Skip to main content

View Diary: Proof of Heaven (664 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Which is why I call myself an agnostic (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sagesource, corvo, Quicklund, worldlotus

    Why do I have to "fully embrace" either one?  Why bother contemplating out the by-definition unknowable, is it going to change my life one way or the other?  Unless you believe in praying to make it rain, or open the door to an invitation-only heaven, which I categorically reject, what's the point?  

    •  Since a negative cannot be proven.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      .....agnosticism seems to be the only defensible stance. However, it would come with the caveat that if there is a god, (s)he would be a repulsive and immoral figure, accessory before, during, and after the fact to every crime and sin in history.

      (I am talking here about the sort of omnipotent sky gods whose export has been one of the chief, er, contributions of the Middle East to human history. Smaller and more bounded divine figures, such as those found in polytheistic religions, would not necessarily be susceptible to the same criticism. For example, if I'm relying on Apollo to pull my chestnuts out of the fire, if he doesn't, I might assume that Zeus got in his way, or he slept in, or refused to show up for work that day in a fit of pique. In their conceited grab at supreme divine power, the inventors of monotheism robbed their gods of this convenient excuse.)

      "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

      by sagesource on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:07:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The monotheists have their (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes, corvo

        convenient excuse too:  "Oh God does answer all prayers.  It's just, sometimes He says no."

        Sooooooooooooooooo.  Tell me again, what's the point of praying?  

        •  Because in prayer.... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes, tommymet, corvo, koseighty, AoT

          .....you are behaving toward your god (and, much more importantly, his earthly representatives) in the same way the people of early times behaved toward their kings: begging for basic mercies with not much hope of anyone hearing their pleas.

          "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

          by sagesource on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:32:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  ok--I agree with your first paragraph. (0+ / 0-)

        no comment on the others--they're color.  I don't take issue with the points, though.

      •  But a negative *can* be proven (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo

        and we often prove a negative.  I'll give an example, I'll prove I'm not in China.

        I cannot be in more than one place at the same time.
        I am in Oakland, CA
        Ergo:  I am not in China.

        Bam, proved a negative.

        We've proved negatives throughout history.  We proved that there was not phlogiston because there were certain properties that phlogiston was suppose to have that were shown to not be true of the world.  If 'God' weren't defined with an ever changing set of attributes then it would be possible to disprove god.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 03:34:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site