I imagine that Cowboy means well too. He obviously believes that these ancient Hebrews are God's "spokespersons" and doesn't seem to be able to see the lack of wisdom in many of these teachings.

He seems to feel that "punishment" is a valid and wise way of trying to teach people lessons.

I guess it would be easy for someone who can accept that to believe in the God of the Bible.

I personally reject that ideal as being unwise to begin with. Thus the biblical stories appear to be totally unwise from my perspective.



I certainly understand your problem with "faith". Especially if you view it as something that you "should" have toward some particular religion just because the religion requires it.

I also fully agree with you that if you can't see the rationale behind these religious myths, or philosophies, then no genuinely righteous God would ever hold that against you. After all, what kind of a God would expect you to live a LIE just to please it?

As I keep trying to tell the Christians, to "believe" that the Bible is the "Word of God", simply isn't an option for me. I would basically need to lie to myself, and to the God, in some sort of 'pretense' that I "believe" it when in fact I don't.

It's not a CHOICE. The fable makes no sense to me, and describes an contradicting entity that does not even remotely exhibit "wisdom", IMHO. For me to pretend otherwise could only be a LIE.

So how could I ever get into this so-called "God's" heaven if they only option he left me is to LIE my way in?

Moreover, if I choose to believe in what I consider to be a far wiser and more beautiful picture of "God" then why would "God" be upset about that? Such a God should be extremely PLEASED that I think so highly of him/her/it.

~~~~

On the topic of atheism

I also see the wisdom in being a moral atheist. What God could be angry with a moral atheist? Here's a person who has decided to do GOOD on their own accord, with no threats of punishment, and no carrots of reward. What could possibly PLEASE a God more than that?

To have a CHILD who wants to do good all on their own would be any parent's ultimate PRIDE and JOY! Moral Atheists should be God's most prized creations!

So I see moral atheists as being the ultimate perfect Children of God. They don't even believe in God yet they exhibit divine traits.

~~~~

On the topic of "faith"

Arcamedees,

I think I understand your problem with "faith". Why should you have faith in something you simply don't believe and see no reason to believe?

I agree, that you SHOULDN'T! You most certainly shouldn't place your faith in something that you don't believe to be true. To do so would be to live a life. Also what should be your incentive to do so? Just to appease a "God" or some organized religious group?

No, if you see no reason to have "faith" in some sort of spiritual existence, then you most certainly should not even bother with it.

I totally agree with you on that point, and I "pass no judgments" on your choice to "believe" in a totally atheistic existence.

However, from my point of view, that too is a form of "faith", even though you may not think of it that way. From my point of view you're simply saying, "Well, I see no reason to believe that we are anything more than just creatures that evolved from some sort of freak "natural" explosion". All scientific evidence points to that conclusion. So why bother even contemplating anything else? That must be the "truth" of reality.

So in a sense, you've accepted a "conclusion" based on what you believe we "know".

I fully understand that.

Now, I believe in the "mystical" view of life which includes a concept of eternal "spirit". You might look at me and say, "Well that's a matter of Faith", but to me it's not that way at all. From my point of view that's the only thing that truly makes any sense.

How so?, you might ask.

Well, it all boils down to the concept of "emergent properties". In order for me to "believe" in atheism (i.e. a non-spiritual essence of reality), I must conclude that my true nature is nothing more than an 'emergent property' of what we call the "physical world".

Well, this is extremely problematic for me on a purely logical level. Who (or WHAT) is it then that is having this "experience" that "I" am experiencing.

In other words, "Who is this 'I', that is having this experience of life"? Or to put this in other terms, "What is the nature of this emergent property?" That then becomes the question of "Who am I?" Right?

Well, that's the very question that the mystics ask. This is in fact, the very foundational principle of mysticism.

What is it that is experiencing this "I"?

And "emergent property"? And what is that pray tell?

Are the atoms of my brain "experiencing" this existence? Is my brain as an overall organ "experiencing" this existence? Or is some phantom human abstract concept called an "emergent property" experiencing this existence?

I've thought about this long and hard. In fact, it is the practice of Eastern Mysticism to meditate on this very thing.

What I've come to accept, and realize, is that the entity that is experiencing this condition of physical reality cannot be a mere "emergent property". That's just a totally meaningless abstract concept made up by humans. An emergent property can't experience anything. Neither can an atom. And if one atom can't experience anything, then neither can a bunch of atoms.

This is why, for me, the mystical picture actually makes rational and logical sense. So for me, it's not really a matter of "faith" to believe in mysticism anymore than it's a matter of "faith" for you to believe in atheism.

From my point of view that's just where everything is pointing. From my point of view mysticism is the natural conclusion, not atheism. I am this universe experiencing itself. That's the basic idea behind mysticism. We are this universe.

In other words, whatever the underlying essence of this universe is, we are it. "Tat T'vam Asi" is the Indian phrase they use, meaning, "You are that".

I am THAT I am.

Yes, in fact, that's probably where that biblical idea originally came from, Easter Mysticism.

~~~

In short, when thinking about human consciousness there are two ways to think of it.

1. We are a the form.
2. We are the thing that is taking the form.

You choose to believe #1. You choose to believe that we are a result of physical form, and that when that form no longer exists, then "we" no longer exist.

I choose to believe #2. I choose to believe that we are the thing that is taking the form, and the form simply changes.

~~~

I'll hope you'll bear with me in all of this. After all, you mentioned a few post back that I never expound on my ideas and beliefs, so I'm doing so now.

~~~

Let's talk "science" for just a moment

What does science "know"? (or at least what does it believe to know)

When if you ask many biologists who also adhere to idea #1 above (we can only be a result of Form), they argue that it's meaningless to even speak of "non-physical" information. Therefore they argue, "When the form ceases to exist, where would spirit go?"

There's no "place" for the spirit to reside because it does indeed require "information". We are nothing but "In-FORM-ation". They argue that it's absurd to speak of "information" without also speaking of "physical form".

Thus since they believe that we are nothing more than an emergent property of "physical form" the argue that when the physical form passes, so must we.

But is this truly the knowledge of science?

I would argue that it's not. These biologists are failing to take into consideration the observations and properties of quantum physics and the quantum field.

Ask any Quantum Physicist and they will assure you that there necessarily has to be information in the quantum field. A field, that is in essence non-physical until it emerges as a physically measurable phenomenon.

Thus, the point to keep in mind here is that biologists are clearly wrong to suggest that information cannot exist without physical form. Quantum physics demands that it must exist in the quantum field even when it's not physically detectable.

Moreover, the leading scientific theory of the "Inflationary Big Bang" suggests that this entire universe arose from a quantum fluctuation of this information field that we call the quantum field.

Well, I'm not attempting to "prove" anything here, or even convince you of this case.

All I'm saying is that there are scientific reasons to believe that our true essence may very well ultimately belong to this "Quantum Field". The quantum field could indeed be some sort of "cosmic consciousness". In fact, it would even extend far beyond the cosmos because the cosmos itself has merely arisen from it.

Taking into consideration all of this knowledge, along with the wisdom and philosophies of the Eastern Mystics, it is my humble opinion, that Eastern Mysticism actually makes more sense to me, then this idea of an "emergent property" makes.

So I don't view my 'belief' in mysticism to be any more a matter of 'faith' than your 'belief' in atheism.

From my point of view, it's simply the most rational conclusion based on all the things I know.


I also, concede that I could be wrong. Perhaps atheism may be the truth. I ultimately confess to being "agnostic" without divine or supreme knowledge. So I don't hold anything against atheist and those who chose to believe that they are merely the result of form. I see nothing wrong with that view untill an atheists turns to me and says, "Your faith in Eastern Mysticism is silly and totally unwarranted intellectually".

I say baloney. My reasons for believing that Eastern Mysticism may have validity are very bit as sound and logical as an atheists view that we are nothing but the result of physical form.

Neither of us has the right to belittle the others view as being unrealistic. The Eastern Mystical view has just as much merit in light of our scientific knowledge of this universe as does the pure type of atheism that you have chosen to believe in.

So that's my position on that.



Again, I'm in complete agreement with you on this.

I really don't care what the "followers" of the ancient Hebrew myths do. It's the mythology itself that I find totally absurd.

Although, having said that, I also confess to not being pleased with the negative effects this ancient myth has on many people who claim to be its "follower" and worship it as the "Word of God".

Well, you continually justify the "punishments" that the Biblical God threatens people in the Biblical mythology.

And you've condoned "punishment" as a valid means of "teaching" children "lessons". Both in terms of God being a "Fatherly Figure" as well as in terms of humans raising their own children.

I've stated many times that I disagree with these values. The mere fact that these Biblical stories support this kind of mentality is a very good reason to reject this mythology as being ungodly, IMHO.

We clearly disagree on the proper way to "teach" children, is all.

Evidently what you deem to be "morally sound parental behavior", I do not. It's that simple.

Well, aren't you doing your share by saying "I feel sad for unbelievers"? How do you feel when an atheist says essentially the same thing to you?

And don't the more militant Christians 'jump' on anyone who expresses unbelief in Christianity? I live in one of the "Bible Belts" and I'm always getting 'missionaries' knocking at my door who want to argue with me so as to convert me to their religion.

Really, for every finger proselytizing Christians point thusly, there are, as the old saying goes, three pointing back.

Oh, and as to forums? One of the Christians on THIS forum got booted off the Atheist/Agnostic forum for flaming people.

-Kerry O.

LOL, still violating rules ya crybaby? LOL!!!!





"yes"

lol, you consider that a flame? too funny, really...

You do post just for the sake of aguing, no intelligent posts with you I guess...

I don't think I've ever been to the Atheist/Agnostic forums. Is there much traffic over there?

I'm not an atheist, but I do confess to agnosticism as I believe all humans are ultimately agnostic whether they realize it or not.

I'll have to go over there and see what they're talking about. Being ultimately agnostic, I guess I qualify.

Watch out Kerry O will cry foul if you change your religion to post there....

use this so you don't break any "rules" LOL!

http://mingle2.com/forum/forum/193

I wouldn't have to break any rules. Agnostic is a valid label for me to use. As are, Buddhism/Taoism, Wiccan, and potentially others as well. As long as it's a valid label it's not breaking any rules.

None the less, I thank you for posting the link as it makes it easier.

So you're arguing on a perspective opinionated level. So you don't see these things as being moral, if no one has ever told you morals are opinionated to a degree. What one sees as good morals another might not. So just because you don't agree with the morals of our father does not make it any less of morals, doesn't make it anymore evil. Just in your opinion they are not moral.

And of course Mr. Pan forgets to mention that he and his posts were immediately removed because they were flagrant violations of the rules against flaming people and it was THE MODERATORS who said so and took action, _not_ me. He is not the least remorseful for his ations and like most militant Christians caught at something bad, he'll never stop justifying his misdeeds.

Kinda shoots their 'love' rhetoric down in flames, doesn't it?


-Kerry O.

Well, shouldn't that alone be quite sufficient reason for me to reject this mythology?

Why would I want to place my "faith" in a picture of a God that I deem to be immoral?

And of course, that's nowhere near my only reason for rejecting these myths. But, as I say, it should be sufficient in and of itself anyway. Why would I want to believe that God is immoral? That's ridiculous.

regardless if you do believe so or not is nevertheless an opinion and not substantial. That again would be like saying you don't feel a certain law in the country you live in is immoral to you so you don't follow it and you feel it's perfectly right cause you don't see the law being moral.

regardless if you do believe so or not is nevertheless an opinion and not substantial. That again would be like saying you don't feel a certain law in the country you live in is immoral to you so you don't follow it and you feel it's perfectly right cause you don't see the law being moral.

Well, I don't know about any of that.

I'm just glad they left the forum open to agnostics. If it was restricted to atheists only I wouldn't be able to post there without lying about my "beliefs" (or "non-beliefs" as the case may be)

What are you talking about? Of course it's my opinion. That's precisely what it is. I never implied otherwise.

And no, it's nothing at all like laws of countries. I'm not saying that I refuse to 'obey' the "laws" of the biblical "God" because I feel that they are immoral laws. Not at all.

On the contrary, I'm saying that the mere fact that they are so totally unwise and stupid that they can't possibly be the 'laws' of any "god".

So I'm not refusing to "obey" these idiotic things. I'm rejecting them as not even being remotely "godly".

I personally don't believe that any genuinely divine being would be that ignorant. It's that simple.

I find more and more it seems that many Christians just don't know what 'to do about' agnostics. Oh sure, if you use the "other" A-word, it's like inciting a riot.

IMHO, all this just shows how pervasive the "permission" aspect of belief really is. It's okay to be a Designer Christian, but if you've drank from the A Kool-Aid, you're in heavy doo-doo.

On one of the premier Freethinkers sites, some of the forums have higher post counts from Christian authors than from Freethinkers, and that's allowed as long as the Christians follow the rules.

Anyway, this country has always stood on the principle of protecting dissenters from having violence visited upon them from an unprinipled majority. THAT is something more remarkable than all the Abrahamic religion-based morality put together.


-Kerry O.

And that is still nevertheless an opinion. You're acting like a little kid when his/her parent tells them to do something. Reminds me one of those pouty ones that refuse to do anything just sitting their with his/her arms crossed shaking his/her head back and forth.

Just because you refuse to believe in something doesn't make it any less or more real. I've showed lots of evidence of our father which you quickly brush off. You claim there are contradictions which I and a couple others have shown their aren't and you brush that off with us twisting the words around. You don't just not believe in the father, but you absolutely refuse to.

Well, touché.

It's just your opinion that the those nasty Hebrews speak for God.

Your statements here are indeed extremely immture, IMHO.



Same things is true for you. Just because you are obsessed with believing in something doesn't make it real either.



The only evidence that is important is any evidence that shows that those ancient Hebrews actually speak for God. That's the only claim that I'm refuting.



I disagree, you and others haven't shown any such thing. As far as I'm concerned you are the one who is twisting words around to try to justify an absolutely absurd mythology. Just because you and others are obsessed with believing that it's the "Word of God".



This has absolutely nothing at all to do with believing in any God. It has solely to do with whether I'm prepared to follow a bunch of clearly male-chauvinistic bigoted and religiously intolerant idiots who merely "claim" to be the "voice of God".

As far as I'm concerned the things those people wrote about are not even close to being wise, much less being divine.

From my point of view you are supporting the ignorance and bigotries of a sick ancient society to be the "Word of God".

So from my point of view you don't think much of our creator. You are willing to accept that our creator has the same human frailties as humans.


Exod.32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.


Here your Hebrews have your "God" himself having evil thoughts and in being in need of repentance.

If that's not a human frailty I don't know what is.

In fact later in the New Testament your Christian religion holds that Jesus taught the following:


Matt.5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


Christians take this very seriously. They hold that Jesus is basically saying that to think of performing any "sinful act" is the same as committing it, they don't limit this just to adultery, after all if it's true for adultery it should be true of all sinful acts.

Therefore, you God is a sinner because according to this very same fable your God had thoughts of doing evil unto his people. Thoughts that were so evil that even God himself felt a need to repent.

You have always held that God is "Perfect" and that the reason that we always fall short of the "Glory of God" is because we are imperfect.

Yet this fable has God being just as frail and weak as mortal men. There's nothing perfect about a God who has to repent because he's having evil thoughts.

This fable doesn't even come close to being consistent in any of its claims.

You have a fable that clearly supports male-chauvinism.

You have a fable that tells patents to stone their unruly children to death and doesn't even taken into consideration that it was the parent who failed to raise their children properly.

This would be the same as saying, "Hey if you fail as a parent and haven't raised your child properly then just kill the kid and blame the kid."

That's baloney.

These ancient fables are fully of crap.

There's no good reason on Earth to believe that these ancient idiots speak for any "god".

As I have often said, and will continue to say,...

To believe that the Bible is the "Word of God" is to insult your creator.

You keep telling me that I have a CHOICE.

Well, so do you!

You can continue to insult all of mankind and your creator by insisting that this utterly absurd and ignorant fable is the "Word of God", or you can give your creator a little respect and reject this ancient dogma in favor of choosing to believe the Eastern Mystical view of god.

The Eastern Mystical view of God doesn't claim to speak for God. On the contrary it sticks to it's guns with it's claim that God truly is unknowable. What Eastern Mysticism does is assume that God truly is all-wise, all-powerful, and perfect.

These are all traits that you would like for God to have too are they not?

And then the Eastern Mystics go from there building a philosophy that is founded on these principles. They allow that God truly is all-wise, all-powerful, and perfect. They just build a philosophy around that and aren't even afraid to modify it as they themselves become WISER.

It's the ultimate spiritual view. It's the ultimate praise to God.

Nothing in terms of spirituality can trump it.

If you truly have respect for God you should quit insulting her by claiming that the ancient male-chauvinistic Hebrews speak for Her, and instead you should embrace Eastern Mysticism as the ultimate way to praise Her.

As far as I'm concerned, you are the one who is belittling God and refusing to praise Her directly. You are still worshiping a bunch of male-chauvinistic pigs as the "voice of God".

You are the one who refuses to respect the divinity of God as far as I can see. You're totally abscessed with worshiping the words and thoughts of mortal men, and even turning them into demigod idols.

I mean, hey, if that's what you want to personally do, more power to you.

But don't expect me to stoop that low.

As far as I'm concerned, every time you claim that those ancient ignorant Hebrews speak for God you are insulting our creator.

I recognise the conciliatory tone of your post. You are to be lauded for your efforts to reduce the hostility that these kinds of subjects can evoke. For my part in that, I apologise.

Skipping all that we agree on, you believe that quantum mechanics shows, at the very least, that the mind, spirit, soul, what have you, is more than the simple physical properties of the brain. I'll guess that you believe properties like quantum entanglement has something to do with this. The only thing we know about quantum entanglement is that it works, every time. Information is passed, instantly, across any distance, w/o loss, obviously through other dimention(s). We've no idea how that works. In fact, while every prediction ever postulated by quantum menchanics has proven to be true, we've still no real idea how any of it works. To use what we don't know as in argument for or against anything is a bad argument.

I confess that I can't prove that the "mind" is merely an emergent property of the physical characteristics of the brain. But all the evidence seems to point that way. Consider brain injuries. If the mind was more than the sum of the brain's parts, brain injuries would have little effect on the mind. But there are literally dozens of cases where brain injuries totally transformed the mind. Experiments have shown that the application of certain magnetic fields on an individual's brain can change an individual's mind in various ways. It seems to me that if our "minds" resided in quantum fields, they wouldn't be so easily or drastically effected by what happens in the Newtonian world.

I like what you said about atheists. I used to good, for goodness' sake, to coin a phrase. I've recently stopped, at least where people are concerned. Recently, 2 of my employees lives went to hell, pretty much at the same time. I put off maintance and repairs to my car, among other things, and gave up my free time and about 2 grand apiece to help them. 3 weeks ago, I found the books had been tampered with and $200 was missing. The only possible people who could've done it were them. So, hey, I've done helping people. No good deed goes unpunished.

What you consider "faith" and what I consider "faith" are probably 2 different things. I don't believe in anything not readily provable, or at the very least, pointed to, by science. Actually, techically I believe in probabilties. Technically, I don't really believe in anything. However, I will behave according to what seems to me to be the most probable reality. For all I *know*, I or all of us may be merely computer programs running in some vast similation. Ever see The 13th Floor?
In any case, what you seem to believe in seems to stem from a lack of knowledge, or the partial knowledge that humans have of quantum mechanics. I don't think this a valid reason to believe in anything.
It also seems to me that you believe what you do because it makes you feel better. Also, not a valid reason to believe in anything. I've noticed a "theme" among most humans. If they give up one thing, they tend to grab onto another thing. And they tend to show disdain or hatred for what they gave up. I've seen alcohlics give up alcohol for drugs. I've seen alcoholics and drug addicts give those addictions up for some brand of religion. I've a friend who gave up vaginas and catholicism for penises and various atheist groups.
I've seen this pattern over and over again. And it seems like you fall into this pattern. You've once stated that you were raised w/ christianity. That upon learning of it's fallacies, you gave it up and found something else to believe in. And this time, you found something to believe in that can't be disproven because it's based on what is not known. I don't understand why you can't see you've just changed your believed mythos. Truly, I don't.

The rest of your post is, what I would call philosophical masturbation. It'll make you fell better for a while but it doesn't really accomplish anything. No disrespect intended. I'm a big believer in masturbation. I think the world would be a lot calmer if more people got off, so to speak, more often.

<Exod.32:14>
Different Bible's translate this verse differently. The NASB says, "the Lord changed His mind." The NIV and NKJV say "The Lord relented." The KJV, RSV, and the 1901 ASV say, "The Lord repented." The Hebrew word at issue here is for relent/repent is נָחַם (nacham). There are 108 occurrences in the Old Testament. The KJV translates it as "comfort" 57 times, "repent" 41 times, "comforter" nine times, and "ease" once. 1.

The issue, of course, is whether or not God actually goes through a process of changing His mind due to learning something as the open theists would maintain. But, is God actually reacting to knew "Turn from Thy burning anger and change Thy mind about doing harm to Thy people. 13'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Thy servants to whom Thou didst swear by Thyself, and didst say to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever. 14So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," (Exodus 32:12-14, NASB).
==============================================

Yes God has to repent from doing sins as well. All repenting means is to refuse to do it.

Umm, no. Not really much traffic. Preaching to the choir, if you will, gets old after a while...lol