Wow, that is amazing, I have felt caught out in the cold too. Don't worry about the math, it hates me.

There may be a few of us out there, but it's a hard road at times.
People like definitions and would rather be told how to believe.
Besides, it's not easy to describe, words just don't do it.

Your idea of love as the primary is great, we just don't need anything else.

Before you write off math, check out a few of my crazy threads! I like the beautiful math. But enough of that...

I have tried on many many belief systems. I think it was logic strictly applied and math even that made something click. Wittgenstein's TLP is a bomb on superstition. Math & Hegel lead me to the absolute concept, which is empty. All concept is temporary and vulnerable, in my opinion.

Love is such a radically simple solution to the "problem" of religion. It's a punch in the face. We indeed simply do not need anything else, because enough Love allows us to find ourselves in those already dead and those not yet living. Hence fearlessness, or relative fearlessness. And also a lack of envy, because Love itself is Paradise. :detective:

I wandered around a lot too. I seem to have a natural aversion to things that don't add up, I can see why you like math.

I had a thought about that relationship with the dead and the future awhile back but I can't find it now, there is something to that though.

I think it's a bit like how you can see better in the dark by not looking directly at things, when i try too hard to grasp it, it starts to require defining and I lose it again.

Yes, it is similar, but I think we should stop short of defining God.
God remains outside of our human understanding and cannot be defined.
The creation in which we live is of God, and part of God, but is not all of God.

How about this:

It was government that acted on Manifest Destiny and drove countless Native Americans from their rightful homes. It was government that massacred millions of Jews for no better reason then their heritage. It was government that sent hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers to fight a war in Vietnam which many people still believe was unwinnable. It STILL is government that dictates that unborn children can be terminated before they have a chance at life. "The good that comes from [government] will never outweigh the destruction that it causes." Therefore, all government should be abolished forever.

I won't dispute the fact that evil exists in the world, and its even worse when its organized. However, this thread is about religion.

On that note. Let the religious worship ther imaginary beings. But when their sickness gets to a point where they feel that I, and others must die because we dont share in the same delusion. Then we have a problem.

Also, I can't say i know of any governments where raping children is a passtime activity, but if there are. Then that is also a problem.

Its only my opinion that the world would be a better place if it excluded religion and relied solely on science and the like.

I was brought up catholic and brainwashed with that Heaven and Hell
foolishness. Even believed it for a while. Until I became rational(sort of).

Well this is a good question but I think it might have something to do with scope. The universe is incredibly large it would seem strange to me if you were god to create such a large place and only have these incredibly tiny humans as your point for making it? It would be like constructing a sports stadium to hold your six inch diameter fish tank with microscopic bacteria. It just doesn't add up unless you actually planned to have many different planets with many different forms of life all arising at different times. If you designed a set of rules then you could let the laws of the universe do the work for you. Then you wouldn't have to babysit all the details to make sure it turned out right. It's the most efficient method for large scale production. Make the rules do all the work so you don't have to.

But you would then have to accept that god planed for many hundreds of billions of other life forms in the universe on other planets. However very few theists would accept that. It would mean jesus is not special in any way and that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe.

What about the element problem? We know that within stars heavier elements are formed through the process of fusion. We know this because the light given off by the star reveals their elements. We also know this because during the after effects of supernovas we can see rings of elements that have been shed from the exploding star which give off different spectrum bands identical to the elements we know.

So if god fashioned everything with these elements, why create stars that also form these elements. That seems like a little absurd back end details. I find it hard to believe that he would make the earth first, and then all the stars. When the earth is made up of many heavy elements. Why create all these heavy elements and then supply us with stars that will produce more heavy elements? Isn't that a little backwards?

Actually no I can't because I wasn't asked if this is what I wanted, it was just sprung on me. If I had never been created I would have never known these things at all. But to then turn around and place conditions on these things, then they really never were gifts or shared things but instead they are obligations without contract. It sounds more like entrapment than anything nice. More like a person trying to contrive some special offer by handing you a bunch of free things, vacations, new clothes, a new car, paid dinners to turn around and say well, now all you have to do is ... If that is the case I would rather of had nothing, because it isn't a gift if there is an attachment or condition.

[...]

"Oh thanks god for giving me life and all these wonderful things. Now I will obey any command you give me no matter what it is or how difficult it might be to keep."

Isn't that what you would expect from "imperfection"? But I find it strange that if a great all powerful god made something, that it would have been so imperfect. Why if you are perfect would you create something less than perfect? Unless your whole point is to purposely watch these beings suffer.

Right, however there is a problem. Given enough time all things will eventually happen regardless of the consequences. Why? Boredom. No matter what the rules state, and no matter what the punishment is, if you are living in some place for eternity, eventually you will do that one thing that you were not suppose to do. It is all just a matter of time. It might take a billion years, but eventually you will do it. I guarantee that.

Well it would have to. On some level you would have to not have certain emotions and certain thoughts. I simply can not see how certain things would transpire. Many of the things you enjoy in this life simply could not exist in a heaven. I find it hard to believe that there would be this hardcore punk band show in heaven just waiting for you when you get there. Chalked full of beer bottles and cigarettes. Just would not happen so if I were to end up in heaven it would become a hell to me, because all the things I enjoy in this life which most people find repulsive just would not happen. How could they? Unless it was all just an illusion, not real just a make believe scenario. If it were just fake to place me into some blissful enjoyment, I wouldn't want it, because it was fake. That is only one problem with heaven. What about your feelings for the people who didn't get to go there? Would you really be able to enjoy yourself if some of the people you loved in this life ended up not going? How could you "live" with yourself? Heaven would turn into a hell, that is unless god would just fabricate that person. But then again that would be a lie, since it wouldn't really be them, it would just be an illusion of them to make you feel happy they were there. I wouldn't want that either. Sure I might not know the truth but that would make god a liar.

The thoughts themselves are immaterial however they have materialism as their basis. You can't have thoughts without their basis.

Well not to offend you but I think you have been fed nonsense with that concept of immaterial morality. It simply does not exist. If it existed it would be clear as day to everyone but I can ask you some simple questions and could you answer them for me?

Is taking drugs morally right or morally wrong?
Is purchasing sex from a prostitute morally right or morally wrong?
Is eating an animal morally right or morally wrong?
Is stealing food so you don't starve, morally right or morally wrong?

See I can't even answer these questions. I have absolutely no idea what is what. If morality were innate I should be able to answer them. The only way in which I can even have a chance to answer them is by their impact on myself or those around me. If everyone around me is cool with it then what is the harm? It's not actually hurting anyone, why would it be morally wrong then? Can you answer them for me? Or does this prove that there are no universal morals?

I won't dispute the fact that evil exists in the world, and its even worse when its organized. However, this thread is about religion.

On that note. Let the religious worship ther imaginary beings. But when their sickness gets to a point where they feel that I, and others must die because we dont share in the same delusion. Then we have a problem.

Also, I can't say i know of any governments where raping children is a passtime activity, but if there are. Then that is also a problem.

Its only my opinion that the world would be a better place if it excluded religion and relied solely on science and the like.

I was brought up catholic and brainwashed with that Heaven and Hell foolishness. Even believed it for a while. Until I became rational(sort of).

I'm not sure what biased you like this against "religion," but you might want to have a more open mind.

It would be a troubling thing indeed if other life was found on other planets, such as Mars. (Though I would at that point question how evolution could possibly be true since it requires ASTRONOMICAL odds to happen even on the one planet Earth--never mind another planet in the same solar system.) I would deal with it as best I could if/when it came. But, it hasn't yet, so I won't fret over it yet.

It may be an interesting philosophical topic to delve into, but once again--aren't we sort of speculating as to God's intentions?

Again, your phrasing (in the last part, this time utilizing understatement) changes my meaning subtly, but that's basically what I'm saying, yes. If someone does something "nice" for you, and you feel gratitude, I would think you'd want some way to express that gratitude. One of the best ways within human power to express gratitude to God is through actions-- through obeying him to whatever extent possible. Some of that obligation would come from God, but much of it would also come from your ("hypothetical") desire to express your gratitude.

However difficult it may be for you, to follow my analogy you need to imagine that nothing which has happened to you in this life has actually happened to you at all, and that instead all you've lived and experienced is joy and perfection. 1) Wouldn't you feel gratitude? (The stuff you've been "hypothetically" given is alot better than cars and vacations--and it includes a relationship with a perfect, loving, all-powerful God.) And 2) wouldn't that gratitude be great enough to at least do *something* within your power for the one who gave you the opportunity to enjoy the joy and perfection?

I suppose it's possible we've reached an impasse regarding whether or not you would express your gratitude to God in this "hypothetical" situation, or whether you would feel any gratitude at all. I believe both would be true, but if we can't agree on that, we might as well drop the analogy and move on.

It's a good question, and one that has been debated even among Christians for many, many years. I would suggest that, by creating imperfect beings who may suffer and then later come to know salvation, God tells a better "story," and also makes things better for those beings. (THAT is a whole other philosophical discussion, perhaps for another time.)

I must say, you're standing on shaky ground here. The reasoning you present is "boredom," and that reasoning assumes that boredom would actually occur in the presence of paradise and a perfect, loving God.

You have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the afterlife. But I would assert that there's a bit more to life than punk bands, beer and cigarettes. And that, even with the ideology you seem to profess, you could probably do better than such things for yourself.

Interesting. That actually sounds rather close to what I believe (and what many Christians would say the Bible teaches).

Actually, you just showed me that morality has both material AND immaterial roots. (I believe the immaterial part because I'm Christian.) But even the material part (the way our actions affect others) would be meaningless in materialism. You say "[if] it's not actually hurting anyone, why would it be morally wrong?". But I say in response to that, "If it IS hurting someone, what makes it morally wrong?" From a materialist standpoint, what's so "wrong" about killing a fellow lump of goo and meat? No more wrong, certainly, than smashing a rock...

The Holy Bible is a collection of books made out of paper. Do you percieve it as a Holy document, or not?

The point here is - Many "christians" attach a sacredness upon what is merely "ink upon paper" without ever realising that what they are doing is "Kneeling to wood" - Isaiah: And therefore performing an act of idolatry.

Do you see the bible as Holy (I don't mean the message within)?

What do you think of a legal system that obligates those being tried and those bearing witness to swear upon the bible?

"Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no."

I welcome your replies to this thread, and wish you each a good journey...Always.

Thank you.

Mark...

Its not just ink on paper. The Bible is the only book that has never expired. If we were to follow what it said a lot of things would not be happening right now.

All the prophecies have shown to be true and we are going to see the few remaining ones soon.

If you recall the Bible was written by man yes but dont forget that it was under inspiration. What they wrote was not their thoughts but those of God. The same way someone could dictate a letter to a secretary so that she can type it and send it. Does it mean they are the secretary's thoughts? No.

If more people would had read the bible back then we would had not needed Columbus to write that the world was not flat :sarcastic: It was already written.

Hi Dr Seuss,

Nowhere in history has it been recorded that the world was flat, it is a complete misconception. The ancient greek mathematicians even had its circumference within 100 miles of its actual size.

Is the Book Sacred to you? Not the message, which can be spoken, downloaded from the web, or even to your mobile phone.

Thank you, Dr Seuss, journey well, sir.

Mark...

That's comical. We all know that religious persons are the most "open" minded people you will ever come across. They would never believe something "just" because they read it in a book, or because someone says it is so. I should strive to be more like them. All I have is this thing called "faith", but its very powerful. With it I can make fantasies real, or just believe in something, and it is so.

I am a little confused by your statements here. If we discovered there was life on mars, you would find it hard to believe evolution were true? If you meant it this way, and it's not some spelling error, has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Life does not mean it can only happen one way. If we find life on other planets, the chances are high that it won't have the same exactly chemical make up. It could, but probably not as likely. We just don't know for certain since we haven't found any yet. But even so your argument makes no sense since all life originates from chemical compounds that are found in abundance in the universe. The chances are extremely high that there is other life out there somewhere but we are just not in any situation to prove it.

I absolutely love this kind of response, because it flies in the face of your own arguments but you can't even see that it contradicts itself. How is it you can determine that god has your best interest in mind, that god loves you and all people? Yet turn around and ask me, how is it that I can even begin to ponder what god's intentions are? How do you know that god didn't create you just to watch you suffer? That god has no plans for any heavenly paradise? How is it you know it is not just the opposite of how Christians profess it is? What if there is only hell after this life and that was how it was always planned?

No because I can just as easily state that I did not want to be created. So if what you say is true than I should be able to hold god reliable for my actions and not my own because it was not I who wanted to be created in the first place. That god would have known this about me, so why do it anyways? I don't have to be greatful or thankful for forcing me into this game. If I had my choice I would have said don't create me if this is the condition you are going to place on to me. Id rather stay in oblivion.

Well not to be insulting but I just think that you have been sold on this idea because it is necessary to maintain your concept of god. However it is not realistic. It's like if I slipped a bunch of money into your bank account without you asking. Then I said indirectly, well now you need to obey me. Are you going to be thankful if what I ask of you is inconsiderate?

Why would you have to make them imperfect to experience suffering? So suffering is the only point then?

See this response is another one of those face palm moments. Almost back to back, with your previous paragraph being about making an imperfect being and then turning around and saying in a paradise with a perfect, loving god present there wouldn't be any boredom? You can not honestly say that makes any sense. If you are an imperfect being of course you would find boredom in a paradise.

It was only an example to show you how absurd an after life could be. Think about it, do you get to keep your clothing style? Your hair style? Do you have the same eyes? The same physical shape? Yeah all that seems all material doesn't it? Well if you are not material then what are you? Do you still have love for the ocean? Love for hiking? Love of mountain climbing? Or are all those things mundane to you? If they are mundane and you no longer care about them because now you are in heaven then a HUGE part of who you are in this life is completely lost. You are like a very tiny shell of the person you were then if that is how it is. If that is how it is I would rather not exist at all.

They are not the same. Humans are social animals. We have survived because of community support. There are two types of mammals, solitary ones and societal ones. Primates are societal animals and we humans stem from a common ancestor that also was a societal animal. What does that mean? It means that humans rely on other humans for survival. So if you try to kill all other humans then you actually endanger your own survival. So I do not look at others as mere meat or like a rock, but instead I see them as my own self and my existence. For me to survive today requires probably about ten thousand people. Now I am not saying that I couldn't survive with less, it is the standard of living in which I live, takes about that many. Think about all the jobs it takes to get the food you eat. Think about all the resources you use every day, water, heating, security, ect they all require people.

Sure I could go and try to kill everyone but all I end up doing is making my existence harder. Why would I want to do that? But I can see you try and turn this around to say that I only care about people because of what they can offer me. That if they can't offer me anything then I don't care about them. That is not the case. There are a lot of people in the world that do not offer or do anything for me, yet I still feel the same way. That they too are just as worthy as what I have and I shouldn't have the right to kill them simply because I wanted to, or hated them, or what ever reason. I have mutual respect for all life including plants. Sure I eat plants but I still respect them.