Author
|
Topic: Atheism and Christianity II
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 03 November 2004 01:51 AM
Main Entry: om·ni·scient Pronunciation: -sh&nt Function: adjective Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge - om·ni·scient·ly adverb Main Entry: om·ni·pres·ent Pronunciation: -z&nt Function: adjective : present in all places at all times Energy which enlivens "all" things containing protons, electrons and neutrons. Energy which self determines ITself, that is indestructable and cannot be created. All this is based upon infinite or eternity, a concept that the human mind can barely conceive of, as exampled by comments ascribing human characteristics upon a label of absolute energy some call God.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 03 November 2004 08:07 PM
Well, the continuity loss seems to have quieted this down a lot. Shamelessly putting fuel back on the fire, I'd like to repost something.Contrarian had said quote: As I will continue to repeat; God is not a material being, and you are not going to find physical evidence that She exists, because She is not a material being. The idea is that God created all material things, but God Herself is not material, but spiritual. You can decide whether or not to believe in God, but don't expect physical proof.
And I responded: This always strikes me as protesting too much. Both the new and old testament derive much of their force from their claims of large scale material interventions on the part of God. From smiting cities to floods to rains of blood to loaves and fishes and water to wine, not to mention stars accompanied by choirs of angels telling all the shepherds to go see so they could testify later, the religious texts have God doing all kinds of material stuff. The medieval tradition was equally strong on material intervention as a basis of belief, with stories of miracles in the lives of saints a staple of religious understanding (and entertainment). But nowadays it's always "Oh, God would never do anything so gauche as give evidence of his existence. Please! This religion business has some standards, and actual evidence would undermine faith!" Well, it never seemed to bother anyone back in the old days when it was hard to debunk any wild tales anyone might spin. Then it was all "Yeah, and God's a big deal 'cuz he smites major league, and when he's in a good mood he feeds people, and his son came around and brought a guy back to life and stuff!" To this day, you find spiritual healing and miracles dominating faith-based approaches to religion anywhere that standards of evidence aren't very good. In places where miraculous claims are readily debunked, faith-alone approaches predominate and religion becomes much more civilized. But it also becomes a smaller part of society, as people increasingly don't find that to be enough reason for strong belief--or perhaps conclude that if personal faith is the basis of religion, then organized structures are irrelevant to it. Or both.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|