Thank you for your thoughts. I share most of the beliefs that you expressed, except those concerning the soul (since I am an atheist). I respect theists who respect others with different beliefs. I give Quakers and Buddhists high grades for that.
Apr 1 2012: Natasha, your remarks were addressed to Shaheem. Please excuse me for interjecting my thoughts.
You said "Truth is self-evident." I think that is far from being the case. If truth were self-evident there would be no need for jury trials, or mathematical proofs, or scientific experimentation, or archeological excavations or evidence collection.
"Chase after truth like hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat-tails."
Clarence Darrow (1857 - 1938)
By the way, I, as an atheist, agree wholeheartedly with your statement: "To live with care and kindness is all that is necessary." No supernatural deities are required.
* You asked what evidence would be convincing for the other side of the argument.
* I answered by providing a short list of physical evidence that I would find convincing.
* You then suggested nonphysical evidence that you would find convincing.
* I said that nonphysical evidence could be used to support any delusion.
* You responded by asking for physical evidence that nonphysical evidence could be used to support any delusion.
* You then called me delusional.
You said "Personally I do not bellieve God cares about what we believe or even what name we give Him. Do the best we can, for the right reason, and everything should be fine with us."
The last sentence above works well whether or not God exists.
You keep saying that God does not condemn us all to hell, that we were already condemned to hell. But don't you also believe that God created everything, including hell, and set up the rules so that we were already pre-condemned to hell? Doesn't that amount to the same thing?
You said "The bible was written so that we could come to know the creator that brought us into existence."
The same could be said of every document that contains a creation myth. But more precise wording would be "The bible was written so that we could come to know what the authors of the bible wanted us to believe about the creator that brought us into existence."
You also said "If the power that created this universe does not really exist, then the universe could not have come into being."
Your statement isn't necessarily true because you have used different tenses in the two clauses. The power that created this universe could have existed at the time the universe was created, but that power may no longer exist.
You then said "If that makes sense to you regardless, then you haven't really thought it out."
This statement is the one that most puzzles me. The issue is that the word "that" is an ambiguous reference. Grammatically "that" could refer to several different items, but the most logical reference is to the immediately preceding sentence. Did you really mean to say that if your sentence makes sense to the reader, then the reader hasn't really thought it out? Maybe you were engaging in some self-effacing bit of Zen wisdom, but I doubt it. What were you trying to say?
But getting back to the power that created the universe, you haven't established that the power is/was sentient, let alone that the power is actually your favorite deity.
But later on you say that quantum fields are God. ( So I suppose Quantum Fields should be capitalized.) I attribute to God quite a number of attributes, such as being vengeful, loving, self-aggrandizing, omnipotent, eternal, omnipotent, mythological and non-existent. So Quantum Fields have all those attributes?
I am puzzled by your statement: "Adam was not a person but the first church or belief system on earth. "
I assume you mean that Adam symbolizes the first church or belief system on Earth. Perhaps, but the first belief system on Earth would have taken form hundreds of thousands of years before the Garden of Eden story was codified. Did you mean that Adam symbolizes the first beginnings of belief systems (which no doubt were animistic)?
I can't post a reply directly below you post because it is nested too deep, so I'll post a reply to Bridget's post.
You quoted Sir Fred Hoyle as saying ""I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy ."
Of course this is not necessarily true simply because Hoyle said this, but let's set that aside for the moment.
Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, and his mention in connection with religion reminds me of another astronomer. No doubt religion dominated Galileo Galilei's thoughts as he was forced to recant his own discoveries when standing before a tribunal of the Inquisition.
Religion may dominate a person's thoughts, but that doesn't mean that the person is having positive thoughts about religion.
Your comments were directed to Shaheem, but I hope you won't mind me interjecting some of my thoughts.
Evidence of God's existence that would satisfy me:
* A huge face of God suddenly appearing in orbit around the Earth, and responding to every question in the questioner's own language.
* A voice heard by every person in the world in their own language announcing that God was about to reverse Earth's direction of rotation, so hold on ...
* Giant words written in the sky and readable all around the Earth in each person's favorite language stating all the winning lottery numbers for the next week.
I could go on, but I think you get the drift. An omnipotent being could provide evidence of its existence by doing something that requires omnipotence.
Regarding one's mind as "evidence" can be used as proof of the correctness of any delusion, including the existence of goblins, ghosts, and gods.
TEDCred score: +2.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
Thank you for your thoughts. I share most of the beliefs that you expressed, except those concerning the soul (since I am an atheist). I respect theists who respect others with different beliefs. I give Quakers and Buddhists high grades for that.
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
You said "Truth is self-evident." I think that is far from being the case. If truth were self-evident there would be no need for jury trials, or mathematical proofs, or scientific experimentation, or archeological excavations or evidence collection.
"Chase after truth like hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat-tails."
Clarence Darrow (1857 - 1938)
By the way, I, as an atheist, agree wholeheartedly with your statement: "To live with care and kindness is all that is necessary." No supernatural deities are required.
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
Thank you for your reply.
A brief synopsis of our exchange of thoughts is:
* You asked what evidence would be convincing for the other side of the argument.
* I answered by providing a short list of physical evidence that I would find convincing.
* You then suggested nonphysical evidence that you would find convincing.
* I said that nonphysical evidence could be used to support any delusion.
* You responded by asking for physical evidence that nonphysical evidence could be used to support any delusion.
* You then called me delusional.
Did I get the synopsis right?
A comment on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
You said "Personally I do not bellieve God cares about what we believe or even what name we give Him. Do the best we can, for the right reason, and everything should be fine with us."
The last sentence above works well whether or not God exists.
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
You keep saying that God does not condemn us all to hell, that we were already condemned to hell. But don't you also believe that God created everything, including hell, and set up the rules so that we were already pre-condemned to hell? Doesn't that amount to the same thing?
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
Wouldn't it be better to find your mistake now, and stop wasting your time believing in fantasies?
You seem to have ignored Obey No1kinobe's post concerning Pascal's argument.
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
You said "The bible was written so that we could come to know the creator that brought us into existence."
The same could be said of every document that contains a creation myth. But more precise wording would be "The bible was written so that we could come to know what the authors of the bible wanted us to believe about the creator that brought us into existence."
You also said "If the power that created this universe does not really exist, then the universe could not have come into being."
Your statement isn't necessarily true because you have used different tenses in the two clauses. The power that created this universe could have existed at the time the universe was created, but that power may no longer exist.
You then said "If that makes sense to you regardless, then you haven't really thought it out."
This statement is the one that most puzzles me. The issue is that the word "that" is an ambiguous reference. Grammatically "that" could refer to several different items, but the most logical reference is to the immediately preceding sentence. Did you really mean to say that if your sentence makes sense to the reader, then the reader hasn't really thought it out? Maybe you were engaging in some self-effacing bit of Zen wisdom, but I doubt it. What were you trying to say?
But getting back to the power that created the universe, you haven't established that the power is/was sentient, let alone that the power is actually your favorite deity.
But later on you say that quantum fields are God. ( So I suppose Quantum Fields should be capitalized.) I attribute to God quite a number of attributes, such as being vengeful, loving, self-aggrandizing, omnipotent, eternal, omnipotent, mythological and non-existent. So Quantum Fields have all those attributes?
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
I am puzzled by your statement: "Adam was not a person but the first church or belief system on earth. "
I assume you mean that Adam symbolizes the first church or belief system on Earth. Perhaps, but the first belief system on Earth would have taken form hundreds of thousands of years before the Garden of Eden story was codified. Did you mean that Adam symbolizes the first beginnings of belief systems (which no doubt were animistic)?
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
I can't post a reply directly below you post because it is nested too deep, so I'll post a reply to Bridget's post.
You quoted Sir Fred Hoyle as saying ""I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy ."
Of course this is not necessarily true simply because Hoyle said this, but let's set that aside for the moment.
Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, and his mention in connection with religion reminds me of another astronomer. No doubt religion dominated Galileo Galilei's thoughts as he was forced to recant his own discoveries when standing before a tribunal of the Inquisition.
Religion may dominate a person's thoughts, but that doesn't mean that the person is having positive thoughts about religion.
A reply on Conversation: This Question is for the people that believe in god. (Atheist views also please)
Your comments were directed to Shaheem, but I hope you won't mind me interjecting some of my thoughts.
Evidence of God's existence that would satisfy me:
* A huge face of God suddenly appearing in orbit around the Earth, and responding to every question in the questioner's own language.
* A voice heard by every person in the world in their own language announcing that God was about to reverse Earth's direction of rotation, so hold on ...
* Giant words written in the sky and readable all around the Earth in each person's favorite language stating all the winning lottery numbers for the next week.
I could go on, but I think you get the drift. An omnipotent being could provide evidence of its existence by doing something that requires omnipotence.
Regarding one's mind as "evidence" can be used as proof of the correctness of any delusion, including the existence of goblins, ghosts, and gods.