My spirit is troubled..

[Gravekeeper]

Only the same on the outside, so to speak.

Scientifically speaking, the outside is literally all that matters here. As the inside has zilch effect on the outside world beyond any percieved notions within the minds of those involved. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

Well, yes, but only if you ignore what effect an internal force has on a person's external actions.

Just because something is all in a person's head doesn't negate it's potential to affect the external reality of others.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Well, yes, but only if you ignore what effect an internal force has on a person's external actions.

Just because something is all in a person's head doesn't negate it's potential to affect the external reality of others.

That wasn't my point and even if it was, someone affecting someone else is an actual, measurable event. ;p

[Mytical]

Panacea
I have to correct you on something, but I can understand the confusion here. I have explored faiths, and my spirituality for quite some time. In fact my road started 28 years ago when I was 10 years old. My parents were not religious, though they believed in god, and never went to church. I started all by myself. They would drop me off, and come pick me up after the service. They never tried to get me to go, or to stop me from going. They let me decide.

I became 'the little preacher'. Even to the point where people would come up to me and talk to me about their spiritual problems over the preachers and such around me. In fact had not something happened, I would probably still be in the Old Philadelphia Church to this day. I had a crisis of faith, however. One of the members of our church got into drinking, had marital problems, and basically had a serious problem..and the Church turned away from him..and I thought that very very wrong. At the time I didn't know the difference from the faith, and those that follow it. They were one and the same to me. Now I know that the religion is not to blame for what the people in the religion do..but I am much older and wiser now.

For awhile, I went the opposite road. I went into the occult..but by then my heart was gentle already..and it was not for me. I could not hate or do wrong. Mind you by occult I mean devil worship, not anything else. So .. after that..I studied..trying to find my way. I read the Koran, or what I could..I learned what I could, when I could from how I could. My mind is completely open. I've asked a simple question from each person who I've learned from..and none yet have been able to answer it. When and if I get a satisfactory answer, I might find the religion for me. My simple question is. "What makes your religion any better then any of the other religions?" I do have a few 'rules' for the answer though. One must exclude any simple answer such as "Because it is what I believe", "Because such and such religious writing says so." or any similar reasoning.

I respect all peoples view, from the atheist to the most devout believer, I just haven't found MY answer yet.

Love and peace are good things to preach, but I am also a realist. If somebody is trying to harm you .. I don't believe you should just passively stand and let them do so. Protect yourself, because not everybody practices peace and love. Protect your loved ones. Protect the innocent..even if that means taking a life. In other words I do not believe one must be a pacifist to get into heaven.

We should celebrate our differences, not fight over them. I believe mankind is capable of great things..and even more if we could stop bickering over stuff that just does not matter.

I know for a fact that we will never prove the supernatural, as I said..once we do have proof it is no longer supernatural. I know a lot of people scream "Straw man argument" which is fine, I don't expect an answer..but again I ask .. Did cells and atoms not exist until we created something that could see them? So how do we know that some time in the future we will not find something that will prove the existence of a higher power? Just because our knowledge is so limited we can not at this time, does not mean it is not possible. The minute you eliminate any possibility means that you will stop trying to create that device. If one keeps an open mind, then that device might one day be created..*shrugs*.

One can stand at the edge of the sea and say "The world ends at the horizon, so why should I ever try to go any further?" or one can stand at the edge of the sea and say "I wonder what is beyond that horizon, I think I will try to go see."

[Panacea]

Wow, so you just made up a rule that makes your position unchallengable? That is beyond arrogant, as is much of your post even if you don't or can't see it that way. Science investigates the supernatural all the time. Thats why so much of it has been reclassified as natural.

Nonsense! I did no such thing. If you must know, I'm actually paraphrasing Carl Sagan. Read his "Candle in the Dark/Demon Haunted World." That same idea permeates his entire book.

I know of nothing supernatural that has been classified as natural. There are many instances where something was SUPPOSED to be supernatural and shown to have a natural cause; for example a crucifix in India that "wept" was found to condensation from a nearby sewage system.

Science can sometimes show that something thought to be supernatural is natural. It cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and there are many things about faith that have NOT been disproven by science.

You can spout about God all you want, but if you claim God exists and has any affect whatsoever on the natural world or the people in it, you have tread into the realm of science and must prove it. End of story, really.

Actually, I don't, unless I'm claiming God is responsible for a specific effect. I've made no such claim.

I said nothing of the sort. Read again.

I don't need to. I gave you an example the first time; you haven't addressed that.

Science can try to investigate the supernatural, the problem is that when they do, they can't come up with any significant evidence. Supernatural means just that, something outside of nature. Anything supernatural wouldn't adhere to the rules of this reality, so trying to investigate them with science is pretty useless.

Which is something I've said many times before. I know I cannot prove God's existence using the scientific method.

[Panacea]

My point was that people shouldn't accept/believe in something without actual evidence that it exists. Since no one can show evidence of supernatural things, then people shouldn't blindly accept that those things exists.

Oh, I actually agree with this. Many people ascribe to a belief in God without really understanding what they believe in. It's called "blind faith," and that's not what I have. I have all the evidence I need to prove to me God exists: I've talked with God, and been in the presence of the Holy Spirit. I have evidence that works for me, even though it is not something I can duplicate for someone else.

Remember there's different kinds of evidence, and science isn't the only way we answer questions.

"Lack of evidence is not proof that the claim is a fallacy" is a fallacy within itself. It's an excuse to believe in something when there is no evidence available.

No. If you claim something does not exist, you'd better be prepared to back up the claim because history is replete with examples of intelligent, rational, educated people who made such claims, only to be proved wrong.

For example, many medical professionals of the 19th century refused to believe in germ theory. They stuck with the prevailing wisdom that a "noxious miasma" that came out of swamps (literally, "bad air") was responsible for disease; that maggots spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Even Florence Nightingale refused to accept germ theory for many years. The inventor of asepsis, Dr. Semmelweiss, was driven out of Vienna and died and a mental institution.

Even though the microscope was invented, and bacteria were known, people had trouble believing in something you couldn't see with the naked eye. History and science proved Semmelweiss right and the prevailing wisdom wrong.

It's why people constantly search for Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, ghosts, etc. They want it to exist so badly, they don't accept, "There's no evidence" as a reason to abandon their beliefs.

And so some of them continue to look for that evidence. Most of them don't use the scientific method in their search, which is the underlying problem, not the lack of evidence. I'm highly skeptical of the existence of Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster and its variants, ghosts and so on. But I'll be delighted if someone actually does manage to scientifically prove the existence of any of them.

And they SHOULDN'T have believed it. That's the point. Blindly accepting and believing in things can be dangerous. It's what we call "gullibility."

I'll agree that blind belief in anything can be dangerous and create problems. And some people do take their own faith blindly, because it's how they were raised and so they don't think about it or question it.

I'm not that way, however. I, and many people like me, question our faith and what it means. Truly entering in a relationship of God wasn't simply something I woke up and decided to do one day, and all the people trying to convert me failed. I chose this because of things that happened that made me aware of God's presence in my life. I can describe the experiences, but because I can't reproduce them at will I can't call it scientific evidence. But it is real to me, and that's all that really matters.

I haven't closed my mind to anything. I don't accept the belief in a god because there is no evidence that a god exists. I'm not sitting here saying there definitely 100% isn't possibility that a god exists, I'm saying I don't accept the belief in a god at this moment. If evidence arises that there is a god, then I will do the rational thing and believe it.

You're splitting hairs here. You're making a definitive statement that there is no God, but say you are willing to accept it if someone proves it to you. Since you believe there is actually no way to prove it, you give the appearance of an open mind when there actually is none.

If you really had an open mind on the issue you would have said, "I find the existence of a higher deity unlikely, but not impossible, and I'm open to continuing the discussion and learning more about why people believe what they do and how it affects their lives in a positive way.

I'm not interested in praying to something that hasn't been proven to exist. A relationship with God means nothing to me, because God hasn't been proven to exist. To me, a relationship with God is when I talk to myself in the hopes that a "god" figure is listening and will use it's magic to meet my needs. I might as well use my time more wisely and meet my own needs, rather than wishing upon a star and hoping it happens.

Well, if you close the door before anything can come in, you close yourself to the possibilities.

If you think that the purpose of God is to give you what you want, then you have reduced faith to an overly simplified distortion of what faith really is. God's purpose is not to give us children, wealth, power, or health. That's not what the relationship is about. It IS about learning, growing, gaining wisdom, and living in harmony with one another. We can ask God for children or health, and we may or may not get them. If we don't it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It means he said, "no." Like any parent, sometimes God said, No.

And wealth and power are definitely not what God is about. If you read the Bible carefully, you'll find that it is the poor, the dispossessed, the weak who are the most beloved by God. Jesus once observed a widow placing her last silver coin into a Temple offering box, and said her offering was more valuable than all the gold given by the wealthy and powerful in the city . . . because the widow's gift was from the heart, and truly a sacrifice for her.

Both worlds looks exactly the same to me.

Because you've missed the entire point. God doesn't exist to give you anything but love.

The old testament God was all about murder. There are way too many examples to list, so here's a website that already did it.

This site cherry picks from the Bible, takes it out of context, and ignores some of the most beautiful and joyous chapters it contains.

If you really read the Old Testament carefully, what you see is the strongest examples of God's wrath occur early in the Old Testament. God's relationship with Israel changes through the Old Testament and becomes more benevolent and supportive. As time goes on, people come to understand God better, and their understanding of God evolves and changes over time.

Another thing to keep in mind, the Old Testament was written down from hundreds of years of oral traditions; it's their stab at history in a time when historiography did not exist, with some political propaganda thrown in for good measure. This is exactly why a literal interpretation of the Bible is dangerous because it leads to simplistic conclusions. You have to read it with some thought to the time and understanding of the people who wrote it.

I'd assume it's easier going through life if you think some higher force cares about you and is willing to help you. I'd assume it's easier to deal with death if you think you or your family member will live forever in paradise. I'd assume it's easier dealing with assholes if you think they'll "get there's" in hell. (I've met people who like that idea.)

Then you assume wrong. Being a person of faith is not easy at all. It is difficult.

I'll give you two examples: one Biblical, one personal.

One day, Jesus and the apostles were traveling on the road. Jesus had been telling them about the sacrifice he was about to make, and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. But the apostles often didn't understand what he was talking about; they often assumed he meant a revolution against the Romans. So one day, two of them, James and John went to Jesus and asked for a favor. When Jesus asked what it was, they said they wanted to be seated at his right when the Kingdom of Heaven came. Jesus responded to them,

But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. 40“But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

41Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. 42Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43“But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

The disciples did not understand at first that to be a follower of Jesus means you will suffer for your faith. That to follow is difficult, even dangerous, and that the follower is the servant of others and not the masters.

Even some Christians today have a hard time understanding this concept. But no where in it is a promise that God is going to make life easy for you. He doesn't promise that.

What paradise means is that you will be close to God. Hell is separation from God. I don't know if there is anyone in Hell at all, and I don't wish it on my worst enemy. I know there are people who feel that way, and I think they are not being good Christians when they think it.

Here's the personal example:

I decided I wanted to join the Cathlolic Church well over 10 years ago. I had my spiritual moment, and knew that was the place for me. But I had trouble with three specific Church teachings that I didn't and still do not agree with: the Church's views on homosexuality, birth control, and abortion. It was a deal breaker for me for many years until I met a co-worker who was both a nurse and a monk. We got to talking about religion one day, and I explained that I would be a Catholic but that I didn't feel I could join the Church as long as I disagreed with these teachings.

We had a long discussion about why that attitude was a mistake. That it was OK for Catholics to question, and in fact that they should question and struggle with those teachings. I didn't have to violate my conscience, and I should not do so. It was very difficult to accept the idea that I could keep my own views while becoming Catholic . . . even as I know Catholics who would not agree with what both that monk, and my priest have told me and reinforced with me many times. Oh, the Church will attempt to convince me, but I don't have to make any kind of public declaration or pretend to believe in something I don't. My mind is my own. It's still a struggle with that dynamic.

On top of that, I'm having to deal with the issue of Reconciliation. I have to forgive people in my past who hurt me very deeply, and I'm having trouble doing it. Some days I think I have, but then the pain returns and I realize I'm still angry with those people. I know what God and Jesus want me to do; but I struggle with it, even though I know it would be far healthier to abandon these negative feelings that just bring me down and do no one any good. It's a struggle. It's not easy.

Ancient Egyptians believed in a sun god because they didn't understand why the sun would rise in the morning and set in the evening. The Greek's had a god who did the same exact thing. If you look back at the ancient civilizations, you'll find many similarities.

Sure. All faiths contain creation stories, and stories that explain why their people are favored. But religion is not static; it evolves. You can see that evolution within the Bible, and modern faith is not about simplistic explanations for the world. The Vatican employs scientists: it has its own astronomers, and other centers of scientific research. Faith and science exist side by side, not in competition as it did during Galileo's time.

What's the moral lesson, exactly? The story reads like this: God sets up Adam and Eve to fail, then punishes them when they do. It's also humorous that God was the one who lied to Adam and Eve, and the serpent was the one telling the truth.

You're looking at the story through a modern lens. You should look at it through the lens of the people who wrote it. The story isn't about being set up. It's about why we have Original Sin; why man lost his innocence.

God tells Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat the fruit, the serpent says they will gain knowledge. They eat the fruit and don't die, but gain knowledge. God lied.

God didn't lie. Knowledge of their nakedness led to the death of their innocence. That's what the story is about. God didn't mean a literal death.

It's also strange that the tree of knowledge gave knowledge of good and evil, so therefore Adam and Eve didn't know what they were doing was evil until after they ate the fruit.

Good and evil is not the same thing as right and wrong. They knew that disobeying God was wrong, but chose to do it anyway.

Morality is dubious. It changes from person to person, and no one person's morality could ever be considered 100% correct. However, we can look at morality from a view of reason. In a society, murder is looked down upon. This is because people in a rational society can see that erroneous murder is harmful to everyone, not just those involved. The same goes for stealing.

But we really don't live in a rational society. If we really did live by our reason, there would be no crime, no murder, no theft. Yet intelligent people manage to use reason as an excuse to do harmful things as much as any other reason they come up with.

Faith provides a guideline for living a good life, and can provide social cohesion. It can unite people as much as it can divide them. With both faith and reason, you get out of it what you put into it.

[Seifer]

...but again I ask .. Did cells and atoms not exist until we created something that could see them? So how do we know that some time in the future we will not find something that will prove the existence of a higher power? Just because our knowledge is so limited we can not at this time, does not mean it is not possible. The minute you eliminate any possibility means that you will stop trying to create that device. If one keeps an open mind, then that device might one day be created..*shrugs*.

Your example isn't a good analogy. Cells and atoms existed, but we didn't know anything about them. I'm assuming scientists were testing and experimenting, trying to see if/what biological things were made of. They eventually came to the conclusion that those things were cells and atoms.

The difference is that scientists didn't insist that they knew what cells and atoms were and what properties they entailed until they actually discovered them. Religion jumps to the final conclusion, which is always, "GOD DID IT." That's not an answer, because God still hasn't been proven to exist.

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." What created the universe? No one knows. That's the rational thing to say, because we don't know. Saying a magical old man in the sky made it is ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous as saying the stars were created when the Sparkly Space Dragon flapped his wings for the first time.

If you feel preaching (in whatever way you feel is right) can improve the world, then fine. I may not agree with it, but it's not my decision.

[Panacea]

Panacea
I have to correct you on something, but I can understand the confusion here.

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. My apologies.

It seems to me you are still suffering from a crisis of faith, and trying to figure out where you belong in faith, yet still feel called to do something specific. So I would encourage you to keep exploring, share your message of peace, and hopefully you will eventually figure out where you are supposed to be. It may be one of those situations where the journey is more important than the destination.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, I'm lost. Who the heck is "Teskeria"? >.>

I have all the evidence I need to prove to me God exists: I've talked with God, and been in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

So you think. There are many people who think they have talked with god or been in the presence of spirits, etc. We've often times seen that result in tragedy and horror. Why are you different? Would you call it God and the Holy Spirit if you had never learned of either? Of course not. How do you know it is a God or a spirit and not a perception of your mind or a subconcious reaction or an vestigal evolutionary response? The human mind is an amazing thing, and it is capable of convincing itself of equally amazing things.

You can induce emotional responses without evident cause with all manner of external stimuli. You can trigger a "supernatural" feeling of dread for example with low frequency noise that we don't conciously percieve. Any manner of stimuli can induce feelings of euphoria without the knowledge of the experiencee.

This is my entire problem. You sit there and spout about God and us being closed to him. When in fact you don't even know all of the possible explainations yourself before ruling them out in favour of divinity intervention. Everything you know about "God" comes from other people. Its been handed down culturally. If you were born in the east rather than the west, you'd be convinced of the truth of Ganesh and we wouldn't be having this conversation because this behaviour is considered appalling by Hindus. ;p

If you were born in a cultural vacuum, free from all religious influence, and still spontaneusly came up with the 10 Commandments I might listen. But we are products of our enviroment. You preach that which was preached to you, and will be preached by the children you preach too. You read that which was read to you and will be read by the children you read it too.

I won't begrudge anyone their religious rights. Believe what you want and whatever makes you happy. But do not stand there and proclaim you hold any ultimate truth the rest of us do not because you were priviledged enough to read a 2000 year old novel that itself is a collection of short stories shamelessly plagarized from other cultures that are thousands of years older.

You have, however, demonstrated the exact problem with preaching as a whole.

Mytical, if you feel a call to do something for others, do not preach. That's just reading the brochure outloud.

Teach.

I have gone a similar road to you, to be bluntly honest, including the spiritual guru/mentor were everyone came to me for their spiritual problems. I had my stupid new age phase when I was young and naive. I thought spirits could communicate with you, all that crap. And like you, it took one major event that should not have happened as far as I believed at the time to shake me out of it and make me really look around. I cringe in embarrassment these days at the stuff I believed when I was 21.

Morality and the goodness of human nature are independent of any and all religions. No one religion or philosophy has all the answers. They are all just perspectives on something that already existed. Morality does not require religion and should not be soley based on it. People should not act morale just because they think something wants them too or is threatening them too.

Don't preach to the flock about what something wants them to do, teach them how each of them can be a better person with their own strength. Teaching someone the tools they need to recognize what they do and the effect they have on others is more valuable than just telling them to act a certain way because a book says so.

Its a task no one religion can help you with. But rather, every religion and no religion at all. If that makes any sense.

[HYHYBT]

Scientifically speaking, the outside is literally all that matters here.

Scientifically speaking, perhaps. But we don't live on the outside, so the other does matter; if a purely scientific approach only works on the outside, then it is insufficient.

[Gravekeeper]

Scientifically speaking, perhaps. But we don't live on the outside, so the other does matter; if a purely scientific approach only works on the outside, then it is insufficient.

I don't think you understand my point anymore than Panacea, and are just arguing semantics.

We've been over this on these forums a hundred times. So lets just hit the highlights of the typical thread on this subject and be done with it:

You make a claim, you require proof. The alleged absence of evidence to the contrary is not proof, logic does not work that way. There is no proof of God. There is no empirical difference between a world with or without "God". Save perhaps without would historically have a lower body count.

There, I think that about covers it. -.-

[Seifer]

...but again I ask .. Did cells and atoms not exist until we created something that could see them? So how do we know that some time in the future we will not find something that will prove the existence of a higher power? Just because our knowledge is so limited we can not at this time, does not mean it is not possible. The minute you eliminate any possibility means that you will stop trying to create that device. If one keeps an open mind, then that device might one day be created..*shrugs*.

Your example isn't a good analogy. Cells and atoms existed, but we didn't know anything about them. I'm assuming scientists were testing and experimenting, trying to see if/what biological things were made of. They eventually came to the conclusion that those things were cells and atoms.

The difference is that scientists didn't insist that they knew what cells and atoms were and what properties they entailed until they actually discovered them. Religion jumps to the final conclusion, which is always, "GOD DID IT." That's not an answer, because God still hasn't been proven to exist.

There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." What created the universe? No one knows. That's the rational thing to say, because we don't know. Saying a magical old man in the sky made it is ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous as saying the stars were created when the Sparkly Space Dragon flapped his wings for the first time.

If you feel preaching (in whatever way you feel is right) can improve the world, then fine. I may not agree with it, but it's not my decision.

I have all the evidence I need to prove to me God exists: I've talked with God, and been in the presence of the Holy Spirit. I have evidence that works for me, even though it is not something I can duplicate for someone else.

I've had some strange experiences that I at first thought were caused by ghosts. However, I came to the conclusion that I can't prove what I thought I heard/saw was what actually happened, so I remain neutral.

No. If you claim something does not exist, you'd better be prepared to back up the claim because history is replete with examples of intelligent, rational, educated people who made such claims, only to be proved wrong.

....

You're splitting hairs here. You're making a definitive statement that there is no God, but say you are willing to accept it if someone proves it to you. Since you believe there is actually no way to prove it, you give the appearance of an open mind when there actually is none.

I'm not splitting hairs. "I don't accept the belief/claim of a God" is NOT the same thing as "I don't believe in God." One is open for further discovery, the other is closed. I don't accept the claim of a God because there is no evidence or proof of God. There's been tons of speculation and jumping to conclusions, but nothing definitive. Until there is, I remain neutral.

I will, however, continue to have discussions with people who claim a God exists, because when a person makes a claim, it is up to that person to then prove their claim. So far, no one has been able to prove their religious claims to me.

As to your first example, you'll notice that the people in the wrong jumped to conclusions. They had no proof that those things caused disease. However, they went with it. They were in the wrong, because they weren't using the scientific process. Someone finally came along who actually started doing research, and eventually discovered germs. That's how things are supposed to go, and that's why I continue to say, "I don't accept the belief in a God."

God's purpose is not to give us children, wealth, power, or health. That's not what the relationship is about. It IS about learning, growing, gaining wisdom, and living in harmony with one another.

You don’t need a god to learn, grow, gain wisdom, and live in harmony with one another. Quite frankly, people have used religion to do the exact opposite of those things. (I recognize that you agree that religion can be used for both good and bad, I just didn’t want to quote what you said at the end of your post.)

This site cherry picks from the Bible, takes it out of context, and ignores some of the most beautiful and joyous chapters it contains.

Murder is murder, I don’t care what context it’s in. God telling his people to smash their enemies’ babies against rocks is horrific, and shows the mindset of the people back then. They only cared about murder in their own tribe, not when it came to their enemies. So to them, so did God.

This One day, Jesus and the apostles were traveling on the road….

Jesus hasn’t been proven to have existed, let alone been the son of a god. I can’t take that example seriously.

As for your personal example, I actually had a similar issue, though I ended up going in the opposite direction. I couldn’t stand all of the hatred I saw thrown at the homosexual community, and the amount of ignorance I saw in those around me was astounding. I started looking into other explanations rather than those in the bible, and found them to make much more sense. As I stated in my original post, I went from being a Christian, to Deism (belief in a god but not necessarily one that meddles in our lives), and eventually to atheism. I didn’t see a reason to hold on to a belief when there was no evidence to back it up.

Believe me, it was very, very difficult to abandon my faith in something I was taught from a young age, but I’m happy I did.

[Mytical]

My analogy was that there have been things that we have not been able to see, hear, taste, etc before .. and later had the capability to do at least one of the senses. So I believe my analogy holds. Claiming 'if we can't see (etc) it, it doesn't exist' just does not hold water in my opinion.

As I said. We are all standing at the edge of a vast ocean we have yet to figure out a way across. Some say "There is nothing beyond the horizon, why bother to go?" some say "I know for a fact what is beyond that horizon, but have no way of proving it." I say "I don't know what is beyond that horizon..but I dang sure am going to keep trying to find a way to get there."

Some have said that it is egotistical to claim to know that their god exist through faith. Isn't it just as egotistical to think that there is nothing out there beyond our understanding? That we are the peak of everything, and nothing could be greater then ourselves? I don't claim to know what is out there, but I am eager to learn if there is anything. Some say it is folly to think some magic pixies are out there, and to try to prove it. I would rather have that folly, then to think we have all the answers already.

At one time people scoffed and ridiculed those who thought the earth round. Some thought it crazy to think the earth was not the center of the universe. I do not think in my life time that I will find my answers, but to just give up and say 'there must not be any answers to find' seems to be the easy way.

I know if there is an after life, and a place where those who do wrong are punished..that I am headed there. It would be in my best interest to believe there IS nothing past this life. I've done much wrong in my life, and very little good. The scales will not even come close to balanced should I volunteer 24/7, give all my earthly possessions to the poor, and live the most pious life of anybody on earth. Nothing I do in this life will cause the sins I have committed to equal out. No, I know that if there is an afterlife, it will not be a pleasant thing for me. The easy thing for me to do would be to say "Ha, there is nothing else..so why worry?"..I've never been known for taking the easy way out though.

[Gravekeeper]

Claiming 'if we can't see (etc) it, it doesn't exist' just does not hold water in my opinion.

That's a logical fallacy. As nice a sentiment as it sounds. To accept it, is to accept everyone else's as well, even if they directly contravene yours. I could, right at this moment, decide to believe in a mystical invisible space pony that is the supreme intelligence of the universe and your God is his merely his stableboy. It would be just as valid as your belief and you would have to accept its validity by your own logic.

It is one giant My Dad Could Beat Up Your Dad, and the root cause of centuries of religious conflict and misery.

Yes, it is egotistical to declare there could be no higher intelligence than ourselves. No higher form of conciousness. I make no such declaration. However, it is equally egotistical to declare that the possibility of any such intelligence conforms in any way to our primitive, offensive images of it or that it has any interest in us at all.

I know if there is an after life, and a place where those who do wrong are punished..that I am headed there.

There is no punishment upon us save that which we inflict on ourselves. Life is learning and evolving. We are ultimately our own judge and if we are not fit to accept what we have done, we will simply continue on until we have learned and experienced enough to do so.

So much of what molds us is based on the choices of those before us. Our biology and enviroment. If indeed there is life after death, than the universe must be a fair place and we will be born again to continue to learn. If there is no life after death, then worrying about it is a moot point to begin with.

Free will is a thing that spans generations and lifetimes. We can solve very little in a single lifetime and pass the results of our freewill down upon the next generation who is saddled with our choices. Like everything else in the universe, life beyond death should likewise be cyclonic and evolutionary. It is the nature of the universe to grow ever more complex.

I doubt the rules change in the afterlife.

[Andara Bledin]

And... here we go, with someone asserting that a lack of proof is a proof of lack.

How's about we all just agree that we can't possibly know one way or the other and stop trying to beat our brand of not-knowing into the skulls of people who ascribe to a different brand of not-knowing?

^-.-^