Another new member

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

thanks for joining!

[Darwinian]

As we all know, at one time the Greeks certainly believed in Gods which they also used to explain the observable forces in nature, but it had its time. Naturally its so much easier for the primitive mind to explain the world in terms of multiple gods

Wow, that's pretty arrogant isn't it? Some might say that it's so much easier for the primitive mind to explain the observable forces in nature by attributing them to an all powerful father figure in the sky.

Also, calling the ancient Greek mind primitive is to completely ignore the massive impact they had on democracy, science, philosophy, art, literature, sport, civilisation, and the list goes on. In fact, if it hadn't been for the rise of that monotheistic movement some 2000 years ago putting the brakes hard on free thought and progress, we could be exploring the galaxy by now.

[Lord Summerisle]

You still haven't quite answered the question.

What "God" are you believing in? "One true God" doesn't answer anything.

I have seen/experianced Santa, Zues and the tooth fairy. Your 'one differance' is now voided. So why do you believe?

The "why" in why I believe isn't so simple that it can be explained or otherwise conveyed in a few paragraphs.
Call me cynical, but simply stating that you've seen santa, Zeus and the tooth fairy to deliberately "void" or otherwise call out my argument is akin to walking into a shop to demand a refund for an item, and upon being told a refund cannot be given unless the item is damaged, then dropping it on the floor - smash. Oops, item "voided", now give me my refund....
So lets say you have indeed experienced those entities - then I'm quite sure you are alone, or very nearly so. Whereas many have experienced what they believe to be God, so no I don't feel your claim detracts from my earlier statement that there is a difference between the true God and the aforementioned fictional characters.
By "true God", I'm referring to the eternal Creator who is responsible for the creation of the universe, and all that lies herein. It is the God who cannot truly be known or even described or even imagined.
I know you believe with firm conviction that this IS just imagined, but once experienced it is clear to the beholder that this cannot be the product of the imagination, as much as you may disagree.
Of course these are just words on a computer screen, they could not even even begin to describe what I wish I could convey here - not even a scratch off the tip of the iceberg. But then, thats how a mystical experience will change a person. If it were just a case of "Oh, I heard a voice and it must have been God", well we would just laugh at that and put it down to hallucination. Spiritual experiences can be breathtakingly beyond words. God is truly to be found within, not in the library, and not in any book. Though a book can certainly help you on your journey, ultimately it is you who must find God by connecting with the divine which lies within you. God will not come to you, its always (or very nearly so) the other way around. No need for a "There is no divine within in me because this is all nonsense." comment, I already know the atheist doctrine - many of us have been there at some stage in our lives.

I believe there are many so called believers who have never truly experienced God (such as the ones who eventually abandon their faith), but by that same token its worth remembering many others have - or at least have had such convincing experiences as to cause them to "believe" they have.
I understand that to the atheist, believers are just gullible people. People so lacking in mental dexterity as to confuse a mere emotion with a deity of some description. This may be the case with some people (nutters come in all shapes, sizes and beliefs!), but this isn't always the case.
As with all things subjective, how does one go about proving such a claim? Can it be proven?
Perhaps it isn't meant to be proven, though I personally believe that the proof is everywhere and everything.
I have no reason to disbelieve that the universe is near 14 billion years old, no reason to doubt science. I also emphatically believe in evolution AND creation: they are not mutually exclusive as so many would have us assume. I also believe the evolution is all part of the creation.
I realise this still doesn't answer the "why" in why I hold these views, but I'll perhaps save it for a later time.

[Tiberius]

Arghhh....wall of text.

[Lord Summerisle]

Wow, that's pretty arrogant isn't it? Some might say that it's so much easier for the primitive mind to explain the observable forces in nature by attributing them to an all powerful father figure in the sky.

Also, calling the ancient Greek mind primitive is to completely ignore the massive impact they had on democracy, science, philosophy, art, literature, sport, civilisation, and the list goes on. In fact, if it hadn't been for the rise of that monotheistic movement some 2000 years ago putting the brakes hard on free thought and progress, we could be exploring the galaxy by now.

Wow, so you believe it was the likes of Aristotle & Plato who invented and continued the concept of polytheism? If not, I'm struggling to understand the connection. Sure, you can lump all the Greeks into one pot if you prefer, just as long as you don't mind me lumping you along with the religious fanatics too, eh? Much of Greek society was indeed very primitive, even though they did have their brilliant philosopher/mathematicians who were arguably well ahead of their time. Its the same today, some people are clever, but the majority leave much to be desired.

It can be argued that monotheism is what dragged western pagan barbarism into what has since become known as western civilisation.
Furthermore, had it not been for monotheism - the dark ages could well have laster far longer than it did - bearing in mind the only written records which survive from the period (in western Europe) are from the "monotheists". It was the church that carried us through it in the end, at least in western Europe.
Monotheism had nothing to do with the collapse of the Roman empire, the collapse often attributed to the defeat at Adrianople (ironically in the Eastern Roman empire, but caused the west to fall) which was the result of Roman arrogance and reluctance to keep pace with the evolving warfare of the period, not to mention the constant infighting among the Roman ruling class and so on - nothing to do with monotheism. If I'm mistaken, I'll be quite happy to stand corrected.

[Darwinian]

You seem to know an awful lot about a deity that cannot be known, described or even imagined. If this is the case, how do you know this being to be the creator of everything if, as you imply, you can know nothing about him?

And how can you tell that your experience is not imagination? Please explain what your frame of reference is here.

And again I would use the word arrogance here, especially when you dismiss those 'believers' who lose there faith as not having been true believers in the first place. No True Scotsman?

And how can you square evolution with creation?

[Minimalist]

Time to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.







As much evidence as there is for jesus and tastes better!

[Darwinian]

Wow, so you believe it was the likes of Aristotle & Plato who invented and continued the concept of polytheism?

I don't recall ever making that statement, nor implying it.

If not, I'm struggling to understand the connection. Sure, you can lump all the Greeks into one pot if you prefer, just as long as you don't mind me lumping you along with the religious fanatics too, eh? Much of Greek society was indeed very primitive, even though they did have their brilliant philosopher/mathematicians who were arguably well ahead of their time. Its the same today, some people are clever, but the majority leave much to be desired.

I wasn't me who lumped all Greeks together as 'primitive'. I would say however that if, as you suggest, that Greek society was basically primitive with just a few genius's who were ahead of their time then this culture would not have had the profound impact on today's civilisations as it obviously has. Generally, Greek society was very civilised, even by today's standards, although I will concede there were many unsavoury aspects.

It can be argued that monotheism is what dragged western pagan barbarism into what has since become known as western civilisation.

Spoken like a true conqueror who views any way of life that is radically different from his own as barbaric. I think most so called civilisations and ideologies throughout history can claim their fair share of barbarism.

Furthermore, had it not been for monotheism - the dark ages could well have laster far longer than it did - bearing in mind the only written records which survive from the period (in western Europe) are from the "monotheists".

It could also be argued that if it wasn't for monotheism, or the Catholic Church, that the so called dark ages may never have occurred in the first place.

It was the church that carried us through it in the end, at least in western Europe.

It was the Church that caused centuries of oppression and stagnation.

Monotheism had nothing to do with the collapse of the Roman empire, the collapse often attributed to the defeat at Adrianople (ironically in the Eastern Roman empire, but caused the west to fall) which was the result of Roman arrogance and reluctance to keep pace with the evolving warfare of the period, not to mention the constant infighting among the Roman ruling class and so on - nothing to do with monotheism. If I'm mistaken, I'll be quite happy to stand corrected.

No argument there, but it was the fledgling new monotheistic religion(s) that leapt in to infect the Empires wounds and mutate it into the monstrous affront to free thought and progress that persists even to this day.

We have become the civilisation that we are today not because of but despite the rise of monotheism.

[Minimalist]

It can be argued that monotheism is what dragged western pagan barbarism into what has since become known as western civilisation.

It can be argued, I think more successfully, that it was The Enlightenment with its rejection of xtianity which dragged the west into civilization.

Xtians had no trouble being barbarians in the name of their 'god.'