Because parents get controlling, and then the sword becomes a conversion tool, and so on and so forth. Its to risky putting faiths together because they simply cannot last in peace forever...Just look at the renaissance, and especially look at the formation of the Lutheran church. Another sect had to be formed because the main sect had become capitalists!
Religion should strictly be a self thing, Im all for whatever people believe in as long as it doesnt end up:
At sword point
With bombs on chests
Teen suicide because of parental piety.
etc.
See what im getting at?

And by the way, the bible said god was forgiving, it also said he was damning. Jesus: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"

2007-09-07 [iippo]: God was forgiving, it also said he was damning.
I understand it like this: the world had commited a crime against God (=sin). Someone needed to be punished, but punishing the whole world and everythign in it would not have been just and would have made God sad because He kinda liked everything and everyone He had made. So He got this plan: I'll make this guy, Jesus take the blame, but since Jesus is kinda me, no one but me will actually suffer. Both justice and mercy was fulfilled.

2007-09-07 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Oh I agree about the parents thing. My dad...when I was young he was this hypocritical religious nut. He'd lecture my brothers and I for hours on end about our "sins" (I was six at the time). But there he was blowing all the money my mom made, since he was jobless most of the time, emotionally abusing us, and eventually cheating on my mom. I think parents should let their kids decide.

But yes, when humans gather to do things, the groups become larger and then you get mob mentality. Sad fact, but true. It's a bit utopian to believe small groups could get together without it going wrong, I know.

I do see what you're getting at. People using God to justify war and murder is enraging. But that is people's fault, not God's.

You have to remember that Jesus might not have said that. Whoever wrote it - it sounds familiar, but I'm not sure which book it's from - was probably still imagining Jesus as the Messiah the Jews had envisioned - a warrior with a sword, come to smite their enemies.

iippo, You're not exactly correct. Yes, humanity had sinned against God, and God needed to send a message. It was less to punish someone and more to spread His word and open the gates of Heaven to all. I don't think the "gates of Heaven" were actually closed. I think when the Bible said that they meant that if more people heard His word, more would come to Him, thus more would go to Heaven. Anyway, He came to Earth himself, in Jesus. Jesus isn't "kinda" God, according to the Trilogy, Jesus *is* God. Jesus, in his immense love for all people, SACRIFICED Himself for us. He could have escaped "punishment," but he let himself be captured and sentenced and killed. There is the mercy for humanity. From love, not damnation.

And I believe God does not turn any soul away. If a soul comes to him seeking forgiveness - and really meaning it, not just trying to escape Hell (which is a whole different topic) - He will never turn them away. Only those who knowingly turn from God and reject Heaven go to Hell. And Hell is merely eternal separation from God.

2007-09-07 [Nazarath.93]: I dont see how a person dying forgives us, it sounds like some stupid thing god said that would somehow make sense (Your all sinners so I will let you kill my son and you will be sin free) A little to...commercial advertisement to me. Besides that was all in the bible, and we know how corrupt that is. even more according to the bible, jesus actually committed every sin known to man, he was angry, he often filled sexual favors, he was an attention whore and was envious whenever someone stole the spotlight, he also stole on his travels mostly to feed himself he was also a large glutton, and was wrathful when he couldnt get food (He was passing through a mountain and saw a fig tree that's fruit was not ripe, he cursed the tree and it died, sounds a little angry and gluttonous to me!) even in a supposed removed document from the book of Matthew he even had intercourse with one of his male disciples (I cannot clarify how accurate that is as ive only read passages and references not the actual removed text itself). Well the list goes on, but if you follow the bible then Jesus is not so perfect as you may think, but then again the bible is corrupt so Jesus may have been different due to the capitalism tearing away the bible, or he could have not existed at all...Up to you to decide what really happened.

2008-01-22 [Melocrie]: Saying something doesn't exist because there's no solid evidence, is like denying all immaterial things, like the conscious or maybe even the concept of 'the Heart'. I believe most of all in a Goddess, a great mother to us all. The thing is that we don't 'need' evidence to believe in something, but if anything, the belief itself could be the actual evidence. But it still all depends on whether you see a diety as a concept, or an actual person...

2008-01-23 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: First of all, it wouldn't have been God saying "I'll kill my son." It was God saying, "I love you, despite your sins, and I will come to Earth and die for you, to prove my love and open the gates of Heaven to all." Not that the gates were closed, but with Jesus' birth and sacrifice, more people know about God's love and open their hearts to God - thus opening for themselves the gates of Heaven.

Jesus filled sexual favors in the Bible? I'm sorry, I missed the Book of Jesus’ Orgies. Jesus did get angry. Hell, he tore apart a Temple courtyard because they were disrespecting it. But He was human. I repeat - in Christianity, Jesus was FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. Man sins.

And Jesus’ existence is not solely in the Bible. Several historians wrote of a Teacher, Messiah, or crazy man traveling and spreading the word of God.

You aren't innovative or genius for saying the Bible is corrupt, therefore we can't believe a word of it. Your argument is actually redundant, repetitive, and ineffective. Haven't I said before that the Bible is not to be taken as word for word fact? Haven't I said that MAN picked and chose what would go into the Bible? Haven't I said that man is fallible??

2008-01-23 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Melocrie is right. You cannot prove a thing does not exist if you cannot prove it does. The lack of proof for a thing does not point towards its nonexistence. And in the beginning, religion was based around a feminine deity. When society grew and became more patriarchal, they replaced the Goddess with a male God. The men who ruled society wanted also to rule Spirituality. God the "Father" in the Bible was used merely because society would be more open to a male God, not because God is a male.

2009-03-11 [~Spirit Fox~]: I see your point in that La Douleur Exquise, people would be more open to God as a male because when you'er little most children run to their father to protect them, but also for punishment, and scolding. Also, parents scold to point you in the right direction, and since he suposibly created everyone and everything, then he would be their father. *^.^' and I just relaized I jumped in, sorry...*

2009-03-14 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Personally, although God has no gender, I think the feminine deity is more appealing. Mother, creator, caregiver. Maybe it's just because I was raised by a single mother.

2009-03-21 [iippo]: I think God has a gender, I think He is male. And as it's ridiculous to my brain to think that you would have a father but not a mother, I also think there is a 'Heavenly Mother' there somewhere.

2009-03-27 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Gender is biological. If one has no body, one has no sexual organs, thus one has no gender.

2009-03-28 [iippo]: Err, I do actually believe that God has a body. And the male gender bodyparts that come with it o.O

2009-03-28 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: A physical body? Jesus did, and Jesus was God, but Heaven is not a physical place, fit to house physical bodies. The Bible says man was created in God's own image, but people take that a bit too literally to mean the body. People are not their bodies. I mean, what makes a person a person is their soul, not their physical being.

2009-04-01 [iippo]: I think it only makes sense. I believe God is exactly like us except he has a perfect body, the same goes for Jesus, and I believe that people have actually seen them, physically, and can testify that they are made out of same flesh and bone as we are. And if heaven isn't a place for physical bodies, then what is the big fuss with the resurrection? The whole point of Jesus Christ was that he died and then lived again, physically in his body.
To me, soul = body + spirit. When a person dies, the spirit and body are separated, and neither of those is that person anymore (the spirit is probably slightly more it - I've never seen a spirit, but I know people who say that when they saw someone they knew dead, they felt like "that isn't so-and-so, that's just some meat, the actual person is somewhere else" and I think that makes sense) but I also think that because Jesus was resurrected, everyone else will too, and that kind of is a hint that the physical body is an important thing, in this life and in the life after death.
And I also believe people are their body and mind/spirit combined. I don't think I'd be the same person I am today if I was really short, or a man, or a different colour etc... because I am what I am because of my experiences, and my physical existence by default shapes my experiences (mostly how other people see me and react to me: if I looked very different, certain people wouldn't have been attracted to me at the time when they were, therefore I wouldn't have had those relationships and I wouldn't have gone through those experiences that necessarily shape my person, and I would therefore be a totally different person).

2009-04-07 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: You just disproved your own argument. You said that what body one inhabits shapes their personality, but when they die, their body is just meat. How then is a body part of the soul? And Jesus was resurrected because He was not just a man. He was man and God in one. He did go to Heaven in body, and Mary was as well, but in no way implies that anyone else deserves it. Jesus was God, Mary the mother of God. After death for the rest of humanity, bodies just rot.
I am not my body. My phenotype is basically a fluke, a combination of genes that has nothing to do with me, the me that will exist beyond death. I am not my brown hair, my blue eyes. I am not the faint red birthmark on my arm. If I looked different, maybe I would have had different friends, maybe those friendships would have changed decisions I made and where I might be at this moment, but ultimately, I am not what I look like or who my friends are.

2009-04-08 [iippo]: o.O It's not an argument, and I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just trying to outline what I believe (though I'm not good at words so sometimes I fail to communicate what I mean), and in turn hear what you believe (because I find it interesting). I don't see a contradiction, can you help me see what you mean?

I consider the soul to be the combinations of spirit and body, and when the body withers away after death (rots, burnt to ashes, eaten, whatever happens) and the spirit goes on to wait for resurrection, neither of those is the actual person. The actual person is more than the sum of its parts. But in the resurrection (which I do believe will come to everybody, I think that is what Christ came for, to die and rise up again, to defeat the clutches of death, as much as to defeat the clutches of sin by offering himself as atonement) the spirit and body are combined again to be the soul, restored and perfect, just like Heavenly Father. And so the soul (body and spirit) lives on forever, immortal and eternal. I believe that that is part of the meaning of life, to gain a body. We are born so we can have a body because it enables us to learn things (how can you know what pain is if you can't experience it? how can you know what love is if you can't feel it? etc...)

I believe the plan is for all of God's children to find happiness, and for that you need a body. And you need a body to have a family, and I believe family is central to God's plan for his children. And then after death and resurrection there will be eternal happiness, and I think you need a body for that too. It makes me happy to know that I am here to learn and grow, and that there is a continuation of that learning and growing afterwards too, that it's not all a waste. :P Without a body, I wouldn't be able to make art or sing, and those are the kinds of things I want to continue to do in eternity. :)

2009-04-08 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: I'm not calling this an argument. I meant argument as in 'a process of reasoning; series of reasons; a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point.' The contradiction in your statement that I see is this - if the soul is the spirit and the body, why then would the spirit ever leave the body? I think the body is a vessel, and physical being is as you say extremely important, but ... bodies die. Souls don't. And if the soul is spirit and body combined, then everyone who dies is torn in two, separated, rendered unwhole until...what? The end of the world, when bones disappear from the ground and reform their former bodies? This life, this body, it's transitory. It ends, and the soul goes on to a higher form of life, completely different than this one, where the body isn't necessary. Your worldly desires cease to exist.

The Bible mentions angels singing, so maybe it's just a different kind of song, not the result of air passing vocal chords, but something deeper, something infinitely more beautiful.

Bodies aren't perfect. A person can have a whole soul inside a broken body. When we die, we are released from all the things that hold us back from true joy. It's a journey, and when it ends, it's not going to just start back up again with all the same elements. We will have had our chance to do things we love - to sing and paint, to read, to learn. I believe that what comes after holds wonders I can't even imagine, perfect peace, happiness, beauty, and love greater than anything this world has to offer.

2009-04-11 [iippo]: The Spirit leaves the body because death is a necessary part of life, it's what we inherit from Adam and Eve: they fell, became mortal, they were told they would die if they ate the fruit, and they did (they didn't die on the spot, but they did die eventually) and therefore we all will die also physically. They also brought spiritual death into the world: in the garden they were with God, and spiritual death is to not be in God's presence. Christ's atonement cancels out death: he defeated death by rejecting it. He gave up his life and took it back, to enable everybody to get their bodies back too. And if we follow him as his disciples, we can also overcome death and let his atonement wash our sins away and return to God after the judgement. So, yes, I do think everyone who dies is torn in two and separated (though we are all already unwhole) until the end of the world. There is a transitory place for the spirit to be in, either a paradise or a prison, where we wait for the second coming, millennium and resurrection. And that is why Christ paving the way for physical resurrection is so important: if he hadn't, we'd all remain unwhole, from birth til death and beyond. But because he did, that gift of resurrection comes to everybody eventually. There is mention of 'resurrection of the just' and 'resurrection of the unjust' in the Bible, so it doesn't all happen at once, but it will all happen eventually.

... <_< I also think that angels have bodies, at least some of them. I believe angels are people who lived (or will live) and were righteous and are now glorified beings that God can use as messengers. So that's why they can sing :P

And I agree that worldly desires cease to exist when we die, but I'd blame most of the worldly desires we have on Satan. He is skillful at tempting, so skillful that we don't know what we want and what he wants us to want. Without his influence in our lives, if he didn't exist at all, we would all do God's will, I reckon. Our spirit wants what our heavenly father wants, but because the flesh is weak, Satan knows just the tricks to make us give in. That's why we all sin, no-one is perfect enough to completely control themselves. But we can try and get better at it, we can reject Satan's temptings even before death. And when we die, we go out of his reach, and therefore he has no power to tempt us there anymore, and our worldly desires cease (I must admit, I'm kind of looking forward to that >_> Not enough to try to get there sooner, but yeah... ^_^)

I agree, bodies aren't perfect, and death releases us from things that hold us back (again, mostly Satan's stuff) but I don't think that the journey ends with death. It continues, we continue to learn when we are spirits out of our bodies, and we continue to learn and grow when we get our bodies back, until we can get no further for whatever reason. The blessings promised to Abraham - eternal increase - can be obtained by those who make that covenant with God, and keep it til the end. So I do agree with the not going back, this life is the time to do the important things. Now is the time to do your best, to make sure you are prepared to meet God. And I don't now if there is singing and painting afterwards, I hope there is, but I know that all everything there will be good and perfect.