On the topic of the human brain and the christian god...

[GiantBear91]

I have a huge thought that I need to share with you all.

You know that some people think that if you deny the existence in god, then you are automatically going to hell when you die.

Well I disagree with that.

If you believe in the Christian god(in which he created everything and gave you a body with working parts), You believe that he/she gave you a brain. Well, don't you think that if you were to question his/her existence, then maybe he/she would be happy? I mean, you are using your brain: one of the many gifts God has given you. If you are thinking about other philosophies and studying other peoples ideals, then aren't you putting that brain to use?

Why would God be upset because you are using one of his/her gifts to you? Your only using what God gave you to use.

That brings me to another point: If you deny God, but a truly a very kind/good person and God turns out to be the real answer... When you reach the place of judgment, do you think he/she will strike you down to the bowels of hell or do you think he/she will look past the fact that you did not believe in God, yet, you did basically what he wanted humans to do: Love one another and be a good person to everyone.

I believe that God is not a vengeful power, as how people say he/she is to be.
I believe that God is a very kind and caring power. He/she will be able to look past the fact that you were a non-believer and see the fact that you were a kind a caring person to all human beings



This is a fairly new blog I posted on myspace... I just wanted your opinions on this topic and my theory, comrades.

Thank you,
Joey

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that, but this belongs in the Religion section. Can a mod move it, please?

[Hit The North]

Thanks for that, but this belongs in the Religion section. Can a mod move it, please?

Done.

[GiantBear91]

Ah, I didn't see the religion forum. Sorry guys and gals.

[Walt]

I think a couple Bible verses can argue against your statements.

For one thing, blasphemy against the holy spirit is an eternal sin.


Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’."
Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."Those are just 2 verses of about 10 that talk about the eternal sin.

As for you saying anyone who is 'nice' gets to go to heaven, I suggest you do some reading up on some other Bible verses, and here is two good essays that deem your statement a mistake:

clarifyingchristianity[dot]com/heaven.shtml
jesus-is-lord[dot]com/2_heaven.htm

(Sorry for evading the filter. If it's that big of a deal, I'll just delete it, otherwise I only have 5 more posts to go)
As for the record shows, I am not Christian, I am atheist.

[Decolonize The Left]

Walt, quoting the Bible is not an argument. Also, your above post boarders on preaching and preaching is not allowed on this forum. Please make note of that.

- August

[Walt]

Walt, quoting the Bible is not an argument. Also, your above post boarders on preaching and preaching is not allowed on this forum. Please make note of that.

- August
Quoting Bible verses when arguing against the Christian standpoint IS an argument, simply because the Bible is 'fact' according to most Christians.

And in no way am I preaching (laugh out loud), as I stated at the end of my post, I'm in atheist, I denounce religion to the most extent. GiantBear seemed like a Christian arguing that all 'nice' men go to heaven, whether they believe in Jesus Christ or not- so, I simply brought up Bible verses that state the otherwise rather clearly.

[GiantBear91]

Oh no, Walt, I'm not a Christian at all haha. I would hate to clasify my self but I believe in the teachings of Buddha. Although, I do not rule any, reasonable religion out of the case. (reasonable as in: Christianity(the real teachings of Jesus Christ, not the bible), Islamic religions, Hinduism, Judaism.)

I don't want to sound like I am trying to convert you at all, because that is not what I want to do(it is against my personal beliefs.) But take this into consideration: You say you are an atheist, right? Well what theory do you believe in on how the universe was made? (believe me, I have a point here so just bare with me lol)

[Walt]

Oh no, Walt, I'm not a Christian at all haha. I would hate to clasify my self but I believe in the teachings of Buddha. Although, I do not rule any, reasonable religion out of the case. (reasonable as in: Christianity(the real teachings of Jesus Christ, not the bible), Islamic religions, Hinduism, Judaism.)

I don't want to sound like I am trying to convert you at all, because that is not what I want to do(it is against my personal beliefs.) But take this into consideration: You say you are an atheist, right? Well what theory do you believe in on how the universe was made? (believe me, I have a point here so just bare with me lol)
First I'd like to say the reason I was arguing with Bible verses is because I thought you were a Christian. The Bible is 'concrete' law for these people, so quoting material that says you must believe in Jesus in order to go to heaven, or, the eternal sin will prohibit you from entering heaven.

Indeed, I am an atheist. I'd like to add, I've studied Buddhism in large quantities, I've read much of the Tipitaka and other Dharma related subjects. As far as how the universe is created, I have no clue honestly. I don't ponder on that subject that much, because it's such complex and far past human knowledge (at least in this present time).

[GiantBear91]

I see. Well no harm done, comrade. :)
I know. It is like that for some, a very big amount. I know a pastor that believes that many of the things in the bible are not true. So just remember not all Christians are ignorant.
Plus, I believe that the bible was not the word of the actual Christian god... I believe that it was a couple of racist, sexist men who wrote the book.


Ah. Well I can see your point. I also don't think that we will ever be able to figure it out either, at least in this period of time. But it always fascinates me when I ponder the subject. I always come out with a continuing answer... it's pretty much like dividing by zero... it is a continuing spiral.

[spiltteeth]

First I'd like to say the reason I was arguing with Bible verses is because I thought you were a Christian. The Bible is 'concrete' law for these people, so quoting material that says you must believe in Jesus in order to go to heaven, or, the eternal sin will prohibit you from entering heaven.

Indeed, I am an atheist. I'd like to add, I've studied Buddhism in large quantities, I've read much of the Tipitaka and other Dharma related subjects. As far as how the universe is created, I have no clue honestly. I don't ponder on that subject that much, because it's such complex and far past human knowledge (at least in this present time).

Just so you know, the bible is only literally taken by a small minority of Christians, mostly the fundamentalists in the past 80 yrs in the USA.

Also, I find people have no idea what is meant by 'sinning against the holy spirt' or 'being denied heaven' so they basically make up a ridiculous theology, which only a small minority of Christians follow, and don't confront the other 90 %.

Zizek is 100% correct when he says the modern atheists and fundamentalist Christians share the same ideological framework, unfortunately I find it impossible to speak to either one.

[Walt]

Just so you know, the bible is only literally taken by a small minority of Christians, mostly the fundamentalists in the past 80 yrs in the USA.

Also, I find people have no idea what is meant by 'sinning against the holy spirt' or 'being denied heaven' so they basically make up a ridiculous theology, which only a small minority of Christians follow, and don't confront the other 90 %.

Zizek is 100% correct when he says the modern atheists and fundamentalist Christians share the same ideological framework, unfortunately I find it impossible to speak to either one.
Hell, most Christians in today's society barely know anything about their religion, and have only read, if any, small portions of the Bible. They simply believe it because it's what they've been told all their lives, and they state people who don't believe in it are stupid. It's a sad thing, really.

[Cowboy Killer]

the modern atheists and fundamentalist Christians share the same ideological framework
how so?

[spiltteeth]

how so?

From Zizek, how to read Lacan :


The recent of religious fundamentalism in the US - around half of the US adults have beliefs than can be considered "fundamentalist" - is sustained by the predominance of a perverse libidinal economy. A fundamentalist does not believe, he knows it directly. Both liberal-sceptical cynics and fundamentalists share a basic underlying feature: the loss of the ability to believe, in the proper sense of the term. What is unthinkable for them is the groundless decision which installs every authentic belief, a decision which cannot be grounded in the chain of reasons, in positive knowledge. Think of Anne Frank who, in the face of the terrifying depravity of the Nazis, in a true act of credo qua absurdum asserted her belief that there is a divine spark of goodness in every human being, no matter how depraved he or she is. This statement does not concern facts, it is posited as a pure ethical axiom. In the same way, the status of universal human rights is that of a pure belief: they cannot be grounded in our knowledge of human nature, they are an axiom posited by our decision. (The moment one tries to ground universal human rights in our knowledge of humanity, the inevitable conclusion will be that men are fundamentally different, that some have more dignity and wisdom than others.) At its most fundamental, authentic belief does not concern facts, but gives expression to an unconditional ethical commitment.

For both liberal cynics and religious fundamentalists, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while skeptical cynics mock them. No wonder religious fundamentalists are among the most passionate digital hackers, and always prone to combine their religion with the latest results of sciences. For them, religious statements and scientific statements belong to the same modality of positive knowledge. The occurrence of the term "science" in the very name of some of the fundamentalist sects (Christian Science, Scientology) is not just an obscene joke, but signals this reduction of belief to positive knowledge. The case of the Turin Shroud (a piece of cloth that was allegedly used to cover the body of the dead Christ and has stains of his blood) is indicative here. Its authenticity would be a horror for every true believer (the first thing to do would be to analyze the DNA of the blood stains and resolve empirically the question of who Jesus's father was), while a true fundamentalist would rejoice in this opportunity. We find the same reduction of belief to knowledge in today's Islam where hundreds of books by scientists abound which "demonstrate" how the latest scientific advances confirm the insights and injunctions of Quran: the divine prohibition of incest is confirmed by recent genetic knowledge about the defective children born of incestuous copulation. The same goes for Buddhism, where many scientists vary the motif of the "Tao of modern physics", of how the contemporary scientific vision of reality as a substanceless flux of oscillating events finally confirmed the ancient Buddhist ontology. One is compelled to draw the paradoxical conclusion: in the opposition between traditional secular humanists and religious fundamentalists, it is the humanists who stand for belief, while fundamentalists stand for knowledge. This is what we can learn from Lacan with regard to the ongoing rise of religious fundamentalism: its true danger does not reside in the fact that it poses a threat to secular scientific knowledge, but in the fact that it poses a threat to authentic belief itself.

[Number 16 Bus Shelter]

I have a huge thought that I need to share with you all.

You know that some people think that if you deny the existence in god, then you are automatically going to hell when you die.

Well I disagree with that.

If you believe in the Christian god(in which he created everything and gave you a body with working parts), You believe that he/she gave you a brain. Well, don't you think that if you were to question his/her existence, then maybe he/she would be happy? I mean, you are using your brain: one of the many gifts God has given you. If you are thinking about other philosophies and studying other peoples ideals, then aren't you putting that brain to use?

Why would God be upset because you are using one of his/her gifts to you? Your only using what God gave you to use.



Well, I think the critique a Christian would have with this is that it's not that you use it but howyou use it.
For example, because god gave you an arm and a hand, does that you excuse you strangling someone with them? God did want you to use them after all.

As for this other point:

That brings me to another point: If you deny God, but a truly a very kind/good person and God turns out to be the real answer... When you reach the place of judgment, do you think he/she will strike you down to the bowels of hell or do you think he/she will look past the fact that you did not believe in God, yet, you did basically what he wanted humans to do: Love one another and be a good person to everyone.

I believe that God is not a vengeful power, as how people say he/she is to be.
I believe that God is a very kind and caring power. He/she will be able to look past the fact that you were a non-believer and see the fact that you were a kind a caring person to all human beings

How do you know that god is not a vengeful power? The only proof you have of gods will is the bible, and that makes god out to be VERY vengeful indeed.
:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

From Zizek,

Zizek is a fucking idiot, so I'm not surprised that a stupid fucking god-bothering idiot like you would fall for his Golden Mean bullshit.

[spiltteeth]

Zizek is a fucking idiot, so I'm not surprised that a stupid fucking god-bothering idiot like you would fall for his Golden Mean bullshit.

this seems like a sensible post from a moderator, perhaps you ought to warn yrself not to flame.
Yet another irrational emotional outburst from an atheist terrified of logic and science....

[danyboy27]

Just so you know, the bible is only literally taken by a small minority of Christians, mostly the fundamentalists in the past 80 yrs in the USA.

Also, I find people have no idea what is meant by 'sinning against the holy spirt' or 'being denied heaven' so they basically make up a ridiculous theology, which only a small minority of Christians follow, and don't confront the other 90 %.

Zizek is 100% correct when he says the modern atheists and fundamentalist Christians share the same ideological framework, unfortunately I find it impossible to speak to either one.

lol atheist fundamentalist.

christian/muslim fundamentalist framework:

-god absolutely exist.
-those who dont believe will be punished by hell or we will kill them
-the bible and other writting should be our guideline.
-we should seek to convert and assert our moral on others.


atheist framework
-god probably dosnt exist, its verry unlikely.
-the current scientifical evidence dosnt prove that a god exist.
-people should have the right to believe.
-The bible and other mythical text are not the representation of the reality.
-people should be free to pickup any religion they want but not to impose it on other


now my dear split, tell me about those atheist fundamentalist again, how they are dangerous and evil for today society?

[danyboy27]

A fundamentalist does not believe, he knows it directly. Both liberal-sceptical cynics and fundamentalists share a basic underlying feature: the loss of the ability to believe, in the proper sense of the term.
atheist dosnt know, they think! We dont know, we are sceptic. We sell doubt, religious fanatic sell certitude. the certitude that there is a god waiting for us up there. Atheist? we dont freaking know! why do you think we are shocked by religious fundamentalist and pseudo-scientist who strongly affirm that god exist!




. What is unthinkable for them is the groundless decision which installs every authentic belief, a decision which cannot be grounded in the chain of reasons, in positive knowledge.

well, yes atheist dosnt really like that when people talk out of their asses.
that dosnt mean we are fundies tho.



From Zizek, how to read Lacan :
Think of Anne Frank who, in the face of the terrifying depravity of the Nazis, in a true act of credo qua absurdum asserted her belief that there is a divine spark of goodness in every human being, no matter how depraved he or she is. l
well, some people are good, other are bad, it depend of a wide range of reason: psychological disorder, troubled chillhood, sexual abuse etc.
Ann frank was a good person, that all.



For both liberal cynics and religious fundamentalists, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while skeptical cynics mock them.
totally not true. we dont really mock them, we mock the creazy assoles who believe in it, that really something else. The first testament is one of the best ancient day violent novel that ever existed. Its a damn book, nothing weird about that. on the other hand, those who commited violent crime back then and today beccause of such texts are creazy motherfucker.


No wonder religious fundamentalists are among the most passionate digital hackers, and always prone to combine their religion with the latest results of sciences. For them, religious statements and scientific statements belong to the same modality of positive knowledge. The occurrence of the term "science" in the very name of some of the fundamentalist sects (Christian Science, Scientology) is not just an obscene joke, but signals this reduction of belief to positive knowledge. [/QUOTE]
he right on this one, religious fundamentalist are hypocritical at best.
at worst they believe science is on their side, wich is terrible.


The case of the Turin Shroud (a piece of cloth that was allegedly used to cover the body of the dead Christ and has stains of his blood) is indicative here. Its authenticity would be a horror for every true believer (the first thing to do would be to analyze the DNA of the blood stains and resolve empirically the question of who Jesus's father was), while a true fundamentalist would rejoice in this opportunity.
a False believer, would be affraid to discover that the truth is not on their side, while fundamentalist will think this piece of cloth prove their point. zizek make an error on this one.


in the opposition between traditional secular humanists and religious fundamentalists, it is the humanists who stand for belief, while fundamentalists stand for knowledge
Pure bullshit. Secular humanist are sceptics, if you bring me a concrete proof tomorow that the earth was created by an all powerful being, fine. No seriously, it would be interresting to know that, this way we could prove wrong the other religion of taking religious book and religious laws litteraly.
If there is scientist who really want to spend time on the issue, go on, i am not affraid.



This is what we can learn from Lacan with regard to the ongoing rise of religious fundamentalism: its true danger does not reside in the fact that it poses a threat to secular scientific knowledge, but in the fact that it poses a threat to authentic belief itself.
An authentic believe system dosnt exist. on the other hand yes, people have belief. There is no pure way to believe, just a degree of bullshit you allow yourself to believe.

some people take it litteraly, other take it less litteraly. none of them are authentic.

[spiltteeth]

I don't think you understood what Zizek was saying - Zizek is a hardcore atheist. He's simply saying atheist fundamentalists (the new atheist crowd - Dawkins etc) and Christian fundamentalists share the same ideological construct.
In other words, by disregarding any symbolic mediation between humanity and a reality transcendent of logical apprehension both atheist and the Christian fundamentalists equally undermine true belief (which is apart from knowledge) and reject those more rarified modalities of understanding and being.
They both confuse categories of knowing etc

[danyboy27]

I don't think you understood what Zizek was saying - Zizek is a hardcore atheist. He's simply saying atheist fundamentalists (the new atheist crowd - Dawkins etc) and Christian fundamentalists share the same ideological construct.
In other words, by disregarding any symbolic mediation between humanity and a reality transcendent of logical apprehension both atheist and the Christian fundamentalists equally undermine true belief (which is apart from knowledge) and reject those more rarified modalities of understanding and being.
They both confuse categories of knowing etc

dawkins is not a fundamentalist atheist, he just believe the earth isnt 3000 year old. he said it himself: god might exist, licorn might exist has well.
IF i know someone who is 100% for learning more about various stuff, that him.

beside him, the only other hardcore atheist i know is hitchen, and he mainly opposed to the idea of god beccause of the moral issue. Then again, this guy is also 100% for more knowledge about EVERYTHING.

Religious fundamentalist on the other hand are interrested in science when it suit them.

[spiltteeth]

dawkins is not a fundamentalist atheist, he just believe the earth isnt 3000 year old. he said it himself: god might exist, licorn might exist has well.
IF i know someone who is 100% for learning more about various stuff, that him.

beside him, the only other hardcore atheist i know is hitchen, and he mainly opposed to the idea of god beccause of the moral issue. Then again, this guy is also 100% for more knowledge about EVERYTHING.

Religious fundamentalist on the other hand are interrested in science when it suit them.

Again, to put it yet another way, both religious and atheist fundamentalists, dawkins and hitchens included, reject symbolic mediation between man and the world, hence they BOTH reject, as Zizek (an atheist) says "a decision which cannot be grounded in the chain of reasons, in positive knowledge."
Orthodox Christians have read Genisis poetically/spiritually/ symbolically and metaphorically for 2,000 yrs. Now Christian fundamentalists want to read genisis as a science textbook, instead of spiritually/metaphorical/symbolically.
Both types of fundamentalists reject this symbolic dimension to human experience and read the symbolic as positive knowledge.

Belief is not grounded in positive knowledge. I believe I have free will, a mind, that other people have actual feelings etc but none of these things can be proven scientifically or deductively, therefore they are not grounded in positive knowledge.
If you ONLY ground yr being in positive knowledge (as both Christian and atheist fundamentalists do) then you will reject all these things, and all other ways of looking at things - weather spiritual or symbolic etc

[danyboy27]

Again, to put it yet another way, both religious and atheist fundamentalists, dawkins and hitchens included, reject symbolic mediation between man and the world, hence they BOTH reject, as Zizek (an atheist) says "a decision which cannot be grounded in the chain of reasons, in positive knowledge."
Orthodox Christians have read Genisis poetically/spiritually/ symbolically and metaphorically for 2,000 yrs. Now Christian fundamentalists want to read genisis as a science textbook, instead of spiritually/metaphorical/symbolically.
Both types of fundamentalists reject this symbolic dimension to human experience and read the symbolic as positive knowledge.

Belief is not grounded in positive knowledge. I believe I have free will, a mind, that other people have actual feelings etc but none of these things can be proven scientifically or deductively, therefore they are not grounded in positive knowledge.
If you ONLY ground yr being in positive knowledge (as both Christian and atheist fundamentalists do) then you will reject all these things, and all other ways of looking at things - weather spiritual or symbolic etc

they dont reject it, they find it immoral that a difference.
so, basicly to not be a fundamentalist i have to find the bible and genesis beautiful? wtf man.

[spiltteeth]

they dont reject it, they find it immoral that a difference.
so, basicly to not be a fundamentalist i have to find the bible and genesis beautiful? wtf man.

They find symbolic apprehension immoral? ......Ok. I can't even begin to think what that can possibly mean.
Anyway, I'm afraid I can't make Zizek's comments any more clearer.

[Chambered Word]

Belief is not grounded in positive knowledge. I believe I have free will, a mind, that other people have actual feelings etc but none of these things can be proven scientifically or deductively, therefore they are not grounded in positive knowledge.
If you ONLY ground yr being in positive knowledge (as both Christian and atheist fundamentalists do) then you will reject all these things, and all other ways of looking at things - weather spiritual or symbolic etc

Sounds like pseudo-intellectual spiritual bullshit to me.

I don't believe in a mystical 6 foot tall octopus sitting on my shoulder just because somebody tells me it's there. You need reason to believe something (i.e evidence) other than just assertions before it becomes plausible. That's the single best argument against believing in a diety (Russell's Teapot and such).

As for the OP's question, go and ask a Christian why God would give you free will if he already knew what you would use it for, seeing as he's omnipotent. Why would he 'test' your faith then? That said, no matter how many contradictions (and particularly reactionary verses of the Bible) you point out, most Christians will find some irrational way to justify all of it and backpedal in circles until you can't argue any more. :closedeyes:

[ComradeMan]

God is not a person. We cannot attribute human characteristics to God. The fact we have traditionally used "he" etc, is because of language and none other.