I'm not certain I can describe something I'll freely admit I more than likely would not understand if someone like Johnson was finally able to bring it into a lab for study, or place it on Youtube for all to see (cause that's what he wants, anything short and it's not worth consideration).youkrst wrote:ant, you say you believe in god.
Can you describe the kind of god you believe in, and does this belief include a literal historic Jesus and a literal interpretation of the virgin birth?
I also do not believe we can understand everything there was, is, or ever will be.
I do believe the universe appears to have a purpose.
Yes, I know the antithesis of that claim is that the universe/nature is cold and indifferent to our likes, dislikes, desires, dreams, love, etc.
Yes, I know purpose and design are nothing more than illusions created by man.., yada, yada, yada, so forth and so on.
And of course, don't kid yourself that your love for your family is deeper than what it really is from an evolutionary perspective - that being your "selfish genes" want nothing more than to see your kiddies survive; anything else is really just bullshit. And your wife is just a carrier for your offspring. It is not deeper than that.
I do not believe that purpose includes an answer to a prayer to find me a parking space this Saturday so I can do my Christmas shopping with a smile. Nor do I believe that "god" is on our side whenever we choose to go to war with another country.
I do believe the historical Jesus existed. I think you know that by now.
I do not believe in a blanket, literal interpretation of scripture.
It's obvious the the OT god is much different than the NT god.
The OT god is characterized as an authoritarian parent that will punish his child if said child does not obey His directives.
The NT god is a much more loving, lenient parent. A parent that you can have a much more personal relationship with.
Man's concept of something much greater than himself is a work in progress no doubt.
The difference between a believer and non believer is that the believer can step outside himself more easily than the non believer, who essentially believes there is nothing more to life than gaining an advantage over your fellow man so that his genes survive. Everything is relative to him. It can only be interpreted as a selfish, self centered existence. He thinks too highly of himself. That is why community building, charity, self sacrifice, and the like are much more common with people of religion than they are with atheists.
Atheists are poor at assembling for anything. Read some of Alain de Botton. He expresses this well. He's one of several atheists that I admire.
I detest the recent breed of atheists that are influenced by scientists like Peter Atkins. I hear them all the time. They are an all-knowing, arrogant lot. Their tone is condescending. Their minds are closed.
They have little to no imagination beyond their know-it-all knowledge base, and are uncivilized in their attempts at dialogue with people who think and feel differently.
I've seen the core atheist group here come down hard on people of religion. They are patronizing and condescending to them.
I am not moved or bothered by this type of treatment. It's infantile and foolish.