The Thinking Atheist
8.47
Ratings: 8.47/10 from 190 users.
From the author: Using satire, research and some common sense, we explore common-sense questions about God.
A former Christian of 30 years, I ultimately found that religion, faith and scripture lacked any true answers, especially in the (bright) light of scientific discovery and the truth of Evolution by Natural Selection.
Having an insiders perspective of Christianity, I use my skills as a producer to stir the pot of debate and, hopefully, make it uncomfortable for anyone to be a mere spectator in the arena of ideas.
Note: This is not a documentary film in a strict sense. These are professionally edited short clips gathered from a YouTube channel named The Thinking Atheist.
There is no proof that God exists. I choose to believe that God exists because believing so makes my life better in more ways that I can count. We all have the right to believe as we will and I choose God, but not the God of violence, intolerance and fear. I choose a God of love. Just because...
The points of argument will always be mute because no one will ever PROVE there is a god. You can make all the claims you want to in the name of what you believe but you don't have proof and the burden of proof lies directly upon you.
@awful_truth:disqus
you stay on your one trick pony. you list some people who excelled in their field and use that to lend weight to beliefs they had outside of their field. look at the people you mention. why are they held up as giants within their field? it is because they held an idea (belief if you wish) then they proved those ideas to be correct. that is what made them great. their ability to back up what they claimed, everyone has ideas/beliefs and dreams the truly great are those who can back their ideas up.
you can continue to be a living example of Russels Teapot if you wish. go ahead and make your arguments from authority. but if as you implied you are here to stir things up and post to wind others up, well that is trolling and please do not go there. you already admitted you cannot prove the existence for god then falsely take solace in the fact that others cannot disprove him/her/it as if that is the way a logical debate works. you are right i cannot disprove the possibility of a "god" but if your god is based on the OT/NT please admit it. so is he? lets open this debate up . i am willing to lay all my cards on tha table concerning god. are you? so again. do you believe in one of the religious gods? if so which one ?
Religion = fairytale.
Arguments are too funny. Religious people get no where.
here is an idea goldenscience. how about making clear what you believe? forget the arguments from authority as newton was also an alchemist and his scientific brilliance does not add weight to his claims/beliefs outside of that. there have been many great scientific minds that have had religious beliefs from most if not all faiths. but at the very least all but one of the major religions is wrong. here is your opportunity to provide positive proof for your supernatural claims. can you? or do you need to inject insults,logical fallacies and interpretation in place of actual evidence? i do not wish to get into a debate as i am taking a break from the religious debates as they go the way this one is too often. but i suggest you debate the others with your best positive evidence instead of the tactics so far used.
Moderators:
What's the matter with this thing? The lines come out funny and after a while, you can't add any more text?
If you take complete responsibility for yourself and your actions you see there is no
need for gods. But to do this means embracing the fact that you are ultimately alone in the world and that terrifies most people.
Most of the private 320 million (1 for every citizen) anti-aircraft cannons, 20 mm sniper rifles, 7.62 & 5.56 mm military assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine guns, gattling guns, shot guns, sub-machine guns, semi-automatic and revolver hand guns, along with many millions more of hunting bows and bowie knives are owned by:
God Fearing, 'Holy Jesus' Christians, backed up by a $340 billion per annum American Arms Industry Congress lobby, which spends more on advertising than America spends on public health care. There's a joke in there some where...?
Now that's what I call a Civilised, slaughter house, waiting to happen...
Well Jesus 'H' Christ, all I can say to that is, "Praise the Lord and pass the God Damned, f--king ammunition. Where's my next vulnerable primary school..."
It's very simple. Religion was government from way before Jesus' time. The aristocrats had the gold ("God's Money") so they made the rules. Control the money supply, you control it all.
The same thing is happening today. People must open their eyes to this very dangerous control. Every single country is entitled to print their own currency without being in debt to anyone. America has tried to get rid of bank controlled money supply time and time again (Andrew Jackson succeeded, Lincoln succeeded, Garfield tried but was assassinated before he was able to). You must connect these very important dots.
You must always follow the gold or money to find the real truths of these specific religions. Religion and spirituality have become so disconnected from one another in most major religions. The divine truth will present itself once you not only look at the facts surrounding you, but also you must look inward.
Everything you need is in your soul - it was embedded from you since the beginning. Only the media, churches, schools, and even family have disconnected you from true self-awareness. Just simply, take the initiative to find answers for yourself. Once you've started that process it will become much easier to share and collaborate. This is love and that's the only way to "beat" these very powerful organizations that only want to instill fear.
Once you are free from fear then you are free to contribute to the change that NEEDS to occur in OUR world.
As a body of work this compalation is as valuble as it is no doubt uncomfortable for those of a religious bent. Indeed it is the very discomfort that is generated by showing the significant flaws and weaknesses inherent in religion that makes it valuble.
My paragraph was not necessarly directed towards the incrdulous or those fanatically opposed to verious possibilities.But for those who may be teetering on the brink of indecision.Its not an easy road to traverse.
Those who are waiting for science to drop a brick of God into their laps are in for the duration.And thats why those who are waiting this kind of fast food of proof will never have it.For real proof can only come from
interest,pursuit,discipline,repeated effort and a sincere desire for success.Not for the lazy,lame,critical, angry, impatient pessimist.
Page8@I believe in God.But not a God that knows nothing,sees nothing and hears nothing.You stay fat,dumb and happy because your armies(like most religions) are out raping and robbing the world.Then you have the audacity to tell us that you follow the teachings of Christ.What a pant load,wake up.
I'm an atheist and i think most of this is quite stupid. In fact, I don't think a real atheist would contribute to that. That being said, has anyone ever heard of critical thinking (based on evidence) and a conscience (yeah that little voice in your head)? Well, surely some of you have. I am of the school that says that everything must be questionned, regardless of where it's coming from. If it doesn't agree with my basic values and beliefs, I will reject it. The God concept is one of them. I can observe nature and understand the laws of physics. That's good enough for me. The energy contained in the universe does not have this kind of religious notion attached to it, it just behave according to the natural laws such as electro-magnetic and quantum physics. There is no good or evil, just what is. If you need religions to tell you anything worthy of concern, you are pretty much a lost cause and doomed to live in guilt and shame. In fact, the only standards of moral that are valid are my own. Love is a frequency and so is fear. It's up to you to pick which one you want to live by.
Makes me think.. Interesting
Fun and refreshing.
Fun and refreshing.
best thing i ever saw in my life!
It's too bad you spent so much time trying to make other people look stupid.
if you know the teachings of jesus yet you call the people who believe in them stupid do you know that you are the stupid one? and if you dont know his teachings yet you scoff at the people who believe them and call them stupid dont you know its you that are stupid? because there are no stupid teachings of christ.. they are all masterful. even and sometimes more so the lesser known secret gnostic teachings of christ are so rich in wisdom that these so called intellectuals cant understand them.. its because they are one sided. they only think with one hemisphere of their brain it seems.. is it that they lack the ability to think abstractly? they get so tripped up by the details that they miss the core message. i will say my opinion personally that i can easily see most christians have no idea what the historic contexts are and a lot of them are easily misled by the bad preachers.. but its because they decide to let someone else tell them what to believe instead of doing their own research. i wont go on any further but i will say that every atheist i know is bitter, pompous, and in fact stupid. to hell with you people.
looks like mainly atheists posted comments here. You know a lot of atheists try to make the point that faith means your dumb and illogical and that somehow a believer in God hates science and logical thinking. Its unfortunate that atheists have such a distorted view of religion, in fact that distortion is what causes you to be atheist. Pretty much all atheists hang on to their attacks against people who believe by calling them stupid but if you take a look at your comments and speech, why would anyone take you seriously when your attitude is so full of hatred and disgust over something you don't understand. Religion is not a problem, bad people who claim to be religious is what the problem is. Trying to ask God to answer all of the worlds problems is naive as the solution is already there, if the world followed the teachings, peace, unity and love than the problems wouldn't exist, but since people continue to deny these simple teachings the world suffers and than those with little understanding question why this is all happening and where is God, really he has been waiting for the people to listen to Him but they never do and so they blame their problems on Him. This attitude is what caused Jesus to be crucified, and until the world ends this attitude will never change therefore your pain and suffering will never cease.
Organized religions are the same as companies. They compete for customers. So they have different interpretations of the Bible in the same way companies develop unique products. When Martin Luther said that we are not saved by the works that the catholic church prescribed he was pointed out their error. He then started his own "company" where he began to market his own version of error. All interpretations of the Bible that hold it to be a description of physical events that occurred long ago are fouled with contradiction. This contradiction can only be eliminated through the consistent and exclusive application of figurative meanings for a handful of words, the first four of which are given in the Bible itself and they lead, by way of the "road map" of common denominators (that which scholars call "the synoptic problem") directly to the others. In this "interpretation" which has no contradiction, (and no exceptions to the function of its structure) the Bible is describing an evolutionary process of natural selection whereby the human race moves from a base-level convicting conscience to one of greater motivation.
In the natural world there is a process of "judgement" in the functioning course of natural selection. The evolution of consciousness is no exception.
btw robertallen1, got any more interesting articles? The tribal article was fascinating. Cheers :)
I watched all the videos and I can say it's awesome.I feared that I am one of the few but now I am convinced that I am one of many Atheists worldwide.I have a small suggestion for The Thinking Atheist that please include other religions too like Muslims,Hindus,Buddhists etc and tell them about the reality of their religions.It can significantly help others like us from being an Idiot to being an Atheist.
I enjoy The Thinking Atheist videos - on The Judgment Day video why say when the sun rises?
The Judgment Day video - I follow all the The Thinking Atheist videos and enjoy them - but why say when the sun rises ?
@Kateye70. Funny comment, very witty. Just what this blog needs, for everyone to lighten up, and take things a little less seriously.
Anyways, to get back to my topic of interest before I was Trolled off of it, I can't champion Atheism and especially Anti-Theism (as Robertallen1 requested me to) because such positions are currently and only subjective opinions portrayed as objective fact and worse these subjective opinions portrayed as objective facts are being backed up by Rhetological Fallacies (I'm using the sample of Atheists and Anti-Theists I've encountered here on TDF for this observation). It's much smarter and more productive for me to champion the objective rules of rhetoric and philosophical logic.
As I mentioned before I put my claim out there to see the feedback of others. So far I've received baseless ridicule, personal attacks, ignorance, dominance posturing, comment bullying, comment drowning/filibustering, comment censoring, misunderstanding, name calling, flaming, commenter hunting/targeting, bias, rhetological fallacies, philosophical ill-logic, atheism dogma, pigeon holing, trolling, valid ridicule, praise, implied agreement ("but" replies), and a lot of comment mirroring/paraphrasing.
Not sure what to make of all that feedback as so much of it is not related to what I was claiming. Here's what I can make out. We all seem to agree that "science" is quite ignorant/mute/not-an-authority on the topic of a Creator/God. This has been expressed differently by others but nevertheless it's the same sentiment. We all seem to agree that "Science" (methodological naturalism) has observed an apparent lack of such a creature on the scale of a Creator/God in the nature that "Science" has studied thus far. This has also been expressed differently by others but is the same sentiment. No feedback was given to my observation that if such a Creator/God exists Methodological Naturalism is objectively showing such a creature is not part of nature (except one comment that such a position is speculation...to which I agreed). And no feedback was given to my observation that the objective observations of Methodological Naturalism that can conclude that if a Creator/God exists such a creature is not a part of nature is quite similar to the subjective observations of Theists that have claimed such a position for millennia (namely that God is not a part of nature).
Perhaps I missed some comments. There was a lot of comment drowning. Forgive me if I missed a comment of yours directly related to my claim that you felt added value to what I was saying (and that you feel I missed).
OQ,Vlatko,Over_the_Edge,Epicurus,Achems_Razor,Sarcastic_Drew and, of course, everyone else.
If you search for "primitive atheism"," you will find an interesting rticle by Austin Cline on the subject of tribes with no religious beliefs to speak of. I wonder if there are any documentaries on the tribes mentioned and if so, whether they can be placed on TDF. So much for religion being a part of evolutionary development. So much for religion being needed to ensure or instill a sense of morality and ethics.
Vlatko, you have just proved that bias is not exclusive to the religious ones.
The study asked whether you believe in God(singular). Now look at all the biases you have falsely introduced.
Nice to know you are human.
Here, let us settle all the arguments in one shot. You want proof that there are higher forms of life, look in the mirror! How did you come to be? Well, your mommy, and daddy hooked up. So, how did the universe come to be? A couple of universe's hooked up, and created this one via sex! (or it was created a-sexually) Either way, the brain of the universe, (god) created us, just like I create the thoughts that occur in my 3 pound universe. (the human Brain) Those thoughts in turn create other thoughts, (like having children) which evolve, and pass on what they have learned (information) back up to the universe, so it can choose how to best survive more efficiently on it's realm of space, and time. (purpose to life)
This explanation would seem to fit the facts, far better than any religious doctrine, or the coldness of scientific explanation in themselves. The greatest mistake anyone can make is to believe that those who came before us, were absolutely stupid, and unaware. (knowledge has been lost, you can bet on it)
Physicist John wheeler said it best. (paraphrasing) take a room with tiles on the floor, and write an equation on one. Than write another equation on another tile that you think better describes the universe as we see it. When you have filled the floor, wave your magic wand, and tell the equations to fly, and they won't; but the universe does fly, (life) on a realm far beyond any description we can imagine.
Ultimately, the answers are right in front of us, but only if we choose to look, without bias. Personally, I am happy that none of us agree regarding what the universe is, and why are we here. If we all already knew the answer, what would be the point of existance?
I will end with a quote from Bruce Lee. "it is like a finger pointing a way to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory! Live long, and prosper everyone.
Chew on this one: If you do not know how God could exist you are a fool to claim God can not.
Strange as it is to you that I claimed ignorance on what is the Celestial Teapot, it's stranger still that not one of you has been able to describe it. Are not able?
@PillowhandsMcGraw
Apparently one of the moderators felt that we were off topic and deleted them. But one way or the other, I just wanted to give you fair warning. Maybe you'll get a lousy professor and a great teaching assistant. One way or the other, whatever you do, ask, ask and ask until you understand. Don't be daunted.
@robertallen1
I don't like hearing things like that lol right after my physics teacher tells me professors are nothing like teachers 'they just walk in and start talking.'
P.S. your post disappeared it said an error occured while posting and when i refreshed your comment was gone is this common?
Over_the_Edge, Epicurus, Vlatko, Achems_Razor and, of course, everyone else.
Aaron Ra was kind enough to allow me to quote his response to the e-mail I sent him on the eve his debate with banana brain.
RA: Just heard about your upcoming debate with Ray Comfort tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. PST which I now await with bated breath. I won't wish you good luck because you won't need it; however, if I may offer you a word of advice: whatever you do, please do not hold back.
AR: I was quite frustrated when Ray said his spiel about accepting Jesus or you'll burn in Hell. I had a landslide retort to that, a ten-minute high speed rant that would [have] destroyed everything he stood for. But I couldn't get to that, because the moment I started the cart rolling, they told me there was only two minutes left of the show, and that they would give him the last word.
Just thought someone might be interested.
1) On April 24, 1929, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York dialed Einstein to inquire, “Do you believe in God?” (Sommerfield, 1949,103), Einstein’s return message was “ I believe in Spinoza’s God who concerns himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings , I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith.
2) Albert Einstein's book, (The World as I See It)
"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man".
3) Einstein response (1936)
"every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive". (Take note Robertalllen1)
4)Einstein-Neils Bohr
God doesn’t play dice with the universe,” Einstein once remarked on the new science of quantum mechanics in one of his lifelong debates with Neils Bohr. On another occasion he said of science and religion, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
This is definitive proof that Einstien believed in god, just not a traditional deity(s). (christian, islam, pagan, etc) For Robertallen1, this does not compute, because he has lumped all religious views into a personal god, (simple minded thinking) which he has stated repeatedly, and all the diversions, distractions, and insults does not change the facts, which are so clearly stated. If anyone doubts the validity of what I have expressed, don't take my word for it, research it yourself. This requires effort, unlike those who only search for that which supports their own pre-conceived notion. Since I have a similiar view to that of Einstein, I understand his position, and find myself with the same dilemma he had. Trying to open people's minds to a road far less travelled, but infinitely more rewarding.
@Roberttallen1
Bald faced lie? Once again. A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936:
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
This is direct evidence to what Einstein believed. The last sentence of Einstein's letter is how you perceive all who have 'faith'. The awful truth is you are rude, and obnoxious towards anyone who doesn't think like you, and the only reason you get away with it, is because the administrator, and one of the moderators allow you to continue this behaviour.
You call a provable letter from Einstein a bald faced lie, because you can't handle the truth. Furthermore, I will keep calling you little bob until you learn to be civil with others who have as much right as you to express their opinion, as you do. If you can't be pleasant with others, don't expect it in return.
TopDocRocks
please see "Russels Teapot". there are too many claims made to prove their absence. the burden of proof does lay with the person making the positive claim. if we have to prove absence of evidence for every claim put forward we would never progress. i dismiss all gods due to no demonstrable evidence being shown to me of their existence. if i were to approach my dismissal on the premise you suggest i would have to look for this evidence of absence for all 28 000 000 gods that have been worshiped and i would die before proving all claims false and therefore never make a decision. but i am curious what is your position of all 28 000 000 gods? is there one you profess to be true? i get the feeling from your posts that you do believe in one but know that you cannot prove it. so you shamelessly try to shift the burden you would rightfully own. of course that is just an opinion and i am open to be told i am wrong.
Kateye70: You and I agree. Atheism is not scientific and neither is Theism. Science is virtually mute on the matter of "god" (except to say it appears "god" is not a part of nature).
Robbertallen:
"So just where is your evidence for design and a designer or is it all in your typical creationist argument?" observational evidence
"Just how?"
"So you thought you didn't need evidence" what i said
"Just how?" below
"You understand that BELIEF and KNOWLEDGE are two very different things? you cant say you know something and that you believe it. you dont KNOW that god exists. you believe it. and I dont KNOW god doesnt exist. but the fact that you dont KNOW god exists should lead you to at least be honest with yourself and question WHY you insist on believing it is true....dont you think?" Epicrurus I detect god indirectly through the observational evidence.
"was a dead giveaway you know nothing of what you speak, you are using an "argument from ignorance" means nothing." Achems_Razor You're opinion.
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated.
hehe I have proven my claims with a simple worldview which is based upon observational evidence! . Don't throw up you're arms up in defense go test the claims! That is why this belief is so strong. The observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God.
The Bible describes an expanding universe model.
Since our universe is characterized by cosmic expansion, it must have had a beginning. What, in nature can you think of that is simultaneously expanding and decelerating? An explosion. This was the first suggestion of what has come to be called the "Big Bang." Einstein did not like the implications of the Big Bang, which he thought implied the existence of a Creator.
The data from cosmology shows that the universe had a beginning, when space, time, matter and energy exploded out from the cosmic event known as the Big Bang.
At some point in the past, the universe was created from what has been called a singularity (or no volume). This event must require the existence of a creator, a supernatural God.
The Big Bang implies a universe which is created, therefore the need for a creator
Big Bang is evidence for intelligent design. So because we can observe God's creation u can detect God not directly but indirectly. A naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally that is why that belief does not make sense to me. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.
"I believe the evidence for God's existence comes primarily from the design of the universe."
Conclusion: 1: My belief is supported by observational evidence
2: my belief does not contradict observational evidence
I haven't watched this documentary yet (and I will when I have the time). But having read some posts going back and forth, my 2 cents is that Atheism is not scientific any more than Theism is scientific. And in fact "Science" supports what some Theists and certainly Western Christian Theists have been saying all along; namely that the "God"/Creator is not a part of nature.
The term "science" as I'm using it and as "Scientific" Atheists use it is actually Methodological Naturalism (which is only one aspect of the Sciences). Methodological Naturalism from the onset chose to ignore anything non-natural to make it more easy to find natural causes for nature. And look...everywhere Methodological Naturalism is applied to in attempting to find natural causes for nature it seems to have found natural causes for (and we're leaps and bounds ahead of mysticism for it...woot).
But "science" (Methodological Naturalism) cannot really comment on the "God"/Creator...except to say that it has not nor is it currently looking for a "God"/Creator (because such a thing is not a natural cause and Methodological Naturalism is excluding all non-natural causes in its search for natural causes for nature) and that if there is such a "God"/creator such a thing has not been observed via Methodological Naturalism in the natural realities that Methodological Naturalism has examined thus far.
And that is all Methodological Naturalism (aka "Science") can say about the "God"/Creator..."We have been looking for natural causes of nature and in our looking we obviously have been ignoring anything "God"/Creator related in order to help us more easily find natural causes for nature...oh by the way we've found natural causes for just about everything we've looked at and with all we've looked it we haven't accidentally discovered a "God"/Creator being, or Unicorn, or Godzilla, or Aliens, or Spaghetti monsters...etc etc...yes it's a bit laughable to say that in all our NOT looking for such things we haven't found them...but here's what we can reasonably conclude thus far; if such things were part of nature we'd probably have discovered them by now with how much of nature we've examining so far...not to say they don't exist...they might...we haven't examined all of nature yet...but it's a safe conclusion that if such things exist they're not a part of nature (not a part of the nature we know of and have examined so far at least)."
Any conclusion beyond that is not Scientific (Methodological Naturalism) and more the realm of Religious Naturalism and Philosophy and one's own Ideologies (which are what Theism and Atheism are...Ideologies...not Science).
I'm not championing Christianity or Theism. Nor am I championing Weak Atheism ("I'm not convinced there's a God") nor Strong Atheism ("There is no God and you should believe me that there isn't") nor Anti-Theism ("Religious types need to go"). I'm just championing clarification about "Science" (Methodological Naturalism) and what it has authority to comment on and what it doesn't.
My apologies if this was way off topic for this documentary. I will watch it...just haven't had the time yet.
Evolution vs Intelligent design is I think, very silly. Okay i'm gonna admit that i'm religious... I am on an atheist chat site I know. I respect your views, I may not agree. But i respect them.
I do wish we could all have always had dialogue on this topic rather than silly arguments that end up in disrespect and going in circles.
Ok but to the point...
I believe in Intelligent design.
I believe in evolution.
Why should these 2 points of view contradict one another?
@ pysmythe and edge, another little Hitler type then? ;)
Edit! I am feeling devilish today !
Lone Ranger and Tonto
The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.
"Tonto, look up and tell me what you see."
Tonto replies, "Me see millions of stars."
"What does that tell you?" asks The Lone Ranger.
Tonto ponders for a minute.
"Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.
Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.
Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.
Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.
Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?"
The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks.
"Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent."
My guess is that there must have been a quadrillion x a centillion x several googleplexes ways that our universe could've unfurled and this just happens to be one of them. Lucky us?
And even if I'm wrong (fair chance) and there was only one lonely way for our universe to make it this far - still no reason to posit a creator other than one finds the idea fuzzy and warm. Just don't jam it down my throat - you'll be marmilized.
I believe the evidence for God's existence comes primarily from the design of the universe.
Hey I approach things perhaps different than most, Proudly despite being hid behind a veil of words that have NOTHING to do with who I truly am nor how I think. But my question is this:
How can we disprove the possible existence of (a) god, if we have nothing solid to deduce. if seeing is believing maybe we're not looking close enough. maybe god is the inner experience of man's measure to the astounding and baffling world around him. Perhaps man himself is the instrument who must remain 'god like' to enable him to create a greater understanding over his world, to even keep his senses ever vigilant to folly that truly a god could not be brought easily down by.
With science in this respect, man is no longer the center of his own world, if someone else were, like Jesus than empathy with another heart takes it's place in the form of love, but if science were to be there than where will man stand in such a world? can anyone riddle me this?
Check out some quotes of C.G. Jung and what he thought about god, But if, for instance, the statement that Christ rose from the dead is to be understood not literally but symbolically, then it is capable of various interpretations that do not collide with knowledge and does not impair the meaning of the statement....the danger that a mythology understood too literally, and as taught by the Church, will suddenly be repudiated lock, stock, and barrel is today greater than ever. Is it not time that the Christian mythology, instead of being wiped out, was understood symbolically for once?"
"This is not to say that Christianity is finished. I am on the contrary, convinced that it is not Christianity, but our conception and interpretation of it, that has become antiquated in the face of the present world situation. The Christian symbol is a living thing that carries in itself the seeds of further development."
"And are not Jesus and Paul prototypes of those who, trusting their inner experience, have gone their own individual ways, disregarding public opinion?
"...it should not be forgotten that , unlike other religions, Christianity holds at its core a symbol which has for its content the individual way of life of a man, the Son of Man, and that it even regards this individuation process as the incarnation and revelation of God Himself. Hence the development of the self acquires a significance whose full implications have hardly begun to be appreciated because too much attention to externals blocks the way to immediate inner experience."
Hi Metacrock, I'm back ! I stand in awe of your knowledge of astronomy & physics, & your ability to reconcile all of this with a book of (mostly) early iron age mythology. I admit I read the entire bible only once as a very young man, over 65 years ago. But, as a bookworm, I have read extensively Greek & Roman mythology. Also Roman history & a number of bios on Emperor Constantine. All of this lead me to view the bible as simply a compilation of mythology covering a vast area & many centuries. I am still struck by the fact that there is nothing NEW in Xianity. Constantines' council at Nicaea simply threw together all of this & insisted that these few hundred men, out of about 1800 who were invited, agree to accept the MAJORITY ruling on the contents of the 'new' testament. My heart goes out to you being shackled to that one book. I wish you good luck in any departure from it.