1
   

Is god necessary anymore?

 
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 02:25 am
Wilso wrote:
The only need for gods ever to exist was for a crutch for frightened minds that couldn't come to terms with the accident that is their existence, and to explain things they couldn't understand.


Please explain where you came up with that! Question Question
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 02:34 am
Is God necessary anymore? You bet.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 07:15 am
Individual wrote:
Can the world survive without god or does it need his contant supervision?


Supposing that there is a god, what do you think that its supervision accomplishes?

I see no evidence of its intervention, and doubt if anything would be different if it stopped doing whatever it is that you think it does.
0 Replies
 
K VEE SHANKER
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 07:15 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Two comments, KV.

One: I'm interested in your take on what Husker just wrote.

Two: The last thing in the world that I am asking for -- is PROOF.

I NEVER ask for proof -- unless someone actually says that they can "prove" that there is a God (that has happened a couple of times) or that they can "prove" there are no gods (that has also happened a couple of times).

I would be more than satisfied if a proponent of either side (theist or atheist) were to offer ANY unambiguous evidence in either direction. Frankly, I've never had a theist or an atheist offer anything even remotely close to unambiguous evidence for their position.


Very Happy I'm fully with you Apisa for the last pharagraph.Your other comments are confusing.thiest says that you must believe and never ask any question while athiest claims that since you could not see God and the Life's injustices can not be there if God existed,God therefore,does not exists.I see that both the parties try to maintain their position even if what they say can not be verified,I lost interest in both of them.

I'm convinced however,that if at all God exists,He is neither like what believers exclaim nor is He after us,as like most of us want Him to.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 07:16 am
Stradee wrote:
Is God necessary anymore? You bet.


Necessary for what?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:55 am
husker wrote:
Wilso wrote:
The only need for gods ever to exist was for a crutch for frightened minds that couldn't come to terms with the accident that is their existence, and to explain things they couldn't understand.


Please explain where you came up with that! Question Question


Pure logic. I don't feel the need to explain myself to those lost in ancient superstitions.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:08 pm
Ok the is no supreme being. At least no one has been able to prove that there is. And therefore that is proof enough that there is not. I will take the other view since we can not prove that there is not than there must be. Many look at this world of ours and see only it's imperfections. I would like to redirect your sight to see it's beauty and the miracle of life. Did it just evolve or was there some master plan. We can only wonder. I choose to believe that there is some supreme force that created it all.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:12 pm
au1929 wrote:
Ok the is no supreme being. At least no one has been able to prove that there is. And therefore that is proof enough that there is not. I will take the other view since we can not prove that there is not than there must be. Many look at this world of ours and see only it's imperfections. I would like to redirect your sight to see it's beauty and the miracle of life. Did it just evolve or was there some master plan. We can only wonder. I choose to believe that there is some supreme force that created it all.


Au, you can "chose to believe" that you can teach an elephant to walk a tight rope stretched across the Grand Canyon is you want.

Except for you, I have not noted anyone asserting that because there is no proof that there is a God -- that constitutes proof that there isn't.

I suspect the only reason you stated that, is so that you could then say:
"I will take the other view since we can not prove that there is not than there must be."

Bad choice of debating logic. It holds no water at all.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:23 pm
Frank
Wrong, that has been expressed in many ways and on more that a few threads.
I can no more teach an elephant to walk a tight rope than I or any one else can prove or disprove the existance of a supreme being. All I have are my beliefs and they are not open for debate.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 03:54 pm
And neither are mine! But religious folk arrogantly take the view that their faith is more pure and justified than those who don't believe.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 04:37 pm
What I find interesting, and what I love about A2K, is that everyone here on this thread has a valid point. :cool: Personally, to me 'god' isn't necessary, humanity and faith in oneself and the world is.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 05:56 pm
Terry, for whatever a person deems necessary.

I believe in prayer, affirmations, and a spritual bond to a universe much greater than myself.
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:46 pm
dov1953 wrote:
God as "mythology" isn't needed and was needed to be less destructive in the past. It did, to be fair, have a restraining influence in the past. Now, I think a kind of Native-american nature=spiritualism is the only "religion" that has a future. Globally, people are increasingly becoming under the influence of free thought, free will and education and so are finding how ridiculous it is to turn your mind over to religion that presumes to tell them what is right and wrong. The humanitarian philosophies of the past will have a great contribution to global religions in the coming centuries. People are and will abandon levels of angels and saints of heaven, whatever that religion happens to be. The religions of the future will be out=growths of groups like Baha'i, Ethical Culture, Reform Judaism, Quakerism and the Unitarian=Universalism. Buddhism will have a very short path to this future global religion. Or not.
0 Replies
 
innie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:51 pm
I don't know about the rest of the world, but i need God still...

I need the hope he represents, i need the comfort that there is still someone in the world who hasn't forgotten about me...

i feel stronger when i know he is there... i don't think i would be nearly as stable if he wasn't there to lean on.

myth or not, i need him.
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:58 pm
innie wrote:
I don't know about the rest of the world, but i need God still...

I need the hope he represents, i need the comfort that there is still someone in the world who hasn't forgotten about me...

i feel stronger when i know he is there... i don't think i would be nearly as stable if he wasn't there to lean on.

myth or not, i need him.


That's wonderful news! God Bless you!
0 Replies
 
innie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:59 pm
thank you, husker!

God bless you, too! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 02:33 am
IMHO the central issue is that "God" is necessary to so many, even if you or I have no such need. If, as I believe , the social consequences of such a fact are pernicious, then perhaps I have a "moral duty" to say so.

Such thoughts then lead into secondary arguments about the status of "moral duty" which interestingly seems to be the last bastion of "evidence for God" for those intellectuals who still "believe" !
0 Replies
 
gozmo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 05:28 pm
I once was a god who knew everything. This was revealed by my younger sister to another sibling. Her faith was absolute. Sadly she grew up and now I'm only a man.

Perhaps we should grow up.
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2003 07:13 pm
Terry wrote:
I see no evidence of its [god's] intervention, and doubt if anything would be different if it stopped doing whatever it is that you think it does.


According to the torah, the best mitzvah or tzedaka is anonymous. Jesus says the same thing in Matthew and it's probably a safe bet that Islam holds the same belief. So, why wouldn't god be held to the same standards?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2003 09:23 am
Individual wrote:
Terry wrote:
I see no evidence of its [god's] intervention, and doubt if anything would be different if it stopped doing whatever it is that you think it does.


According to the torah, the best mitzvah or tzedaka is anonymous. Jesus says the same thing in Matthew and it's probably a safe bet that Islam holds the same belief. So, why wouldn't god be held to the same standards?


Be careful, Individual. If we start holding the god of the Bible to the same standard as men, he'd be locked away in a setting that would make Hannibal Lecter's imprisonment seem like relative freedom.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 09:28:39