But which god? That seems to be the sticky point. Or are all of our religions different expressions of the same god? What happens when two people have received the "truth" via divine inspiration but those "truths" contradict one another? How can one discern which one is really the "truth".
god is a manmade word and all man made things are unreal, and now a word from the Tao Te Ching, "The Tao is hidden and nameless; the Tao alone nourishes and brings everything to fullfillment."
Proofs for or against the existence of God far exceed the scope of the OP. It touted a movie. While I haven't seen the movie, I deduce from the trailer that it is a simplistic attack on the fundamentalist adherents of multiple religions who are incapable of defending their beliefs or the crimes attributed to their 'religion'. I'll take the OP's word for the fact that it also promotes the idea of separation of church and state. This country and the principles upon which it was founded are inseparable from the idea of a divine providence. In other words, the vast majority of our founding fathers were people who believed in an unseen power and most were, in fact, Christians. They realized that no government should establish a 'state religion' and made sure ours did not. For a lot of fun visit Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and choose your poison or your salvation.
The best way I've found to respond to the invincible ignorance of religion is by spoofing it: I tell such people, with as straight a face as I can manage, that in my faith we believe that the world was created 7 days ago (always 7 days ago -- one must include an element of illogical mystery into religion) by a flying spaghetti monster. His unremitting denigration of atheism, and continual misrepresentation of what atheism is, poorly conceal a clear rancor. Proofs exist that the FSM is the real god. From the spaghetti-like characteristics of the building blocks of life (DNA) to the beer volcano in heaven. That last may seem to you, Tripp, like a non-sequitur. But a religious believer will well understand that a wild assertion can be given as a proof of an even wilder assertion. "The Tao that can be understood is not the true Tao." I think it merely intends to poke fun at ludicrous ideas which until recently have been off limits. If I offered to sell you a unicorn, you'd laugh at me, and nobody would blame you. But when I laugh at religion, people tell me that I must respect beliefs that run counter to all common sense. This is finally changing. We are allowed, finally, to laugh at the mass delusion called religion. I gather this movie does just that. Wrong. There were a few Christians, but most were Deists. Deism was the belief that the creator of the world took no interest in what went on in it. No salvation; no damnation; no miracles. Deism was as close as you could get to atheism in those days without being lynched by the lunatic followers of the preachers of the day.
Speaking as Bill's cousin, and having seen the film with my brother and him, (which makes this a family type review), I have to say I loved the film. I will say here and now, it’s not for everyone, at all, and might offend those who wear their religion on their sleeve, so to speak. But we all three thought the film was hilarious, and frankly, it was the best film I have seen this year. It’s thought provoking, it makes you question your own faith, which as far as I am concerned, is always a Good Thing™. He was fairer then I thought he would be, and also, he used some of my own thoughts that I have tossed at him throughout the years, in the film. The bottom line with Bill, is he wants to raise doubt, and he also thinks that the philosophy behind Jesus is sound, and that is what should be focused on. He also brought to the front some common misconceptions about the Bible, things that are thought to be in there, but aren’t, and he even showed how the whole story of Jesus was portrayed centuries before he was here, via a Greek story that honestly, I forget the name of right off the top of my head. I would give this film ★★★★★ out of five stars. Again, not for everyone, and I will say if you are thin skinned about your faith, don’t see it.
You seem rather certain in your pronouncements, but others would disagree with you. http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence Religious Affiliation # of signers % of signers Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1% Congregationalist 13 23.2% Presbyterian 12 21.4% Quaker 2 3.6% Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6% Catholic 1 1.8% TOTAL 56 100% Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian George Walton Georgia Episcopalian John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian George Read Delaware Episcopalian Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian William Paca Maryland Episcopalian Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist) Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist) Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian William Floyd New York Presbyterian Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian
I can make stuff up on the Internet, too! Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence Religious Affiliation -- # of signers -- % of signers Satan Worshipper -- 32 -- 57.1% Scientologist -- 13 -- 23.2% Pastafarian -- 12 -- 21.4% Muslim -- 2 -- 3.6% Church of the Subgenius -- 2 -- 3.6% Catholic -- 1 -- 1.8% TOTAL 56 100%
TJ & G ~ As Bill's cousin, perhaps you would be kind enough to convey to him this challenge from Gagdad Bob at OneCosmos.blogspot: "Again, Bill Maher is mocking the ultimate principle. But in so doing, he is being intellectually -- and worse yet, comedically -- dishonest. If you're going to take on God, you don't do it by interviewing morons just to show us how smugly self-satisfied you are. We know that already. Bring us your A-game. Take on some spiritual adults. I'll debate Maher any time, any day, so long as it is in print. That way he will have to prove that he can even construct a philosophically coherent sentence before moving on to bigger things, let alone the Biggest Thing. In this regard, if you check out his writing at huffpo, you will see that it is nearly as appallingly stupid as their other religious expert, the apparently brain-damaged Deepak Chopra's." (emphasis mine)
can we agree on this: if as i was taught, that god is everywhere and everything, then we can call god the universe? if so, then assuming the big bang theory is correct, then we are all parts of the whole, everything animals, plants, stones, planets, stars, galaxies, basically all matter.. if we can accept that, then can we say that we are all like god because we are part of the same thing. i base my belief on that idea and therefore i become like god, endless beneficence..nothing more, nothing less. no religion involved, just energy, some call it source energy, some call it universal energy, some call it cosmos. things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. anyway, yforya, is your real view of god a man or woman if human type at all, is he/she religious and which one? please paint us your picture of him/her for us. does he have a beard? lipstick? i am very naive on this, but not so naive that i will blindly see god as catholic nuns and priests tried to ram down my throat when i was a kid.. i consider myself very spiritual, but, only as explained above..universal, beneficence only. do people pray to a god still, or ask a source for help to a connection away from their own ego in a collective awareness to make our piddly existence all for the good of the whole... thank you
Still waiting... If I am being ignorant it should be easy to refute my position. That there is not one single evidence for the existence of god. At least not one that comes from human wishful thinking or rationalization.
This dishonest claim comes up over and over when arguing with fundamentalists. Just as Kow and others have accused me of "hating god," the above claims that Maher is "taking on god." I don't "hate god" because I cannot hate something that does not exist. I argue against religion, not against god. There is no god. I argue against belief in fairy tales. Bill Maher is not "taking on god." He is "taking on" religion, and more specifically wacko religion. The difference between "god" and "the universe" is that "god" is purported to have volition, while "the universe" is not, except among people who believe in supernatural spirits but don't want to use the word "god" so they use the phrase "the universe" to mean "god." God is what nature would be if nature had volition. To those of us who do not believe that nature has volition, the universe is not god.
I am not a theologian. I am one of the simple folk that would be made to look foolish by Bill Maher. I do find it curious that, from what I have read in reviews, Maher does not interview a credible theologian. So I guess if you enjoy watching a bully verbally intimidate naifs, then the movie would give you pleasure. (Obligatory reference to OP) I give no name to 'God' other than the Absolute. I believe that there is absolute truth and we may know it through our intellect and consciousness. As a human being seeking communication with Truth, I, as others, have a tendency to be anthropomorphic. I can't seem to think or express myself well in other than human languages or arts. That said, I do not see 'God' as human, male or female. However, I do not find it at all unusual that others do. One of the greatest thinkers of any age described him as his Father. There is Truth and we are capable of knowing IT. What is the source of this Absolute? Some call it God. I seek communication with God (if you will) every day and feel a connection. As a youth, I agreed with your assessment of human existence as 'piddly'. We were nothing more than meaningless grains of stardust in a mostly unimaginably huge cosmos. Now, I realize that our existence is the most amazing thing in the universe. A creature arises from mere matter, develops consciousness, then self-consciousness, then the ability to understand and explore this great mystery. What a life! Subtract human consciousness and you've got what? No one to describe anything. In a real sense WE seem to be the point of the whole existentialada. Why would that be? I pray for the wisdom to KNOW.
i dont believe either god or the universe has volition, but i still use the word universe to define god as an easy bridge to religious conversation
You can lead a horse to his apple, but you can't make him eat it. I provided a link earlier to a Wiki article concerning the existence of God. There are many further links to material pro and con. You and I, my friend, will not settle the matter here. Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?... ~ Jesus
actually he gives several interviews with credible theologians, catholic priests in the vatican, rabbi's i dont remember where as well as politicians who gave what was likely the best answer to religious/political views..but i'm not going to disclose that cause it would lose in my paraphrasing.
I like apples. I like evidence too. The wikipedia article cites only arguments 2 Arguments for the existence of God 2.1 Arguments from historical events or personages 2.2 Inductive arguments 2.3 Arguments from testimony 2.3.1 Arguments grounded in personal experience I am asking for evidence. We can settle it here easily. There is no evidence for the existence of god unless you really, really want to believe there is.
