Reasonable religion in brief

[Skybird]

[Split from the "Last nights speech by President Bush" thread]. (Gizzmoe)

And ripped out of context that started it all. I did not start it - I answered to a previous post. Therefore edited and deleted. Sky

[geetrue]

Reasonable religion in brief: "Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others." - Buddha, Kalamas Sutra. Often quoted, each time more precious.


Hebrews 11:1-3
1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

Saint Paul. Often quoted, each time believed

[Abraham]

Reasonable religion in brief: "Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others." - Buddha, Kalamas Sutra. Often quoted, each time more precious.


Hebrews 11:1-3
1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

Saint Paul. Often quoted, each time believed

When I was reading Skybird's sceptic quote of Buddah I immediately thought about Hebrews and started searching for this quote. I don't mind at all that you were first, Geetrue!

[The Avon Lady]

Buddha, Kalamas Sutra. Often quoted, each time more precious.
"Why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing?" - The Dalai Lama (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/odysseys/Open_Your_Eyes.asp) :D

[Gizzmoe]

Buddha, Kalamas Sutra. Often quoted, each time more precious. "Why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing?" - The Dalai Lama (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/odysseys/Open_Your_Eyes.asp) :D

"All religions are an imitation of Judaism," he stated. "I am sure that when you lived in Israel, your eyes were closed. Please take the first plane back to Israel and open your eyes. Why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing?"

I doubt that he ever said that.

[The Avon Lady]

I doubt that he ever said that.
I doubt that he didn't. ;) This story was conveyed first hand by the anonymous author to Rabbi Chaim Walder, who compiled the book "People Speak About Themselves", published by Feldheim Publishers (http://www.feldheim.com/).

[Gizzmoe]

I doubt that he ever said that. I doubt that he didn't. ;) This story was conveyed first hand by the anonymous author to Rabbi Chaim Walder, who compiled the book "People Speak About Themselves", published by Feldheim Publishers (http://www.feldheim.com/).
Usually you are the first to question information when someone mentions an anonymous source, but in this case you don´t? :hmm: Have you asked the Rabbi or the publisher if they have checked the story with the Dalai Lama? You could also email the Dalai Lama´s office to find out if that story is true or not (ohhdl@dalailama.com).

[The Avon Lady]

I doubt that he ever said that. I doubt that he didn't. ;) This story was conveyed first hand by the anonymous author to Rabbi Chaim Walder, who compiled the book "People Speak About Themselves", published by Feldheim Publishers (http://www.feldheim.com/).
Usually you are the first to question information when someone mentions an anonymous source
Correct, usually, but....
but in this case you don´t? :hmm: Have you asked the Rabbi or the publisher if they have checked the story with the Dalai Lama?
I have no doubt that the book's author did NOT verify this via the Dalai Lama. He believed the person who told him directly of his own personal experience and wished to remain anonymous for reasons I can clearly understand.
You could also email the Dalai Lama´s office to find out if that story is true or not (ohhdl@dalailama.com).
Done. :yep:

[Letum]

From Avon's Link:
"All religions are an imitation of Judaism," he [H.H (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)The Dali Lama] stated. "I am sure that when you lived in Israel, your eyes were closed. Please take the first plane back to Israel and open your eyes. Why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing?" (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)


I really don't see how Hinduism can "imitate" Judaism. Hinduism appeared around 500 years before Judaism and a long time before Judaism became a major religion.
Other religions liken Taoism developed in places almost entirely isolated from Jewish influence.
Both Christianity and Islam have a firm base in Jewish belief, but neither are "imitations". Rather, they have built upon Judaism by integrating parts of other religions and adding new features or removing old ones. Likewise, Buddhism built its beliefs upon Hinduism.
All religions share the links that make them religions; in the same way that all spoons share characteristics, like handles, that make them spoons. However, this does not mean that different spoons, such as the spork, are trying to imitate other spoons.

I seriously doubt the H.H.D.L. said "All religions are an imitation of Judaism". If he did say this, then he was clearly either wrong or expressing his views with the wrong words.

H.H The Dali Lama does ask people to look closely at their own religion and culture rather than converting as he believes that in all religions provide the spiritual food that people desire. He does ask people why they want to convert to Buddhism when they already have their own religion and it is plausible that he asked this person to "open his eyes" to his own culture and religion.

The writer of the article is writing at least 3 years after his meeting with H.H. The Dali Lama (according to the article). I think that with the writer's new found Jewish zeal he may have remembered what H.H.the D.L said in a different way. Everyone fits memories so that they are appropriate to the current situation.

This is a good example of how memory works. If you can't remember something word-for-word (i.e. you don't have a photographic memory from 3 years ago) you fill in the gaps using your other experience's of the world.
This can change things a lot. Take a look at the psychological studies on crime witness's memory to see some good examples.

H.H. The Dali Lama is not a secret Jew :rotfl:

[Skybird]

Hebrews 11:1-3
1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

Saint Paul. Often quoted, each time believed

Is it the same Paul my opinion of whom has been so wonderfully expressed by Nietzsche?

"Hard upon the heels of the "glad tidings" came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the "bearer of glad tidings"; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the Saviour: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels - nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth! … Once more the priestly instinct of the Jew perpetrated the same old master crime against history - he simply struck out the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and invented his own history of Christian beginnings. Going further, he treated the history of Israel to another falsification, so that it became a mere prologue to his achievement: all the prophets, it now appeared, had referred to his "Saviour."… Later on the church even falsified the history of man in order to make it a prologue to Christianity... The figure of the Saviour, his teaching, his way of life, his death, the meaning of his death, even the consequences of his death - nothing remained untouched, nothing remained in even remote contact with reality. Paul simply shifted the centre of gravity of that whole life to a place behind this existence - in the lie of the "risen" Jesus. At bottom, he had no use for the life of the Saviour - what he needed was the death on the cross, and something more. To see anything honest in such a man as Paul, whose home was at the centre of the Stoical enlightenment, when he converts an hallucination into a proof of the resurrection of the Saviour, or even to believe his tale that he suffered from this hallucination himself - this would be a genuine niaiserie in a psychologist. Paul willed the end; therefore he also willed the means. - What he himself didn't believe was swallowed readily enough by the idiots among whom he spread his teaching. - What he wanted was power; in Paul the priest once more reached out for power - he had use only for such concepts, teachings and symbols as served the purpose of tyrannizing over the masses and organizing mobs. What was the only part of Christianity that Mohammed borrowed later on? Paul's invention, his device for establishing priestly tyranny and organizing the mob: the belief in the immortality of the soul - that is to say, the doctrine of "judgment"."

[The Avon Lady]

From Avon's Link:
"All religions are an imitation of Judaism," he [H.H (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)The Dali Lama] stated. "I am sure that when you lived in Israel, your eyes were closed. Please take the first plane back to Israel and open your eyes. Why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing?" (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)


I really don't see how Hinduism can "imitate" Judaism. Hinduism appeared around 500 years before Judaism and a long time before Judaism became a major religion.
Other religions liken Taoism developed in places almost entirely isolated from Jewish influence.
Sounds about right.
Both Christianity and Islam have a firm base in Jewish belief, but neither are "imitations".
False. Both plagiarize heavily from Judaism both in text, commandments and morals and ethics.
Rather, they have built upon Judaism by integrating parts of other religions and adding new features or removing old ones.
This falls within the definitions of "imitate":

im·i·tate
–verb (used with object), -tat·ed, -tat·ing.
1. to follow or endeavor to follow as a model or example: to imitate an author's style; to imitate an older brother.
2. to mimic; impersonate: The students imitated the teacher behind her back.
3. to make a copy of; reproduce closely.
4. to have or assume the appearance of; simulate; resemble.
Likewise, Buddhism built its beliefs upon Hinduism.
All religions share the links that make them religions; in the same way that all spoons share characteristics, like handles, that make them spoons. However, this does not mean that different spoons, such as the spork, are trying to imitate other spoons.
Again refer to definitions 1 and 4, even 2 somewhat.
I seriously doubt the H.H.D.L. said "All religions are an imitation of Judaism". If he did say this, then he was clearly either wrong or expressing his views with the wrong words.

H.H The Dali Lama does ask people to look closely at their own religion and culture rather than converting as he believes that in all religions provide the spiritual food that people desire. He does ask people why they want to convert to Buddhism when they already have their own religion and it is plausible that he asked this person to "open his eyes" to his own culture and religion.

The writer of the article is writing at least 3 years after his meeting with H.H. The Dali Lama (according to the article). I think that with the writer's new found Jewish zeal he may have remembered what H.H.the D.L said in a different way. Everyone fits memories so that they are appropriate to the current situation.

This is a good example of how memory works. If you can't remember something word-for-word (i.e. you don't have a photographic memory from 3 years ago) you fill in the gaps using your other experience's of the world.
This can change things a lot. Take a look at the psychological studies on crime witness's memory to see some good examples.
Nothing new there. Yet we do not automatically dismiss testimonies unless we have evidence otherwise.

[The Avon Lady]

I hadn't even sat down to open the books I wanted to use to respond regarding Paul when Skybird cuts and pastes just what I was looking for.

[nightdagger]

False. Both plagiarize heavily from Judaism both in text, commandments and morals and ethics.

It's not plagarizing, at least for Christianity. Christians do acknowledge that the Bible was originally the Jewish Torah until we added the New Testament. The commandments that Jesus gives Christians are summarizations of the 10 commandments and Jewish law.

"Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and strength. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." As compared to the 10 commandments' specific rules of how to do so.

I don't know about Islam though, but it's kind of odd to call it plagarizing since plagarizing is taking the works of others and calling it your own and that doesn't happen.

[Letum]

I'm guessing you are Jewish Avon?

(just a hunch ;))

[Iceman]

I hadn't even sat down to open the books I wanted to use to respond regarding Paul when Skybird cuts and pastes just what I was looking for.

you say that like it is a good thing...

Skybird quotes a spirtually dead man's belief and believes it because he is spiritually dead ,as are you Avon Lady, if you do not believe that Christ is the Son of God made flesh and was crucifed on the cross and rose again the 3rd day and now sits at the right hand of God and will return again to execute judgement.

Paul or Saul was a chosen vessel of God because of his intense persecution of God's people...I am guessing now to show such people as yourselves that no matter how much evil has been done a way back to Him was provided by the ransom of His sons life...

It is hard to kick against the cactus spikes no?

Jews are Gods chosen people and Israel is his but the gift was given to gentiles until the time of the end then the Jews eyes will be re-opened.This is not my design but Gods.This is wrote not for the unbeliever or Jew but to the believer so he may understand why Jews don't get it and Muslims don't get it and Athesits don't get it...Christians get it and seem to stress out over why the rest don't...but they should not stress... :) but wait on God to fufill his promises and do as was commanded.

[Letum]

I hadn't even sat down to open the books I wanted to use to respond regarding Paul when Skybird cuts and pastes just what I was looking for.
you say that like it is a good thing...

Skybird quotes a spirtually dead man's belief and believes it because he is spiritually dead ,as are you Avon Lady, if you do not believe that Christ is the Son of God made flesh and was crucifed on the cross and rose again the 3rd day and now sits at the right hand of God and will return again to execute judgement.

Paul or Saul was a chosen vessel of God[...] etc etc

:o Are you serious or just taking the piss? :doh:

If its a piss take, then its a good one:up:, alto scarily convincing.

[Gizzmoe]

:o Are you serious or just takeing the piss? :doh:
I´m afraid he´s very serious about all that... :roll:

[Letum]

:o Are you serious or just takeing the piss? :doh:
I´m afraid he´s very serious about all that... :roll:

:o Your right! I've just had a look at some of his other posts.

Thats some....errr...conviction you have Iceman.

[NEON DEON]

"Reasonable religion"

"Reasonable religion"

"Reasonable religion"

Now there is an oxymoron if ever I heard one!

[Letum]

"Reasonable religion"

"Reasonable religion"

"Reasonable religion"

Now there is an oxymoron if ever I heard one!
Nice one, I didn't spot that.

:yep: All religion requires a leap of faith at some point. That's what makes religion different from science and philosophy.
A "leap of faith" requires suspension of reason. Most obviously in the "is-ought gap" which can be applied to almost any part of any religion and not just in the usual way it is applied to morals.
In this way, no religion is "reasonable". (even my own religion - I'm not atheist believe it or not ;))

[U-533]

[quote=Iceman

Paul or Saul was a chosen vessel of God because of his intense persecution of God's people...I am guessing now to show such people as yourselves that no matter how much evil has been done a way back to Him was provided by the ransom of His sons life...

It is hard to kick against the cactus spikes no?

quote]


Yes ... and man-o-man were my feet tore up until I learned

Now it's not so hard to walk upright:sunny: :sunny:

[Takeda Shingen]

Kids! Hey, kids! Remember that talk we had about baiting a few days ago? Those rules still apply.

In other words, keep this 'reasonable' discussion of religion 'resonable' or this thread will be on the fast track to topical heaven.

Thanks,
The Management

[Konovalov]

In other words, keep this 'reasonable' discussion of religion 'resonable' or this thread will be on the fast track to topical heaven.

Thanks,
The Management

Hence why I asked for you guys (The Management) to remove this from my President Bush speech thread thankfully. :up:

[Enigma]

Why is a person that looks forward to and believes Jesus will return and rid the world of all us "non-believers" (see: Mass killing? Rapture?) any better than a person who believes in killing people in order to get to a muslim version of heaven/paradise?

Fanaticism is fanaticism. :yep:

[fredbass]

It's really too bad that people have to use the church, religion, God, Jesus, Allah, or whoever as an excuse to do the things that they do.

Just be a good person and treat all with respect and you'll go to heaven if there is one. :yep: :know:

[SUBMAN1]

I'm shocked that VON_CAPO hasn't found this thread yet! :D

-S

[The Avon Lady]

Why is a person that looks forward to and believes Jesus will return and rid the world of all us "non-believers" (see: Mass killing? Rapture?)
According to this theology, who is going to do the mass killing and under what circumstances?
any better than a person who believes in killing people in order to get to a muslim version of heaven/paradise?
These are binding commands and praiseworthy acts in Islam's eyes, conveyed both in Quranic verse and in Islamic law for Muslims to obey and carry out since Islam's inception 1400 years ago.

Where is there a theological equivalent elsewhere on the planet?

[bradclark1]

It's really too bad that people have to use the church, religion, God, Jesus, Allah, or whoever as an excuse to do the things that they do.

Just be a good person and treat all with respect and you'll go to heaven if there is one. :yep: :know:

Thats my belief too.

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird quotes a spirtually dead man's belief and believes it because he is spiritually dead ,as are you Avon Lady, if you do not believe that Christ is the Son of God made flesh and was crucifed on the cross and rose again the 3rd day and now sits at the right hand of God and will return again to execute judgement.
"Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon."
- Benjamin Disraeli

[Letum]

These are binding commands and praiseworthy acts in Islam's eyes, conveyed both in Quranic verse and in Islamic law for Muslims to obey and carry out since Islam's inception 1400 years ago.

Where is there a theological equivalent elsewhere on the planet?

Hehe...where to start.......from the old and new testament...

Ritual Human Sacrifice Portrayed as Moral:
(Judges 11:29-40 NLT)

God requesting that people be burnt alive:
(Joshua 7:15 NLT)

Burning of Priests of different religions:
(1 kings 13: 1-2 NLT) and (2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT)

Burning of villages that contain non-believers:
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Forced marriages to rape victims:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

Rape & Infanticide by god:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

Rape aided by god:
(zecharial 14: 1-2 NAB)

Kill people who dont listen to priests:
(Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches:
(Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill the gay:
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Fortunetellers are no better off:
(Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Kill children who hit their father:
(Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Kill children who swear at their father:
(Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

Kill for adultery:
(Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Kill priest's daughters if they have sex:
(Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

I could copy and paste these all day.

http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

There is plenty for fundamentalists to enjoy in both the Islamic and Christian/Judaic texts.

[The Avon Lady]

These are binding commands and praiseworthy acts in Islam's eyes, conveyed both in Quranic verse and in Islamic law for Muslims to obey and carry out since Islam's inception 1400 years ago.

Where is there a theological equivalent elsewhere on the planet?

Hehe...where to start.......from the old and new testament...

Ritual Human Sacrifice Portrayed as Moral:
(Judges 11:29-40 NLT)

Here, learn something. Rashi's commentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi) on verses 39-40:
39. And it was at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, and he did to her his vow which he had vowed; and she had not known any man, and it was a statute in Israel.
"and it was a statute": They decreed that no one should do this anymore (i.e., they publicized that no one should offer a human being), because had Jephthah gone to Phinehas or vice versa, he would have nullified his (i.e., Jephthah’s) vow (i.e., he would have instructed him what the law is in such an instance). However, they were particular about their honor, and as a result she was destroyed. Consequently, they were punished; Phinehas, by the Divine presence leaving him as it is stated in (I) Chron. (9:20) “Previously God was with him,” so we see subsequently God was not with him; and Jephthah was afflicted with boils and dismemberment as it is stated, (below 12:7) “And he was buried in the cities [pl.] of Gilead.” (His limbs were buried in the various cities.) We can also interpret “And it was a statute in Israel” as connected to the following verse.
40. From year to year the daughters of Israel went to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.
"from year to year…": This they (i.e., the daughters of Israel) accepted upon themselves as a statute. לְתַנּוֹת To lament.
So much for being portrayed as moral. Quite the contrary.

I'm sorry. My time is up for such novice claims. If you wish to delve into how Judaism has understood and taught scriptures since their origination, be my guest. Otherwise, your posts are as unenlightening as Von Capo's copy and pastes of similar ignorant articles.

[Letum]

I'm sorry. My time is up for such novice claims. If you wish to delve into how Judaism has understood and taught scriptures since their origination, be my guest. Otherwise, your posts are as unenlightening as Von Capo's copy and pastes of similar ignorant articles.

...and your claims about Islamic texts are more than novice? :shifty:

You are avoiding the issue a little. Even a novice such as my self cam poke holes in any religious text. Altho not with 100% correctness as you point out.

[CCIP]

I'm still curious how people claim great truths, let alone reason based on books of, at best, dubious origins and disputed historical accuracy. "Faith evidence for things not seen" my tail - that explains how "reasonable religion" is an oxymoron as someone rightly noted. It can't, by default, be reasonable as evidently the very center of it is trusting - blindly or otherwise - a version of the unverifiable, written by WHO?

I'm not actually an atheist per se, and far from a spiritually dead person. I think there are concepts of "god" that can be perfectly reasonable and can be verified through experience. But I protest the idea of religion as such, and I flatly reject any scripture as anything but books.

Unfortunately I've come to see what the mindset of these wonderful "seeing" people who found out the great truth and now are among the God's chosen. I've only two things to say to you: 1) try to keep the glory to yourself, will you? 2) Never. Ever. Try to call us blind, spiritually dead, degenerate... anything. (It's fortunate noone has tried to call me this to my face, as I guarantee you, they would immediately experience assault causing bodily harm. :doh:)

[GlobalExplorer]

As far as I am concerned, everybody can believe what they want. But I am one of the people who believe man created god, not the other way around.

It's just sad that there are still people getting killed because of religion.

"Religion is the opium of the people" [Karl Marx]

[Letum]

As far as I am concerned, everybody can believe what they want.

That can be very dangerous. :down:

[geetrue]

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would
approach him must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder
to those that seek Him.

St Paul (ex Jew rewarded Christian)




Faith in God can be a religion or it can be a personal experience ...

My experience has been a personal one from the ground up ... I had
no where left to go ... read my bio.

Take this scenerio for example:

You are part of a small tribe of people and one day the chief stands up and says we are all going to worship this tree in the image of God and anyone that does not worship this tree will have to flee the anger of the chief of this tribe.

You will be cast out of the village, you will not be allowed to marry any of the virgins of this village and you will not live within it's protected walls.

Now that is religion and that is not a personal experience with God

Not only has this scenerio been played out many times in history, it is also the scenerio depicted in the end times events of the Book of Revelations.

Now read the book of Daniel located here for your easy viewing pleasure:
http://www.amazingbible.org/

The man that owns that web page use to be an atheist ... If you dare, read his personal testimony.

[Skybird]

I'm still curious how people claim great truths, let alone reason based on books of, at best, dubious origins and disputed historical accuracy. "Faith evidence for things not seen" my tail - that explains how "reasonable religion" is an oxymoron as someone rightly noted. It can't, by default, be reasonable as evidently the very center of it is trusting - blindly or otherwise - a version of the unverifiable, written by WHO?

I'm not actually an atheist per se, and far from a spiritually dead person. I think there are concepts of "god" that can be perfectly reasonable and can be verified through experience. But I protest the idea of religion as such, and I flatly reject any scripture as anything but books.

Unfortunately I've come to see what the mindset of these wonderful "seeing" people who found out the great truth and now are among the God's chosen. I've only two things to say to you: 1) try to keep the glory to yourself, will you? 2) Never. Ever. Try to call us blind, spiritually dead, degenerate... anything. (It's fortunate noone has tried to call me this to my face, as I guarantee you, they would immediately experience assault causing bodily harm. :doh:)

Taking you as a cliffhanger only... :)

It’s both amusing and saddening for me that Buddha’s quote that does not attack anyone or any religion by name, and recommends to make your own experience, and recommends to base your faith on an empirical approach of testing things yourself instead of blindly believing something that was said and written by others and elder generations, is answered by people (who think believing is a virtue) is not countered by argument, but by simply referring to what Buddha recommended to avoid: what they offer is even more blindly believing in hear-say, cult, and miracles. Well, nobody can avoid one’s own limitations. Believing is not knowing. You can only desperately hope that what you believe is true – which in itself does not make it true, just because of your needs. You have no variables whatever that allow to evaluate the probability for that lucky event of having been right in your believing. You simply mimic what others do, and did. In other words: you simply take a gamble. And since you do that systematically, you call that systematic effort a religion.
That’s like calling to make a fortune in Monopoly “the real life”. And when you eventually become a rich man in reality and buy a lot of houses, that does not mean that Monopoly had anything to do with it.

I dealt with people who were strong believers, as a psychologist as well as later as a “freelance” meditation teacher, and believe me, I had quite some of them . And from a psychopathological perspective, all these people had one thing in common: they had a very rigid, hardened and compulsive character structure that did not allow them any flexibility in their extreme polarizing of the world in bad and good, right and wrong, God-pleasing and Satanic. They also showed a great willingness to commit violence if only it was used for the best of man according to their faith’s definition of what is the best of man. Disagreement with their faith always was considered a threat. Doubt questioned their convictions, if their convictions were true – how could it be that that is not obvious for everybody? So doubt was questioning their self-perception at a very basic level, it therefore was perceived a threat, and triggered aggression – all in the name of what is true and truly right and of light and good and some god’s true intentions. This was especially true for people being founded in Islam in general, and Christian fundamentalism or orthodoxy. In fact I consider the one to be of the same evil as the other, and throughout history I can’t see it having brought more good to mankind than evil, quite the opposite. The intellectual handicap already becomes obvious in the inability of these persons to understand that “atheistic” does not automatically mean “anti-religious”. It harms people and strips them of their potentials of being born as a human being, not as a one-cellular life-form. It’s the submissive life based on superstition and total obedience without ever having seen or wanting to see a solid evidence for the reality of such a god’s existence. But asking for the legitimacy of a superior’s ruling – isn’t that the most elemental and legitimate question of all when you are expected to accept a lower place in a hierarchy? It is the kind of life demanded by the old testament and the Quran: it’s not the human dignity Jesus and Buddha were talking of - and both were talking of the same things. Jesus broke with the old testament something almost all “fundamentalist” Christians oversee.

“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” :) And when a women drowns when being put into a barrel and being thrown down the waterfalls, that is evidence enough that she was not a witch – nice to hear that she wasn’t a witch, really.

I also found that most people, not only in religious contexts, have a more or less obvious craving for being led, for authority, for rules to follow so that they can escape the burden of being responsible for their own life, for their decisions, for their actions. Some also want to serve a higher purpose, a higher cause – and often find their self-definition by defining themselves through that cause, instead by themselves. Such fanatics can become extremely dangerous, and have caused many havocs throughout history – all in the name of their gods. A very totalitarian and unforgiving mindset. Christian love for thy next usually is one of the first victims of such an obsession, often cloaked in lying kind words of faked tolerance.

The letting go of all ideas of God and all religious thoughts one is fond of is an absolute prerequisite for true mystical experience. […] But experience has shown that the letting go of personal idols and religious symbols is especially difficult for those, whose personality structure shows the strongest egocentricity and focussing on themselves. They are afraid to lose everything, and therefore they cling to their small, mortal self with all their might. When one is looking closer to it, one will recognize that most people are not about a living experience of the divine essence, but are more about a maintaining of their personal ideas of God they are fond of, and about wallowing religious feelings. But true mystic has nothing to do with emotional rapture and inappropriate holiness, these belong to the realm of mysticism, which only is a distortion of true and pure mystic. […] Man in general tends to fooling himself and looking for a short-cut, a religion of superficial consolation, an ideal world without problems and challenges, where everything falls into its’ correct place… […] The clinging to superficial forms and religious practices is one of the greatest dangers on the spiritual way. They are shackles which bind us to signs and symbols which actually should only show us the way inwards. Therefore every symbol shows towards something that is beyond itself and that cannot be named or displayed. To go beyond religious signs and symbols therefore does not mean to refuse these symbols, but to strive for what they are pointing at. (http://freenet-homepage.de/Skybird/Whatitsabout.pdf)

Gizzmoe named this thread “reasonable religion” (in brief), referring to a phrase of mine.

Reason and spirituality are no adversaries for me. Both are mutually supportive, and of mutual necessity. Pick one and leave out the other, and you will do more bad then good.

Religion without reason - leads to superstition, medieval mindset, the rejection of man’s potentials, and leaving the burden of being responsible to some self-created deities and idols, most obvious in the belief that Jesus had died “for us, and “in our place”. It’s the world as seen by small child, filled with magic and wonder, laws and penalties, the realm of the revenging Vulcan God that is a narcissistic, egocentric tyrant who spits storm and thunder when man does not obey his arbitrary self-glorifying rules. Islam’s Allah, Judaism’s Jahwe (as I understand it and my knowledge on Judaism is limited) , the simplified Jesus and the archaic god of the old testament are the gds Nietzsche has killed, and Buddha and Jesus (if only you read the glad tidings carefully and not stick to word-believing only) have declared them obsolete and useless, too. Religion without reason is dominated by cult, by hierarchy, by priest’S interests, by ritual and ceremony, and it hides a vacuum behind a shining surface. That’s the simple reasons why the churches are empty. Many people feel that their questions will not find answers by this hollow cult. In other words, in religion without reason, man-made form dominates and replaces spiritual content. It is the childish - and at the same time time: selfish - expectation that the laws of nature and the structure of the universe continually is violated and distorted for your, if only you live by the rules and mumble the correct syllables. It is the rejection of the “sapiens”-part in the name “homo sapiens”.

Religion with reason - leads to accepting responsibility for your life, engagement for man, earth, life, altruism. You are in control of your life (or not), you make the decisions (or refuse to do so), and you face the consequences of it – there is no other authority you can blame, and put your case to in order to become privileged to be freed from your responsibility. “Do what you want”, but since you inevitably cause consequences be careful in what you want. That is true justice. Man does not want mercy, only if he is seeking shortcuts, is lazy, tries to avoid the responesbility. What man wants is justice.
It leads to see the differences between how you wish the world to be, and how it really is. It abandons blindly believing something, no matter how absurd it is, without empirically testing and experiencing it, and develop faith (in the meaning of trust) on the basis of your empirical experiences. Each one of us creates his own heaven and his own hell, his own interpreation of it - in THIS world.

You are free to believe what you want, if believing is what you want to spend your time with. But by that you also cause consequences, for yourself and for others. And the cosmic justice is that you can’t evade them, and your victims can’t as well, which is part of your burden. You will determine your future, your life, your world by your own thoughts and actions, and thoughts you rejected and actions you did not carry out. Neither Buddha nor Jesus is condemning you for that, or attacks what you call your faith. Their is no giant punisher in the sky. They simply tell you: you will not escape the consequences, and most people therefore will not reach the goals they are longing for, that is: freedom, and happiness, gained not at the cost of others. That is the simple truth, no matter if you call yourself – justified or not – a Christian, a reborn Christian, a Muhammedan, an Atheist, a Jew, a whatever. It simply does not matter. Jesus and Buddha’s teachings are beyond that level of name-calling, cult and earthly policy-making. They are no religion in themselves – they are the basis of true religion in general. That’s why true Christian teaching (basing on the Christ, not the church) and Buddhism, Zen and Christian Mystic, in the end are just two features of one and the same face.

In the end it comes down to this: some of the most happiest and kind people I met – were people who did not spend a single thought on religion, and religious laws, and Gods and idols. They serve their life a better service than any fanatical and disciplined “believer”, for conceptions have no power over them. Unfortunately, history tells that nevertheless they often become the victims of the oh so well-intended slaughter, missionising and enforced conversion of well-meaning believers. In this, fundamentalists of all religions are equal and of one and the same origin in thought. And I do not exclude many school of Buddhism from that, too. Here, too, cult has taken over spirituality, and turned them into “believers”. What said the Dalai Lama in 1993 in a TV interview that I saw on Christmas 1994 in German third TV channel? “The Tibetan GodKing/Dalai Lama is a worldly elected institution.” The absence of any reaction or reflection in Tibetan Vayrayana-communities was revealing. Besdie Rinzai and Soto Zen, I had tested Tibetan practice and lived in a Tibetan community for the better part of a year. End of 1994 I turned my back on them, and never regretted it since then. Simply believing just is not good enough for me, and never led me anywhere.

[Skybird]

These are binding commands and praiseworthy acts in Islam's eyes, conveyed both in Quranic verse and in Islamic law for Muslims to obey and carry out since Islam's inception 1400 years ago.

Where is there a theological equivalent elsewhere on the planet?

Hehe...where to start.......from the old and new testament...

Ritual Human Sacrifice Portrayed as Moral:
(Judges 11:29-40 NLT)
God requesting that people be burnt alive:
(Joshua 7:15 NLT)

(...)

Kill children who hit their father:
(Exodus 21:15 NAB)
hildren who swear at their father:
Kill priest's daughters if they have sex:
(Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

I could copy and paste these all day.

http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

There is plenty for fundamentalists to enjoy in both the Islamic and Christian/Judaic texts.


Interesting. No reference to the four gospels and especially to the tradition of Jesus' teachings. But the word "Christ" is where the term "Christianity" is deriving from. The rest of the bible - archaic superstition in the old testament, ursurpation of power and abusing Jesus for personal interests in the new testament (like Paul as discussed earlier).

An no, I do not think that Jesus worked mircacles or was a higher being. He just was wiser than many other human people.

[CCIP]

Religion with reason - leads to accepting responsibility for your life, engagement for man, earth, life, altruism. You are in control of your life (or not), you make the decisions (or refuse to do so), and you face the consequences of it – there is no other authority you can blame, and put your case to in order to become privileged to be freed from your responsibility. “Do what you want”, but since you inevitably cause consequences be careful in what you want. That is true justice. Man does not want mercy, only if he is seeking shortcuts, is lazy, tries to avoid the responesbility. What man wants is justice.

Skybird, I'm very impressed. That's essentially what I'm gradually arriving at myself - I just don't have the age/experience behind me as yet.

That's my main issue with the religious types. They're ignoring the repercussions of being human. Preaching the laws of morals and coming up with complex codes, and yet ommitting the most basic laws of cause-and-effect, or rather diverting them into something they shouldn't be. I tend to see the whole idea of religious submission/salvation as an insult to humanity/existence. It presumes a universe that's essentially broken and bad, seeking another world, whereas I don't see any reason for it; this one is perfectly functional and, in its own merciless way, perfectly fair. If there's a judgement in this world that I fear, it's the judgement of probability. Unlike the arcanely baseless religious laws, that one is always right. :hmm:

Just to qualify my standpoint, I'm generally in agreement that real Christian and real Buddhist philosophies of life are essentially good and reasonable. Yes, please, subscribe me to a world where everyone is a True Christian! Couldn't think of anything better or anything more unlikely to actually occur.

[Skybird]

Skybird, I'm very impressed. That's essentially what I'm gradually arriving at myself - I just don't have the age/experience behind me as yet.

That's my main issue with the religious types. They're ignoring the repercussions of being human. Preaching the laws of morals and coming up with complex codes, and yet ommitting the most basic laws of cause-and-effect, or rather diverting them into something they shouldn't be. I tend to see the whole idea of religious submission/salvation as an insult to humanity/existence. It presumes a universe that's essentially broken and bad, seeking another world, whereas I don't see any reason for it; this one is perfectly functional and, in its own merciless way, perfectly fair. If there's a judgement in this world that I fear, it's the judgement of probability. Unlike the arcanely baseless religious laws, that one is always right. :hmm:


Welcome to some of the fundament in Nietzschean thinking. It is often said that he was a nihilist, and that he "killed God." That is not true, and only illustrates lackiong understanding (although he made it easy at times to misunderstand him by his bitter sarcasm). What he did was killing wrong idols and false gods, and giving man back his dignity, and reason to live and try to make the world a better place and help people. So Nietzsche again, as I have shortened and quoted him in "What it's about":

When the centre of gravity of life is placed, not in life itself, but in "the beyond" - in nothingness - thenone has taken away its centre of gravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all natural instinct - henceforth, everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is a cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning: this is now the "meaning" of life… Why be public-spirited? Why take any pride in descent and forefathers? Why labour together, trust one another, or concern one's self about the common welfare, and try to serve it? Merely so many "temptations," so many strayings from the "straight path." – “One thing only is necessary"… That every man, because he has an "immortal soul," is as good as every other man; that in an infinite universe of things the "salvation" of every individual may lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant bigots and the three-fourths insane may assume that the laws of nature are constantly suspended in their behalf - it is impossible to lavish too much contempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to infinity, to insolence. […]The "salvation of the soul" - in plain English: "the world revolves around me." … […] To allow "immortality" to every Peter and Paul was the greatest, the most vicious outrage upon noble humanity ever perpetrated.

Hardkly the words of a nihilist - but the words of someone suffering from grwoing bitterness and aggressiveness for seing false idols taking over and killing anything in the world and human life that make it a worthwhile place for Nietzsche to live in - and stand up for it. A nihilist does not defend the world and does not try to imporve it - he rejects it. Nietzsche defended, and his "superman" (Übermensch) is the man that has left the traditional religious conceptions that he and me are criticising behind. He simply is beyond such coneptions of man and life and meanings. not more and not less Nietzsche's superman is meaning.

The term nevertheless of course was open for multiple distortions, perversions and abuses.

[CCIP]

Aha!

Actually, I've been hovering over Nietzsche for a while. I have "..Zarathustra" on the shelf now, but it's sitting there while I cautiously probe my way towards Nietzsche, largely through people whose opinions I respect (e.g. my father), in part out of concern that I might end up approaching him with too much enthusiasm. I think it's about time I start reading.

If my interpretation of "nihilism" in the Nietzschean sense is right, then I'm perfectly with Nietzsche on this one. It's probably my main belief that yes, nothing can really be accomplished on the level of existence. Whatever one does, on the universal level of things it is (or they are) equal to precisely nothing; in the end, whatever you do, you will never win against the laws of existence. The idea of "god", in my view, is as the principle (rather than a being) behind the order of everything. Gurdjieff had a nice (and, as usual, somewhat sarcastic) name for something like that - "Trogoautoegocrat" - the process by which everything in the universe is the way it is. On the other hand (again, this is my view), a lot can be accomplished in the realm of being, being in the sense of consciously living life, acting and reacting, making choices and accepting repercussions. For me, the proper way of being assumes goodwill. Between the impossibility of achieving anything in the former (existence), and the possibility of achieving something in the latter (being), I think there is enough reason to be humble, good-willing and reasonable. Which to some apparently requires the threat of divine punishment to get into their head - even in a backwards way.

[Letum]

:D:up:

Top Text SkyBird! Both wise and well written. Thankyou! :D

Perhaps you are putting the Buddha and Jesus a little too close together tho. There are big differences, which I am sure you are aware of. I find it a little difficult to find the similarities that you hint at.

I find Nietzsche lacking in many ways. Perhaps that's because I don't like his overly-powerful writing style or perhaps its just because I had to study him for far longer than I would have liked. ;)
Nietzsche was, however, a great leader for the thinkers that came after him. I think many of them do a better job in applying reason to religion.

When you mention "Buddha’s quote" which quote are you referring to?

Thanks again for a enjoyable read! :D

[waste gate]

The burden of proof is on the atheist.

Please prove that you are correct and that God does not exist.

[Iceman]

Jesus broke with the old testament something almost all “fundamentalist” Christians oversee.

“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” :)

Dude you been watching to much tv "Sith" lol....Christ came to fufill the law not abolish it.Read the New testament again I think you missed something....

and CCIP....


They're ignoring the repercussions of being human. Preaching the laws of morals and coming up with complex codes, and yet ommitting the most basic laws of cause-and-effect, or rather diverting them into something they shouldn't be.

What is so complex about the law of Love that Jesus taught?...

and you go on to say it presumes the universe is broken?....the universe is not broken the problem is man thought he could be come like "God" to know good and evil...well we know it now don''t we?

this is the Crux, the Fine point ...the main Theme in aLL Skybird's "Fundamental Christianity" examples, yet it alludes him..."JESUS CHRIST" is the only name in Heaven and Earth by with a man will enter into Heaven..not by deeds of his own or any thing he may do but by Grace and grace alone....

all sin is paid for in full by blood and body...

so here you go....a free ticket into paradise...no need to blow yourself up as a martyr...no need to try to keep 1001 Old Testament laws by which no man can accomplish ,no blessings from the virgin mary...or however much incense you burn and gongs you bong are gonna get you into heaven.....

The law of love is what Jesus Christ preached....you know why you think this law is so hard to keep...it is because of the sin at home in your body has you in chains and does not want to let you go ever....lest you confess your sin to God and accept His Son as your savior and your soul be Re-Born and then you can move forward in life in peace of mind and your works then can be found acceptable to God...

Love ....tough law.:up:

[Letum]

What is so complex about the law of Love that Jesus taught?...

and you go on to say it presumes the universe is broken?....the universe is not broken the problem is man thought he could be come like "God" to know good and evil...well we know it now don''t we?

this is the Crux, the Fine point ...the main Theme in aLL Skybird's "Fundamental Christianity" examples, yet it alludes him..."JESUS CHRIST" is the only name in Heaven and Earth by with a man will enter into Heaven..not by deeds of his own or any thing he may do but by Grace and grace alone....

all sin is paid for in full by blood and body...

so here you go....a free ticket into paradise...no need to blow yourself up as a martyr...no need to try to keep 1001 Old Testament laws by which no man can accomplish ,no blessings from the virgin mary...or however much incense you burn and gongs you bong are gonna get you into heaven.....

The law of love is what Jesus Christ preached....you know why you think this law is so hard to keep...it is because of the sin at home in your body has you in chains and does not want to let you go ever....lest you confess your sin to God and accept His Son as your savior and your soul be Re-Born and then you can move forward in life in peace of mind and your works then can be found acceptable to God...

Love ....tough law.:up:
Wow Iceman! Ive never seen it like that before!
Your right! How else can anyone deny that Christ is the only way. After all, it was Christ him self that said that he is the only salvation from the path of sin AND the only way to find the path by which we can enter heaven!
All we need is to accept Christs love in our selves and to reject all the other false paths that are paths of sin.
Why can't Skybird and those like him see this? Why cant they open their eyes like you have opened mine?

I think they are scared to accept the lord JESUS CHRIST. They are scared because Jesus is all loving, but they can not love him.
They are scared to love the only one who can save them from the paths of sin they walk along. Instead of letting them selves Love Christ they have chained their minds with reason and they cower and hide behind rationality.


How much would Jesus have to do before they accept him?

Perhaps they want Jesus to come down to earth and show himself?
Perhaps they want him to show he is the son of god?
Perhaps they want him to show them the path to heaven and the consequences of sin?
Perhaps they want him to show his love for them?
Perhaps they want him to die for them?

HE HAS DONE ALL THESE THINGS

This is staring them in the face, but they still can't accept it. They even try and say it is wrong. You can not say love is wrong! You can not deny love! You can not deny Christ!
Deep inside they have to know this like we do.

[CCIP]

[originally intended as response to the question of "Reasonable atheism - disprove that god exists"]

Wonderful trick.

I may not be an atheist per se (well, I am from the perspective of the Real Christians on the forum), but I don't see how it works. To me it's like asking about the existence of vacuum. It only can be proven or disproven in relation to other things.

I would say God certainly doesn't exist in the sense that he is proposed in Judaeo-Christian dogma. If he does, then he clearly suffers from a severe case of paranoid schizophrenia, as he can't even stop contradicting himself in his own (many versions of) scriptures, nor decide who his real voice was and who was a hoax. Not only that, but he evidently has a very poor working ethic in enforcing his own laws, and a very poor sense of judgment in whom he chooses as his Chosen Ones.

Reasonably, I'd rather there be no God than a clinically insane one. Fortunately, for me, asking the question of "does God exist?" is asking "does water exist?" Sure water exists. And it's not prone to effects of mental illness, having no mentality or sentience as such. That's all for me, really.

[CCIP]

As far as Jesus,

Okay. I accept that Jesus, whoever he actually was, was most certainly a great person who preached love - love in the sense of altruism and goodwill as I understand it. I accept that his primary concept of love as such is essentially right. I also trust the forces that have sent him down here. It wouldn't be a turn in my life at all to say that I go through life with the essential Christian ethic in mind (I mean that in the phiosophical rather than dogmatic sense) .

Well? Can I throw out all those rotten books that distort and overbloat his essential truths and live my life with a clean conscience now?

[waste gate]

[originally intended as response to the question of "Reasonable atheism - disprove that god exists"]

Wonderful trick.

I may not be an atheist per se (well, I am from the perspective of the Real Christians on the forum), but I don't see how it works. To me it's like asking about the existence of vacuum. It only can be proven or disproven in relation to other things.

I would say God certainly doesn't exist in the sense that he is proposed in Judaeo-Christian dogma. If he does, then he clearly suffers from a severe case of paranoid schizophrenia, as he can't even stop contradicting himself in his own (many versions of) scriptures, nor decide who his real voice was and who was a hoax. Not only that, but he evidently has a very poor working ethic in enforcing his own laws, and a very poor sense of judgment in whom he chooses as his Chosen Ones.

Reasonably, I'd rather there be no God than a clinically insane one. Fortunately, for me, asking the question of "does God exist?" is asking "does water exist?" Sure water exists. And it's not prone to effects of mental illness, having no mentality or sentience as such. That's all for me, really.

So where is your proof that God does not exist.

Seems to me the only thing(s) proven is that atheism is a religion on this board(my original post was moved to a discussion about religion). Secondly, that there is a prejudice against those who believe in God on this board. Its OK to question those who believe in the existance of God but not to question those who deny God's existance.

[Letum]

Wow Iceman! Ive never seen it like that before!
Your right! How else can anyone deny that Christ is the only way. After all, it was Christ him self that said that he is the only salvation from the path of sin AND the only way to find the path by which we can enter heaven!
All we need is to accept Christs love in our selves and to reject all the other false paths that are paths of sin.
Why can't Skybird and those like him see this? Why cant they open their eyes like you have opened mine?

I think they are scared to accept the lord JESUS CHRIST. They are scared because Jesus is all loving, but they can not love him.
They are scared to love the only one who can save them from the paths of sin they walk along. Instead of letting them selves Love Christ they have chained their minds with reason and they cower and hide behind rationality.


How much would Jesus have to do before they accept him?

Perhaps they want Jesus to come down to earth and show himself?
Perhaps they want him to show he is the son of god?
Perhaps they want him to show them the path to heaven and the consequences of sin?
Perhaps they want him to show his love for them?
Perhaps they want him to die for them?

HE HAS DONE ALL THESE THINGS

This is staring them in the face, but they still can't accept it. They even try and say it is wrong. You can not say love is wrong! You can not deny love! You can not deny Christ!
Deep inside they have to know this like we do.


Hehe....I don't believe a word of what I just wrote btw
Its just a little of my fun poking ;)

[Gizzmoe]

The burden of proof is on the atheist.

Please prove that you are correct and that God does not exist.
Since the majority of the worlds population doesn´t believe in your god why don´t you prove that he exists? And while you´re at it, please explain why you think that only your religion is the right one and the 4.5 billion non-Christians are wrong.

[waste gate]

The burden of proof is on the atheist.

Please prove that you are correct and that God does not exist.
Since the majority of the worlds population doesn´t believe in your god why don´t you prove that he exists? And while you´re at it, please explain why you think that only your religion is the right one and the 4.5 billion non-Christians are wrong.

How is it that you know the God in which I believe? As far as I'm concerned thousands of years of belief trumps current populations by a long shot.

The burden of truth does not weigh on me.

[Letum]

The burden of proof is on the atheist.

Please prove that you are correct and that God does not exist.
Since the majority of the worlds population doesn´t believe in your god why don´t you prove that he exists? And while you´re at it, please explain why you think that only your religion is the right one and the 4.5 billion non-Christians are wrong.
How is it that you know the God in which I believe?

He doesn't need to. No religion had a 50%+ majority.

Apart from that, if someone is monotheistic then chances are they are following the Islamic/Christian/Judaic God.

[Gizzmoe]

He doesn't need to. No religion had a 50%+ majority.

Apart from that, if someone is monotheistic then chances are they are following the Islamic/Christian/Judaic God.

Yes. waste gate, you are evading my question, especially the second one.

[waste gate]

[quote=waste gate].please explain why you think that only your religion is the right one and the 4.5 billion non-Christians are wrong.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said my religion was the right one.

BTW you have not proven that God does not exist.

[Gizzmoe]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said my religion was the right one.
So you are not convinced that your religion is the right religion? If that is the case, why do you follow it?

BTW you have not proven that God does not exist.
Like I said, IMO the minority should prove it to the majority, not the other way around.

[waste gate]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said my religion was the right one.
So you are not convinced that your religion is the right religion? If that is the case, why do you follow it?

BTW you have not proven that God does not exist.
Like I said, IMO the minority should prove it to the majority, not the other way around.

Don't confuse the belief in God with religion my friend.

In any court that I know of the burden of proof is on the majority (e.g. the people of the state of New York against xyz).

[geetrue]

The burden of proof is on the atheist.

Please prove that you are correct and that God does not exist.
Since the majority of the worlds population doesn´t believe in your god why don´t you prove that he exists? And while you´re at it, please explain why you think that only your religion is the right one and the 4.5 billion non-Christians are wrong.



First of all we can’t prove anything till you invite Jesus into your heart and confess that
He paid for all of your sins on the cross at Calvary …

Sin is when you resist the will of God …

We that believe in the blood of Jesus paying for all of our sins.
That makes us brothers and sisters … just like you are brothers and
sisters with those that don’t believe.

It is estimated that over 1.3 billion people have accepted Jesus as
their Lord and saviour, but as you can see for yourself from this posted
scripture alone … not all so called Christians are going to have their
pink slips picked up by God.

The Blood of Jesus only pays for the sins you repent of …
You will hear about the sins you didn’t repent of on judgement day.



St Matthew 7:14-27

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and
few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good
fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be
likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

You can also call on Jesus NOW to be YOUR Lord and Savior.

http://www.amazingbible.org/ (http://www.amazingbible.org/)

[Letum]

[quote=waste gate].please explain why you think that only your religion is the right one and the 4.5 billion non-Christians are wrong.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said my religion was the right one.

BTW you have not proven that God does not exist.


And you have to prove that a Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist?
And we have to prove that cats with light bulbs for ears don't exist?
Of course not!
You assume something doesn't exist until you have reasonable, reproducible evidence that it does.

However, this thread is not really about god's existence or other wise. If you wish to discuss that start another topic. (please don't, I can only imaging how a topic with that title will end up)

[CCIP]

So where is your proof that God does not exist.


1) I did not say God does not exist. My belief in God is simply different from the sense in which it seems to be implied here (primarily Judaeo-Christian).

2) How does one prove the absence of something? In relation to something else.

My only point-of-reference is my experience, reason and knowledge. My reason has a funny way of not believing anything I have no proof for. Unless I am presented with a compelling proof for the presence of something, my default view is that of something being absent. This is a normal and logical way of thinking. I have no "burden of proof". I don't need to prove something for which I have not been presented one shred of convincing (in my view) proof.

Before you place the "burden on proof" on anyone, please establish the reason why we should presume that presence, rather than absence of God, should be viewed as the default/unmarked position to a logical mind.

The way in which you are evading the discussion and refusing to answer counter-questions is not productive.

[Gizzmoe]

Don't confuse the belief in God with religion my friend.

Ok. So which god do you believe in?

[waste gate]

[quote=CCIP]
Before you place the "burden on proof" on anyone, please establish the reason why we should presume that presence, rather than absence of God, should be viewed as the default/unmarked position to a logical mind.
[quote]

For the same reason many presume the non-presance of God.

[waste gate]

Don't confuse the belief in God with religion my friend.

Ok. So which god do you believe in?

That is non of your business. That is between me and my Lord.

[Gizzmoe]

Don't confuse the belief in God with religion my friend.
Ok. So which god do you believe in?
That is non of your business. That is between me and my Lord.
You asked us to prove that God doesn´t exists, but you are not even telling us which god you believe in? There are supposedly hundreds of different gods as you know... :)

[Letum]

You asked us to prove that God doesn´t exists, but you are not even telling us which god you believe in? There are supposedly hundreds of different gods as you know... :)
hehe. He won't tell you what he askes you to prove doesn't exsist. :doh: :rotfl:

[Gizzmoe]

The burden of proof is on the atheist.

Please prove that you are correct and that God does not exist.
Since the majority of the worlds population doesn´t believe in your god why don´t you prove that he exists? And while you´re at it, please explain why you think that only your religion is the right one and the 4.5 billion non-Christians are wrong.


First of all we can’t prove anything till you invite Jesus into your heart and confess that
He paid for all of your sins on the cross at Calvary …
I could only invite Jesus into my heart and confess that he paid for all of my sins if I wanted to believe and wanted to be a Christian. Jews, Muslims, Hindus and many others don´t let Jesus into their heart.

[waste gate]

Don't confuse the belief in God with religion my friend.
Ok. So which god do you believe in?
That is non of your business. That is between me and my Lord.
You asked us to prove that God doesn´t exists, but you are not even telling us which god you believe in? There are supposedly hundreds of different gods as you know... :)


There are supposedly hundreds of different gods as you know... :)


Not in my mind.

I feel bad for you because you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in.
You all spend a great deal of time questioning my beliefs yet I have yet to see your proof that God does not exist.

[CCIP]

Well you've lost the argument at the point where you failed to state which precise God's existence you want us to disprove, or rather which God's absence you want us to prove. You have no reference for us. You also haven't managed to say anything substantial in regard as to why the burden of proof should be with the unmarked (absence) rather than marked (presence) position.

Meanwhile, since you're asking us to prove the absence of a God to whom we can't possibly have a reference, you're essentially asking us to disprove the existence of a concept without reference. In other words you're asking us to disprove nothing. We can't disprove nothing. Nothing is nothing.

You've essentially asked us to divide 0 by something here and come up with an answer of 1. We can't divide a 0 by anything. Give us a number to divide, and then we can start dividing it.

[Letum]

Not in my mind.

I feel bad for you because you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in.
You all spend a great deal of time questioning my beliefs yet I have yet to see your proof that God does not exist.

Someone could say:

"Your god doesn't exist because my god says he does not exist. Unless you can prove that my god does not exist then your god does not exist."

You could say the same back and so on

This is a logic loop, so your assumption that the burden of proof is to disprove something must be nonsense as anything that creates a logic loop is nonsense.

[waste gate]

Well you've lost the argument at the point where you failed to state which precise God's existence you want to disprove. You have no reference for us.

Meanwhile, since you're asking us to prove the absence of a God to whom we can't possibly have a reference, you're essentially asking us to disprove the existence of a concept without reference. In other words you're asking us to disprove nothing. We can't disprove nothing. Nothing is nothing.

You've essentially asked us to divide 0 by something here and come up with an answer of 1. We can't divide a 0 by anything. Give us a number to divide, and then we can start dividing it.

For me there is no arguement. God exists. You have not proven that he does not.
God is beyond your mathematics. Your attempt to place Him within your human understanding is how He wants you to find His grace.
AND
Seems to me the only thing(s) proven is that atheism is a religion on this board (my original post was moved to a discussion about religion). Secondly, that there is a prejudice against those who believe in God on this board. Its OK to question those who believe in the existance of God but not to question those who deny God's existance.

[Letum]

Well you've lost the argument at the point where you failed to state which precise God's existence you want to disprove. You have no reference for us.

Meanwhile, since you're asking us to prove the absence of a God to whom we can't possibly have a reference, you're essentially asking us to disprove the existence of a concept without reference. In other words you're asking us to disprove nothing. We can't disprove nothing. Nothing is nothing.

You've essentially asked us to divide 0 by something here and come up with an answer of 1. We can't divide a 0 by anything. Give us a number to divide, and then we can start dividing it.
For me there is no argument. God exists. You have not proven that he does not.
God is beyond your mathematics. Your attempt to place Him within your human understanding is how He wants you to find His grace.
AND
Seems to me the only thing(s) proven is that atheism is a religion on this board (my original post was moved to a discussion about religion). Secondly, that there is a prejudice against those who believe in God on this board. Its OK to question those who believe in the existence of God but not to question those who deny God's existence.
OK, we have reached a point where you either are not reading what people are posting or your are not understanding what people are posting. You certainly are not responding to posts in a way that makes sense.

I'm not sure if there are any atheists in this topic. The majority of the people posting in this topic have some form of spirituality. My self very much included.

You are quite welcome to question those that do not hold your beliefs, but be prepared to have the validity of your questions questioned.

*edit* I'm going off to spend my time else where for a bit. Over to you guys..

[CCIP]

I'm not sure if there are any atheists in this topic. The majority of the people posting in this topic have some form of spirituality. My self very much included.
Thank you! Exactly what I wanted to say.

Someone not even reading our posts, that's for sure.

Just a page ago I outlined my perception of God and my view of spirituality, along with my acceptance of the core Christian philosophy (but not dogma).

Honestly, I'm willing to come out and say that a "Lord" perception of God is
1) degrading to God (lowering himself to doing the dirty laundry of wayward primates - and that's besides being clinically insane);
2) shamelessly egocentric (raising the place of humanity and one's own individual status as an 'immortal soul' in the grand scale of things without cause);
3) an insult to what one might call a 'divine' harmony of logic and structure that is precisely WHERE God most obviously is (in my view) - you're rejecting universal reason in favour of a concept you've no proof for. I think it's in the rejection of God's reason (in the sense of logic, harmony and structure) where you most directly and unwittingly disproved his existence in the form that you perceive.

Furthermore, I believe your (waste gate, if it's unclear) most recent posting has been a rather thinly veiled insult, at which I'm not pleased.

[waste gate]

Well you've lost the argument at the point where you failed to state which precise God's existence you want to disprove. You have no reference for us.

Meanwhile, since you're asking us to prove the absence of a God to whom we can't possibly have a reference, you're essentially asking us to disprove the existence of a concept without reference. In other words you're asking us to disprove nothing. We can't disprove nothing. Nothing is nothing.

You've essentially asked us to divide 0 by something here and come up with an answer of 1. We can't divide a 0 by anything. Give us a number to divide, and then we can start dividing it.
For me there is no argument. God exists. You have not proven that he does not.
God is beyond your mathematics. Your attempt to place Him within your human understanding is how He wants you to find His grace.
AND
Seems to me the only thing(s) proven is that atheism is a religion on this board (my original post was moved to a discussion about religion). Secondly, that there is a prejudice against those who believe in God on this board. Its OK to question those who believe in the existence of God but not to question those who deny God's existence.
OK, we have reached a point where you either are not reading what people are posting or your are not understanding what people are posting. You certainly are not responding to posts in a way that makes sense.

I'm not sure if there are any atheists in this topic. The majority of the people posting in this topic have some form of spirituality. My self very much included.

You are quite welcome to question those that do not hold your beliefs, but be prepared to have the validity of your questions questioned.

Perhaps you are correct Letum. What did I miss. If by spirituality you mean the majority of the people posting in this topic believe in God but cannot bring themselves to clearly express that belief, then you are correct. I missed that.

I perceived something else. Although I am comfortable with my beliefs, I am not comfortable with the implication that I am some how fooling myself, or worse an idiot, because of my beliefs. The implications offends not only myself but I dare say many.

[waste gate]

[Originally Posted by CCIP]Honestly, I'm willing to come out and say that a "Lord" perception of God is
1) degrading to God (lowering himself to doing the dirty laundry of wayward primates - and that's besides being clinically insane);
2) shamelessly egocentric (raising the place of humanity and one's own individual status as an 'immortal soul' in the grand scale of things without cause);
3) an insult to what one might call a 'divine' harmony of logic and structure that is precisely WHERE God most obviously is (in my view) - you're rejecting universal reason in favour of a concept you've no proof for. I think it's in the rejection of God's reason (in the sense of logic, harmony and structure) where you most directly and unwittingly disproved his existence in the form that you perceive.


My relationship with God is not up for your debate. How dare you question how I speak to God?

[The Avon Lady]

I'm sorry. My time is up for such novice claims. If you wish to delve into how Judaism has understood and taught scriptures since their origination, be my guest. Otherwise, your posts are as unenlightening as Von Capo's copy and pastes of similar ignorant articles.
...and your claims about Islamic texts are more than novice? :shifty:
I'm sure you can easily disprove one of my prior posts on the subject, from Islamic sources.

Go on. It should be easy. Waiting.........................................
You are avoiding the issue a little. Even a novice such as my self cam poke holes in any religious text.
But you didn't poke a hole. You dug yourself a rut in the very first example you gave.
Altho not with 100% correctness as you point out.
Not 100% correct? What are the conclusions and lessons of the commentary I posted? You were 180 degrees off course, captain, sir. :ahoy:

[Gizzmoe]

Although I am comfortable with my beliefs, I am not comfortable with the implication that I am some how fooling myself, or worse an idiot, because of my beliefs. The implications offends not only myself but I dare say many.

And I am comfortable with my atheism. I don´t want to hear things like that you feel bad for me because, as you say, I have nothing greater than myself to believe in. I believe in many great things, just not in any kind of higher beings.

[waste gate]

Although I am comfortable with my beliefs, I am not comfortable with the implication that I am some how fooling myself, or worse an idiot, because of my beliefs. The implications offends not only myself but I dare say many.

And I am comfortable with my atheism. I don´t want to hear things like that you feel bad for me because, as you say, I have nothing greater than myself to believe in. I believe in many great things, just not in any kind of higher beings.

I don't think I questioned your atheism. My question was; prove God doesn't exist.
This thread, although stated to the contrary, suggests that God doesn't exist.

I was attempting to show the other side of the arguement, and to allow the atheists to articulate their argument with the same assurity that those who believe in God are asked to provide for their beliefs.

[CCIP]

Solution: let's not be condescending to each other.

It's plain that we work on different wavelengths. One wavelength is essentially the affirming one, the other is the denying one. My side of things (if there is such a side) plainly believes in questioning everything until answers come. The other side (generalizing) believes in trusting an established value through which answers will come. Naturally there can be no agreement and the generic "we" seem like the 'meanies' and the generic "you" seem like the 'condescending bunch. Because both will be compromising something at the centre of their being to be able to even respond to the other side in a way that is acceptable. (NB - I don't believe in the "us and them" thing, but let's generalize for now).

Unfortunately, the simple fact is, you can be as comfortable as you'd like, and I will still believe only what I can verify by virtue of reason. I believe there are plenty of things higher than me, but there is nothing higher than a perfectly ordered process by which things are the way they are.

[Gizzmoe]

I was attempting to show the other side of the arguement, and to allow the atheists to articulate their argument with the same assurity that those who believe in God are asked to provide for their beliefs.
Fair enough. What I don´t get is that you always to speak of a single god. "Those who believe in God", not "those who believe in a god". You don´t specify which god exactly you believe in and you seem to think that there´s only one god, is that correct? If it is, what do you think about people that believe in many different gods and none of them includes yours?

[waste gate]

I was attempting to show the other side of the arguement, and to allow the atheists to articulate their argument with the same assurity that those who believe in God are asked to provide for their beliefs.
Fair enough. What I don´t get is that you always to speak of a single god. "Those who believe in God", not "those who believe in a god". You don´t specify which god exactly you believe in and you seem to think that there´s only one god, is that correct? If it is, what do you think about people that believe in many different gods and none of them includes yours?

Let me see if I can explain. Firstly, my relationship with God is sacrocant as far as I'm concerned and I will not allow anyone to to bring that relationship or how I speak with Him up for debate. If you plan to question my relationship with my Lord I urge you not to. That being said I will give you some insight as to how I found God.

I have flown airplanes both privately and commercially from 1978 to present.
Much of my time during these years have been an effort to remove all risk.
When I say all risk I mean ALL risk which is associated with taking an aircraft into the air. As you may suspect, over close to thirty years I have had my share of incidents.

Some of those incidents have been minor close calls and others have been gut wrenching. Everything from the door opening on take-off on my first cross country solo in a C152, to heavy ice on the wings that the boots wouldn't clear on a ATR72, to smoke in the cockpit and engine failure of a B737.

Yes, checklists exist for all these situations. When you have gone through all of the checklists and its a wing, your past experience and a prayer..... You have to question your mortality and make your peace and believe God is looking over you, your family and your passengers.

[Gizzmoe]

Thanks, but that doesn´t answer any of my questions.

[CCIP]

Yes, we've established where you are, now what are we in all that? You're eluding the main point of this whole discussion.

[waste gate]

I was attempting to show the other side of the arguement, and to allow the atheists to articulate their argument with the same assurity that those who believe in God are asked to provide for their beliefs.
Fair enough. What I don´t get is that you always to speak of a single god. "Those who believe in God", not "those who believe in a god". You don´t specify which god exactly you believe in and you seem to think that there´s only one god, is that correct? If it is, what do you think about people that believe in many different gods and none of them includes yours?


God is God. There is only one God. Just because you choose to say there are multiple gods doesn't mean they exist. Politheism is not a basis of denying the existance of one true God. Politheism is only the road humanity must travel to get to Him.

BTW you have not proven that God does not exist.

[orwell]

Edit: Don´t post such things here... - Gizzmoe

[Gizzmoe]

God is God. There is only one God. Just because you choose to say there are multiple gods doesn't mean they exist. Politheism is not a basis of denying the existance of one true God. Politheism is only the road humanity must travel to get to Him.

What makes you so sure that there´s only one god? IIRC Avon once said that the Jewish god is not the same as the Christian god. I know that some Christians say the same, they think that their God is the right one. Now tell me, who is right, who is wrong?

[CCIP]

In my case, my question is (and it's not a joke) - how does one know that god is a 'he'?

(I mean that less in a gender sense and more in a being sense)

[waste gate]

God is God. There is only one God. Just because you choose to say there are multiple gods doesn't mean they exist. Politheism is not a basis of denying the existance of one true God. Politheism is only the road humanity must travel to get to Him.

What makes you so sure that there´s only one god? IIRC Avon once said that the Jewish god is not the same as the Christian god. I know that some Christians say the same, they think that their God is the right one. Now tell me, who is right, who is wrong?

What makes you sure there is not one God?
Avon Lady can speak for herself and not rely on your recallections. Perhaps you are hearing what you want you hear. I have never heard anyone Jew or Christian make a distinction. God is God.

[Gizzmoe]

What makes you sure there is not one God?
Avon Lady can speak for herself and not rely on your recallections. Perhaps you are hearing what you want you hear. I have never heard anyone Jew or Christian make a distinction. God is God.
Most Christians believe in the holy trinity ("one god in three persons"). The Jewish and Muslims concepts of god are different, not only in that regard. For example, god gave 600-something commandments to Jews and only 10 to Christians...

[waste gate]

In my case, my question is (and it's not a joke) - how does one know that god is a 'he'?

(I mean that less in a gender sense and more in a being sense)

Why are ships called 'she'. (I mean that less in a gender sense and more in a being sense).

[waste gate]

What makes you sure there is not one God?
Avon Lady can speak for herself and not rely on your recallections. Perhaps you are hearing what you want you hear. I have never heard anyone Jew or Christian make a distinction. God is God.
Most Christians believe in the holy trinity ("one god in three persons"). The Jewish and Muslims concepts of god are different, not only in that regard. For example, god gave 600-something commandments to Jews and only 10 to Christians...

Why can't God be something different for everyone. My perception of the Lord does not have to be the same as every other person who believes in God. It dosen't make anyone less in touch with God. Again you are using your finite terms and beliefs to interpret the un-interpretable. Try to stop difining God by our puny minds and language.

BTW No proof that God does not exist!!

[Gizzmoe]

Why can't God be something different for everyone. My perception of the Lord does not have to be the same as every other person who believes in God. It dosen't make anyone less in touch with God.
There are only three possiblities.

1. There is only one god.

If that is true it would invalidate the polytheistic religions (more than 1 billion believers) and the Abrahamic religions would need to rethink some of their positions.

2. There are many gods.

This would shake the foundations of Abrahamic religions and some others, but not necessarly invalidate them.

3. There are no gods.

Well...

Since there is no definite answer people will continue to believe whatever they want. Many believe in one god, many in several gods, many in no gods at all. Impossible to say who´s right and who´s wrong.

This uncertainty, the total lack of definite answers, made me an atheist, for me it was the only logical conclusion.

[U-533]

Proving God exists...:hmm:

If there is no God who created all...Then that leaves the theories of the "Big Bang" and "Evolution"

I ask questions on one of these.

First if we evolved then how did the eyes through which we see this world happen? Did a cell one day happen to decide that it wanted to see? How did it come realize there was anything at all to see? How long did this one cell decide to keep trying different combinations of stuff to get some light on the situation? If this cell did not make the necessary adjustments to see before it was eaten by a stronger cell or die of old age, did it pass on the knowledge gained by its experiences to other cells interested in seeing also? If so how did it pass on the knowledge it had learned by mouth or telepathic link or writing it down? How did it learn to do those things to pass on the knowledge?

Now if you believe we are just a DNA strand left here on this planet by Alien beings and we evolved from that to fit our environment... How did the alien eyes evolve?:hmm:

Answer these questions without having to have more Faith than believeing in one God who created all then I will understand where you are comming from.




As far as the "Big Bang Theroy" I think that could have happened... God said let it be and BANG!there it is.:sunny:

[Skybird]

:D:up:

Top Text SkyBird! Both wise and well written. Thankyou! :D

Perhaps you are putting the Buddha and Jesus a little too close together tho. There are big differences, which I am sure you are aware of. I find it a little difficult to find the similarities that you hint at.

I find Nietzsche lacking in many ways. Perhaps that's because I don't like his overly-powerful writing style or perhaps its just because I had to study him for far longer than I would have liked. ;)
Nietzsche was, however, a great leader for the thinkers that came after him. I think many of them do a better job in applying reason to religion.

When you mention "Buddha’s quote" which quote are you referring to?

Thanks again for a enjoyable read! :D

The quote you ask for is that short excerpt from the Kalams sutra, you can read it in the second posting in this thread. It was inclouded in the first posting, authored by me, but Gizzmoe ripped it all out of context and I deleted it in protest, expecting this thread to die. Within the original thread, where the religious theme appeared, I just answered to others starting the religious argument - I did not start it myself.

I am short in time, so I cut it short. I see Siddharta ("Buddha") and Jesus ("Christ") close to each other when I try to free the content of their teaching from the culture-dependant verbal symbolism both are using. On this level, they appear to be miles apart, yes, and it even seems that on the surface Jesus is using the same terms like "Father" and "heaven" like these words were used in the Bible before him. But he puts them into completely different contexts, saying that with him some old conception of Father and Heaven and the like (the old Vulcan God demanding sacrifices and obedience) have come to an end and thus something new is beginning. That's why it is called the Glad Tidings, becasue before was the rule of a selfish heavenly tyrant under whose ruling you had little reason to be glad. If one is looking behind the surface of language (a language that is needed to transport these contents and talk about them) I feel indeed little to no differences between Buddha's and Jesus concepts. There are even some scholars and scientist referring to those first thirty years of Jesus about the bible has close to n othing to say. There are indications and hints that he may very well have done travels as far as into India, and possibly came into contact with Buddhist teachings there. It is no safe information, yes, only a theory bolstered by hints, but it makes sense, and does not leave "random chance" to be the only answer for the striking parrallels between both men. For me, the parallels between both are striking indeed, but I admit that I was unable to see that until I discovered the tradition and the writings of the Christian mystics and especially Thomas a Kempis and Meister Eckehart. since then I knew that all my previous drawing of lines between this and that, Jesus and Buddha, was stupid and simply illustrated that I believed to know a lot, but knew nothing at all. I separated and polarized, and it did me no good service. Or in short: I fell for my ego.

That I like nietzsche is no secret, but I am aware of his limits, too. These must be seen before the background of his childhood, being the only boy/male in a household full of super-feministic women who even dressed him into women's clothings (that's why he has not much positive to say about females, it is his trauma), and the bitter hostility he experienced from his contemporary fellow citizens. He became increasingly isolated, and by that became more and more bitter, illustrated by his growing aggression and sarcasm, like especially in "The Anti-Christ", which says many things that are true, but is so polemic (see the two quotes above) that many people think of it in terms of "verbal poison". He answered his growing isolation with growing stubborness, and finally, even some megalomania. Try to substract this from what he has to say - and you have the work of one of the greatest and most visionary philosphers of mankind, imo. The first two books of the four books the Zarathustra is made of are a very good beginning, I think, there is polenty of wisdom in that, and clearness (and unforgiveness) of thought. And for those who have little time only and want some spotlights and some funny quotes, "The Dawning of Idols" is another good one. It is also brief and short, and shows the many different writing styles Nietzsche was using.

Nietzsche was ahead of his time - that's what he was suffering of. Tragic.

[Skybird]

The burden of proof is on the atheist.

Please prove that you are correct and that God does not exist.

The burden of proof lies on those saying that something exists that is unperceivable.

Please prove that you are correct and that God does exist. It is you adding something new and make a change - not me.

In other words, referring to my Monopolay-analogy earlier, if you make a fortune in real life, prove that Monpopoly had something to do with it, and that you wouldn't be rich without playing it.

There is a better way to spend our lives with. Instead of making wild assumptions about what we do not know, we could focus on things that we DO know - and build on them as a fundament. We know that people want to acchieve happiness and freedom, and that they want to avoid fear and suffering. We know that things we perceive are transitory only, that everything passes and constantly changes, and that taking this as a basis is like raising a house on quicksand. "Living is suffering." By this we can learn what is not worthy to stick to, and excluding this - we already have limited the number of possible reasonable options to choose from. We then can pick up the remaining ones, and see where they lead if logically thought and tested to the end. Once we found one that leads to an end that is good for us and good for all others, that causes no harm and does not lead into illusion that transitory things could be eternal, we have found a way worth to follow, and worth to live by. That simple is the original Buddhist method - pure empiry, testing and examination. Originally, in Chan buddhism they even did not held a written tradition! Buddha founded no hierarchy of priests, and no libraries, and Jesus did not found a church or any comparable institution - all this is man'S work that came later, often motivated by selfish intentions by power-hungry figures (like Paul, since we talked about him) Abstract conceptions like "God", "scripture" and "tradition" are not needed to succeed on this way. They are only obstacles that destract the traveller from more solid paths through the swamp. Let go such false beliefs. give up such false idols. Develope a mind that does not depend on anything. Interact with the things of the world you perceive - but do not cling to them - they are not more like pictures you see when looking out of the window when riding in a train. Such freedom is the prerequisite for true love that does not demand anything in return. It's also a love that cannot be caged, supressed, blackmailed, instrumentalised. It simply is, and it has no obligation whatever to be anything else. It's tough, and it sees clear. Of that nature was the love Jesus was talking of. The heavenly deals the churches are preaching, "do good deeds and you will be rewarded and God will,love you", the "Verniedlichung" (minimization) of love as to be seen in so many religious groups with sugar-sweet wallowing feelings is something that has no place in it.

[U-533]

One way or another we exist (am I correct in assuming we are real... If not then dont bother reading the rest of this)

We exist due to some form of creation correct? ie: Evolution, or God

Is thier any other way we exist?

[The Avon Lady]

Is there any other way we exist?
This is one big "Truman Show", I'll tell you! :doh:

[GlobalExplorer]

Attempt to prove that god doesn't exist

If we want to prove the existence or non-existence of god, We must first define what god is, and the most common definition would certainly be:

"God is the one who created everything."

That means that god created itself, too, because something that isn't part of everything doesn't exist. But god cannot have created itself because god was already there, and you can only create something that doesn't exist yet.

If god created everything, then it created itself and it didn't create itself. That's of course a contradiction and proves the statement is false. [Remark 1]

Ok, so we know we must use an improved statement about the existence of god:

"God is the one who created everything that is not god"

We can directly conclude from his statement that god cannot have been created by something else. This is because if there was something else that created god, let's call it God², then God² would be just another name for God: God² (directly) created God, plus (indirectly through God) everything except God and God². So God² is the one who created everthing but God². And so on in the case that God² was created by God³ and so on. That means:

"God is that, which was never created."

Now a clever person might say: if god was never created, the it doesn't exist! But careful, this is only the case if the following statement is true:

"There can only exist something if it was created." (III)

If the above statement is true, and if something exists (no matter what it is), that something must have been created in order to exist. But whatever it was that created it, it must have been created by something else, and so on until infinity.

Imagine everything that exists is a game of dominos. You know with certainty that at least one domino fell, and you know that every domino can only fall if there is another domino that fell before it. [Remark 2]

Such game does not exist, because if every domino needs another domino before it can fall, you can infinitely go backwards in time, but still you never reach a point where the first domino actually falls. That means:

"If there can only exist something if it was created, then nothing can exist."

But we all know that at least something exists, so statement (III) is wrong. Instead we have found that the following statement is true:

"There must exist something that was not created, otherwise nothing could exist."

Before we have already concluded that, if god created everything that is not god, then follows:

"God is that, which was never created."

Ok, trying to prove that god doesn't exist, I have actually proved the opposite. But if god exists, and it wasn't created, what is it? It certainly isn't the monotheistic god of any religion, has no will, and time, space, matter don't exist for it. In fact, god is just another name for existence itself:

"God is the fact that something exists."

or

"God is everything that exists."

Well, if that's the case, I don't see anthing special about god anymore. Because God is you, god is me, god is my cat, a tree, god is something I have already accepted, and which I would not necessarily want to call god.

There is but one conclusion:

"You don't need god to understand the world."




[Remark 1] The Barber of Seville problem. "The Barber of seville is the man who is shaving every man who doesn't shave himself". This is a ridiculous statement, because it cannot be proved whether the Barber shaves himself or not. Remember I made the following conclusion: If god created everything, then it created itself, and it can't have create itself, because it was already there. Could it be that this is another Barber of Seville problem, and cannot be proved to be true or false either?

[Remark 2] Leave the Hen and Egg problem out of this. The Hen and Egg problem is an example of over-abstraction, because in reality Hens and their eggs changed through evolution, so you would arrive at a point in the past where Hens didn't lay eggs, so Hens and Eggs where the same thing. So it has nothing to do with the domino analogy.

[Skybird]

"God is everything that exists."
Well, if that's the case, I don't see anthing special about god anymore. Because God is you, god is me, god is my cat, a tree, god is something I have already accepted, and which I would not necessarily want to call god.
There is but one conclusion:
"You don't need god to understand the world."

Not the most precise formulation, but by tendency: yes. Now compare to these quotes (my amateur translations from German):
Therefore, I am the cause of myself according to my essential being which is eternal, but not according to my developing appearance, which is temporal. And therefore, I am unborn, and according to that I never can die. By the way of not being born I have existed since all times, and I do exist now, and will exist forever. What I am by the way of my developing appearance will die and will be ruined, because it is mortal; therefore it will be shattered by time
There exists only one spirit and not a single particle of something different to which one could cling to. Because this spirit is Buddha-nature. If you students that you are on the search, can not awake to this substance of spirit, then you will overlay the spirit with conceptual, abstract thinking, search for Buddha outside of yourself, and you will stay bound to external form, religious exercises and more things that are only harmful and are not the way of highest insight. […] Even the smallest thought to cling to this or that, already creates imaginary symbols that lead you back into diverse rebirths
Before everything else, he shall let go himself, for then he has let go everything. Forsooth, if a man would let go a kingdom or all world, but would keep himself, in reality he would not had let go anything. But if he lets go himself, whatever it is that he keeps then, may it be honour or wealth or whatever, he has letting go everything. […] We shall own as if we had nothing, but still having all things. The one does not have any possessions, who does not desire and does not want anything, neither for himself nor for all what is besides him. […] All suffering comes from love and affection. So, if I face suffering because of transitory things, then I still do have and my heart still has love and a tendency for transitory things, and I still do not love God with all my heart and I still do not love what God wants to know to be loved by me in Him. What wonder is it then when God allows that I suffer harm and sorrow, well-deserved?
The law of Buddha does not need endeavours. It consists of the ordinary life and has no goal: to sh!t and to piss, getting dressed, eating and sleeping when one is tired. The simple-minded may laugh about me – the wise know about it. […] My friends, I tell you: there is no Buddha, no teaching, no training, and no insight. What are you chasing for so bitterly? Do you want to put a second head on top of your own, you blind idiots? Your head is exactly where it should be. What are you missing, then?
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14,26); Another disciple said to him, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’ But Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.’ (Matthew 8,21-22); Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." (Mark 8,34-38)
Reject all that you have acquired, as if it were only a bed that had been set up for you during illness. Only when you have given up all perception and awareness, […] only when you have freed yourself from the complete range of dualistic concepts, […] you will finally gain the name of a ‘supersensory Buddha’. Therefore it is written: ‘Your bows are in vain. Don’t put your trust into such ceremonies. Give up such false beliefs.

If filtering out the cultural symbolism in the different languages - isn't it all to obvious that all these quotes are about one and the same message? Isn't it yelling the simple and so unhidden truth loud and clear into our ears? Isn't it shining bright and uncovered into our eyes? Nothing is hidden. Nobody is hindering us. Noone judges our performances, or complains if we fail, and cheers when we succeed. We do not need to reach anywhere - if only we would know it - we are already there.

[Fish]

I'm not sure if there are any atheists in this topic. The majority of the people posting in this topic have some form of spirituality. My self very much included.



I am atheist, for example because of this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6169720917221820689&q=Root+of+all+Evil

[Fish]

prove God doesn't exist.



A: I see God! :smug:
B: I don't? :cry:
A: Prove me you don't see God.:know:

[Onkel Neal]

As far as I am concerned, everybody can believe what they want.

That can be very dangerous. :down:

Yeah, but in the end, everybody does believe in what they want. No one can make them believe otherwise, eh?

[Onkel Neal]

Religion with reason - leads to accepting responsibility for your life, engagement for man, earth, life, altruism. You are in control of your life (or not), you make the decisions (or refuse to do so), and you face the consequences of it – there is no other authority you can blame, and put your case to in order to become privileged to be freed from your responsibility. “Do what you want”, but since you inevitably cause consequences be careful in what you want. That is true justice. Man does not want mercy, only if he is seeking shortcuts, is lazy, tries to avoid the responesbility. What man wants is justice.

Skybird, I'm very impressed. That's essentially what I'm gradually arriving at myself - I just don't have the age/experience behind me as yet.



Yeah, I have to say that is pretty sound thinking, IMO. Well said.

[Onkel Neal]

Seems to me the only thing(s) proven is that atheism is a religion on this board(my original post was moved to a discussion about religion). Secondly, that there is a prejudice against those who believe in God on this board. Its OK to question those who believe in the existance of God but not to question those who deny God's existance.

No, I don't think it has anything to do with this board. My experience in 12 years on the web leads me to say there's a sort of rebellious "I'm an atheist, aren't you shocked?" attitude among many forum dwellers on the web in general.

[Onkel Neal]

One last comment by me on this topic. As you know, religon is very personal to some people, so I urge everyone, religous or not, to keep a little respect in your comments. I see from reading the thread that you have done this pretty well. Thanks. We do not all believe or disbelieve the same things, and since no one can prove God exists, belief depends on faith. Consequently, no one can prove he does not exist, either, right? So not believing in God or a supreme being requires faith as well, faith that your senses, logic, and threories are correct. It makes sense to you so you believe it. But, you don't know it is true, you don't know there is no God, you just believe it. ;)

What I do know is that we are here to talk with each other and discuss things, so let's continue to keep it friendly.

[geetrue]

One last comment by me on this topic. As you know, religon is very personal to some people, so I urge everyone, religous or not, to keep a little respect in your comments. I see from reading the thread that you have done this pretty well. Thanks. We do not all believe or disbelieve the same things, and since no one can prove God exists, belief depends on faith. Consequently, no one can prove he does not exist, either, right? So not believing in God or a supreme being requires faith as well, faith that your senses, logic, and threories are correct. It makes sense to you so you believe it. But, you don't know it is true, you don't know there is no God, you just believe it. ;)

What I do know is that we are here to talk with each other and discuss things, so let's continue to keep it friendly.

May it never be denied that I wasn't a friendly person ...


Faith itself is a gift from God … You can not even believe in God unless He
wants you to …The calling of God is simply this … many are called, but few
are chosen.



Quoted: Saint Paul KJV



1 Corinthians 2:5-12

That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of
this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the
wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before
the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they
known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath
not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which
God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his
Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man
knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things
of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of
the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
given to us of God


http://www.amazingbible.org/

[Wim Libaers]

Proving God exists...:hmm:

If there is no God who created all...Then that leaves the theories of the "Big Bang" and "Evolution"

I ask questions on one of these.

First if we evolved then how did the eyes through which we see this world happen? Did a cell one day happen to decide that it wanted to see? How did it come realize there was anything at all to see? How long did this one cell decide to keep trying different combinations of stuff to get some light on the situation? If this cell did not make the necessary adjustments to see before it was eaten by a stronger cell or die of old age, did it pass on the knowledge gained by its experiences to other cells interested in seeing also? If so how did it pass on the knowledge it had learned by mouth or telepathic link or writing it down? How did it learn to do those things to pass on the knowledge?

Now if you believe we are just a DNA strand left here on this planet by Alien beings and we evolved from that to fit our environment... How did the alien eyes evolve?:hmm:

Answer these questions without having to have more Faith than believeing in one God who created all then I will understand where you are comming from.




As far as the "Big Bang Theroy" I think that could have happened... God said let it be and BANG!there it is.:sunny:

This may be interesting for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

[U-533]

This may be interesting for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

Thats good.

but it's not explaining Why the eye evolved...

I know why God designed it.

Wait let me read that one more time BRB!

Edited

Whow!

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

Ok this is a good source of stuff to think about.

Thank you for pointing me this way Wim Libaers

[Letum]

but it's not explaining Why the eye evolved...

I know why God designed it.

Look something up if you don't understand it. Don't flaunt your ignorance. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OZndaMi8c

Edit: Youtube and wiki are great to learn the basics. There are many hundreds of smaller steps known to science that wiki and youtube have missed out. You will need to google around for some papers to fill in the details. Give it a go! Its very interesting.


As for the more basic question:
Why would evolution do this?

Evolution will do anything that gives a small advantage.
A single light cell on your skin gives advantage as you can tell if its night or day. Even a tiny improvement in this kind of primitive eye will be favored by the gene pool. Continued improvements are favored and we end up with a complex eye.
Evolution does not do it for a reason. It just does it because it is the natural pattern.

[GlobalExplorer]

This may be interesting for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

Clicking on that link it took me less than a minute to realize this is just another pseudo-scientific site.

And may I add there is no creation/evolution controversy. It is an invention of people who are, well, no exactly scientists, to say it mildly.

I think everyone has to tolerate someone elses belief in god, but it`s hard for me to tolerate pseudo-science, especially if it`s trying to get a foothold into the education system.

Fortunately this is not so much an issue where I live (Europe), but it seems to be a threat in the states.

[joea]

GlobalExplorer, that IS a scientific site that is attacking creationist pseudo-science. I think you got confused by the creationist content the site was trying to expose.

[CCIP]

GlobalExplorer, that IS a scientific site that is attacking creationist pseudo-science. I think you got confused by the creationist content the site was trying to expose.

Indeed. That site is an excellent source for the debate which, within the bounds of logic and science, has more or less been resolved (and the site gives you a massive number of ways in which it has, while providing accurate sources from both sides.)

***

In terms of the whole creationism / intelligent design thing, my question is always "why"?

Why can't we substitute "intelligent design" with "harmonious development"?

To me the whole thing is a bit of an insult to both the beauty and the mysteries existence, actually. The creationist view essentially holds that the universe is a more or less a place full of chaos, "evil" and nonsense where a single, sentient King-of-Existence (God) bends and twists the laws of existence to create the "right" things. It sounds not only unreasonable but oppressive and despotic (when the whole ideology extended into social practice, especially - and no doubt it is).

Why is it so offensive if one sees the universe as organized by inherent order, consistency and probability? In my view, God doesn't bend or twist these things - God IS these things. And I think it makes the existence a far more amazing, believable and mysterious phenomenon than the gross and illogic simplifications of religion.

Neal - I echo your points in regard to keeping orderly and polite, but please realize that we are trying to conduct a reasonable argument with reasonable means. When someone throws downright bad rhetoric or uses evasive and impolite means, I think we should at least be able to restate our case in no uncertain terms. The stance you suggest is that essentially, the 'atheists' with their reason should come down to an agnostic position, and I don't think it's neccesarily right. Sure 'our' position here is based on belief, but we've put in great effort in substantiating it logically, and I think we should have the right to state and restate our arguments and consider the other side to have been 'rhetorically defeated' when they fail to adequately respond.

In other words, I don't have any illusions about this being anything but an internet debate - or about changing people's minds; but within that, I think, there's room for not backing down from a rhetorical position.

I can sting in this discussion, but I won't. I hope the other side plays nice as well and either offers up good rhetoric or stops insulting ours.

[geetrue]

Neal - I echo your points in regard to keeping orderly and polite, but please realize
In other words, I don't have any illusions about this being anything but an internet debate - or about changing people's minds; but within that, I think, there's room for not backing down from a rhetorical position.

I can sting in this discussion, but I won't. I hope the other side plays nice as well and either offers up good rhetoric or stops insulting ours.

I'm having problems with who the other side is ...

I am a simple person ... I know what a Christian is ...
I know many of the names of various religions of the world ...
I know what an atheist is, but what side are you on CCIP?

[Enigma]

I'm on the side of prophetic South African political analysts, myself.

[GlobalExplorer]

GlobalExplorer, that IS a scientific site that is attacking creationist pseudo-science. I think you got confused by the creationist content the site was trying to expose.

Sorry, my mistake. My reflex was that I didn't really check the site, and probably I won't do it ever because the material on the site doesn't interest me.

A reason for my post was ist that I am suspicious there could as well be a very shrewd plan to put up this site, for discussion of the "creation/evolution controversy" (which doesn't exist outside the minds of some people), with the one and only aim to make it appear as if there was a growing disagreement among scientists.

And I also really don't like the term "controversy" in this context.

Not every scam on the internet is easy to look through .. That just as a word warning.

[U-533]

What makes you sure there is not one God?
Avon Lady can speak for herself and not rely on your recallections. Perhaps you are hearing what you want you hear. I have never heard anyone Jew or Christian make a distinction. God is God.
Most Christians believe in the holy trinity ("one god in three persons"). The Jewish and Muslims concepts of god are different, not only in that regard. For example, god gave 600-something commandments to Jews and only 10 to Christians...

:hmm: May I make a clarification here, well maybe several clarifications...

First, yes, Christians believe that God is a Triune God (The Great 3 In One) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

The Father is the great creator.
The Son is the Father who came to earth in human flesh.
The Holy Spirit is the Comforter sent to help guide. Notice he is just here to help guide you must choose to follow.

Many PEOPLE believe this BUT that does not make them Christian.

Second, I think I'm not really sure maybe AVON LADY can shed some light here, the Muslim god is very different from the Jewish God.

Now on the other hand we Christians believe that we have the same God as the Jewish, but the Jewish do not recognize the Son of God nor the Holy Spirit.

Third, Moses came down off the mountain with only TEN count'em 10 commandments. The rest were added later for religious purposes. I think they are called Laws:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

Anyway I hope this don't muddy the water, any more than it is already.

[geetrue]

What makes you sure there is not one God?
Avon Lady can speak for herself and not rely on your recallections. Perhaps you are hearing what you want you hear. I have never heard anyone Jew or Christian make a distinction. God is God.
Most Christians believe in the holy trinity ("one god in three persons"). The Jewish and Muslims concepts of god are different, not only in that regard. For example, god gave 600-something commandments to Jews and only 10 to Christians...

:hmm: May I make a clarification here, well maybe several clarifications...

First, yes, Christians believe that God is a Triune God (The Great 3 In One) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

The Father is the great creator.
The Son is the Father who came to earth in human flesh.
The Holy Spirit is the Comforter sent to help guide. Notice he is just here to help guide you must choose to follow.

Many PEOPLE believe this BUT that does not make them Christian.

Second, I think I'm not really sure maybe AVON LADY can shed some light here, the Muslim god is very different from the Jewish God.

Now on the other hand we Christians believe that we have the same God as the Jewish, but the Jewish do not recognize the Son of God nor the Holy Spirit.

Third, Moses came down off the mountain with only TEN count'em 10 commandments. The rest were added later for religious purposes. I think they are called Laws:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

Anyway I hope this don't muddy the water, any more than it is already.

But remember the muslims themselves came from Abraham who had a
child by his wife Sarah's handmaiden Ishmael. It was Ishmael that went
on to be a great nation, because of God's favor on Abraham. That nation
is today the nations that worship Islam, because of a false prophet set up
in 6th century. He is not our God nor is he the God of the Hebrew children.

Abraham then conceived the child of promise, Isaac and then Jacob and
Isau were twins with Isau being first and rightful heir, but the mother
encouraged Jacob to deceive Isau out of his inheitance with a bowl of lentils
(good chilli).

The water is not muddy for me, remember the verse about wherever
two or three arre gathered together in my name ...
I'll go look that up, but first I pray the Holy Spirit would make it clearer
and clearer for anyone that has ventured this far in questioning the
faith of a Christian.

True as a Christian there are only three when you believe, not one, not two,
not four, but only three. Father, Son and Holy Spirit


There are three persons that make Him one God, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit …

"One of them is in me at all times and He doesn’t have to go ask the other two
anything” (my grandfather said that)

It is the Holy Spirit that lives within a person. In other words they are the same,
because when you’re a Christian you are on the inside looking out, not the
outside looking in.

Something supernatural happens when you say, “Yes, Lord, Yes I believe”

Some fall by the wayside, because they become lukewarm. Jesus said, “I would
rather for you to be hot or cold (about me), but because you are lukewarm …
I shall spew you out.

Revelations 3:15-16
“I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either
cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about
to spit you out of my mouth.


Oswald Chambers http://www.myutmost.org/12/1220.html


When you find yourself face to face with a person who is spiritually lost,
remind yourself of Jesus Christ on the cross. If that person can get to God
in any other way, then the Cross of Christ is unnecessary. If you think you
are helping lost people with your sympathy and understanding, you are a
traitor to Jesus Christ

[The Avon Lady]

Second, I think I'm not really sure maybe AVON LADY can shed some light here, the Muslim god is very different from the Jewish God.
In the concept of monotheism and G-d's omniscience, they are one and the same, but that's it.

Have a look at Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith (http://www.ou.org/torah/rambam.htm). Principles 1 through 5 a mutually shared. Principle 6 is somewhat shared. Judaism simply does not recognize Mohamed as a prophet. In fact, we haven't recognized any prophet for over 2300 years or so.

Obviously Principles 7 through 9 are not in accordance with Islam.

Principles 10 and 11 are mutually agreed upon. Of course there is no agreement on what G-d's commandments are.

It is not clear to me what partialities of Principles 12 and 13 are shared by Islam but they are not equivalent to Judaism's.