Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shazamataz

I don't believe in God.
I believe in science and evolution.

I do not know how life started exactly... no-one does, but I don't think it was created by some all-powerful being.

I respect that people do believe that, but to be honest, it just sounds silly to me how some people devote their entire lives to something that may or may not exist.

And if there is a God, (for those who believe) who created God?
He couldn't have just appeared one day.

---

Hi Shaz,

The idea that there must be a first cause (God) who set the universe in motion was first put forward by Aristotle. He called the first cause the unmoved mover. Aristotle saw movement in the world and reasoned that movement is caused by a sequence of events. It is possible to say that something always is the cause of something else.

In order to avoid an infinite series of events it seems that any series of events must have a first cause. In other words, someone or something must have caused the first movement.

This idea was taken up by Christian philosophers such as St. Thomas who formulated what came to be known as the cosmological argument. This argument demonstrates the existence of God as the first cause.

From my point of view I think the cosmological argument is a good one but there are many others who don't. Hume and Kant were critical of the argument and their reasons set the argument back in modern times.

You question regarding who caused God is a good one from a philosophical point of view. As I said before, I accept the cosmological argument, but that is just me.

Hume would agree with you and say that there is no reason to think that causation is true. We can conceive of effects without conceiving of them being caused. Science can also show there are events which don't appear to have a cause.

The reality is that this topic is subject to hundreds of pages of debate.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

I believe in myself. I went to catholic school for 9 years (K through 8) and the one thing I learned was these people are full of it. Plus I punched a priest and have never been and will never be sorry for doing it. So I guess that (plus many many other things I will not discuss) rules me out of heaven since I gave one of god's boys a bloody lip.

---

You do know that what you did is not the unforgivable sin, the Lord will forgive you if you want to be forgiven, and as the RCC isn't the only expression of Christianity, so you should come in from the cold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You do know that what you did is not the unforgivable sin, the Lord will forgive you if you want to be forgiven, and as the RCC isn't the only expression of Christianity, so you should come in from the cold

---

a) only if one believes in the concept of religious sin
b) how about you take a step back from bashing catholics every chance you get - you are a prime example of what turns people off religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You do know that what you did is not the unforgivable sin, the Lord will forgive you if you want to be forgiven, and as the RCC isn't the only expression of Christianity, so you should come in from the cold

---

You are making a grossly generalized and biased assumption that everyone NEEDS a religion and, further, that that religion should be christianity. Neither are true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

a) only if one believes in the concept of religious sin
b) how about you take a step back from bashing catholics every chance you get - you are a prime example of what turns people off religion

---

Who's bashing Catholics, it's not bashing catholics to say the RCC is not the only expression of Christianity.

Had you stopped long enough to see that the person was speaking from the perspective of someone who had found difficulty with the Catholic perspective you might not have found it necessary to have a rant about religion and my mention of the RCC.

why don't you put a sock in it? We don't want you athiestic perspective.

I believe there is some form of higher power, with many names. God, Gods, The Divine, etc. I believe there is a balance. I believe in energy. I believe in science

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Who's bashing Catholics, it's not bashing catholics to say the RCC is not the only expression of Christianity.

Had you stopped long enough to see that the person was speaking from the perspective of someone who had found difficulty with the Catholic perspective you might not have found it necessary to have a rant about religion and my mention of the RCC.

why don't you put a sock in it? we don't want you athiestic perspective.

---

Actually, the OP seems to want exactly that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

a) only if one believes in the concept of religious sin
b) how about you take a step back from bashing catholics every chance you get - you are a prime example of what turns people off religion

---

I agree

And also, go perry the platapus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXxEmOxXxPrInCeSsxXx

I agree

and also, go perry the platapus

---

Who is perry the platapus? Platypus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Who is perry the platapus? platypus?

---

Karma's avvie.

Thanks for the explanation Tut.

Paraclete, I'm not bashing Christianity at all, it's their/your decision to believe what you do and I have no problem with that.

The OP asked what people believe in if they don't believe in God.
Being an atheist, my answer is science and evolution.

If you and others believe that I am going to hell because of this then that is your choice. It's a good thing that some try to better their lives through God but it's just not for me.

If you want to dig a little deeper, I believe in re-incarnation of sorts... not that when I die I will be born as something else, but I do believe that when we die out energy is used for something else, even if it is just powering a lightbulb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Who's bashing Catholics, it's not bashing catholics to say the RCC is not the only expression of Christianity.

Had you stopped long enough to see that the person was speaking from the perspective of someone who had found difficulty with the Catholic perspective you might not have found it necessary to have a rant about religion and my mention of the RCC.

why don't you put a sock in it? we don't want you athiestic perspective.

---

You are a very angry person, aren't you?

Do you not realize that your postings push people further away from religion? You are an example of the very type of person I left behind when I stopped being a Christian. The "Do as I say or else, my way or the highway" group. No thank you.

What happened to kindness, acceptance, being a good Christian? If you truly believe in the Christian religion then it's time for you to re-read the bible because you aren't acting in a very Christian way. Just my opinion, but I think others will agree.

You cannot shove your beliefs down someone's throat and not expect them to fight you. Persuasion is better then force. Just fyi.

Interesting discussion. All I have are questions.

If your god is infinite, why do you bother with names? Isn't that trying to limit the infinite?

If your god is not infinite, why do you call it a god?

I believe I need more coffee.

The question is if you don't believe in "God" in what do you believe. I believe there is a balance of energy. I believe that there is some form of higher power that many people worship in many ways. I also believe we weren't meant to all worship the same way. I believe that there is a deity that encompasses all religions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Interesting discussion. All I have are questions.

If your god is infinite, why do you bother with names? Isn't that trying to limit the infinite?

If your god is not infinite, why do you call it a god?

I believe I need more coffee.

---

The ancients almost always had gods with limits, that's why they had several gods. Judaism was among the first, if not THE first, religion to have an all-powerful god, which is why they only had one god.

The greek gods were all-powerful, as long as they stayed within their niche. Aphrodite had complete dominion over love and beauty, but no power over death or war. Hades controlled death, but had no power in the living world. Ares was the god of war, and could influence all it encompassed, but had no effect on those who chose not to wage war.

The gods could work together, or take over where another had left off. Ares and hades had a close relationship, for obvious reasons. Ares and hades, both, could reap the benefits of the after-effects of aphrodite's work (spurned lovers, jealous rivals, depressed ex-lovers).

As for naming then; I have no idea. Some religions give their god(s) names. Some call them only 'god', either because they feel they don't have the right to name them, or that god IS his name. Still others use more general terms to avoid naming at all.

Why religions chose to name their deities as they did, I don't know. Then, there are, of course, the individuals who choose to follow a religion that has no organized naming convention, and choose for themselves what to call their god(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Interesting discussion. All I have are questions.

If your god is infinite, why do you bother with names? Isn't that trying to limit the infinite?


I believe I need more coffee.

---

Hi Cats,

The answer to your above question is yes. The generally accepted interpretation of God as infinite means that God exists out side of time and space.

However, this creates an interesting problem. When we say that something in infinite what exactly do we mean? If I were to say that I have an infinite amount of time to sit in front of this computer then I cannot say that I have to go at 1 pm, 5 pm, 3 am. To do so would put a limit on my time. In other words, my time isn't infinite it is finite.

As you can see by giving time a name I am limiting the infinite by making it finite. The same problem can arise when talking about God. If God decided to take himself out of the infinite in order to make himself known to us then he is no longer infinite; at least in terms that we can understand. We have no choice but to give him some type of name.

A famous scientist once said ( I cannot remember his name) that infinities only serve to show our ignorance.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

If God decided to take himself out of the infinite in order to make himself known to us then he is no longer infinite; at least in terms that we can understand.

---

Does this not therefore only show man's ignorance, or arrogance, in claiming to "know God?"

The proponents of Yahweh/Jesus, Allah, and Gaia, to use only the monotheist names I can think of offhand, all claim to have the one and only gateway to the afterlife. I have problems with the "only" part. The "one" part doesn't make much sense, either, come to think of it.

Personally, and to answer the OP, I cannot limit my concept of the infinite. An infinite God must therefore encompass everything I can perceive, and more. Conversely, everything must be God.

So, to keep my smart-aleck certification up to date, whenever anyone starts talking about God, my response is "You rang?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Does this not therefore only show man's ignorance, or arrogance, in claiming to "know God?"

The proponents of Yahweh/Jesus, Allah, and Gaia, to use only the monotheist names I can think of offhand, all claim to have the one and only gateway to the afterlife. I have problems with the "only" part. The "one" part doesn't make much sense, either, come to think of it.

Personally, and to answer the OP, I cannot limit my concept of the infinite. An infinite God must therefore encompass everything I can perceive, and more. Conversely, everything must be God.

So, to keep my smart-aleck certification up to date, whenever anyone starts talking about God, my response is "You rang?"

---

Hi again Cats,

I guess this is the problem that non-Christian religions have with Christianity. Basically they cannot accept that the infinite can become the finite. In saying this non-Christian religions might feel that they have an indubitable truth and therefore not subject to any debate. One could interpret this as being the," one and only gate to the afterlife"

In regards to limiting or not limiting the concept of infinity. Most people accept that time and space are things that exists,'out there'. In other words, something independent of us. This makes it possible to argue that infinity makes sense. At the very least we can experience small pieces of infinity at a time.

An alternative view was put forward by Kant. He argued that time and space don't exist 'out there' but are part of our psychological make up. In other words, time and space are a form of intuition.

Rather than being a good thing in terms of understanding, this actually limits what we can possibly know about God or anything at all. Kant would say that the world is neither finite or infinite.

Again, this is only Kant's theory of time and space. I should not say only because it was a significant theory in the history of philosophy. There are of course other non-Kantian theories.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

In saying this non-Christian religions might feel that they have an indubitable truth and therefore not subject to any debate. One could interpret this as being the," one and only gate to the afterlife"

---

Are you sure you meant the other faiths? My experience has been that the Christian sects are some of the worst in claiming exclusivity. The Unitarians, the Deists, the Buddhists; even Wiccans seem more willing to debate the nature of the Divine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Are you sure you meant the other faiths? My experience has been that the Christian sects are some of the worst in claiming exclusivity. The Unitarians, the Deists, the Buddhists; even Wiccans seem more willing to debate the nature of the Divine.

---

Wiccans, and pagans in general, have such diverse views on how to interpret and worship the divine within their own religion, that most are smart enough to realize that it makes no sense to denounce other religions. It just doesn't make sense to try to claim that your religion is the only true or right religion when so much varies from person to person. You have monotheists, polytheists, those who choose not to claim a god at all, those who worship the ancient gods of any given culture, those who worship incarnations of the divine that have sprouted up in the last one or two hundred years, and who knows how many other variations. Who are we to claim exclusivity when we encompass so many very different views?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Are you sure you meant the other faiths? My experience has been that the Christian sects are some of the worst in claiming exclusivity. The Unitarians, the Deists, the Buddhists; even Wiccans seem more willing to debate the nature of the Divine.

---

Hi Cats,

Yes, I can see your point. I will probably have to admit to some extent this is true.

I would argue the problem can be explained in terms of philosophical history. I am not offering history as an excuse here. Also, other people may have a different theory to the one I am going to put forward.

The idea of the infinite becoming finite goes back to the Ancient Greeks, notably Plato and Aristotle. There is not enough room to go into details about such things as Plato's theory of forms. Basically, the idea of a perfect and infinite entity becoming finite is not a strange idea in Western thinking. In order to explain how the infinite could become finite Plato put forward the idea of a mediating entity which acted as a type of interpreter between this world and the perfect world.

Early Christian philosophers borrowed these ideas from Plato and Aristotle. Therefore, we could argue that this type of thinking has a strong and unbroken philosophical tradition.

On this basis it would not be hard to claim some type of exclusivity. This is true from my point of view because I accept some of this philosophical tradition as true and I can see places in the bible which support these ideas.

However, I am very much aware of the problem of dogma. This type of thinking where you are unwilling to listen to any alternative ideas results in a degree of arrogance. From my experience at these religious sites we see people painting themselves into a corner because they are prepared to take their ideas to a logical conclusion.

Just my thoughts

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

You are a very angry person, aren't you?

Do you not realize that your postings push people further away from religion? You are an example of the very type of person I left behind when I stopped being a Christian. The "Do as I say or else, my way or the highway" group. No thank you.

What happened to kindness, acceptance, being a good Christian? If you truly believe in the Christian religion then it's time for you to re-read the bible because you aren't acting in a very Christian way. Just my opinion, but I think others will agree.

You cannot shove your beliefs down someone's throat and not expect them to fight you. Persuasion is better then force. Just fyi.

---

Hey, are you trying to sterotype me. I am acting in a very christian way, I am challenging religious theories that have no Scriptural basis. I don't happen to believe in any way to God, or any old belief will do. So I also don't care about religion, religion will kill you, I'm interested in relationship, the pure relationship which Jesus Christ makes available to us. Look, it is clear from Scripture that Jesus had no time for religious people, he told the truth and if you didn't like it, tough, you could go to the temple and work out your salvation under the Law and good luck with that. Also please understand, I have no interest in what people will agree with, they are entitled to be wrong too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You do know that what you did is not the unforgivable sin, the Lord will forgive you if you want to be forgiven, and as the RCC isn't the only expression of Christianity, so you should come in from the cold

---

For one to be forgiven from a sin one truly must be sorry for the sin they committed. I am not sorry at all for what I did.

Nobody can define which path to follow is right to reach to god.

Human mind is very weak. So we need something to hold on to concentrate.

Which ever name you call, which ever form you worship him.
Its just one that great power which cannot be defined or restricted to any name. The Lord

A pdf file attached herewith . Hope sensibly it give some sense :)

To define and declare he is wrong or I am right etc. or criticise your are following the wrong path or I am following the right path...

Its all stupidity of humans who divide themselves..

Just matter of consideration like reaching to a destination through diff. ways.
By air, by sea, or by road you reach a destination. No way is wrong as all the way have its own important and its own benefits.

during one of my visit to southern part of India, I came across a yoga teacher and during the conversations he had given some few examples which we never thought about!
and he had highlighted, when we find difficult to imagine how this had been done by even people who lived in india 10 thousand years? We are lot yet to know about and lot yet to grow mentally to reach to a level where we can even define or imagine the power of allmighty.

just few points from the long list he had spoken to me to make me exclaim!! In wonder

before some brief update to understand the seriousness before I note the points. - The Hindu Vedas were written 10 thousand years back , when many of the civilisations in earth yet to start coming out from stone age.


1) In Vishnu puran - (veda) written 10 thousand years back Earth is called 'BHOOGOL' in sanskrit.
Bhoo = Soil, Gol = Round. 10 thousand years before the humans knew the earth is round!!

2) In Hindu Astrology - the planets and STars are identified separately
Planets which cannot be seen by human naked eyes! But it is defined properly as GRAH (planets) and Nakshtras (stars)

how they able to differentiate without use of telescope and satellites!

3) If imagination is the mother of Invention . And going by the epic written more than 8 thousand years. MAHA BhARATA
the first test tube babies were Kauravas . The 100 sons of King Dritarashtra and queen Gandhari.
as per the epic, the ovulution did not taken place properly and the Rishi(the yogic teacher) had taken it out and distributed it into 100 pots filled with medicines ( an Artificial Womb! ) and 100 children's were given birth.

adding onto that

Surya sidhanta - if you refer
the distance of sun and earth is given and the weight of moon is measured. (which found approx. right even in the recent NASA reports)

how they managed to do that?? Without the advanced Satellites and telscopic instruments!!


coming back to the topic,
when we can't imagine how even people 10 thousand years back able to define and identify things, how can we imagine or define the allmighty

hope you all got my point.