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.

: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

Reasonable Atheism in brief............
 

The burden of proof is on the atheist.

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

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....


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.

[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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

[quote=Gizzmoe]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.

So you are not convinced that your religion is the right religion? If that is the case, why do you follow it?

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).

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/

[quote=waste gate]
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)

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.

Ok. So which god do you believe in?