This is a chess site, where we, now and then, exchange thoughts and
opinions on other subjects. Religion, just the same as politics for one,
is very delicate and sensitive.
So, I only reply this: I'm not involved with any religion, as a matter of
fact. I am a convinced and conscious atheist. However, I have a few
bookshelves full with works on main-stream religions and philosophy
and related subjects. I aim at KNOWING and UNDERTSANDING...
Religion (accepting dogmas etc.) is wasted on me. Buddism and Zen
Buddhism are the nearest to my comprehending life. But then they
are more philosophy than blind believing.
I won't take it as an insult that I am not GOOD enough for YOUR
religion. How are you to know anyway? I stand for high moral values in
life and will always fight unjustice and severe crime.
Do not forget my motto:
"Rather eschewed for what I am, than sought for what I am not!" Jan
I am a Baptist minister, and I just happen to be accepting and open-
minded. And I also love chess, but hopefully not as much as people.
What they (religion and chess) may have in common is the struggle to
have a fulfilling "end game" and finding an advantage in giving
something away. Just some random thoughts. Kirk
I doubt it - my experience (as a Christian) is that there is a good number of
intelligent Christians.
Having said that, the more intelligent seem willing to label themselves atheist
having actually thought about the possibility (or like to think they have).
Others tend to lay claim to their cultural religion without actually practising
or understanding it. (agnostics by proxy, I suppose, not in the sense that they
don't know whether God exists, but in the sense that they don't care enough to
think about it).
As you seem to be equating a high intellect with a coming to the
realization that there is no God, I must take issue with your
assertion. God is the ulimate knowledge. Take Highly Intelligent
Person X. Of all the knowledge there is to be known, what percentage
do you think Highly Intelligent Person X has at his command?
Perhaps 4%, generously? How can he know that God does not (and
he does, be sure) lie somewhere in the 96% that Highly Intelligent
Person X has never encountered?
Some further thoughts:
All people know that there is a God: the wonder of creation points
unmistakably to a creator. To believe there is no God makes you a
fool; God himself said that.
All people know they are sinners, from the working of the Law that God
has written on their hearts.
So these first two points are known to all people on the earth, try as
they might to dilute, deflect, or deny them. The thing God has left to
people, mostly, is the work of being a witness to others. They (we)
are to tell of Jesus' name, his saving grace, his work on the cross to
die a sacrificial death, to redeem mankind from the sin nature, and to
bring mankind to a saving relationship with himself.
At the end of your life, and all lives will end, what kind of car you
drove, how many rooms your house had, or what you named your
children will not matter. The only thing that will matter will be the
answer you gave to this famous question, "What then shall I do with
Jesus who is called Christ?" To do nothing, is to still answer the
question, and it is the wrong answer.
If anyone has any questions on this (or any other) matter, please feel
free to ask here or email: day2001@hotmail.com
That's quite a sermon, father. I must come from another planet. Mars
or something. Earth? Where's that supposed to be?
Shall I throw away my copy of 'The Origin of Species'? Shall I get rid
of 'The Death Scrolls, the Hidden Truth'? Shall I dump 'The Holy Blood
and the Holy Grail' in the garbage bin? What must I do with 'The
Messianic Legacy'? Where do you suggest I'd hide 'The Tomb of God'?
No sermons anymore. Not here anyway. Nor at my address. Thank
you. Jan
To say that because I can not disprove the existance of god, therefore he
must exist, is a misapplication of the burden of proof. It is incumbent upon the
person making the claim to demonstrate the validity of their argument, not the
other way around. If you are claiming the existance of something (in this case
god), in order for me to believe you, you must prove to me that god exists. With
the absence of any such proof, I have no choice but to either disbelieve your
claim or to find it highly improbable. There are other, more plausible
explanations for "the wonder of creation" which require far fewer a priori
assumptions. Simply put; that which requires the fewest number of assumptions has
the highest degree of probability.
It is possible that some future evidence may come to light which would cause
me to re-evaluate my current position. But until such time, I have no logical
alternative but to relegate the concept of the god to the realm of myth. In fact,
rather than more evidence coming to the fore which would help bolster the
hypothesis of "god", just the opposite has been occuring. As we expand our
knowledge into and beyond the "4%" you mentioned, we find that a host of things
formerly attributed to the hand of god instead have a more plausible, scientific
explanation. So it has gone until the present time, when god finds himself to be
little more than a figurehead on an empty throne. As god is forced to abdicate
more and more of his shrinking realm to the advance of science, it becomes only a
matter of time before humanity wakes up from their twothousand year slumber and
figures out just how badly they've been swindled.
-Rob