Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[pianowelsh]

I am by no-means american but I would consider that i hold to the fundamentals of the christian faith, with an evangelical stance forfilling christs own great comission.  The way you guys lambast american christians almost causes me to respond very ungraciously - shame on you! If  i were to talk in such terms about a particular group of shia muslims in Birmingham id as like be arrested for inciteful behaviour. We are all free to express or opinions and held beliefs whether or not you agree with them its the same in the piano sections of the forum. Debate them yes but idle lambasting of people groups is distastefull. I was heartened by the last post which seemed almost actually to end up on topic!  perhaps this will help focus the debate:

[pianowelsh]

Plague \Plague\, n. [L. plaga a blow, stroke, plague; akin to Gr. ?, fr. ? to strike; cf. L. plangere to strike, beat. Cf. Plaint.]

1. That which smites, wounds, or troubles; a blow; a calamity; any afflictive evil or torment; a great trail or vexation. --Shak.

And men blasphemed God for the plague of hail. --Wyclif.

The different plague of each calamity. --Shak.

2. (Med.) An acute malignant contagious fever, that often prevails in Egypt, Syria, and Turkey, and has at times visited the large cities of Europe with frightful mortality; hence, any pestilence; as, the great London plague. ``A plague upon the people fell.'' --Tennyson.

Cattle plague. See Rinderpest.

Plague mark, Plague spot, a spot or mark of the plague; hence, a token of something incurable.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Does Christianity really smite or take a blow at the minds of the 'modern' generation, the current post-postmodern climate in which we live? Judging by the reactions to a christian world view expressed by members of the forum I dont think you could say that fundemental christianity is in anyway, the normal accepted thinking of certainly the western population. Therefore to call it an infiltrating plague is at best far fetched, at worst incitefull!! Im sure you'll all have your own views graphs charts and stats on this.

[prometheus]

Strange definition of plague. Maybe it is really one from 1913. In our modern world the word 'plague' has a different meaning.

[pianowelsh]

This is the dictionary used most commonly in the UK today. Perhaps you could define how you see the term and we might be able to get somewhere with this examination of the evidences.

[prometheus]

Most common definition would be disease, epidemic, pest, etc.

Religion is a mime. So I think calling it a disease is quite accurate. More accurate is to call it a virus.

Ironically your definition only seems to refer to the older meaning; a punishment from god.

[pianistimo]

if there is any plague to christianity, i think it is attributed to the portion of christian act called forgiveness.  if you talk to americans in combat hospitals - they treat insurgents with as much care as our own american soldiers.  like the red cross.  who speaks for people who are doing good in the world?  nobody.  only the bad.

sure there are bad decisions everywhere - but it's not only on the side of those who are religious.  i think bad decision start with bad foundation.  if you only out for yourself- who is going to benefit?  only yourself.  if you are from a foundation built upon Christ - you are taught to think outside of yourself.

i would even go so far as to say that as soon as people leave God out (as some sort of 1913 plague dealer) - they believe that their actions have NO consequences.  to me, this is faulty reasoning.  sure - you can do as you like.  but ultimately, the truth will come out in the end.  we are all responsible to God and for our actions.  if you kill - you might be killed.  if you wound someone - you'll be either hearing their screams all the rest of your life or somehow find God's grace.  the only way, imo to heal battlewounds and scars is to become a christian.  then, we find that our evil ways of war and hatred is wrong.  and that goes for both sides of a 'religious' conflict.  what if both sides suddenly put down their weapons - came to a peace talk with real ideas for settling things peacefully (which probably could have been done thousands of years ago if it weren't for our basic selfish natures) and conceeding on a few points.

unfortunately, i don't see peace happening within our lifetimes.  our society and culture is based upon the very things that the bible says are cursed.  IItim 3:1-5 'but realize this, that in the LAST days difficult times will come.  for men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, trecherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power....'

[pianistimo]

speaking of plagues - do you ever wonder if we are living the times right now that are fulfilling revelations?  do you realize in the last couple of years the extent of fire damage?  it says in the bible 1/3 of the earth will be burned.  between australias fires and the fires in california and the midwest - and parts of texas? that huge portions of land have been burned.  the past few years have been very bad.

also, the weather is considerably hotter.  i used to live near the high desert in california.  it can get pretty blasting - but there is a level of heat which becomes 'inhuman' and 'inhospitable.'  i did wonder (with global warming) how california would survive the intense heat of the next few years.  it really creates a tinderbox for fire.

there is said to be a plague of 'earthquakes' that will amalgomate to one 'great' earthquake (rev 6:12) 'and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the moon became like blood; and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. and the sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.'

people can tell me 'oh, we're just going to go on another 20 years as we always have...
  but there is something spiritually strange going on.  you can sort of 'feel it.'  the spirit of satan, imo, is reeking as much havoc before Jesus Christ returns as he can.  he knows his time is short.  he WANTS people ot kill each other and to be confused and hate God.  our blessings, protection, and life is from God.  if he takes this knowledge away from us - he is taking away our protection in times of peril - and also in good times.  the 'seal of God' on one's forehead simply means to me that we are thinking about God and his Words and therefore we are 'sealed' by faith.  just as noah was.  he believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

i believe that when Christ uttered his last words 'it is finished ' or 'to you Lord i commend my spirit'  - what was finished was only his earthly ministry.  christians are told to carry it on.  if it is a plague, i fail to see how.  'go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son, thru the gift of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all that i have commanded you; and lo, I am with you to the end of the age....'

i used the word 'thru' to convey what happened to Christ at baptism.  the holy spirit descended upon him like a dove.  a dove is a sign of peace.  a sign of God's blessing.  a sign of redemption (as noah had the dove return and assure him that the flood was over).  our sins are covered by the sacrifice of Christ and no other.  there is no one else to save us!

[maul]

Are you a being of the universe, or of the secluded box?

... an easy decision to make on your own, but as the small spec of matter on the concrete against the hydrogen atoms of society, tis a hard choice...

[pianistimo]

i'd say the 'secluded box' is where people are at who don't accept Christ.  God is ultimate and has the ultimate knowledge and wisdom.  a hydrogen atom is something He created - albeit for good and not for evil.  i think we use the creation wrongly.  someday the world will be a changed place according to the bible.  our weapons of warfare will be turned to peaceful implements.  then people will come to know God and trust Him.  they obviously cannot trust man.

[prometheus]

A short while someone explained to me that almost all religious people somehow misunderstand what an atheist is. They think an atheist is someone who rejects god, doesn't accept Christ.

The idea that there are people that just don't believe in either of them and believing or accepting isn't even a possibility goes far beyond their way of thinking.


Strange that Pianistimo keeps posting long pointless messages no one (but god, I guess) will ever read.

[berceuse]

Then you could just as easily say that a large number of self-proclaimed "atheists" don't know what atheism is.

[prometheus]

Why? How so?

Maybe you are right. I do think a lot of atheists understand why disbelief is justified by reason.

[berceuse]

Why? How so?

Maybe you are right. I do think a lot of atheists understand why disbelief is justified by reason.

Ah! I just wrote a lengthy response but I had to erase it because I don't think there is a concrete defenition of what atheism is. It has as many denomonations as Christianity does, each with their own beliefs. If you want to agree on a common defenition I will try to answer but I don't think I can if we can't agree on what an atheist is in the first place. I'll just say that I have known Christian atheists and agnostics so I don't want to make a long statement based on common misconseptions. I have known atheists with which I agree on almost everything with in terms of moral universalism, womens rights, etc. and then I have known atheists who are some of the most indifferent, immature people I have ever met. The latter being what I was refering to in my first post, those who use atheism as an excuse to behave any way the please. I don't think they know what atheism is and frankly I don't think they care they just feel like rebelling against "normal society" (whatever that is).
 

[prometheus]

Atheism isn't a set of beliefs. It is the lack of belief (in god or gods).

Atheists are non-believers. There are no moral consequences. So there is no reason for atheists to be similar. If they are it has nothing to do with their atheism.

So it is not strange that some agree with you on many things and others do not.

But you used the word 'christian atheists'. Did you forget an 's' and a comma?

Because a 'christian atheist' is not just an oxymoron. It is impossible. If you can't believe you can't accept Christ as your personal savior.

Unless you want to call those that follow the philosophy of Jesus; Christians.
I don't think that is fair. We don't know if Jesus actually existed. You need to belief. But if you accept the moral teachings attributed to Jesus; they aren't very revolutionary. They are much older than Jesus.

Most peple follow them, regardless of their faith. The hard thing is to apply them in difficult situations as well.

[berceuse]

But you used the word 'christian atheists'. Did you forget an 's' and a comma?

Because a 'christian atheist' is not just an oxymoron. It is impossible. If you can't believe you can't accept Christ as your personal savior.

A christian atheists is someone who loses confidence in God's existense but still chooses to beleive in it. It is more of an agnostic christian but that is what they choose to be called. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?

[maul]

Atheists are just as blind as Christians.

[prometheus]

A christian atheists is someone who loses confidence in God's existense but still chooses to beleive in it. It is more of an agnostic christian but that is what they choose to be called. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?

Atheists don't have faith by definition, they are non-believers. I think 'loses confidence in God's existence' should be translated into: 'realise there is no evidence to support god's existence'.

Since there is no evidence for god at all people who do what you describe just stop denying the nature of reality. Some Christians think God is hard fact. I don't know how they can have such an idea. I guess it is part of their faith. They don't know that there is evidence that makes god hard fact. They have faith in the idea that there is evidence that makes god hard fact.

If there is a god we can be sure that this god doesn't do any divine interventions. Otherwise we would have observed them by now.

You can't have faith if you think you need evidence. Having faith means to believe something without evidence. Something that cannot be challenged, something that does not need to be justified.

Sounds to me like a person that realised there is no evidence for god and thinks one needs to have it. But decides to have faith for now anway but isn't satisfied by it.

You don't need to have authority to tell someone he or she is wrong. You need to have an argument to back up your claim.

[berceuse]

You don't need to have authority to tell someone he or she is wrong. You need to have an argument to back up your claim.

I wasn't speaking from an authoritative or argumentative standpoint. I just think each individual has to find a truth that is true to them. Even if this truth is untrue. Does that make any sense? Probably not. How do we know what truth is? I don't think science or mathematics can provide the real answer. What are mathematical proofs but an axiom? This, in turn, becomes a sort of mathematical dogma. This is not to say I don't believe in evolution or whatnot (the Pope isn't even a creationist). I only have a problem with scientism and techno-utopianism.

"If anyone proved to me that Christ was outside the truth and it really was so that the truth was outside Christ, then I would prefer to remain with Christ, than with the truth." -Fyodor Dostoevsky

[prometheus]

I wasn't speaking from an authoritative or argumentative standpoint. I just think each individual has to find a truth that is true to them.

If we are talking about a god of intervention. That one is inside the field of science. And then there is only one truth, and that is the truth of reality.

If we are talking about definitions of words, same goes. You can't call yourself a 'christian atheist' and have people understand you at the same time. It's just bad use of words.

[qoute]
 Even if this truth is untrue. Does that make any sense? Probably not.

No, it doesn't.

How do we know what truth is? I don't think science or mathematics can provide the real answer.

They already have. If not we wouldn't be able to talk to each other. (math is only a tool of science)

What are mathematical proofs but an axiom? This, in turn, becomes a sort of mathematical dogma.

Is this the reason why you added 'math'? Math isn't about creation models of reality. Math isn't science. Math is a tool. It doesn't matter which axioms you use. And they don't have the property of 'truth'. Axioms don't say anything about anything or anyone. So how can they be true of false?

I only have a problem with scientism and techno-utopianism.

Science and technology are two different things. Science is about truth, with a small 't'. I don't believe technology is always a good thing. Technology is just a Pandora's box. It enhances human power, which can be very bad.

"If anyone proved to me that Christ was outside the truth and it really was so that the truth was outside Christ, then I would prefer to remain with Christ, than with the truth." -Fyodor Dostoevsky

I find it hard to believe people can really apply a statement like this in practice. I mean, what do you do when your cell phone needs to be recharged? Do you pray in front of it? Or do you put it in the recharger?

Dostoevsky has a neural disorder that caused his religious experiences. He had epilepsy.

[pianistimo]

dostoevsky has my great respect.  he was a literary giant at age 24.  he was sent to siberia for four years after a mock execution for supposed 'revolutionary' actions.  suppose that wasn't too fun - being out in the cold and thinking it is your last day on earth.  he had four long years in siberia to think about many things.  i think this man endured much sufferring and had much to say!  his mother died of tb when he was young and his father the same - when he was 2 or so.  how he ended up at university of moscow?  and reading so much.  he was brilliant.  he was a go getter.  and obviously not stupid.  you cannot say 'oh, he had epliepsy and that affected his religious stance.'  i don't think it affected anything but himself for brief periods of time - if he had it.  can you imagine going thru all the hardship and not thinking about religion and God.  no matter his choices - he had a seeming respect for life and for others and wished to convey it through the means that others had used against him for evil.  i think dostoevsky believed that there was such a thing as good and evil. 

[timothy42b]

if there is any plague to christianity, i think it is attributed to the portion of christian act called forgiveness. 

Go to wikepedia and look up non sequitor? 

Nah.

Read the whole topic: Plague of the MIND.

Try it from this angle.  In the absence of a Deity, would religion be a good thing? 

On the one hand, it has linked people and given them a sense of community that has *SOMETIMES* been used to do enormous good - charity, etc. 

On the other hand, it REQUIRES the suspension of rational thought.  This suspension could be limited only to belief in the supernatural, but it frequently becomes more general and adds superstition and ignorance to the rest of your worldview.  This plague, that interferes with the ability of many to do any critical thinking at all, is what we mean by plague of the mind.  It is NOT unique to Christianity;  all religions suffer from it to greater or lesser degrees.  American Fundamentalist Christianity (and adherents like our beloved pianistimo) seem to be poster children for this aspect of religion, but there are many more. 

[berceuse]

I find it hard to believe people can really apply a statement like this in practice. I mean, what do you do when your cell phone needs to be recharged? Do you pray in front of it? Or do you put it in the recharger?

Dostoevsky has a neural disorder that caused his religious experiences. He had epilepsy.

What does a cell phone have to do with the teachings of Christ? Dostoevsky's religious experience was that he developed compassion for man. He saw God in the faces of the oppressed. This has absolutley nothing to do with epilepsy. During seizures some people feel and tranquility, this in no way is related to compassion. Neuroscientists admit that neuroscience cannot disprove or prove the existence of God. Big suprise.

[prometheus]

Neuroscientists admit that neuroscience cannot disprove or prove the existence of God. Big suprise.

Of course you can't disprove god. By definition you need to prove something.

What is proven is that religious experiences can be triggered by both chemicals and electrical shocks. So religious experiences exist regardless of god.


As for the technology vs god. If you reject reality and reason then you reject science. Then if you accept god then why display behavior that shows you reject god and accept science? Ei using a cell phone or a computer. By their logic god is way more dependable than science. So why do they not trust in god?

[berceuse]

Yes but neuroscience only deals with with religious experience in relation to meditiation and the parts of the brain effected. It is unrelated to love, compassion, or any other sort of emotion. Dostoevsky's conversion was because of love, not some form of meditation. He didn't just wake up one day and start believing in God, it was part of his growth as a person throughout his life. That is not to say he didn't struggle with it.

[pianistimo]

very well put.  and, also to timothy42b, about the suspension of rational thought - isn't this also done in higher mathematics when you get into theories and plausability, etc.  you go into what could be.  what could be possible.  is the impossible possible?

there's no doubt man is creative beyond what we think 'rational' into plausible.  i was just reading about three types of substitute blood plasma? that could be used in traumatic injury to keep oxygen flowing through the body with some kind of cell that travels through veins that are damaged smoothly and efficiently.  i don't know if i said this correctly -but what the gist of the article was saying is that the scientist who came up with this (riess?) was considered one of the brightest of the scientists on the team for not trying to compete with 'blood' itself - but for certain attributes that are lifesaving. 

my point is that say - you save a person from death three times.  they are still going to die.  science may say it will find a 'cure' to the 'disease' of death - but how can they if sin is the cause.  if there is death/ evil - there is sin.  if there is life - there is goodness.  it's a yin/yang thing that is found everywhere in this physical world. cold/hot, low/high, death/life, beginning/end - but we haven't found eternity.  we've found black holes - which could prove another 'dimension.'  if there are other dimensions - how do we get there?  we obviously can't travel at the speed of light in the body we are in.  the bible says at the ressurrection we will be given a new body (and a new name!). 'the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised - incorruptible...'

[prometheus]

Neuroscience deals with everything done by the neurons of our brain. That includes love, compassion and other emotions.

I don't know why you keep talking about meditation. What makes it so special in regard to neuroscience.

And the 'spiritual/religious experiences', you don't trigger them with meditation. There is a whole field of 'spritual neurology' developing. There are chemical causes for hallicunations and physical causes. Chemical imbalance, brain damage, not wired up correctly, it can all cause spiritual experiences.

Some of these people are not religious at all but wouldn't want to miss these experience for any amount of gold.

Epilepsy isn't a form of meditation, if you mean that. It is a neurological condition in where your recepters get bombarted with impulses, causing hallucinations.

My dreams touch me emotional, it doesn't matter if they are real or not. Same with people's religious experiences.

[pianistimo]

you are omitting rational religious experiences such as direct answer to prayer, inspiration, help when you need it, divine intervention.  noone can satisfactorily explain these to me - without the element of the divine.  you say it isn't.  i say it is.  it is my experience.  you cannot tell me it isn't rational because you aren't in my brain. 

no neuroscientist can do anything but plot hot areas (active areas) that neurons are firing faster in.  that only tells them the general area and what usually occurs in that area.  what if there is a divine element to our brains that cause us to be 'intuitive, creative, astute (knowing), comprehending complex logic...'  these things on the outside appear to be 'in the brain'  - but what if they are God-given spiritual components of the brain that make us different than the animals.  God never said He breathed His spirit into the animals.  only man.  gen. 2:7 'then the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.'  before this - he simply spoke the animals into existence.  'Let there be...' 

now, no scientist is really going to argue when you place a human brain and a sheep brain side by side - that one is more developed.  i think the sheep brain is similar but smaller.  what makes us different?  why can't the sheep think better?  it's God's joke.  scientists are doing all sorts of bizarre experiments with stem cells (combining human with animal) and one of the wierdest i've read is a supposed sheep with a human brain.  www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=26111

i don't think this is what God had in mind.  for animals to be 'sons of God.'  he created us under the angels, but above the animals.  for science, it is nothing to mess with God's creation to create new livers and things - but they still cannot prolong human life that much longer with a new liver.  and, the human body will reject the cells of an animal and only accept the human part.  what if it was much simpler.  what if they became baptized with the SPIRIT of God which is lifegiving and everlasting?  that's a better solution, imo.  also, there is a warning in the OT not to mix or reproduce with animals.  genetically - i believe we are meant to be separate.  there is nothing in creation that mimics evolution.  scientists have created evolution and continue to mess with and combine genetics at the macro level to somehow 'prove' something more than what is.  created as it was created to be.  man OR animal. 

[pianistimo]

regarding the 'god spot/meditation' - here's another take on it.  www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060829_god_spot.html

i believe this sounds true - that the brains were firing in several places (10) and not one.  our God is an awesome God.  He tells us in many places to do things that require much rational thought.  for one -  to 'show ourselves a workman...rightly dividing the Word of God.'  that takes thinking and comparing verses to see what they really mean in context.  God expects man to work six days a week.  He expects us to remember what He tells us.  and, he expects parents to teach their children and children to listen to their parents.  there are many commands in the bible - that essentially come down to 'wisdom.'  He never gave the bible to literal 'sheep' - although we are referred to as part of Christ's flock or fold.  Christ being the shepherd.  the thing about sheep is that they will follow their leader.  when you think you become wiser than the one that is leading you -you become headstrong.  this can be a danger, too.  so , on the one hand you have completely rational choices and on the other - faith - to believe that if God made all things (including knowledge) then we should trust him when it comes to things we do not understand.  specifically what comes after death.  only He knows, since He is the first-born 'Son' of God.  we are told that we are also 'sons of God'  and 'sons of light.'  if this is so - then why would we want to be compared to animals?  and, what purpose would Christ have died?  the animals were sacrificed in our stead in the old testament.  but, never humans.  Christ was willing for us to kill him - and be our sacrifice for sin - so that we can live (in knowledge) by the power of His Holy Spirit.  this transcends any part of the brain that functions to help our comprehension - past comprehension to utilizing the knowledge.  that is wisdom.

i don't think any scientist could fully explain a mother's intuition either.  there have been too many cases where mother's had a 'sense' or a 'feeling' that something needed checking on - or a child needed them.  i had this happen to me too many times to think 'oh, it's nothing.'  there is something to it.  some connection for mothers to help protect their children beyond the physical realm.  you might laugh...but for me this has been proven real.  too many instances in my personal life.

this is not to mention the specific characteristics of 'personality' (not even getting into gender specific traits).  how does one fully define personality by only scientific means.  there have been some extraordinary geniuses down thru history.  can we explain their 'inspiration' as anything but a gift from God?  i don't think so.  bach,mozart, handel, haydn, mendelssohn (and probably chopin and liszt and many others) recognized the great power of their maker and felt a responsiblity to utilize the talent.  there's no doubt they all had training of some sort - but the inspiration to put it all together - that's something else.  it's God-given.  that's why Christ gave the parable of the talents.  He calls them talents (gifts) - as they are given to us individually.  we each have different ones - or in our cases, similar different ones?

[pianowelsh]

I understand that an athiest dosent believe God or Jesus exists. But frankly thats the weird part. Because They clearly do. Its like I I lived next to a blind man and I parked a blue car outside his house and I told him becarefull when you go out of your driveway theres a blue car there. he would say 'Car?' I dont believe 'Car' and What is this blue? and walks out of his house right into the blue car and ends up in hospital. Because you can see or percieve God dosent mean He dosent exist it means you can see Him, the problem without being offensive is not God's - He dosent change.  I have every confidence God exists, I know him on a spiritual level and I can talk to God and know he hears and answers me.  i can see the work of God in his creation and I can see the hand of god in the way he orders my life. There is no doubt that he is there.  Christians are not alone in acknowledging God's existence, but are the only ones to have a personal relationship with God.Not my opinion, Ive spoken with many muslims, buddists, sihks, etc etc non claim to have relationship with God or even believe that it can be obtained on earth, but they pray and have no doubt as to the existence of or the power of God.  In the absence of a deity religion would be totally superfluous and unnecessary.  Everyone may as well do what is right in their own eyes and cheat oneanother, there is noone to be accountable to, no standard of what is right and what isnt. etc  ( I know you are trying to allude to the idea that religion is purely crowd control - I of course strongly disagree).

[prometheus]

I don't understand your reasoning at all.

Atheists believe in god because they are blind eventhough they say they don't believe?


I don't even understand what god is because no religious person can explain it.

[pianowelsh]

Well hello - nice to see you too prometheus. Did you just get out of bed? read my first sentence the part where I say atheist doesnt believe in God and then actually read what Ive typed it is quite clear. You in fact are perfectly the blind man i described - I can tell you there is a blue car infront of your house - I could even tell you its a honda, but you dont have a clue because you can see it. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned by faith, not facts.

[rimv2]

Neuroscience deals with everything done by the neurons of our brain. That includes love, compassion and other emotions.

I don't know why you keep talking about meditation. What makes it so special in regard to neuroscience.

And the 'spiritual/religious experiences', you don't trigger them with meditation. There is a whole field of 'spritual neurology' developing. There are chemical causes for hallicunations and physical causes. Chemical imbalance, brain damage, not wired up correctly, it can all cause spiritual experiences.

Some of these people are not religious at all but wouldn't want to miss these experience for any amount of gold.

Epilepsy isn't a form of meditation, if you mean that. It is a neurological condition in where your recepters get bombarted with impulses, causing hallucinations.

My dreams touch me emotional, it doesn't matter if they are real or not. Same with people's religious experiences.

Im beginning to question whether you are really as logic centered as you appear to be or whether this is all some weirdly large game of devils advocate

Seriously dude. Just because something aheres to logica doesnt mean that it isnt right.

If you can believe that you came from some mass that expanded, in what was called the BIG BANG, and that the world was formed from the coagulation and gravitation of large matter surrounding a huge ball of matter that radiates excessive heat, and that life was the result of sponateous changes in the atomosphere that lead to chemical reactions, which spawned simple organisms that EVOLVED over time, and that people are just monkeys with large brains and special thumbs, then darnit

Why cant others belive that they were created in the image of a monkey-like creature who created all that exist in six billion days and punished man for eating a tree that it knew they would eat because it has plan for every being, and the world is a pancake and the only real way to show your faith is through mass suicide, even though there is a level in hell reserved for it, and in saying that

why can't little green men be humans from the future who were obsessed with staying young, made alterations to their genes to live in the harsh climate of an ever decaying world, and occassionally risk interdimensional detainment by traveling reverse horizonally through the forth dimension with the hopes of vicariously enjoy post pubic activities, and human matting rituals

ya feel meh

I don't understand your reasoning at all.

Atheists believe in god because they are blind eventhough they say they don't believe?


I don't even understand what god is because no religious person can explain it.

We see what we want to see

[prometheus]

Just because you follow logic does mean you should conclude that god probably doesn't exist.

The only way you can believe in God is when you reject reason. This means it is a delusion.

I don't believe in a big bang and in evolution. That's just what is observed.

[prometheus]

Pianowelsh, no I can't understand it at all.

And regardless of if I am stupid or not, you failed to explain something.

[pianistimo]

faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.  that's how Christians see it.  but, 'seeing it' is the difficult thing.  there are places in the bible that mention that people can be 'blind' in regards to seeing God.  the apostle Paul went around tormenting christians and killing them for sport.  in fact, he helped to stone Stephen.  when Stephen died of stoning, his last words were 'forgive them...'  this stuck in Paul's mind - and yet still he was not 'converted.'  he had to see something physical, too.  God showed him a bush that was burning - and yet, did not burn up.  a sort of science experiment gone awry.  how could this be?  God was showing Paul that He had control over the entire physical universe and could make anything happen.  Christ did the same when He walked on the earth (performing many miracles).  now, if you haven't seen any miracles and/or you prayed for some and they didn't happen the way you wanted - then yes - sometimes people become unphased by the idea of God. 

especially when someone in their close family is ill or sick or dying.  prometheus, i remember a while back that you said your father had cancer (i hope i am remembering correctly).  how is he doing?  i hope he is getting treatment and lives longer than the prognosis of a year - because if i remember right - you told us about him more than a year ago. 

the hard fact that we first have to come to grips with is that God is supreme.  whatever His decisions - we abide by His and not Him by ours.  if you do not believe in God - it is still the same.  His decisions over life and death are still in His hands.  for many years it was hard for me (when younger) to know that my father died so young (21 years).  i was about 2.  my mom was 20.  she had a very hard time after he died and so it was a sort of 'reason' if i let it to say 'God is unfair.'  but, in reality - He has protected, defended , and blessed me despite the bad circumstances in my life.  I can see it very plainly now.  God defends the widows and orphans much more than we know and He is concerned for the weak and fatherless and does intervene in their lives.  why does He cause them to be fatherless so soon.  I don't know.  perhaps so that we can be stronger in character.  also, sickness and disease is a part of this physical life.  none of us knows when we will die.  some die at birth.  why?  because we are not born into a perfect world yet, is my understanding.

now, i'm not trying to preach at you - because i respect your right to be an athiest.  but, like pianowelsh - i hope for your salvation because i see more hope in it that for returning to 'nothingness.'  some are completely content with the idea of 'nothingness.'  but, if you don't know what's ahead - how do you know that you might be missing out on something really amazing.  to be 'above the angels' - to travel at the speed of light- to be a son/daughter of God - to see God. 

 job 32:8 says 'there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.'  so, from pianowelsh's and my perspective - we feel that what our minds tell us naturally isn't always so.  the mind of God - or the Spirit of God is like a powerful two-edged sword and helps us determine and decide what is really true vs. what looks true. 

[maul]

I don't even notice Pianistimo's posts anymore. It's quite soothing.

[pianistimo]

ha ha.  made you look. 

[pianowolfi]

I don't understand your reasoning at all.

Atheists believe in god because they are blind eventhough they say they don't believe?


I don't even understand what god is because no religious person can explain it.

What do you think about the following definition by the philosopher Spinoza:

" By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite-that is, a
substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each
expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
    Explanation-I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its
kind : for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite
attributes may be denied ; but that which is absolutely infinite,
contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves
no negation."
?

[prometheus]

If you do a search on Spinoza using my username you will find the answer.

I do not see it as the same thing as the gods theists think about. It would be no use praying to the Spinozian god.

Spinoza could be called an anti-theist. His god did not have a personality. His god was nature. In the same sense Einstein, an atheist, talked about god. God is the mystery of the universe. God is nature, god is reality. Everyhing that exists is god, etc. That's the Spinozian god.

Though in his time he was viewed as an atheist, maybe it is more accurate to describe him as a pantheist. Though all pantheists are by definition atheists when it comes to the god of Abraham. To them their god is something totally different.

[pianistimo]

was einstein a true athiest in the sense that he did not entertain the possibility of 'intelligent design.'  i think he was quoted as saying, 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'  1941

[prometheus]

Being sure of Einstein's personal feelings isn't that easy. But you can read this:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religion_and_Science_.281930.29


I guess these two quotes are of relevance because here Einstein drops the names of Buddha and Spinoza and then of Darwin and Galileo:

    * A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.

    * A conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.


Note that Einstein died in 1955 while Watson and Crick only published their article about DNA in Nature in 1953. So Einstein's perception of Darwinistic Evolution was a totally different one that the one we have today. Also, Einstein was just one man, he was wrong several times. And he also was not a biologist. So his opinion on the theory of evolution isn't that relevant anyway.

[timothy42b]

was einstein a true athiest in the sense that he did not entertain the possibility of 'intelligent design.'  i think he was quoted as saying, 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'  1941

As near as we can tell from his writings, Einstein believed that a personal God (one with a personality, who interferes in human affairs, and who has a personal plan for each of the world's 5 billion inhabitants) was so silly a concept it didn't even need rebuttal.  However, particularly in his older years, he did seem to consider the possibility of "something out there," some kind of spiritual force or inherent order to reality. 

[timothy42b]

  God showed him a bush that was burning - and yet, did not burn up.  a sort of science experiment gone awry. 

Paul saw a burning bush?  I missed that part.

Unless this is midrash. 

[pianistimo]

guess i got my bible study mixed up.  acts 7:30 is stephen's retelling of the burning thorn bush that moses saw (vs 31) and when moses saw it, be began to marvel at the sight; and as he approached to look more closely, there came the voice of the Lord...'  but paul - was 'approaching damascus about noontime (acts22:6), a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me and i fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'saul, saul, why are you persecuting me?'  he was blinded for a time - and after he received his sight - was baptized and began his ministry. 

it is interesting that the city of ephesus worshipped artemis and did not like paul because he 'persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all.'  also, he contended with some of the epicurean and stoic philosophers and some said 'what would this idle babbler wish to say....'  paul stood up in the areopagus and said 'men of athens, i observe that you are very religious in all respects.  for while i was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, i also found an altar with this inscription, 'to the unknown God.' what therefore you worship in ignorance, this i proclaim to you. the God who made the world and all the things in it, since he is Lord of heaven and earth...for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'for we also are His offspring.'  being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man....'

it is true that for many years einstein did not believe in a personal God - but worshipping nature is also not what the prophets and disciples preached.  acts 14:15 -  'a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them.  (and other places 'in Him, we live and move and have our being....')  or, magic as acts 19:19 'and many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all...so the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.  but, people became angry - because just as in our day - it was a business.  people made money from fortune telling and those who made 'silver shrines' of artemis were put out of business.  acts 19:24 'for a certain man, demetrius, a silversmith, was bringing no little business to the craftsmen - and said 'you know that our prosperity depends upon this business.'

[pianowelsh]

I have to say I know plenty of academics who would say that it is far more rational when one looks at creation and all its diversity and complexity - which after thousands of years we are still no closer to really getting a handle on, to believe that there is a God than not. When we look at how futile we are as a race. I mean we think we are clever going to the moon! We have no concept of how a universe could come into being really let alone be sustained throughout the ages. We havent even fathomed the depths of our own planet.. I mean really if we look to science for all the answers we will be sadly dissapointed, because science never has all the answers. the very definition of a miracle is something that bends or defies the laws of science. Jesus in his life on earth did enough to completely throw out the idea that science can in anyway come to an understanding of the divine.  the best minds and teachers of the law completely missed who Jesus was, it was to the simple and the humble in spirit that such things were revealled. I honestly never realised that Einstein didnt believe in a personal God...i didnt realise he was so spiritually naive.  I shall have to rethink my estimation of his principles.  You speak to someone who lived through a period of revival as many have in the UK and you tell them there is no such thing as a personal God - they will laugh in your face. People who deny a personal God do so because they have no experience of him Yet he is not far from anyone of us. If your sceptical but earnestly want to know for definate because you know the implications of it could change the way you live I challenge you to call out and ask God to show himself to you because he has promised that if you seek you shall find....If you really do seek him He wont withold himself - He is gracious and compassionate to all.

[maul]

God does not want you to worship. The just wants you to achieve all that is possible to the furthest extent of the infinite.

[ahinton]

"Pianowelsh": I know - as indeed we all do here - that you are a practising Christian, but you are also a practising musician. Given the respect which true Muslims are expected to have for the Christian faith and those who practise it, what is your view about the official veto, on religious grounds, on the practice of Western music in Iran which has now been imposed twice since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and how - if at all - do you reconcile it with the general acceptability of the practice of such music in countries not governed under the tenets of Sharia law? Just curious. And before you answer, do have a quick look at the official alleged "rationale" and motivation behind this veto...

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

I honestly never realised that Einstein didnt believe in a personal God...i didnt realise he was so spiritually naive.  I shall have to rethink my estimation of his principles. 

You must be joking here.  You are going to Judge his work not in terms of the evidence of the world around, but because of his religious because of his religious believes?  What makes you think you have the right? 

I sorry to say this, but his views of religion given his understanding of the world is probably much more coherrent than what you could ever come up with, and probably much more profound and advanced than what you could comprehend. 

You speak to someone who lived through a period of revival as many have in the UK and you tell them there is no such thing as a personal God - they will laugh in your face. People who deny a personal God do so because they have no experience of him Yet he is not far from anyone of us.

Most people, if I last counted correctly, have never had any personal experience with god.  They believe because they have been indoctrinated. Invariably, those who have had experiences with god, have been indoctrianted with whatever religion they do abscribe to; and thus jump at any chance to make sense of the world around then using god as the primary argument.

If your sceptical but earnestly want to know for definate because you know the implications of it could change the way you live I challenge you to call out and ask God to show himself to you because he has promised that if you seek you shall find....If you really do seek him He wont withold himself - He is gracious and compassionate to all.

I have tried many times in ernest tried when i was younger.  No bloke in a loin cloth stuck to a cross ever miraculously appeared in front of me, at home, in a church, or out on the streets. 

In a way, I wish he did. It would make life a lot simplier.  For one thing I could deny anything that is logical, moral or true in the name of god.  So long as I believe in good o' JC, I would not burn in hell.  I could be like you.

[thalbergmad]

You must be joking here.  You are going to Judge his work not in terms of the evidence of the world around, but because of his religious because of his religious believes?  What makes you think you have the right? 

I sorry to say this, but his views of religion given his understanding of the world is probably much more coherrent than what you could ever come up with, and probably much more profound and advanced than what you could comprehend. 

Most people, if I last counted correctly, have never had any personal experience with god.  They believe because they have been indoctrinated. Invariably, those who have had experiences with god, have been indoctrianted with whatever religion they do abscribe to; and thus jump at any chance to make sense of the world around then using god as the primary argument.

I have tried many times in ernest tried when i was younger.  No bloke in a loin cloth stuck to a cross ever miraculously appeared in front of me, at home, in a church, or out on the streets. 

In a way, I wish he did. It would make life a lot simplier.  For one thing I could deny anything that is logical, moral or true in the name of god.  So long as I believe in good o' JC, I would not burn in hell.  I could be like you.

Post of the year, surely.

Love it.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

I have tried many times in ernest tried when i was younger.  No bloke in a loin cloth stuck to a cross ever miraculously appeared in front of me, at home, in a church, or out on the streets.

It will not happen that way. If you expect something like this you probably are searching at the wrong direction.