Atheists who attack Christianity

and reincarnation which I believe is a Buddhist belief doesn't indicate a Devine being? If reincarnation were to work, who would decide what you come back as?

You're working from a false assumption: That you can know God's will and fathom His intent. You can't.

As to the last bits: I do not categorically deny Zeus, and yes, it is, hypothetically, possible for the other two to exist as well.

Nah. That should be 'a scourge of small camels'.

Why does reincarnation need an intelligent being behind the scenes deciding who comes back as what?

Anything after death that isn't absolute darkness requires an intelligent being?

Briana Dawson

Actually reincarnation is not a particular beleif of the the zen buddhists. I have tried to explain this before: in buddhism, flesh is an illusion, everything that is is here before it is born and after it dies, because birth and death are illusions. reincarnation is not a matter of someone dying, going some place and coming back, it is a matter of mutability. In one form I am Jake, Jake will cease and I will flow inot the next form. Noone decides that you have come back as a butterly, or a cockroach. You simply change, until you reach buddahood, when you are an enlightende dbeing, you get that nothing changes and nothing stays the same.

thus there is nothing outside what is, and god cannot beoutside everything that is and thus there is no god, because for is an illusion.

since humans are intelligent beings, and if there is an afterlife wouldn't that imply that there would have to be an intelligent being?

so based on your beliefs God does not exist? And that is different from Christian beliefs that God does exist how?

No.

How is reincarnation related to an afterlife?

Briana Dawson

sorry I took your concept of and I quote "Anything after death that isn't absolute darkness requires an intelligent being?" and assumed that the "anything AFTER DEATH" would be an AFTERLIFE.

why can't I know gods will and fathom his intent? If he existed it would be evident from his actions. It seems you are working from the false assumption there is a go do have a will. Of course as a buddhist, the will is simply a manifestation of excessive attachment to the world.

Of course if ou really want to get into the actions and intention of god, based on the bible..god is a pyschoti individual, even if he did exist.

Yes and it is hypothtically possible for pigs to have wings and fly like birds, yet I can categorically deny the hypothetical.

Oh the quote earlier from sherlock holmes, is a quote: Eliminate the impossible and what ever remains is the truth, no matter how improbable.

Well the question is are you talking about my faith? In that case there is no god, because a divine, transcendent entity cannot exist.

If you are talking about my atheism, scince has not found god, god has not showhimself to me, the bible was written by people, thus to me god is a work of fiction, as categorically deniable as gandalf. Simply put, in the ration scientif universe, there is no god. Which doevetails nicely with my religious beleif and thus reinforces both to me.

I refer you to post 554. Your recall is .. mmm.. contradicted by the written record.
And I'll apologise for presuming you're female.

Because the God we are discussing is beyond the mortal realm. You are not omnipotent, therefor you cannot comprehend the mind of a being that is.



But genetic engineering might prove you wrong in a millinea.

I'm aware of the original quote, but you butchered whatever point you were attempting to make when you tried to cram disproving a negative into it.

True.

Reincarnation is not a Buddhist belief - it is a Hindu belief, and neither Zen Buddhism nor the original non-popularised Buddhism dealt with reincarnation as a tenet of the belief.

You admitted that because of your religious beliefs, God can't exist. Since you have stated that, is it not hypocritical of you to say that because your faith says it can't exist you argue with christians that their faith is wrong because your belief says there is no God. Now science has not disproven God's existance, because it can't. So we are back to your faith arguing against mine.

I see you pointing out your female, but I have absolutely no idea why you did so, in context.

Jake, do you have any good references which might explain this point further? Buddha talks of ending the endless cycle of death and rebirth. But at the same time it's hard to sort out this idea of "me"-ness that seems to transcend that, and continue through many lives.

I've heard it expressed with certain metaphors, such as the standing wave, but I'm still not clear on the concept.

So "god" is omnipotent. Interesting you should bring that up.

By omnipotent, do you mean "all-powerful"? If so, can god do anything? Can this god make a square-triangle? A married bacjelor? Or can this god not make the logically impossible? Is your omnipotent god limited to doing only what is conceivable?

To accept an omnipotent god, you have to believe that it is in some way 'possible' for an entity to act in contradiction to its nature. In a universe containing an omnipotent being, any action would be open to any entity at any time upon the bidding of god. Causality and rational explanation would crumble.

John Stuart Mill said that "every indication of design in the cosmos is so much evidence against the omnipotent of the designer". Need all the mistakes in nature be listed again?

Briana Dawson

No. For example, He can cause two events, one of which happens at the same time as the other, but the other of which happens at a different time than the first.

Really. That's just general relativity.

By what standard are they judged mistakes? The ironic thing is that this argument requires an omnicient judge to sort out the mistakes from the things that were done right!

I am not a theist but you guys don't seem to be able to wrap your heads around the notion of God.

--Allie

Omnipotence would be without limit. There's nothing contradictory about an omnipotent being using that power to create a universe operating on discoverable physical laws, or deciding to bring about life capable of doing its own thing.

I suppose it's just that you'd prefer things had come about in a different way, and therefore conclude that God would have done them your preferred way if he existed?

Knowing everything about everything and being able to do anything gets exceedingly boring. Suppose God just pulled out a batch of half-baked Earthquik and said, "Surprise me"? Not-knowing would be within the powers of an omnipotent being too.

Of course we can. I can't speak for anyone else but to me god is the ultimate deus ex machina. A contrivance.

Actually, I think it's very possible to judge from a purely objective, engineering/design standpoint. Something that leads to higher fatality rates while passing along your genes, for instance.

And toes, and wisdom teeth. I mean, come now.

This is why I believe, if Kevn and his sort absolutely must have ID taught in schools, we must also have Design by Unintelligent Hand in schools, or DUH.

Join the campaign. http://mcsnee.livejournal.com/433748.html

Unless there was a reason that you wanted a higher fatality rate when designing the creature.



Toes serve several functions. Moreso back when shoes were not the norm, but even today, talk to someone who has lost most of the toes on a foot. Toes are useful.

As for wisdom teeth... *taps his* I dunno, mine seem to work just fine.



Well, most of us don't push for ID, largely because an increasing number of us have no problem with evolution.