God does not exist

Do you feel the same way about "soft" atheism, or must an atheist say "There is no God"? Pragmatism are recognized currents in Christian theology, albeit minority ones. To me, Christianity is a label that I pin on myself because I think the essential teachings and example of Jesus provide me and others with a suitable worldview based on the agape principle. I'm willing to bet my life on that principle. But at the same time, I am not willing to check reason at the door. Reason is the attribute that distinguishes humans from other animals, and I consider it to be our most valuable gift from God. Now what are the "two states" between which I'm "waffling".

You're welcome. Of course some people interpret the Bible "as they see fit". In my case, I prefer to say "as I think justifiable on the basis of careful study, reason, and judgement". Origen, probably the greatest Christian theologian of the third century, argued that the Bible, especially Genesis, should not be interpreted literally. He advocated doing so first, so that the reader would become aware of the absurdity of that, as a step toward deeper meaning. Saint Augustine said that when he read it literally, he was slain spiritually. According to the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, Jesus said and did less that a fifth of the things attributed to Him--but the fifth is enough for me and other Progressive Christians to go on.

 

This is an ignorant subject. Reality and existence is in of itself entirely indefinite and infinite. By these means all and everything is encompassed within it, without it and by it. God is but a compressed analogy of that; a universal way for humans to communicate and convey that understanding. The very fact that this concept has been made into a conflict such as this is to laugh in the face and spit on the very notion of empirical observation.

 

let spirit = intelligence

can intelligence be objectively observed ? all we have to do
is observe the intelligence of otherness in nature ; and respect
for it is the necessity of human objectivity . we all have to .

for god to exist in nature an intelligence can be observed . for
god to exist as meaningful the intelligence shall be experienced as
respectful to the observer .

as when the wild raven flies to you , loves you - that , and like
that , and t .

a witness is also good for objective understanding - could be a
human friend , could be the raven comes by twice , could
be the whirlwind spins about the circle of drums twice in one
direction and then twice the other .

 

Proclaiming a lack of god. It seems so arrogant. Your reasoning can be as solid as bedrock but you can never be certain until the end. I think we all know this.

 

Not at all. Agnosticism, the "not knowing" is a cowards way out of making a choice. There is either a god or there is not. And there is not.

 

Well if they decide to admit humility, isn't that a decision? Wouldn't it be more cowardice to be afraid to stake a non-claim and just make a blind decision? Aren't you taking as much a leap of faith to claim the side opposite to faith?

Claiming factual knowledge on either side of a divine debate is either holding yourself higher than the 'being' in question or lower. You can either kneel or stand. Positive or Negative. Why not just lay back, grab a calculator, and let the numbers come to you?

Besides, black and white beliefs like that are what have thrown man into many troubling predicaments throughout its existence. Its boring anyway. The gray area is much more interesting than it sounds, in my opinion.

 

No, because there is absolutely no evidence of God's existence.

By the way, your agnosticism is not fooling me. [/QUOTE]

 

Evidence of a divine being would be impossible to make out for sure, I would think. You have only your own criteria for what 'evidence' qualifies as. What does a divine being have to prove to you and me anyways? If there is a god I don't feel like he would owe me anything, including proof of his own existence.

That being the case, I believe that we have no real business claiming to either side. If you choose to thank someone that might or might not be there for your fortunes, fine by me. Or maybe you want to blame them for your mis-fortunes? Again I could care less. I blame myself for my misfortunes. I blame myself for my fortunes. As I'm the only one that was involved for sure. I have a thought as to whether or not I and only I had something to do with it, and either enjoy it or don't.

Your treating it like its trivial, when it cant be. As there is no right or wrong answer to the question that's being asked.

 

Because there is no divine being upon which one could logically, reasonably, or objectively discern to exist.

 

Only because divinity defies logic, reason and argument. Its a high horse, I'm not arguing against that. I'm not saddling up with it either though. You treat me as if I've claimed a side, we both know this wasn't the case to start with.

 

That is certainly siding with it. A true agnostic has no explanation because the agnostic stands on the fence between arguments, reason, and logic concerning the existence of a divine being. The cowardly agnostic claims no knowledge either way because it supposedly cannot be known either way. Except that it can be known. A thing is known to not exist until proof of its existence is provided. Agnostics must also stand on the fence when it comes to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, heck even the tooth fairy. Or am I wrong? I highly doubt it.

 

"Soft" atheists do not believe in God. That's the point. They don't go farther and say "There is no God", as Malestrom does, which would then assume the burden of proving that, which he denies. What a person believes or doesn't believe is much harder to challenge than what a person declares to be fact or even probability. I've never heard the term "soft theist" used (it sounds awful), but if there is one, I'd probably qualify. I'd never say: "There is a God; only that I believe in one."

I don't think you're attacking my views, only challenging them, which is a good thing.

How are the teachings of Jesus and God connected? I'm not quite sure, but I'll tell you how they're connected in my mind. As I mentioned, I believe that intelligent agency is a reasonable explanation for the integrated complexity of the universe. Subjectively, I experience God as the felt presence of a Higher Power in whom "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). I also believe that thinkers like the Buddha and Confucius had insights into the human condition that, if followed, give meaning to our existence and help us to harmonize our wants and needs with others. In fact, the religious experience that made me a Christian drew heavily on Buddhist concepts of attachment and illusion, as well as the Hindu concept of Atman and the Namaste phenomenon, in finding new meaning in Genesis. I believe that temptations of negative ego consciousness and the illusions of maya are fundamental to the human condition, but the great teachers have given us a way out. Islam teaches that God sent 124,000 prophets to humanity (a symbolic number suggesting infinity), and they each contributed to our spiritual knowledge.

They were all enlightened, but to me Jesus stands out from the others in His teachings of active, non-judgmental, unconditional love for everyone, especially society's rejects. In this, Jesus manifested "Christ consciousness": oneness with the fundamental spiritual principles that underly human existence and connect us to a Higher Power: i.e., He was God incarnate. Did the Buddha also have this? I don't know, but I'd say it's possible. In an earlier time, I'd probably be burned at the stake for that.

 

The portions in bold of the following definitions meet your criterion.


di·vine

di·vine [di vn]
adj
1. having godlike nature: being God or a god or goddess
2. relating to God, gods, or goddesses: connected with, coming from, or caused by God or a god or goddess
3. connected with worship: relating to the worship or service of God or a god or goddess
4. lovely: pleasing, attractive, or well performed (informal)


v (past and past participle di·vined, present participle di·vin·ing, 3rd person present singular di·vines)
1. vt realize something: to come to understand or realize something
2. vt discover something as if supernaturally: to learn or discover something by intuition, inspiration, or other apparently supernatural means
3. vt predict something as if supernaturally: to predict something by apparently supernatural means
4. vti search with divining rod: to search for underground water, metal, or minerals using something such as a divining rod


n (plural di·vines)
1. theologian: a member of the clergy, especially one who is knowledgeable about theology
2. Di·vineGod: God, or an underlying creative and sustaining force in the universe

 

A potted plant can be divine under the right circumstances, but it does not mean the potted plant is a God.

 

Don't say that to the people who grow MJ in pots..........

 

Fuck it

 

Lol

 

thats funny, I seen one of his eye balls over new jersey a day ago..

 

people were perfect until the idea of religion formed