Heaven? - SciForums.com

beyondtimeandspace

12-10-05, 09:24 PM

Not really. The unacceptability of a heaven or hell, is not a presumed premise.

I didn't call that the presumed premise.

It's a rather a good observation at reality as is.

Deciding that something is unacceptable isn't an observation. It's a judgement. A judgement which is, of course, based on premises. If you haven't thought out the premises when making the judgement, then the premises are presumed. For example, thinking "there is no evidence, so there is not god." requires an intermediate premise, one that most people presume. The premise is "if there is no evidence for x, then x doesn't exist." Of course, this premise is true, but what one has to remember is that the original judgement "there is no evidence, so there is no god" is an incomplete statement. The full statement is this "humans have as yet not produced any physically tangible and testable evidence for god, therefore there is no god." Of course, this also is missing some intermediate premises, such as "evidence that is not testable, not physically tangible, is not acceptable evidence." And, "if p (humans) has not produced acceptible evidence x (god), then x (god) does not exist."

Of course, any amatuer logician can see the invalidity of such an argument. At best, all one can do is say that asserting the existence of a god is baseless for a human to do. It is a logical error to say that god does not exist for lack of evidence, since just because evidence has not been produced, does not mean that there does not exist evidence. If one asserts that it is unreasonable to assert the existence of god, then it is also unreasonable (though, arguably to a lesser degree) to assert that there is no god.

At any rate, claiming that stating the unaccepability of a god concept is a good observation of reality as is, is entirely false.

This existence exists. And that's an axiom.

Thank you Ayn. As if that wasn't the most obvious thing ever to be said.

However to presume some other existence exists, and the only way to reach it is through death is a false hope.

Who said it's an existence apart from this? I don't recall such a claim. I expect that if heaven and hell exist, they're entirely part of this universe. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you could experience levels of heaven and hell here on earth, as they should be considered more as states than "locations."

It's the fear of death, that drove primitive consciousness to not accept death as final.

Wait... what's your proof for this? Or should I just take your word for it?

So the invention of another dimension was thoughtout.

Gee, for a man who so highly demands evidence for assertions, you're sorely lacking here.

First by the ancient Egyptians, who thought they would keep their earthly possesions in another life, then copied by Hebbrews and other civilizations who's idea were similar to the survival of death.

I'm surprised at you, Godless. I expected more rationality from someone who praises it so highly. Seriously, you didn't expect me to miss your logic errors did you? Let's see, first off, it is merely our archaeological record that shows that Egypt was the earliest known peoples to express beliefs in an afterlife. Just because we lack any further evidence, doesn't mean we just say, "OH! I guess that means they were the first!" Since writing didn't develop until the same general period, we can't look toward textual sources to find out if there was any earlier beliefs regarding an afterlife. As far as architecture goes, burial compounds appeared slightly earlier than writing, both of which were developments of settlement and urban beginnings. What burial grounds suggest is an early form of ancestor worship. So, as far as the EVIDENCE goes (which by the way is highly interpretive), the idea of an undying spirit existed long prior to ancient Egypt. And even if the evidence didn't suggest that, prior to settlement, humans were thought to be hunter/gatherers and nomadic. In this case, no evidence of their belief systems would be left for us to find anyway, and it is highly speculative to suggest that Egypt was the origin of religious thought (ie, god, spirits, afterlife, etc..).

The creation of the soul, a spirit that would survive death, had to have some place to go.

Assuming the bogus reasoning that you have presented above is actually true, which you have as yet provided no evidence for.

So a place of bliss for those who follow the laws of gods, and a hell fire damnation for those that don't.

If you actually spent any time at all researching and studying deep theology on religious moral laws and the psychology associated with heaven and hell in consideration of those moral laws, you'd know that this statement is made out of a fundamental lacking in understanding of religious moral teaching. To summarize what could easily be a volumous study, moral laws of god and moral laws of nature are expected and believed to be aligned and in unison. Since humans are creatures of natural law, breaking such laws should logically result in self-damage. Since humans are creatures of habit, humans can get entrenched in actions which go against natural moral laws, which means they are entrenched in activities that are self-damaging. Hell is meant to represent the reality of this self-torment and destruction, but on an eternal and superlative scale (of course, this is what your real beef is with, the eternality of it, which would first require you to believe in a soul, but given that one accepts the reality of the soul, this can be shown to progress logically). Heaven is the flip side, the state of health, produced by habitually acting morally, in line with human nature and natural moral laws. Such concepts don't just pop out of thin air, and weren't just "made up" to facilitate a conceptual need. Such concepts are a logical result of priorly accepted ideas.

All of it based on mythology, and not anything that can be emperically proven.

Again, I'm saddened by your lack of thought on the subject. The myths themselves contain the concepts of heaven and hell and souls, etc. Were the myths based on other myths? There must be a starting point for these concepts, and as much as you'd like to say "control of the masses," that simply isn't evidenced historically. Certainly, such concepts have been used in that way, but there is no evidence that that is their origin. In any case, myths are always based on something, and if the myths themselves contain the concepts that you claim are entirely based on myth, then they are actually not entirely based on myth. Surely you can see the logic of that. You might say, "then they were based on made up fairy tales." Of course, I would then say, prove it, which you will be unable to do, though you constantly insist on evidence and proof. The only thing you can offer is that "no evidence exists now, so it must have been made up." However, you're going on the assumption that what is real now is what has always been real. So, because of this assumption, you make the assertion. However, perhaps there once was evidence, and that evidence was widely accepted and common knowledge, and there was no need to write it down because nobody could ever have guessed that it would someday be questioned. Perhaps this evidence existed before writing. In any case, there are a whole host of possibilities which you simply dismiss. Hence, it is illogical to assert, on several accounts, that "all of it (is) based on mythology."

As far as "none of it can be empirically proven." Another assumption. More like "none of it HAS been empirically proven." If you would take any time at all to think about it, you'd realize your statement is circular: "It isn't true because it can't be empirically proven. It can't be empirically proven because it isn't true."

So the presumption of heaven and hell lies within the believers of such fary tales, not the individual who only acerts that such things are not likely to be so. the onus of proof always lies on those making the assertions.

Don't be rediculous. Presumptions lie on both sides. At least I'm willing to admit that. You're right though, the onus of proof does lie on those making assertions. Just as one asserts god, one may assert there is no god. In any case, evidence must be shown and tested for proof. At best, one can say he doesn't know. Where there is lack of evidence, nothing can be said. I have no evidence that aliens have visited this world. It seems unlikely, and most people would say it hasn't happened. Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean one can assert with complete certainty that it is the case that it hasn't happened. All it means is that it's unlikely. So, say that. Say you don't know, but don't believe so. That's the truth. Stop being so rediculous and saying that lack of evidence is enough to assert with full certainty non-existence. If you really are dedicated to truth, stop pretending. Admit the truth. You believe God doesn't exist. Present cases, arguments, etc... which might support your belief. But stop acting as if it is the absolute, entirely obvious, completely KNOWN truth, that God does not exist, when all you really can say about the matter is that based on lack of acceptible evidence it is unlikely that God exists. Crap!

Godless

Godless

12-11-05, 01:58 AM

Have a nice read;

click (http://www.julianjaynes.org/evidence_summary.php)

Basically all made up bull shit from primitive mentality!.

Godless

Mosheh Thezion

12-11-05, 02:09 AM

I looked.. but all i found was biased opinion.. not fact.. not evidense.

-MT

Godless

12-11-05, 02:13 AM

Read the theory of Julian Jaynes mt. http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php

Godless

Mosheh Thezion

12-11-05, 02:38 AM

Thats nice.... and yes.. i would agree that crazyness had alot to due with religion and mystic stuff since the dawn of mans rise from the jungle.. some 70,000 years ago.

and does she discuss why?

the bottleneck? the fact that modern man evolved from what were less than 1000 humans.... and that it has been the lack of genetic diversity that has often times in history caused the birth of messed up people... in one way or another...

Abraham himself.. father of the Jews and Arabs... was born from incest.. and he heard voices.... and he lead his people.. who were small in number..
south into slavery at the hands of Pharohs...

so yeah.. alot of crazyness then and now...

but that still doesnt disprove pre-destiny.. does it?

cause the madness of abraham... allowed the Jews to flourish as Jews in a foreign land... and grow to large numbers... so many that one day.. Moses would have to set them free.

Mohammed also heard voices...

And Jesus supposively talked to God and the Devil....

we may even go so far as to suggest that drugs.. such as the psycodelic mushsrooms found around the world caused the birth of many religious views....
and the history of fungus would support such claims..

but it matters not.. since God created the Mushrooms.

The sources of religion in general matters not... the result is the same.

and usually thats good.. but of course.. men find ways to mess it up..
historically.. but thats not religions fault.. thats mans fault.

religion is a abstract thing.. it is ideas and thought.... and it saddens me when i hear people who are in a general sense.. Anti-religion.

they must have issues.

-MT

duendy

12-11-05, 03:56 AM

ahahhhhh, at LAST, someone else who acknowledges anceint use of psychedelic mushrooms....!

talking about Egypt for a moment. i dont know ifyou've noticed but some Christians here tend to talk about a 'lake of fire' an smugly relate how certain categories of people--not them of course--are gonna be flung in it for...eever and ever and ever

Actaully this mythic idea as far as i'velearned began in Egypt, BUT, their idea of it, andhell, was NOTeverlastin. it was the Christians who decided to punish the 'damned' for ever and ever.

the idea of eterna; heaven and eternal hell isreally polarity. it sows up believes based in unacknowledged duality, where thetwo polar xtremes become stasis

Modern consciousness research (Stanislav Grof ), and reports of NDEs, etcall shows that there exists potential subjective experiene of heavens and hells when our consciusnss is changed, through psychedelic inspiration, various experiential techniches like 'Holotropic Breathing', and NDEs, OBEs, various forms of psychological natrual heaing which our ignorant culture diagnoses as 'mental illness'......>So, a big hint is that te mythic idea of such states begin wit ctual experience. From which is presumed actual states

in our live we have up and down moements dont we, and different people have vrations of this, maybe deeper or more superficial. what tis means is is that thepotential for experience is dynamic and rounded. if there wasn't potential for ecstasy of joy ANDterror we wouodn't BE rounded would we....wouldn't be Whole. we'd be 2D!

Qorl

12-11-05, 04:08 AM

Watch movie The One.

beyondtimeandspace

12-11-05, 04:22 AM

Have a nice read;

click (http://www.julianjaynes.org/evidence_summary.php)

Basically all made up bull shit from primitive mentality!.

Godless

A few things worth mentioning. First, thank you for the good read, I'm inclined to purchase the book for myself.

Next, concerning the content of the material, as I understand from the bit that's provided at those links, in light of your previous post (which I already responded to). Religion, then, is not "made-up." If I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, the best you can say is that it is all one big misunderstanding, or mistake. Also, as a side note, as clearly shown in the thesis of the material of your link, ideas of afterlife and 'gods' came much earlier than Egyptian religion, during the hunter-gatherer, nomadism of man.

In any case, monotheism came much later than the early hallucination-stage. In fact, as the consciousness of man evolved, monotheism came to be one of the logical results (consider Aristotle here). If the hallucination-model of the bicameral mind is correct, and things like idol-worship was exactly that, worship of the object itself, then we should consider Biblical warnings against idol-worship as somewhat enlightenend. Furthermore, an examination of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis under the consideration of this theory appears to yield a fair understanding of the shift from 'unconsciousness' to consciousness in that it was with "knowledge" that man became guilty, for guilt can only be had by an intelligent mind. As well, the Cane and Abel story, under this consideration, should also make a little more sense, as it appears that the author of Genesis favored the time before 'consciousness,' since God favored the offing of Abel, a lamb, over the offering of Cane, a pile of produce. Of course, the symbolism is now obvious, since the lamb is associated with the hunter-gatherer life-style, while the produce is associated with the settled life-style. Each of these life-styles can then be associated with the different stages of mental development (hunter-gatherer to hallucination - God's acceptance.... settled to conscoius - God's rejection). Cane, representing right-hemisphere "kills his brother" left-hemisphere, and who goes on to settle and build cities.

Of course, later religions (like Catholocism), consider the middle ground, uniting the two, Ratio et Fides. After all, we do have two hemispheres, that is our nature. Then, of course, Buddhism said the middle ground was nothingness, a cancellation of the opposing forces, that suffering was a result of this life, and to end the suffering was to break the cycle of life and death. Of course, in a sense they're right, but it's actually awareness of this life that is the cause of suffering. Or to be more specific, consciousness. Priorly, we could experience pain, but not suffering. We felt pain, but weren't conscious of it.

Anyway, I've said before, in other threads, what was once believed, religiously, or what was believed at the birth of certain religions, isn't what is believed now. That's the main key. Conscious minds have concluded that there is a single God, but the characteristics of this God are almost entirely alien to the characteristics of early gods. This is what is important.

As far as I'm concerned, and have always been concerned, there is truth in every human construct, because human constructs are models whereby we come to understand the world about us. Science is merely the product of the right-hemisphere, Religion, the left. Both come from the brain. Both pertain to reality. How we understand ancient texts and beliefs... and this is vitally important... is probably NOT how they understood them.

duendy

12-11-05, 05:40 AM

A few things worth mentioning.

In any case, monotheism came much later than the early hallucination-stage. In fact, as the consciousness of man evolved, monotheism came to be one of the logical results (consider Aristotle here). If the hallucination-model of the bicameral mind is correct, and things like idol-worship was exactly that, worship of the object itself, then we should consider Biblical warnings against idol-worship as somewhat enlightenend.

me________i have never taken JulianJayne's tesis seriously. for if hmans HAD been natrually hallucinatory why thente central significance of psychedelic inspiration in myth. bot from world religious mythology (albeit crypticlly hidded) and Indigenous cultures. tis is't to say tho that premodern humans weren't more sensitve

Furthermore, an examination of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis under the consideration of this theory appears to yield a fair understanding of the shift from 'unconsciousness' to consciousness in that it was with "knowledge" that man became guilty, for guilt can only be had by an intelligent mind.

me)))))))))not so. animals can also be guilty. also intelligence is seeing THRU myth which guilts!

As well, the Cane and Abel story, under this consideration, should also make a little more sense, as it appears that the author of Genesis favored the time before 'consciousness,' since God favored the offing of Abel, a lamb, over the offering of Cane, a pile of produce. Of course, the symbolism is now obvious, since the lamb is associated with the hunter-gatherer life-style, while the produce is associated with the settled life-style. Each of these life-styles can then be associated with the different stages of mental development (hunter-gatherer to hallucination - God's acceptance.... settled to conscoius - God's rejection). Cane, representing right-hemisphere "kills his brother" left-hemisphere, and who goes on to settle and build cities.

me))))))hwat do you mean 'before consciousness'??

Of course, later religions (like Catholocism), consider the middle ground, uniting the two, Ratio et Fides. After all, we do have two hemispheres, that is our nature. Then, of course, Buddhism said the middle ground was nothingness, a cancellation of the opposing forces, that suffering was a result of this life, and to end the suffering was to break the cycle of life and death. Of course, in a sense they're right, but it's actually awareness of this life that is the cause of suffering. Or to be more specific, consciousness. Priorly, we could experience pain, but not suffering. We felt pain, but weren't conscious of it.

me))))))sorry mate, but yor talkin a load of cobblers!

Anyway, I've said before, in other threads, what was once believed, religiously, or what was believed at the birth of certain religions, isn't what is believed now. That's the main key. Conscious minds have concluded that there is a single God, but the characteristics of this God are almost entirely alien to the characteristics of early gods. This is what is important.

As far as I'm concerned, and have always been concerned, there is truth in every human construct, because human constructs are models whereby we come to understand the world about us. Science is merely the product of the right-hemisphere, Religion, the left. Both come from the brain. Both pertain to reality. How we understand ancient texts and beliefs... and this is vitally important... is probably NOT how they understood them.
you've got right and left brain mixed up. 'Right brain' has always mythicvally been te province of Goddess stream...ie., te patriarchal condemnation of it has been termed the 'Left hand Path', also 'sinister' means same. science is left brain right hand/hunters hand

c7ityi_

12-11-05, 08:13 AM

ahahhhhh, at LAST, someone else who acknowledges anceint use of psychedelic mushrooms....!

Who cares about ancient psychedelic mushrooms?

Actaully this mythic idea as far as i'velearned began in Egypt, BUT, their idea of it, andhell, was NOTeverlastin. it was the Christians who decided to punish the 'damned' for ever and ever.

"Forever" just means a time which feels very long (cuz of suffering), just like thousand years doesn't have to mean 1000 years.

If you suffer more, time goes slower. If you suffer infinitely, time seems to have stopped. It ceases to exist. Just like when you're happy... time ceases to exist... there is only the presence...

Still... even though hell seems eternal for the one who is in hell, time still goes forward.

Godless

12-11-05, 11:21 AM

Next, concerning the content of the material, as I understand from the bit that's provided at those links, in light of your previous post (which I already responded to). Religion, then, is not "made-up." If I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, the best you can say is that it is all one big misunderstanding, or mistake. Also, as a side note, as clearly shown in the thesis of the material of your link, ideas of afterlife and 'gods' came much earlier than Egyptian religion, during the hunter-gatherer, nomadism of man.

Surely but I ref. the Egyptians because they were actually the most known civilization to believe in such things. But throughout human evolution of mind, it (the mind) much developed rather similarly & furthermore BT&S after a few stiff drinks that night it was the only civilization that I thought of. ;)

In any case, monotheism came much later than the early hallucination-stage. In fact, as the consciousness of man evolved, monotheism came to be one of the logical results (consider Aristotle here). If the hallucination-model of the bicameral mind is correct, and things like idol-worship was exactly that, worship of the object itself, then we should consider Biblical warnings against idol-worship as somewhat enlightenend. Furthermore, an examination of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis under the consideration of this theory appears to yield a fair understanding of the shift from 'unconsciousness' to consciousness in that it was with "knowledge" that man became guilty, for guilt can only be had by an intelligent mind. As well, the Cane and Abel story, under this consideration, should also make a little more sense, as it appears that the author of Genesis favored the time before 'consciousness,' since God favored the offing of Abel, a lamb, over the offering of Cane, a pile of produce. Of course, the symbolism is now obvious, since the lamb is associated with the hunter-gatherer life-style, while the produce is associated with the settled life-style. Each of these life-styles can then be associated with the different stages of mental development (hunter-gatherer to hallucination - God's acceptance.... settled to conscoius - God's rejection). Cane, representing right-hemisphere "kills his brother" left-hemisphere, and who goes on to settle and build cities.

I believe Jaynes references the Cain & Able story of the bible, he uses the bible as a quide as well when the changes of the mind began to occur. However BT&S people are all different in this period of mental transition there will be those that lack consciousness and those whom still hear the voices. I.E. the oracles of the Greeks during the same period of time such as Aristotle and Plato. People still "believed" that the oracles had some sort of wisdom and communicated with the gods.

Of course, later religions (like Catholocism), consider the middle ground, uniting the two, Ratio et Fides. After all, we do have two hemispheres, that is our nature. Then, of course, Buddhism said the middle ground was nothingness, a cancellation of the opposing forces, that suffering was a result of this life, and to end the suffering was to break the cycle of life and death. Of course, in a sense they're right, but it's actually awareness of this life that is the cause of suffering. Or to be more specific, consciousness. Priorly, we could experience pain, but not suffering. We felt pain, but weren't conscious of it.

I must sound like a book salesmen by now. But Jaynes does covers different idealogies of beliefs, around the globe including the beliefs of Buddah. (Don't quote me on this) But I think that Sidharta Gautama (Buddah) was considered enlightened because he had become conscious of his enviorenment and self in this region of the world before others had reached this mental transition, thus he sought out to find his quest for enlightenment. Thus I think he perhaps understood very well what had happened to his mind and began to expand his knowledge of life and existence.

Anyway, I've said before, in other threads, what was once believed, religiously, or what was believed at the birth of certain religions, isn't what is believed now. That's the main key. Conscious minds have concluded that there is a single God, but the characteristics of this God are almost entirely alien to the characteristics of early gods. This is what is important.

Thus this is why many atheist assert that "god was created by men's immage" and not the other way around. And god will continue to change untill someday we evolve beyond it, and accept that no such entity need exist or does exist. However just like the times when people were becoming conscious of self the transformation began were civilization of individuals were conscious began to progress and others lack behind and still clunk to their voices "gods" will still occur, as is happening today. The atheist community is growing, secularist are becoming more in numbers while others still want to cling to and adhire to church authorities and doctrines.

As far as I'm concerned, and have always been concerned, there is truth in every human construct, because human constructs are models whereby we come to understand the world about us. Science is merely the product of the right-hemisphere, Religion, the left. Both come from the brain. Both pertain to reality. How we understand ancient texts and beliefs... and this is vitally important... is probably NOT how they understood them.

Evolution at work. The more that science discovers about our reality the further are we likely to believe in such things as gods, devils, demons, ghosts, unicorns, leprechans, and mysticism will be understood as a mental degenerative deseas.

Watch movie The One.

Cool movie, but not likely to be true. Just like the matrix.

Godless

duendy

12-11-05, 11:32 AM

Who cares about ancient psychedelic mushrooms?

me)))))))obviously not yo flakey

"Forever" just means a time which feels very long (cuz of suffering), just like thousand years doesn't have to mean 1000 years.

me))))))oh right. you are professional interpreter for the offical Christian Church are you....get reaaal kid. yo is makin it up as yu go along...ha ha....

If you suffer more, time goes slower. If you suffer infinitely, time seems to have stopped. It ceases to exist. Just like when you're happy... time ceases to exist... there is only the presence...

me))))yes. you mean atemporal. wedig. but errr the Church idn't MEA tat. they meant everlasting punishment in hell, ad eternal reward in heaven....oooops. u know, carrot and stick?

Still... even though hell seems eternal for the one who is in hell, time still goes forward.
you should right a book titled 'this is how it is'

c7ityi_

12-11-05, 12:37 PM

me))))))oh right. you are professional interpreter for the offical Christian Church are you....get reaaal kid. yo is makin it up as yu go along...ha ha....

i'm an expert interpreter of the bible. dunno nothing about the church.. yea... i'm kind of making it up as i go but i don't understand what it matters. i know i'm still right cuz i trust my intuition.

i don't know how old you are but maybe you're too old to understand it.

you should right a book titled 'this is how it is'

'This is how I THINK it is'. But when I write, [I think] it's unnecessary to always say "I think" and things like "probably". Best not to waste words and just get to the point. There's no need to include personal stuff in discussion,

duendy

12-11-05, 03:53 PM

i'm an expert interpreter of the bible. dunno nothing about the church.. yea... i'm kind of making it up as i go but i don't understand what it matters. i know i'm still right cuz i trust my intuition.

i don't know how old you are but maybe you're too old to understand it.

'This is how I THINK it is'. But when I write, [I think] it's unnecessary to always say "I think" and things like "probably". Best not to waste words and just get to the point. There's no need to include personal stuff in discussion,
alright alright, fair enough. you admit it is not set in 'religios' and/or'scientific' book of law fine. but i dont aggree with many of your insights as you know

c7ityi_

12-11-05, 06:49 PM

but i dont aggree with many of your insights as you know

I don't agree with them either....

Mosheh Thezion

12-12-05, 01:43 AM

The only thing wrong with the bible, is that people cling to the 1500 year old interpretation of genesis and so forth...

Genesis is not flawed... our interpretation of it is.

-MT

Godless

12-12-05, 01:49 AM

Genesis is not flawed... our interpretation of it is.

LOL.. Thanks for the good joke!. :D

link (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html)

The bible is not flawed only our interpretation keeps changing with every new scientific finding... that's all. :rolleyes:

Godless

Mosheh Thezion

12-12-05, 02:04 AM

no... i didnt say that...

basically.. the old interpretation of genesis is wrong...
but the verse by verse pattern in genesis can be considered.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50697
I am willing to discuss each and every verse.

-MT (granted day 4 is flawed.. but since it was written 3000 years ago, id say its close enough... )

The Devil Inside

12-12-05, 04:28 AM

Sure heaven exists. Well it will exist. Or maybe it might exist one day.

It all depends on how well we can pull ourselves together and solve a few problems, like how not to die for a start.

that is the most open minded thing ive ever seen you post!! wow...perhaps i made a false assumption of you. do more gems like this lie in wait in your brains?
actually, i guess this just proves that no matter how open minded i think i am, sometimes i am a victim of close-mindedness too.

thank you for the humbling experience, Cris! :)
(none of the above post was sarcasm)

The Devil Inside

12-12-05, 04:34 AM

i cant speak for the NT, but with the Torah, everything that is written that is "fantastic" actually can be interpreted scientifically as well. for every verse, there is a counterverse somewhere else in the Torah that gives you the ability to apply what was written to the reality we now live in.
for example: Genesis says the earth was created in six days. well, in the songs of solomon, there is verse stating that one day to god is a thousand years to man, and goes on to describe the formula for such calculations. carrying this out, i calculated the age of the universe to be 15 billion years. its all in the bible.
now, before the debunkers sink their teeth into me, im going to go get the verse and chapter numbers, so they can do the calculations themselves :)
be back with results in a few hours with the formula, book, and chapter numbers.
the reason for this post is so that people can see that there is a such thing as an intelligent, scientifically minded believer. where there is ONE, there are bound to be MANY, no? :m:

The Devil Inside

12-12-05, 04:46 AM

http://www.kiva.net/%7Ekls/page2.html

unfortunately, my time today is limited suddenly..but i was able to find a fairly opinionated (i admit) site that details the skeleton of what i was saying.

if i am reminded, i will supply the scriptures promised above.

duendy

12-12-05, 08:07 AM

it is so VERY dangerous to scientificate patriarchal mythology, which is what yor doing.......!
IRONICALLY it isn't new. it has been agoin on ever since the emergence of science, with Galileo!!

first there was an agreement between science and church.
I.e., it was agreed that scientific endeavour would focus on physica and forces, and church on 'spirital' matters

Now i want you to really take note bout that agreement........It is agreed, but both sides do not acknowledge the PREMISE of there being a supposed split between 'matter' and 'spirit'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
do you get me??

When eventually wit post Galillean science even 'God' and 'spirit' are dispensed with as being non-existent as thewy cannot be measured, and re not needed for te pursuit of ' MATERIALISTIC science', then we arrive into the mechanistic paradigm we are still immersed in now.

So how does the patriarchal myth of Judaic Christianity still ten effect science on an UNconscious level?..well read again Chris's (a person claiming to not be religious anymore) last post. about how soon we will soon scintifically defeat death.....! ....yes? understand?...the patriarchal myth is still wokin on in tere in preconceived assumptions ,aand visions, etc, which is all VERY VERYdangerous. so you godless claiming scientific commensurabiility wit biblical myth throws more petrol ontothe already blazin fire !

of course yer free to do i, i am warning of the dangers

Godless

12-12-05, 09:57 AM

about how soon we will soon scintifically defeat death.....! ....yes? understand?...the patriarchal myth is still wokin on in tere in preconceived assumptions ,aand visions, etc, which is all VERY VERYdangerous. so you godless claiming scientific commensurabiility wit biblical myth throws more petrol ontothe already blazin fire !

Dude, you realy don't know what the fuck you are talking about. When Chris or I mention about defeating death, it's in a secular way, no false promise, it's been researched as we speak, biological immortality won't stop people from dying from accidents or personal trauma (suicide), people will still be dying, however life will be prolonged for individuals that do take advantage of scientific research to prolong their lives.

Ref (http://www.imminst.org/book1/)

click (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=34580)

ACHIEVING COMMERCIAL BIOLOGICAL IMMORTALITY (http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/discovery/nt5.html)

Godless

duendy

12-12-05, 11:11 AM

Dude, you realy don't know what the fuck you are talking about. When Chris or I mention about defeating death, it's in a secular way, no false promise, it's been researched as we speak, biological immortality won't stop people from dying from accidents or personal trauma (suicide), people will still be dying, however life will be prolonged for individuals that do take advantage of scientific research to prolong their lives.

Ref (http://www.imminst.org/book1/)

click (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=34580)

ACHIEVING COMMERCIAL BIOLOGICAL IMMORTALITY (http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/discovery/nt5.html)

Godless
no your not listening. so listen. of bleedin COURSE yer not gonna mention 'God'. you IMAGINEyou have left all thayt behind dont you?

BUT, all of te VISIONof tat patriarchal myth of 'defeating death'--yeah??--lives ON with you. only THIS tyime science is 'god' and/or the scientist(s) is god and/or the CULTURE that believes it is superior cause it has knowledge of science is god. get me?

BOTH you and previous paradigm split spirit from Nature. in fact as said, science disMISSESte very idea of spirit. not only as te patriarchal idea of 'God' but even prepatriarchal understanding os spirit beling immanent in matter. ie., Nature being alive. is this clear?

NOw. previos paradigm created confilts with thi psychological split, and that shit is still going on in tis so-clled Age of Science. ie., Middle East etc

What your worldviews do to add to the mess is your naive vision tat deat can be defeated. how very reductionist of you. having no tought for ote species, resources, generations to come. get me?...WHO will live longer or have so-called biological immortality (as IF).....let me tell you. the elite is who! the rich/ the ones, the grabin greedy, who wont and cant LET GO. of course you cant see this. blinded as yo are by your ridiulous dreams

The Devil Inside

12-12-05, 03:09 PM

sometimes im embarrassed to be lumped in with people like duendy.
i agree with secularists far more than with religious folks, usually.
strange that i am a deeply spiritual person.

SnakeLord

12-12-05, 03:59 PM

From a biblical perspective "heaven" merely relates to the big black expanse above our heads, (space), and so yes.. it does exist. If you think you're going to get an eternal life version 2.0 with your loved ones once you kick the bucket somewhere out in the big black expanse, then you are deluded beyond compare.

Again from a biblical perspective there is the afterlife (tm), that entails living in a new jerusalem. Personally I don't wanna live there in this life let alone the next one. Of course however things are changed slightly.. Instead of the streets being made of shoddy brickwork and poor mans concrete, it's made of gold and rubies and diamonds and emeralds and every other kind of gem that a seriously materialistic weasel could want. In that city dwell all the 'good' folk, while the sexually immoral, liars, fortune tellers and dogs get to dwell outside the city. If anyone actually believes this ancient halfwit tripe, I would urge the local government to take that person out and extinctify him. It is without doubt the largest single piece of old bollocks I have ever had the misfortune of being presented with and I simply detest the fact that there are that many fools that believe it to be real.

From a non-biblical perspective, I can only state the above once more. Complete and utter bollocks, plain and simple.

From a personal perspective I think the very idea is far from appealing, indeed it gives me the shits. Yes, I love my wife dearly, but would I want to spend the next 60 gazillion trillion billion gajillion quadrillion sentillion years with the woman? Please.. gimme a break.

I can't honestly believe anyone in their right mind would give the notion serious consideration. Complete utter total bollocks.

duendy

12-12-05, 04:09 PM

sometimes im embarrassed to be lumped in with people like duendy.
i agree with secularists far more than with religious folks, usually.
strange that i am a deeply spiritual person.
if i was you i'd be embarrassed at my lack of understanding capacity

duendy

12-12-05, 04:36 PM

i suggest the idea of heaven and hell originats for our species from actual psychological experience either with psychedelic experience, or by means such as visions which our culture would class as 'mental illness' or NDE', OBEs.

what is notable about the mystical schools, and Abrahamic religions, this individual experience has been made into a dogma of everlasting heaven or hell

does that cancel OUT awareness after death?.what would BE aware, ? your persona? persona means 'mask' ie, what you think is 'you'

does that mean i am speaking about a 'One'--asis believed by some Eastern beliefs? not really. maybe tere MAY be a form of unique but exanded awareness, and that isn't for ever but is a transitory state till forming....ie., consciusness is a continuum, which will include various states including death and regeneration, etc

Mosheh Thezion

12-12-05, 10:49 PM

I died once... and i passed threw the tunnel and i was floating in the light...

and i thought to myself.. "gee.. this is wierd... what am i doing here? i was just sitting in a chair...?"
so i tried to turn around and see the tunnel i just came out of, cause there was nothing else to look at except a vast volume of glowing yellowish white medium of somesort...

and as i turned around.. i remember a vague memory of seeing a tiny dot receeding at great speed...
and then.. all of a sudden i was back in my body, and the nurse was waving smelling salts in my face and asking my name...

-MT

The Devil Inside

12-13-05, 05:48 AM

if i was you i'd be embarrassed at my lack of understanding capacity

yowzas...a sentence with no grammar mistakes!! :m:

duendy

12-13-05, 05:50 AM

yowzas...a sentence with no grammar mistakes!! :m:
feel better after that bitchy comment?

The Devil Inside

12-13-05, 06:54 AM

well, some people try to make sense using actual words when they use a keyboard.
you, however, love to leave every third letter out of most words.
thats all.
good job, you have 2 in a row!!

duendy

12-13-05, 09:01 AM

well, some people try to make sense using actual words when they use a keyboard.
you, however, love to leave every third letter out of most words.
thats all.
good job, you have 2 in a row!!
hah....what i am more inter ested in is w h y you have changed the SUBJECT...!!

The Devil Inside

12-13-05, 10:06 AM

hey, all i said was that i was embarrassed that people attach us to the same lines of thinking.

duendy

12-13-05, 10:16 AM

hey, all i said was that i was embarrassed that people attach us to the same lines of thinking.
yip i earrd ya. which was intended yto try and embrarrass the person your embarrased to be asociated with...plus to add insult to 'injury' to further humiliate them about spellin etc...........nice person hey? destined for heaven or hell? In heaven or hell? what would u say?

what will you do when them angels show ya on video what a snide so an so yo is...? huh?

Godless

12-13-05, 10:28 AM

what will you do when them angels show ya on video what a snide so an so yo is...? huh?

Modern angels?. with cam corders now! :rolleyes: LOL...

G.

The Devil Inside

12-13-05, 01:13 PM

The Devil Inside

12-13-05, 01:18 PM

a quick translation for those who arent fluent in "duendyspeak":

yip (yep) i earrd (heard) ya (you). which was intended yto (to) try and embrarrass (embarrass) the person your (you're) embarrased to be asociated (associated) with...plus to add insult to 'injury' to further humiliate them about spellin (spelling) etc...........nice person hey? destined for heaven or hell? In heaven or hell? what would u (you) say?

what will you do when them angels show ya (you) on video what a snide (snyde) so an (and) so yo (you) is...? huh?

i apologize for not correcting the grammar, as it was kind of a trainwreck (as anyone with knowledge of the english language can see).

SnakeLord

12-13-05, 01:40 PM

As we're on the subject of spelling, I must ask why you put a '-' in the middle of god. had a problem figuring out what letter was supposed to go there?

duendy

12-13-05, 04:52 PM

when (if) i encounter an angel with a camcorder shot of my life, i will immediately put that angel in it's place, if it tries to lay a guilt trip on me.

angels are servants of G-d, and placed lower than humans, according to judeo-christian belief.

as for you trying to form a thought...stop. its not helping your case.
youu stop.......look, yer showin limited imagination. yes yer being a prick now but with maybe a glass of wine you might might mellow...change of consiousness you see
now. have you read anythin bout NDEs......................?
if you have you know tat usully individual is sucked inot a tunnel and is surrounded b deep feeling of love. now d u amit that'd be change of consciousness?.,,,,,cause it fukin wud right?
then say you see vid of you being a complete prat....what then?

candy

12-13-05, 06:38 PM

Note to god,
It has come to my attention that some angels have been issued camcorders to my knowledge my angels have not received camcorders please redress this discriminatory action ASP.

I assume that what duendy is referring to is the life review in reincarnation theories.

The Devil Inside

12-14-05, 03:16 AM

the "-" is there because i dont feel myself worthy to spell the word out, as i am a human.

and duendy...you are making assumptions about things you have no idea of. like i said, if an "angel" comes near me with his camcorder shot of my life, putting a guilt trip on me better be the last of it's worries. G-d has placed us above all creations, including angels. i would kick the angel back to it's service post. if conviction comes, it will be at the hand of the Ancient of Days.

i agree with candy...i think ALL angels should get camcorders, if SOME do...its only fair.

SnakeLord

12-15-05, 12:04 AM

the "-" is there because i dont feel myself worthy to spell the word out, as i am a human.

Personally I fail to see why. god is not a name, it's a species classification. "I am the lord your god", "don't worship other gods" etc.. His name, (to a jewish person), would be yhwh, to an ancient nord; odin, and so on. Ok, I still fail to see where worthiness comes into saying or not saying someone's name, but even less so when referring to a species.

Mosheh Thezion

12-15-05, 01:33 AM

The heavens... are space and all that is in it... (acording to genesis)

today... we can see it all... and now we contemplate what is outside space...

I,.e.. the God plane... true Heaven.

-MT

The Devil Inside

12-15-05, 05:43 AM

Personally I fail to see why. god is not a name, it's a species classification. "I am the lord your god", "don't worship other gods" etc.. His name, (to a jewish person), would be yhwh, to an ancient nord; odin, and so on. Ok, I still fail to see where worthiness comes into saying or not saying someone's name, but even less so when referring to a species.

its just a matter of respect for what i hold sacred, SnakeLord.
peace

duendy

12-15-05, 07:20 AM

the "-" is there because i dont feel myself worthy to spell the word out, as i am a human.

and duendy...you are making assumptions about things you have no idea of.

me)))))hahQ EYE am making assumptions...???????carry on...

like i said, if an "angel" comes near me with his camcorder shot of my life, putting a guilt trip on me better be the last of it's worries.

me))))UUUUUU whyyy, whatchagonna dooooo....???

G-d has placed us above all creations, including angels. i would kick the angel back to it's service post. if conviction comes, it will be at the hand of the Ancient of Days.

me)))oh ek, another ' the ancient of days' freak.....so WHOSE makin assumptions NOW then? where do yo get all this BS from?..errrrm, let me guess. oh yeah, i remember, now. Steiner right? Anthroposophy, yeah?no? where then? whats ya religion??....come on open up, andlets examine it. but try and stay cool

i agree with candy...i think ALL angels should get camcorders, if SOME do...its only fair.
they dont need em they got other shit...of cpurse, i dont know this fo sure

loki_ghost

12-15-05, 07:34 AM

Yes... heaven exists... The God plane.. where God lives...

God who applied the energy for creation.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/6760/0dto3d7mm.jpg

-MT

Soo the greys stole our Earth-Core?

loki_ghost

12-15-05, 07:35 AM

I'll try to decode this one i guess.

Mosheh Thezion

12-16-05, 02:13 AM

Greys? earth core??? what?
-MT

ggazoo

12-22-05, 10:47 PM

Godless,

Your complete lack of faith and willing to accept anything that might have the remote chance for an afterlife and the exsistence of God disturbs me. I registered just so I could reply to your posts.

Having experienced some tragedy in my life (most recently losing my father-in-law to cancer this year just months before our wedding), those instances personally have brought me closer to God. But, since this is a sci-fi forum, consider these points as a counter argument for your "fairy tale". I can only hope that you will at least consider the following:

THE EARTH

...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible - if Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

THE HUMAN BRAIN

When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.

MERE CHANCE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXPLAINATION OF CREATION

Take Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.

The Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?

MANKIND'S INHERENT SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG CANNOT BE BIOLOGICALLY EXPLAINED

There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?

And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.

My point is that someone had all of this... it was no mistake. You can read the whole article here:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

As far as there being no "proof"... well, that's the whole point. If we had proof, you wouldn't need faith, which is the whole basis of religion. I truly believe that God asks us to just believe... that's the whole test. Having proof would make it redundant.

Just food for thought. I know this won't change your mind... just don't dimiss it entirely.

KennyJC

12-22-05, 11:47 PM

THE EARTH

...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible - if Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen.

Yes, Earth was formed in the right place at the right time, pure luck.

Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

That isn't saying much since our current technology is only capable of spotting gas giants close by. A couple of hundred known planets doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

THE HUMAN BRAIN

Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.

A massive assumption that is naive at best. If you assume another mind creates the human mind, then does a higher gravity create gravity?

MERE CHANCE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXPLAINATION OF CREATION

Take Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.

Poor analogy. We can pressume that Mount Rushmore was carved out of rock by humans because we have evidence of that.

The Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?

Again, what does Earth's position in orbit have to do with anything? There are billions of trillions of stars in the visible universe, there are going to be planets that are in just the right place for life to be possible, it is just chance. There are no beings on pluto saying "wow God loves us" because it is too far away from the Sun...

MANKIND'S INHERENT SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG CANNOT BE BIOLOGICALLY EXPLAINED

It must be explained somewhere. It has been proven throughout the centuries that once mysterious things are one day found out to have an explanation.

There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?

Like any animals who live in society, they need to behave in a correct manner to be accepted. It can not be any man for himself, especially in complicated society like our own where rules must be followed otherwise civilisation would crumble. If we did not learn this aid, we would still be naked living in caves.

Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.

That is definetly not the best explanation. This just depends if you accept the laws of nature, or make up your own fantasy of a bearded God with a penis who feels emotions of love such as we do.

As far as there being no "proof"... well, that's the whole point. If we had proof, you wouldn't need faith, which is the whole basis of religion. I truly believe that God asks us to just believe... that's the whole test. Having proof would make it redundant.

Yes, and that's all you have, faith.

Godless

12-23-05, 01:19 PM

Your complete lack of faith and willing to accept anything that might have the remote chance for an afterlife and the exsistence of God disturbs me.

Why should it bother you?, without faith in religion I've become straight, "not a drug addict." True many leave drugs, and turn to religion, which is really just another form of a drug. Something that makes them feel better.

I registered just so I could reply to your posts.

Welcome to the board. I'm not the only atheist here BTW.

Having experienced some tragedy in my life (most recently losing my father-in-law to cancer this year just months before our wedding), those instances personally have brought me closer to God.

I feel for your loss. I live with an elderly lady (my mother) I know that she too will die some day. I once told her: "The dead feels nothing, the ones that truly suffer are those that they leave behind." The reason why you've come closer to your god is because it's your drug, it makes you feel better. But like any drug, too much of it, can fry your brains.

*THE EARTH

...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible - if Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.*

There are possibly trillions of of earth like planets in the universe. Chances are that some have evolved to sustain life as well. And the earth is not perfect for god's people either. Many christian, theists, and even atheist have died in natural disasters cased by this earth, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tidal waves and all natural disasters, make it a chaotic place to live, far from perfect!

* THE HUMAN BRAIN

When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain?

Yea! aint evolution something?

*Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.

Only a mind more inelligent and knowledgeable than your god could have could have created your god.

The Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?

You need to brush up on your evolution studies.

MANKIND'S INHERENT SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG CANNOT BE BIOLOGICALLY EXPLAINED

What evidence of this do you posses?. I on the other hand have experience of life, that human kind has no sense of right and wrong. Wars, murders, genocides of civilizations, and this was just the christians!. Our sense of justice, our sense of morals are dictated by the society we live in. It's justifiable in some religious zealots society to commit suitside & take many apponents as they can to justify their beliefs. This for them is right & just.

And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong?

Manipulative emotions. The powers that be, emotionally manipulate the masses for their cause, their bidding, their moral sense, wether it is right or wrong must be defined by the individual. With a self sense of moral not one that's dictated by others.

As far as there being no "proof"... well, that's the whole point. If we had proof, you wouldn't need faith, which is the whole basis of religion. I truly believe that God asks us to just believe... that's the whole test. Having proof would make it redundant.

What is redundant is to believe in ancient rhetoric writen by dessert nomads to scape their prosecussion and enslavement. Their plea was to be free, their invention of this god was the weapon to manipulate their people to fight for their cause. Commendable sure! but no dice of proving any supernatural power helped them in any way. Their promised land was not empty! they had to fight for it. A promised land should had contained no civilization prior to their arrival. I assume your speaking of the Hebrews, for these are the ones who wrote the bible and were the christian god spawned out of.

Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World (http://freedomkeys.com/faithandforce.htm)

Thanks for link! I'll check it out after some very much deserved rest.

Godless

ggazoo

12-23-05, 03:55 PM

I feel for your loss. I live with an elderly lady (my mother) I know that she too will die some day. I once told her: "The dead feels nothing, the ones that truly suffer are those that they leave behind." The reason why you've come closer to your god is because it's your drug, it makes you feel better. But like any drug, too much of it, can fry your brains.

Thanks.. it's been a tough year. I don't buy into the whole "drug" analogy though... I'm closer to God because that's where my heart is. Being an atheist, you'll never undertsand (but at least you'll listen, which I can appreciate), so I can't explain it.

No matter what I say, you'll refute every point unless it can be proven to you, and that's fine. I just choose to belive. It's like, if I have a friend who tells me that he bought a car, I don't have to see it to believe him. He told me, so I trust him. Same principal.

Does part of me believe in hopes that I might see the people I've lost in my life again someday? Partially. But it's also the one thing that keeps me going sometimes. It's the old adage: "For those who get it, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation will do."

Yes, and that's all you have, faith.

That's right...and that's the whole point. You can't prove that there isn't a heaven no more than I can prove that there is.

KennyJC

12-23-05, 04:10 PM

But there is a heaven - Right in your lonely little mind.

I wouldn't want to live in a universe where there wasn't a chunk of gold shaped like Britney Spears burried under my garden, but I can only have faith that there is.

Godless

12-23-05, 08:16 PM

I wouldn't want to live in a universe where there wasn't a chunk of gold shaped like Britney Spears burried under my garden, but I can only have faith that there is.

You mean I won't get my 15 virgins? Damn! better take this dynamite belt off!. :D

If only it were that easy to convince a Zealot Muslim not to commit suicide.

Being an atheist, you'll never undertsand (but at least you'll listen, which I can appreciate), so I can't explain it.

I was not always an atheist. So I do understand the concept. I too have a heart, though I rather use my mind and not let my emotions judge my behavior.

No matter what I say, you'll refute every point unless it can be proven to you, and that's fine. I just choose to belive.

That's the hole point!. One chooses. But when making a choice I rather use my mind, logic & reason. Not my appeals to the emotions of others false assumptions which lack reason. I was once a Catholic by parental indoctrination, became Christian in mid teens, and rebirth again in Babtism late teens. So I do understand the emotional implications to religiousity. That is untill life showed me otherwise. I lived under false hopes, I let my superstitious beliefs get the better of me, whent through hell on earth. After two seperate nervous breakdowns I began to re-educate myself. This time I left religion because part of my breakdown was from religious dellusion.

Godless

genep

12-23-05, 08:36 PM

Do you think heaven exists? Part of me likes thinking of the fact I might live in eternal paridise. However I think the concept of Heaven is based on Man's fear of mortality.

U R both heaven and god.
the thoughts called ego
is a joke
god needs to find heaven.

This is what Advaita and its Samadhi and Nirvana is all about:
U R both god and heaven.

ggazoo

12-23-05, 09:03 PM

Hmmm.. a couple of my frineds are also atheist, and they too come from a cahtolic background - might be on to something here. lol

Not my appeals to the emotions of others false assumptions which lack reason. Godless

Well, you could also be going by false assumptions as well. Check this link out - I know it won't change your mind (it lets the Bible do a lot of the heavy lifting), but it might be worth the read:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

... and check out "General Introduction for Non-Believers" section for starters. I would love to get your opinons on their articles, many have them support scientific reasoning and knowledge.

ggazoo

12-23-05, 09:26 PM

But there is a heaven - Right in your lonely little mind.

Really... well then what about these "lonely little minds":

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted was to see his philosophy adopted as standard Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, "for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels."... As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was the formation of the X-Club, dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science whilst, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

Kelvin (William Thomson) (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered may areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities who recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

:rolleyes:

KennyJC

12-23-05, 10:04 PM

Really... well then what about these "lonely little minds":

I assume you are trying to make a point that smart people can also believe in a God/Heaven. That is irrelevant, although I think a poll would show atheism higher amongst the educated compared to that of rednecks from Alabama :D

I never said that all people are stupid if they take these different baseless fantasies as reality, although it is most certainly irrational to the highest order. A belief in a loving God and Heaven is born out of pure insecurity and fear of death, it's only purpose serves to make people feel better which would be ok if religion was not an endless source of violence and conflict which atheists have to stand by and watch.

SnakeLord

12-24-05, 01:12 AM

It's like, if I have a friend who tells me that he bought a car, I don't have to see it to believe him. He told me, so I trust him. Same principal.

Worth explaining that it isn't the same principal whatsoever. Religious people often do that - trying to find some sort of comparison between their belief in god and another man trusting his friend when he says he's bought a car. They aren't the same thing. What you're actually saying is this:

"It's like, if I have a friend who tells me a leprechaun lives in his garden, I don't have to see it to believe him".

That's much more accurate.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

A common misconception, (or perhaps lie), on the part of religious folk. Albert Einstein was not religious, and did not believe in god:

'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.' (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side.

It's quite funny that 50 years later and those lies are still being systematically repeated.

Mythbuster

12-24-05, 01:20 AM

http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

Godless

12-24-05, 02:18 AM

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.

Copernicus was certainly an astronomer but he was not the first to speculate the heliocentric theory.

Aristarchus of Samos, often referred to as the Copernicus of antiquity, laid the foundation for much scientific examination of the heavens. According to his contemporary, Archimedes, Aristarchus was the first to propose not only a heliocentric universe, but one larger than any of the geocentric universes proposed by his predecessors. click (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Kristen/Aristarchus.html)

Aristarchus was certainly both a mathematician and astronomer and he is most celebrated as the first to propose a sun-centred universe. He is also famed for his pioneering attempt to determine the sizes and distances of the sun and moon. We shall look at these two achievements below.

Aristarchus was a student of Strato of Lampsacus, who was head of Aristotle's Lyceum. However, it is not thought that Aristarchus studied with Strato in Athens but rather that he studied with him in Alexandria. Strato became head of the Lyceum at Alexandria in 287 BC and it is thought that Aristarchus studied with him there starting his studies shortly after that date. click (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm)

Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days. (same ref. as above) This does contradict your notion of Corpernicus welcome theory. :rolleyes:

Kepler's family was Lutheran and he adhered to the Augsburg Confession a defining document for Lutheranism. However, he did not adhere to the Lutheran position on the real presence and refused to sign the Formula of Concord. Because of his refusal he was excluded from the sacrament in the Lutheran church. This and his refusal to convert to Catholicism left him alienated by both the Lutherans and the Catholics. Thus he had no refuge during the Thirty-Years War.click (http://kepler.nasa.gov/johannes/)

Yet another scientist treated as heretic because he contradicted the church's false notions of reality.

I mentioned Galileo above.

In Holland Descartes produced a scientific work called Le Monde or The World which he was about to publish in 1634. At the point, however, he learned that Galileo had been condemned by the Church for teaching Copernicanism. Descarte s' book was Copernican to the core, and he therefore had it supressed. click (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/descartes.html)

Yet another scientist that was suppresed by fear of heresey agaist an ingnorant church.

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

By his above comment Einstein was more of a deist. However he didn't set out to disprove god concept.

What made me post was the erroneous mistake most people often make, considering Copernicus. He merely worked out the theory of heliocetrism of Aristarchus.

Godless

ggazoo

12-24-05, 11:46 AM

This is probably going to be my lost post until after Christmas - I really don't want to be debating my beliefs over the holidays. ;)

A belief in a loving God and Heaven is born out of pure insecurity and fear of death, it's only purpose serves to make people feel better which would be ok if religion was not an endless source of violence and conflict which atheists have to stand by and watch.

I absolutely agree - many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, or religion, but by evil human beings. War was never a docturine of religion, but a choice made by mankind.

In fact, if you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. This last example of atheist-led atrocities by itself resulted in the deaths of more people than those who were killed by 2000 years of "Christian" atrocities. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?

Worth explaining that it isn't the same principal whatsoever. Religious people often do that - trying to find some sort of comparison between their belief in god and another man trusting his friend when he says he's bought a car. They aren't the same thing. What you're actually saying is this:

"It's like, if I have a friend who tells me a leprechaun lives in his garden, I don't have to see it to believe him".

That's much more accurate.

It's unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10. Contary to what people on this site are saying, people do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them feel better, then we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

A common misconception, (or perhaps lie), on the part of religious folk. Albert Einstein was not religious, and did not believe in god:

'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.' (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side.

It's quite funny that 50 years later and those lies are still being systematically repeated.

My apologies, my previous post was a little misleading. Einstein might best be described as an agnostic:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

So, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, as 'Godless' mentioned in his previous post, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist.

It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

SnakeLord

12-24-05, 12:48 PM

It's unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10. Contary to what people on this site are saying, people do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them feel better, then we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

Although I don't really see it as being a response to my post, I will reply by stating that I find it comes down to 'seeds'.

A seed that has been planted in a child's mind might grow or wither, but will never die. So for some bizarre reason we delude our children. We make them believe that there is a fat red guy flying round the place every year. Why do we do it? We excuse ourselves under the notion that it is fun for children, and yet at the end of the day it is a lie, nothing more. With a straight face we lie to our children and get them to believe whatever we want them to.

The seed has been planted.

They then grow up and lie to their children just as we did to them. We accept it, we embrace it, we do not take a moment to actually sit down and contemplate it. We tell them santa's coming as if we ourselves believe it - and the only thing that gets in the way is the evidence, (we buy the presents).

For thousands of years, generation after generation have been seeded with the notion of gods. From millions of gods, to demi gods, to elephant headed gods to scrawny suicidal gods. It's exactly the same as santa, except we're no longer talking playstations and barbie dolls, but life and death.

By and large religious people also tend not to notice that it is indeed us humans that are 'buying the presents'. You'll see on TV someone stuck in a flood or something. Rescue crews will turn up and work day and night to save the guy. When the guy is eventually saved the nearest religious person turns round and says: "god answered my prayers and saved that guy", without ever realising that in reality the guy was actually saved by the rescue crews, not by any sky beings.

As for leprechauns, they're not generally planted in childrens minds as being real, and thus nobody ever really gives them a second thought.

The process is always the same though - we lie to our children. We bombard their fragile minds with the things we imagine, the things we dream up, the things we so much want to be true. The process then repeats itself.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Another vast misconception. It seems you have fallen victim to common religious propaganda. However, a couple of other posters have provided links so there's little need for me to explain it further.

Merry sol invictus.

KennyJC

12-24-05, 01:31 PM

I absolutely agree - many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, or religion, but by evil human beings. War was never a docturine of religion, but a choice made by mankind.

Slavery and child beatings to name just a few 'atrocities' can all be justified by reading the bible, the same way a sucide bomber can justify his actions from holy scriptures.

Since religions consider scriptures such as these "the word of God", then by your reasoning, atrocities can be directly attributed by him.

In fact, if you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. This last example of atheist-led atrocities by itself resulted in the deaths of more people than those who were killed by 2000 years of "Christian" atrocities. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?

Athiest dictatorships just like religious dictatorships are as cruel and irrational as each other. By todays standards secular democracies have a higher moral standing than that of any country with strong relgious beliefs, as the facts clearly show. Once again I am forced to say this to an ignorant fundie who can't see that the world is being dragged down by the conflict of religion wether it can be blamed directly on the "word of God" or merely by people who follow religion.

If you are not convinced that today atheism makes for a safer society then I suppose I will have to copy and paste the facts which I have had to explain 100 times everytime a fundie mentions Stalin, or that a society without God can not maintain law and order.

It's unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.

And why do we stop believing? Because we have evidence that presents are merely put there by our parents. Most smart people can at least use their brains and see that there is evidence most organized religions turned out to be proven false. Which really shouldn't surprised anyone since the many religions can not all be correct.

Contary to what people on this site are saying, people do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them feel better, then we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

Santa does not threaten you to an eternity with Satan if you don't believe in him though does he?

So, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God.

Did he? What is your source for saying Einstein thought that the big bang must have meant there is a God?

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

All I see is you speaking on behalf of Einstein (which many theists have tried to do) without giving a source of him actually thinking this.

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist.

Again you have spouted a load of rubbish which until you provide a source for assuming all these things of Einstein, it remains bullshit. Some people don't prentend to understand the "motives of God", because no one knows. You think you know based on what other humans have written thousands of years ago. The joke is on you.

It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

Now this is stupid. As if it is as simple as that. Follow God and you get eternal life, don't and you suck Satans cock in hell for eternity. This may be simple logic to someone as derranged as you, but it is completely baseless and irrational.