Lets liven things up a bit on MIMF...

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
For me, the term “atheist” is synonymous with irrational bigot, because it is predicated on the notion that one derives ones faith structure on being convinced that he has proven a negative: “there is no GOD!” they pound on the table while offering no empirical (or any type of objective) evidence to make such a ridiculous claim. An atheist would call any contention that maintained it had proven a negative as the basis of its “faith” or “ideology” ridiculous, impossible, even stupid. Yet just such an impossible foundation is the root of atheism. When it is pursued militantly by infringing others of their rights to pursue their convictions unhindered then it is clear it is pathologically depraved.
 

wljmrbill

Active member
Between the atheist and radical Muslins.. life can be a B""""""" ch so to speak for others and their religious philosophies.
 

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
Where do agnostics stand in your view?

Agnostic?? That’s me Mike,
CD want’s to liven things up so I will start the ball rolling.
There is a vast difference IMHO between religion and the possibility of a creator if a God existed then what would he/she want from this very important planet and the animal at the top of the food chain that inhabits it and was eligibly made in his own image? As no one can prove one way or the other the existence of a creator I will tend towards the none existence for a multitude of reasons. To your corners gentlemen and come out fighting.
 

Krummhorn

Administrator
Staff member
It's odd about all this stuff ... our currency and coin in the US has the words "In God We Trust" stamped or printed on it.

I will gladly accept all the atheists cash and coin they want to give away ... :lol:.

On the subject matter at hand though, I remain neutral ... I cannot prove what I believe in and I cannot unprove what others may not believe in ... for me it's a catch 22. I guess my feelings lean closer to being agnostic more than anything.
 

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
It's odd about all this stuff ... our currency and coin in the US has the words "In God We Trust" stamped or printed on it.
.
A business acquaintance of mine who was a Baptist had a signe behind the counter that said “In God we trust all others cash”
 

White Knight

Spectral Warrior con passion
Between the atheist and radical Muslins.. life can be a B""""""" ch so to speak for others and their religious philosophies.

What, no mention here of the Crusading Christians of the Middle Ages, at whose hands my people {the Jews} suffered many a humiliation and, frequently, death? Fanatics of any stripe--be they religious or not--are always very dangerous, especially in regards to what they deem as the "other" {viz., not them}, which is often the minority.
In all fairness then, would we not be extremely remiss in not adding them to our list of "radical fanatics", :scold:who were/are more than willing to kill any "non-believers" who get in their way? After all, they have "God on their side" do they not? At least "their God".


A business acquaintance of mine who was a Baptist had a signe behind the counter that said “In God we trust all others cash”

Radio host Jean Shepherd used that motto as well, actually writing a book with that title.

For me, the term “atheist” is synonymous with irrational bigot, because it is predicated on the notion that one derives ones faith structure on being convinced that he has proven a negative: “there is no GOD!” they pound on the table while offering no empirical (or any type of objective) evidence to make such a ridiculous claim. An atheist would call any contention that maintained it had proven a negative as the basis of its “faith” or “ideology” ridiculous, impossible, even stupid. Yet just such an impossible foundation is the root of atheism. When it is pursued militantly by infringing others of their rights to pursue their convictions unhindered then it is clear it is pathologically depraved.

Hi, CD. Great idea for a thread; we all need a little stirring up of the blood now and then, don't we? :devil:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
OK Check this out particularly the beginning

[video=youtube;MrqqD_Tsy4Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MrqqD_Tsy4Q[/video]
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
As the originator of this thread I must now share something important. I, just like everyone else on MIMF, am in search of Truth. I do not claim to know everything nor am I in the possession of the Philosopher's Stone. Those who join in this thread wanting to have a verbal slugfest may find themselves sorely disappointed. My only wish is that we who partake in this thread will be as true Gentlemen and Ladies worthy of Respect and Love and that we will strive to build each other up and not tear down enlightening discourse or character assassinate. Let us all focus on the questions and not the person's character whom we disagree with. With that, I welcome all who may wish to join in.

In Peace,

CD

Now, to add some more necessary material:

One presently rather popular argument: fine-tuning. Scientists tell us that there are many properties our universe displays such that if they were even slightly different from what they are in fact, life, or at least our kind of life, would not be possible. The universe seems to be fine-tuned for life. For example, if the force of the Big Bang had been different by one part in 10 to the 60th, life of our sort would not have been possible. The same goes for the ratio of the gravitational force to the force driving the expansion of the universe: If it had been even slightly different, our kind of life would not have been possible. In fact the universe seems to be fine-tuned, not just for life, but for intelligent life. This fine-tuning is vastly more likely given theism than given atheism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
CD, please give source of quote, personally I doubt that we (mankind) are capable of understanding how it all began let alone drawing conclusions, even the scientists do not agree until recent times it was thought that the UV expansion was slowing now it seems that it is speeding up. I find cosmology fascinating and wish my wee brain could make more sense of it that is why I am an agnostic.
 

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
OK I found this link which mentions StephenHawking’s book “a brief history of time” in which he puts forward this very idea. I also see that a chemist L J Henderson puts forward the same idea in1913
http://bahaiteachings.org/god-fine-tuning-existence

It seems that the Baha’I faith supports this view and does not rule out the existence of none carbon life. This website offers a wealth of information how accurate this has been portrayed is open to question.
The theory of a multiverse is another possibility. I think the more science finds out the more questions will be raised.

 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
More discussion material:

I suppose your thinking is that it is suffering and sin that make this world less than perfect. But then your question makes sense only if the best possible worlds contain no sin or suffering. And is that true? Maybe the best worlds contain free creatures some of whom sometimes do what is wrong. Indeed, maybe the best worlds contain a scenario very like the Christian story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
I was puzzled by you response CD but then I see that my post could be taken that I support the Bahai faith….. whoops, that was a typo error I do not support any religion and know next to nothing about the Bahia faith. Suffering is part of the nature that we are familiar with there is no good/evil right/wrong in nature as far as I can make out (mankind is another matter). My interest has nothing to do with religion purely the meaning (if any) of Life the universe and all that.
 
Last edited:

Dorsetmike

New member
The way I look at it going back over the 80 years I've been around, no matter what we believe - or are told to believe - it makes no difference, life goes on around us so why worry about it.

In order to believe something I need to see, hear and/or touch it or be able to rely on a credible source. It's said history is written by the winners implying that it is skewed to suit the writers/winners point of view, Can the Bible be considered history? From what I have read there is evidence that much of the new testament was written well after the events; for me that would destroy much of the credibility. As for the old testament much of that is myth and legend to my mind and much probably had been distorted by being handed down by word of mouth before being written down and then subsequent translations.

We have little enough factual knowledge of more recent history for example in the south and midlands of England the Arthurian legends and Anglo-Saxon Chronicles show some onesided versions of events and even omission of some events , but which can be compared with contemporary sources from surrounding places (e.g. monasteries in the north of the country)

Some individuals think they can make a significant difference and may do so for a while, but in the long term it's of little consequence and becomes even less .so as time goew by

Black on blue is almost unreadable unless you run a mouse over it to highlight it.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Another thought:

Think about it: The first being of the universe, perfect in goodness, power and knowledge, creates free creatures. These free creatures turn their backs on him, rebel against him and get involved in sin and evil. Rather than treat them as some ancient potentate might — e.g., having them boiled in oil — God responds by sending his son into the world to suffer and die so that human beings might once more be in a right relationship to God. God himself undergoes the enormous suffering involved in seeing his son mocked, ridiculed, beaten and crucified. And all this for the sake of these sinful creatures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
@Mike Mike that is the trouble with history it’s just one thing after another.

@CD When you say “first being of the universe” are you implying there was a universe before this being existed if so how did the UV come into existence? If you believe that the first being created the UV when was it created. I refrain from using the name “God” as it means different things to different religions and may confuse things I mean no disrespect.
 
Last edited:

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Dear friends,

I share another thought:

I’d say a world in which this story is true would be a truly magnificent possible world. It would be so good that no world could be appreciably better. But then the best worlds contain sin and suffering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JHC

Chief assistant to the assistant chief
Dear friends,

I share another thought:

I’d say a world in which this story is true would be a truly magnificent possible world. It would be so good that no world could be appreciably better. But then the best worlds contain sin and suffering.

Now listen ye here comrade, you avoid answering my questions ???? so lets liven it up a bit an give the natives a show :cool:
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Another item to bring into the discussion:

Some atheists seem to think that a sufficient reason for atheism is the fact (as they say) that we no longer need God to explain natural phenomena — lightning and thunder for example. We now have science. As a justification of atheism, this is pretty lame. We no longer need the moon to explain or account for lunacy; it hardly follows that belief in the nonexistence of the moon (a-moonism?) is justified. A-moonism on this ground would be sensible only if the sole ground for belief in the existence of the moon was its explanatory power with respect to lunacy. (And even so, the justified attitude would be agnosticism with respect to the moon, not a-moonism.) The same thing goes with belief in God: Atheism on this sort of basis would be justified only if the explanatory power of theism were the only reason for belief in God. And even then, agnosticism would be the justified attitude, not atheism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dorsetmike

New member
As there is no way to prove or disprove religious beliefs in the existence of a god or other creator, I will remain an agnostic.
 
Top